User:Go Phightins!/ACE2014

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)

Calidum