User:Go Phightins!/ACE2014

Although I typically seek to avoid controversy in my editing, I see this as a crucial election to the future of the arbitration committee, and as such, have decided to draft some standards on what I think an ideal candidate looks like, and evaluate our current candidates. These standards are solely my opinion, and serve as much to help me get my thoughts in order as to anything else – I just thought others might be curious. For ease:

• WP:ACE2014 guide to candidates list of candidates
• Candidates: Dusti, Technical 13, Secret, Kraxler, Wbm1058, Stanistani

The formula

Wikipedia experience – 22.5 points

• Content work – up to 5 points:
  • 4–5: Significant content contributions; clear indication that user's predominant interest in editing is content development
  • 3–4: Strong content contributions; indication that at least to an extent, the user predominantly edits Wikipedia for content
  • 2–3: Some content experience; indication that content work is at least a secondary interest of the editor
  • 1–2: Limited content experience; editor may work on content solely to point to it when seeking positions
  • 0–1: Extremely limited content experience; little if any indication that editor is here to build an encyclopedia
• Administrative and dispute resolution experience – up to 10 points (administrative in the context of skills and work on encyclopedia, not necessarily being an administrator)
  • 8–10: Excellent work in dispute resolution and administrative areas of the encyclopedia; clear indication that user is up to the task of the weighty decisions ArbCom makes
  • 5–8: Good work in dispute resolution and administrative areas of the encyclopedia; indication that user likely has sufficient experience to handle ArbCom tasks
  • 3–5: Limited work in dispute resolution and administrative areas of the encyclopedia; question as to whether user has capability to handle ArbCom tasks
  • 1–3: Poor work in dispute resolution and administrative areas of the encyclopedia; work indicates that user likely is not able to handle ArbCom tasks
• Other work on encyclopedia – up to 5 points
  • 4–5: Non-administrative or content work unequivocally supports candidacy, insofar as it demonstrates skills that ultimately would be of great benefit to ArbCom
  • 3–4: Non-administrative or content work likely supports candidacy, insofar as there is some net positive from the skills developed thereof that would benefit ArbCom
  • 2–3: Non-administrative or content work is of no bearing on candidacy, or is virtually non-existent
  • 1–2: Non-administrative or content work likely inhibits candidacy, insofar as there would be a detraction from ArbCom with such a member
  • 0–1: Non-administrative or content work hinders candidacy, insofar as ArbCom's credibility would be called into question with such a member
• Permissions and other committee affiliations – up to 2.5 points (cap)
  • Award 1.25 points each for: bureaucrat, current or former ArbCom member, BASC, AUSC, CheckUser
  • Award 1.0 points each for: ArbCom clerk, BAG, featured content delegate, MedCom, OTRS
  • Award 0.75 points each for: administrator, WikiProject coordinator, real-life experience conducive to success in arbitration

Candidate statement – 7.5 points

• Statement structure – 0.5 points, all or nothing
  • Statement completely met all rules and regulations thereof without any edits/modification, and was completed in one edit (since the committee has so many pedantic rules and policies, I find it important for arbitrators to "lead by example" in following them)
• Statement content – up to 5 points
  • 3.5–5: Statement indicates clear and valid reason as to why the candidate is running for ArbCom, explains thoughts on current ArbCom system and changes it would propose, etc.
  • 2.5–4: Statement indicates clear reason as to why the candidate is running, and at least sheds light on current ArbCom system and changes, etc.
  • 0–2.5: Statement has clear deficiencies, such as no indication as to why the candidate is running, or an "I hate ArbCom/am running to make a point" sentiment
• Writing style – up to 2 points
  • Subjective evaluation of writing style, including grammar, structure, usage, readability, etc. – arbitrators must be effective communicators, and are relied upon to draft decisions, etc.

Answers to questions – 12.5 points

Instead of adding more questions to the pile that candidates already must answer, I will evaluate responses to other standard questions. All evaluations will be based principally off of whether the response is an appropriate evaluation of Wikipedia policies/norms and whether it shows good judgment, and secondarily based on my agreement thereof (generally 1⁄3 of the evaluation on each of the aforementioned triad of components):

• Collect's questions – up to 5 points
  • Question four ("Stare decisis ...") – up to 2 points
  • Question five ("Is the 'Five Pillars' ...") – up to 1.5 points
  • Question seven ("How would you personally define ...") – up to 1.5 points
• Gamaliel's questions – up to 3 points
  • Question one ("Civility ...") – up to 2 points
  • Question two ("Wikipedia has an undeniable ...") – up to 1 point
• Rschen7754's questions – up to 3 points
  • Question two ("What is your experience ...") – up to 0.4 points
  • Question three ("Case management has been an issue ...") – up to 0.6 points
  • Question five ("In 2014, the English Wikipedia remains ...") – up to 0.7 points
  • Question seven ("What is your familiarity ...") – up to 0.3 points
  • Question eight ("The purpose of the Arbitration Committee ...") – up to 1 point
• Miscellaneous question – up to 1.5 points
  • A question (or questions) will be selected for each candidate, and evaluated.

Gut feeling – 7.5 points

A subjective evaluation as to whether the editor's demeanor, experience, etc. are conducive to serving as an arbitrator. Comments will be made for each candidate, with a final score, and recommendation.

Total – 50 points

As there is no limit to the number of candidates that one can support or oppose, I will make evaluations of strong support, support, weak support, neutral, weak oppose, oppose, or strong oppose for each editor based on the scores. Thanks in advance for reading. Go Phightins! 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Candidates

Calidum

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work There is some content work there, but not a whole lot, and very little "higher" promotion (i.e. FA/GA/B-Class for that matter). In previous guides, he has commented that he needs to see article work from arbitrators, yet ostensibly he does not meet that standard, with fewer than 2500 article edits. 1.75 Administrative and dispute resolution experience Not a whole lot there either. 4.0 Other work on encyclopedia I will say that I appreciate his desire to bring an "average editor" to the committee. 3.5 Permissions and other committee affiliations None. 0 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Good. 0.5 Statement content "I'm also running because I believe ArbComm is lacking in a few key areas. First, the current committee lacks members who aren't admins. I feel bringing the perspective of "the average user" to the committee is a plus. Secondly, the committee moves slowly. Too often cases take many weeks, or even months to decide, leaving editors in limbo. Third, ArbComm lacks transparency. Too much happens off site, hidden away in emails and a private wiki." Excellent points all the way around. 4.75 Writing style Other than the interesting spelling of ArbCom as ArbComm (technically correct, just unconventional). The writing style is clear, and does a nice job communicating. I am actually impressed. 2.0 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Reasonable, albeit limited, answer. I would have liked some elaboration on this statement: "Complicating things, however, is the fact that different arbitrators may have different interpretations of similar situations." 1.25 5 He does not really answer the question here, as he simply notes one pillar of which he is a fan. The question asked what role the essay should play in administration of arbitration. 0.75 7 "It seems to be human nature for like minded individuals to group together, so I don't view them as a problem in general." What if they do prove to be a problem? Meh. 0.625 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 The answer is a moderately apt assessment of the situation, insofar as it is more difficult to address than other problems as we do not have a cohesive definition. However, I disagree with the sentiment that it is an exaggerated problem. It is, in my opinion, one of the biggest problems facing the encyclopedia today. 1.25 2 "I think the ability to attract new editors, either male or female, is a problem." I wholeheartedly agree. This answer is, thus far, the best I have read to this question. 1.0 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 Vague and without examples. Not sure this is not a filler answer. 0.1 3 Interesting proposal, and does promulgate his position as an outsider. 0.3 5 Perhaps, but no explanation of ArbCom's role thereof. 0.25 7 An honest answer that does not try to "obfuscate his way around" the question. 0.2 8 Fair enough. 0.7 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Gerda #1 He notes a common sense approach that borders on IAR ... I like it. 1.3 Gut feeling Comments Score Ultimately, I doubt he will be elected, and that is probably for the best. However, I do have respect and sympathy for him, wanting an outsider on ArbCom, and volunteering to serve in that role. I can't decide if the answers are simply succinct, or not thorough, but they do indicate someone with a fair amount of clue. My gut tells me he would be a decent arbitrator at some point, just perhaps not this year. 5.5

Final

Score	Recommendation
29.725	Moral neutral I am likely to vote neutral on Calidum, insofar as he is a solid Wikipedian who does not have a lot of practical experience on the encyclopedia, but is nonetheless an important type of editor within the community who, at some point, could make a solid arbitrator.

Courcelles

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work Few arbitrators have the content record of Courcelles, who has made strong contributions with three GAs, and over a dozen featured lists. He is clearly a strong content creator. 4.5 Administrative and dispute resolution experience As a checkuser, oversighter, former arbitrator, AUSC, admin on Commons, WikiData, and Meta, etc., he clearly has a lot of institutional memory that can provide valuable insight to the committee. 9.3 Other work on encyclopedia Work on other projects counts here. Strong, well-rounded contributor. 4.75 Permissions and other committee affiliations OTRS, AUSC, Arb, functionary, admin, etc. 2.5 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Fine, I do believe. 0.5 Statement content Sorry to hear about his health problems; that sounds painful, but glad he is able to see now! His inactivity is totally understandable, and his desire to return to contributing to the encyclopedia is totally admirable. This paragraph: "ArbCom does a lot of important things, some of which it does well, some of which it doesn't. Currently, the system pretty much lets 12 of the 14 arbs forget cases even exist for the (too long) they sit at the evidence and workshop phases. The two subcommittees need a complete rethink; Beeblebrox's proposal isn't perfect, but BASC needs to be reformed, and I still think that we need to go back to letting the community pick their "community" members of the AUSC. The committee needs to appoint more functionaries ASAP, the lack of an appointment round this year and normal attrition has led to a few people doing tons of work." is a solid outline that succinctly and effectively addresses the issues with ArbCom, and I trust Courcelles to advocate fixing them. 4.8 Writing style This is a tad petty, but we are missing a word here: "Currently, the system pretty much lets 12 of the 14 arbs forget cases even exist for the (too long) they sit at the evidence and workshop phases." Should be a "time" in there; ultimately, though, I see no major issues, and have no recollection of issues with his communication during his previous term. 1.8 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 An interesting and certainly valid perspective; I was thinking about the question more in terms of not taking another case to defer to rulings of another, but the outline there is quite apt as well. 2.0 5 "The Five Pillars aren't really what I'd call an essay, I'd almost call them our most fundamental values. They cover, succinctly, what we are, why we're here, what we are doing, and how we should behave. Every principle the Committee passes needs to be mindful of all those fundamentals." Yes! That hits the nail on the head; every great entity has a mission statement, and that is ours. 1.5 7 [No answer as of yet.] 0.0* Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 [No answer as of yet.] 0.0* 2 [No answer as of yet.] 0.0* Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 "You can never please everyone, but if you are willing to take the time to have a patient, calm conversation, you can usually get to a place where everyone at least understands where the other parties is coming from, and that can be at least enough to calm down things, even though they don't agree." Excellent answer. 0.4 3 I think the answer does outline a problem that ought to be addressed – the unnecessary rigidity and frankly bureaucracy in how ArbCom runs. It is certainly a valid point. 0.5 5 There are few who disagree with what he said; what should ArbCom do, though, is the real question. 0.4 7 To be honest, most of his answer goes right over my head, but some of the themes are things I have heard others address before, and he seems to have a firm grasp on the situation. 0.25 8 Excellent. 1.0 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Everyking I applaud Courcelles' answer to this one; it shows an amenability to addressing the concern without doing it rashly. That is the ideal trait for which we should look in an arbitrator. 1.35 Gut feeling Comments Score I am thrilled to see Courcelles' candidacy. To be honest, I knew very little about him until researching him to write this guide, and I must say that I am glad to have done that research; he seems to be an excellent candidate, and I would strongly urge my fellow Wikipedians to support his candidacy. 7.3

Final

Score	Recommendation
42.85 (missing answers to three questions also, so this could rise)	Strong support – an excellent candidate who would be a great asset to the committee.

DeltaQuad

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work Not much to speak of, at least that is evident. Correct me if I am wrong (and part of my search is being stalled by non-functional WMF Labs for some reason), but based on my digging through contributions logs, the only substantial article work I see is here ... in 2010. Nothing on userpage either, so I am left to assume there is not much. 1.0 Administrative and dispute resolution experience He does some solid work in closing RFCs, not to mention as a checkuser, where is reputation is sterling. Overall, this is where his predominant contributions lie, and I think we all can agree on the benefits thereof. 8.5 Other work on encyclopedia OTRS, ACC work also speak for themselves; having arbitrators understand those areas could be important. 4.75 Permissions and other committee affiliations AUSC, CheckUser, OTRS, administrator 2.5 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Not completed in one edit. Pedantic, I know, but important. 0.0 Statement content "Therefore I'm running in hope that others who I know would well serve the committee also stand." So he is only running to encourage others to run? A little disconcerting ... The second paragraph, however, is on the money. 3.5 Writing style Decent, although some statements like this one: "As any candidate should already do, Arbitrators should listen with a fair and open mind, stop disruption, and enable the wiki to flow as smoothly as possible." give me a little pause. Overall, I think he could be a moderately effective communicator. 1.25 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Meh. A convenient dance around the question, albeit an articulate one. 1.5 5 Ding! 1.5 7 "Each editor on the Wiki is responsible for their own actions" Yes. The rest of the answer ... is a nuanced, head-spinning-inducing mess, but I think the core is there. 1.0 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 Decent response and analysis thereof. However, it does not address the broader impact of incivility. 1.25 2 I do not think the answer needs any elaboration. It is solid as is. 0.8 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 3 It is a decent explanation, but demonstrates fault and not an unequivocal "what I learned from" statement. 0.25 4 "But that needs to be augmented within reason. One of the reasons I'm running is to help reduce the administrative backlog that there is so that we can focus on those cases more." OK. 0.35 6 "We currently promote admins by community consensus, but remove them by only a small fraction of that original group which is not a direct representation of the community. I think there is a critical flaw in that." I wholeheartedly agree. 0.6 8 If anyone is qualified to pontificate on these policies, it's DQ. 0.3 9 Adequate response. 0.5 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score WTT #1 Excellent response that, though vague, shows a clear level of understanding. 1.4 Gut feeling Comments Score Overall, I think the candidate understands some of the more nitty-gritty areas of the encyclopedia, and thus could probably make a positive contribution to the committee. With this being such a weak field of candidates, I think it artificially accentuates his positive characteristics, but at the same time, he is unlikely to be a bad arbitrator, I am just not sure he will be the next Newyorkbrad. 5.25

Final

Score	Recommendation
36.2	Weak support because it is an incredibly weak field, and of those running, he is a better candidate than most.

DGG

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work Not an FA/GA/DYK wizard, but clearly here for the right reasons with content. 3.5 Administrative and dispute resolution experience The candidate notes that he rarely comments at AN/I, but shows a remarkable affinity for being succinct and direct when he does comment on situations of that nature, and also clearly does outstanding work with drafts and deletion processes. 7.5 Other work on encyclopedia Excellent work in draft namespace and as a mentor. 5.0 Permissions and other committee affiliations admin, OTRS, a de facto AFD coordinator 2.5 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Insofar as the only edits were formatting that would not be necessary as an arbitrator, I will let them slide. 0.5 Statement content A little light, and without thoughts on current ArbCom system, but an adequate summation of his experience. 3.75 Writing style Clear, direct, and succinct. 1.85 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 "Both at Arb Com and elsewhere, Wikipedia tries for some degree of consistency, though it does not strictly follow precedent." Vague, but on point, I suppose. 1.2 5 Yes it is. I assume, based on that answer, that he would apply it to ArbCom decisions. 1.0 7 True on all counts. 1.35 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 OK, a little dancing around the question, but fair enough. 1.5 2 Agree on all counts. 1.0 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 "Not all views are reconcilable, but most can be brought to a reasonable compromise." Bingo! 0.4 3 "normally all too much commenting, and not enough thinking" Ding again! 0.5 5 Perhaps Rschen's characterization of some of DGG's answers as "laconic" is apt. In principle, I agree. 0.35 7 Decent answer ... to a different question. 0.1 8 Good. 0.75 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Everyking I disagree that ArbCom is open about its delays, but agree with DGG's fundamental principle 0.9 Gut feeling Comments Score DGG is one of the best administrators we have on this project, and even if the numbers did not support me supporting, I would have rigged them. He will be an outstanding arbitrator. 7.5

Final

Score	Recommendation
41.15	Support. One of this year's best candidates.

Dougweller

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work His content experience in areas of NPOV should prove particularly conducive to success on ArbCom. 4.1 Administrative and dispute resolution experience General admin work (i.e. blocking vandals, etc.) is solid. There is nothing outstanding, but it is there. 6.0 Other work on encyclopedia OTRS, ArbCom clerk work are both positives for ArbCom participation. 3.25 Permissions and other committee affiliations Administrator, ArbCom clerk, OTRS, 2.5 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Good. 0.5 Statement content "If elected I'll approach the job with an open mind and no preconceptions other than I think it is a vital part of our community and that it needs to have the trust of that community if it is to do its job." It's an adequate statement that reasonably summarizes the issues. 4.5 Writing style A spelling error; decent overall. 1.4 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Probably the best answer I have read. 2.0 5 "It may say it’s simply a non-binding essay but it reflects our policies and guidelines and those are fundamental to ArbCom decisions" Meh. Syntactically ambiguous, but ultimately correct, I think. 1.125 7 "The existence of groups with a common purpose isn’t in itself a problem – working parties," Fair enough. 1.125 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 "The other is obviously the good content contributors who aren’t as civil as most people would like, who occasionally lose their cool. Part of the community thinks this happens far too often and they should be sanctioned, another part of the community disagrees." A solid summation of the problem. 1.5 2 Good enough. 0.7 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 "My experience has taught me that patience and politeness (and taking other people seriously) can lead to if not agreement understanding and willingness to work together – not all the time obviously, but enough to make it worthwhile." Good answer. 0.4 3 Adequate understanding of the problem ... I guess. 0.3 5 I hope so too ... no comment on ArbCom's role thereof, however. 0.5 7 I guess that's good enough; at least he didn't try to "obfuscate his way around" the question. 0.2 8 "ArbCom shouldn’t be seen as an easy option to avoid the community having to deal with a problem" One of the most sensible comments I have heard in a while related to ArbCom. 1.0 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score WTT Good awareness, decent response. 0.625 Gut feeling Comments Score Although I have never interacted with him, my gut tells me he would be a decent, not great, but passable arbitrator ... he would probably get the job done. It might not be the area where is broad skill set is best fit, but he could probably make a contribution. 4.75

Final

Score	Recommendation
35.85	Weak support - on the borderline. In a stronger field of candidates, I might be neutral or weakly oppose, but in this election, I am inclined to support, albeit weakly.

Dusti

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work The limited nature of his concentrated content contributions worries me -- the most edited article, Indiana Soldiers' and Sailors' Children's Home, remains rather horrific. No indication his primary purpose in being here is writing articles, and he has no credibility within the content creator community (not necessarily myself, but among the quintessential faction thereof). 2 Administrative and dispute resolution experience He does have some day-to-day administrative experience (AFD, CSD, etc.), which is good; he recently was blocked for his handling of a situation, which is rather disconcerting. Overall, I am not convinced his administrative and dispute resolution experience is sufficiently expansive to help the committee. 5.5 Other work on encyclopedia There isn't much else that I see; a little bit of welcoming committee work is a plus. 3 Permissions and other committee affiliations Potential real life experience. 0.75 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Fine. 0.5 Statement content Decent statement, but does refer to the statement space as "campaign space", which, although it is perhaps meant as a joke, but nonetheless tends to be a negative perception of the committee which perhaps prospective members should not perpetuate. There is a decent explanation of the candidate's desire to have non-admins on the committee. 3.75 Writing style "There's been a stigma that Admins feel they're 'above' the rest of the non-mop holders and while I don't exactly agree, I think that broader representation can help mitigate some of that stigma and help for a better sense of community." This sentence seems to exemplify the writing style. It is reasonably communicative, and should be fine. 1.75 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 5 7 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 "Should an individual not share that same sentiment, perhaps they should receive some assistance finding a way out." This statement scares me a little bit ... and the rest of the answer sort of beats around the bush. Not terribly impressed. 0.5 2 "Further, I know that suggestions had been made perhaps to have two editors show consensus before reverting a female editor. While that type of thinking is perhaps along the lines of making progress ..." Nope, that's not progress. The rest of the answer also shows a lack of understanding 0.25 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 Decent answer; doesn't exactly explain in the context of arbitration, but it's on point. 0.3 3 "I would like to see a more transparent ArbCom (of course confidentiality is a must in addition to discretion) that keeps the community updated. I believe that has always been the intention and I think updates along with an explanation of any delays can go a long way into keeping the community satisfied." Righto! But good luck. 0.55 5 Meh. It's an adequate answer, but not a thorough one. Again, it sort of beats around the bush. 0.5 7 Fair enough, I guess. 0.2 8 The answer is vague and somewhat limited. I am not terribly sure I agree either. 0.5 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score KonveyorBelt #2 I think this is an honest answer, and a good faith one, so I am happy. 1.5 Gut feeling Comments Score I think Dusti is a solid editor; I might support a candidacy for adminship. I am not fundamentally opposed to a non-administrator on ArbCom. However, at this time, I do not have a strong feeling about his qualification to be an arbitrator, and I think my scores reflect this. 2.5

Final

Score	Recommendation
24.05 (missing score for answers to Collect)	Oppose per comments above.

Euryalus

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work Strong content contributor not just with an FA and a GA, but with some "mid-range" content contribution. He definitely has enough experience in day-to-day content work to empathize with content contributors who may land before ArbCom. 4.5 Administrative and dispute resolution experience "[I] resolve ANI threads and apply the outcomes in a transparent and (hopefully) communicative way. I also work on backlogs of proposed deletion, old requested merges and the massive unsourced article list. I'll continue to do all these activities regardless of the outcomes of this election." Solid summation. 7.25 Other work on encyclopedia Not really "other work", per se, but he does note a substantial amount of time available to contribute, which is a positive. 3.75 Permissions and other committee affiliations Admin, OTRS 1.75 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Good. 0.5 Statement content Thus far, this might be the best statement I have read. Clear outline. 5.0 Writing style Very clear and direct in his communication. 2.0 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Not quite my thoughts or frankly how I would look at it, but certainly a valid position. 1.75 5 Yes they should. 1.4 7 Excellent answer. 1.5 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 "The "five pillars" come as a set - we can't pick or choose which ones we uphold." Good point. 1.6 2 Good. 0.75 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 Fair assessment. 0.25 3 If this is true: " efficient and consultative process management is critical to delivering a project on time. It's a tedious but necessary job to herd people and attempt to keep to timelines, but it's one I oddly enjoy and would be happy to contribute to here," more power to him. 0.5 5 Decent response, although I am not sure I agree that it is not a big idea. 0.45 7 Pretty good response. 0.2 8 Again, a solid response. 0.8 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Rich Farmbrough #2 I agree. Cases should be heard by all arbitrators, but other jobs can be dispersed. 1.25 Gut feeling Comments Score My initial gut feeling is positive. I have never interacted with, or for that matter heard of, but I get a positive impression, and think he could be a solid arbitrator. I will still need to read answers to questions. 6.0

Final

Score	Recommendation
41.2	Support -- per comments above. He would be a good arbitrator, in my opinion.

Geni

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work Content work manifests itself in pictures rather than articles, but still does not seem particularly substantial. 3.0 Administrative and dispute resolution experience I am not particularly familiar with his administrative work, save for one block regarding Kiefer.Wolfowitz. I am perplexed by some of the blocks in this user's block log, but they were seven years ago, so I will reserve judgment. Overall, I think the user does a sufficient amount of administrative work to understand the policies and use them as an arbitrator. 5.65 Other work on encyclopedia Not much there, as near as I can tell. 2.0 Permissions and other committee affiliations admin, OTRS, WP ambassador work, it appears from his statement 2.25 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Did not disclose all socks in first revision of statement. 0.0 Statement content Statement does not really address why the editor is running, other than that they have been here for 10 years. 2.5 Writing style It is rather fragmented and not particularly cohesive. 1.0 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Meh. [My response is about as detailed as the editor's.] 0.75 5 Does not address essay's merits; clearly it's a statement of fundamental principles. 0.25 7 Reasonable response. 1.2 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 Any editor who states civility is not a problem should not be on the arbitration committee. Sorry. 0.1 2 Decent. 0.6 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 OK, but that doesn't really always result in resolving a dispute, nor what ArbCom should be doing. 0.3 3 Then the editor probably should not be on the committee. 0.1 5 Again, I think that answer demonstrates that he or she is out of touch with the current community. 0.1 7 Not inspiring much confidence ... 0.2 8 Vague. 0.1 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Rschen #6 OK, that is interesting ... 0.5 Gut feeling Comments Score My gut feeling is not particularly warm and fuzzy; the answers to the questions inspire no confidence whatsoever. 2.65

Final

Score	Recommendation
23.25	Oppose, rather strongly.

Guerillero

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work 5 GAs, several DYKs, and one FL candidate in progress, according to his userpage. 4.25 Administrative and dispute resolution experience I have seen him do some solid work at ANI and the like. Overall, he has done some good work as an administrator that are conducive to success on ArbCom. 8.0 Other work on encyclopedia He covers the arbitration committee in The Signpost, and has done so well, which means he should be acutely familiar with the interworkings thereof. 3.8 Permissions and other committee affiliations admin, AUSC, oversighter 2.5 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Fine (one non-substantive typo) 0.5 Statement content Fair enough, but the ultimatum at the end is unnecessary, in my opinion, and he could have just done it without saying it. Speaks more about his personal life than ArbCom. 2.75 Writing style Decent, nothing egregious, but in answers to questions, a lot of misused homophones. 1.5 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Predominantly concur. 1.5 5 Mhm. 1.0 7 OK. 0.8 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 I wish he commented on his view of Risker's assessment. Overall, a fair outline. 1.25 2 OK. 0.9 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 Not sure the answer addresses the question in the way the interrogator wished, but fair enough. 0.3 3 "This tends to make a situation worse as the parties bicker and attack each other on the talk pages of the case." Yes, it does. 0.5 5 Arbitrators' job, though, is to find solutions. He did not even offer any potential suggestions. 0.5 7 Good. 0.25 8 Decent. 0.625 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score WTT #2 OK. 1.0 Gut feeling Comments Score Overall, I think he would be a decent arbitrator. 5.0

Final

Score	Recommendation
37.425	Weak support. Not the best candidate, but not the worst.

Hahc21

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Isarra

A serious candidacy would warrant a serious evaluation. Arbitrators must take their job seriously. Strong oppose

Ks0stm

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Stanistani

Evaluation

Wikipedia experience Category Comments Score Content work A self-professed gnome who has never created an article, the editor's user page indicates a tenacity for reliability, notwithstanding lack of participation thereof. 1.5 Administrative and dispute resolution experience Again, there's not much there ... an administrator on Wikipediocracy. 3.25 Other work on encyclopedia Again, not much of which to speak. 2.5 Permissions and other committee affiliations Wikipediocracy admin might be of minor help. 0.125 Candidate statement Category Comments Score Statement structure Good. 0.5 Statement content Adequate statement, but this concerns me: "I pledge to fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, including not disclosing any such information I gain to Wikipediocracy (I do add a caveat that there are likely to be members of ARBCOM who are also members of Wikipediocracy. Discussions of ARBCOM confidential business by me will not be on Wikipediocracy, but on ARBCOM channels if I am elected.)." The implication that there would not inherently be unequivocal compliance is a little disconcerting. My apologies for misreading. Per my talk page: "I will unequivocally comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to public data. My caveat was just to point out that there are and will be members of ARBCOM who will be also members of Wikipediocracy, so naturally anything I say to such members (on the ARBCOM mailing list for example) has been disclosed to a member of Wikipediocracy." 2.5 4.0 Writing style Solid; not terrific, but decent. 1.5 Answers to questions Collect Question Comments Score 4 Meh. ArbCom establishing precedent could be legitimate. Decent answer. 1.0 5 Limited response. The Five Pillars are the centerpiece of this encyclopedia; I am not sure the answer adequately reflects that. 0.5 7 "The word faction is a bit limiting. If a group of editors is holding a position, in some cases we call that a consensus. ... If a group violates Wikipedia policy, then most times all members of that group should be sanctioned. There can be mitigating circumstances, of course." Vague and unhelpful. 0.25 Gamaliel Question Comments Score 1 An appropriate and apt evaluation of the situation, but not much explanation of ArbCom's role thereof. 1.5 2 Adequate response, although I don't necessarily agree. 0.6 Rschen7754 Question Comments Score 2 Not seeing any of his supposed contributions to Lyndon LaRouche ... nevertheless, some reasonable suggestions. 0.35 3 He or she notes he is running to learn about the problem ... not sure that is the best reason, although it may be the only way to learn. Transparency is key. 0.4 5 Vague. 0.25 7 Answer seems to focus on WMF angle, not ArbCom angle, but moderately sensible nonetheless. 0.2 8 This answer is actually pretty solid, in my opinion. 1.0 Miscellaneous Question Comments Score Gerda #3 "If I err, I prefer to err on the side of better content." Ding, ding, ding!!! 1.3 Gut feeling Comments Score I doubt he or she will (or likely should) be elected ... limited content contributions, Wikipediocracy activity, and lack of dispute resolution experience vs. promise of being a "reformer". Sorry, but not exactly a warm, fuzzy feeling. 3.75

Final

Score	Recommendation
24.475	Oppose per comments above. Not the right type of candidate, in my opinion.

Kraxler

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Salvio giuliano

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Thryduulf

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Yunshui

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Technical13

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation

Wbm1058

Wikipedia experience

Category	Comments	Score
Content work
Administrative and dispute resolution experience
Other work on encyclopedia
Permissions and other committee affiliations

Candidate statement

Category	Comments	Score
Statement structure
Statement content
Writing style

Answers to questions

Collect

Question	Comments	Score
4
5
7

Gamaliel

Question	Comments	Score
1
2

Rschen7754

Question	Comments	Score
2
3
5
7
8

Miscellaneous

Question	Comments	Score
TBD

Gut feeling

Comments	Score
Example	Example

Final

Score	Recommendation