User:Collect/ACE2014

2014 questions:

Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?
Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?
Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?
"Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?
Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?
Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?
How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

Answers to these questions shall form the basis for my recommendations in this election. Collect (talk) 00:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No consideration in this evaluation is given in any way to whether I have had any contact with the candidate, or anything other than what I describe below. Each question has now been asked in one form or another of ArbCom candidates for at least three years, and up to six years or more.

There are seven questions, each of which are valued at 3 points each. Failure to answer gets the traditional "zero point" result, while answers showing a great deal of thought consistent with Wikipedia policies can get up to three points. A perfunctory answer which does not directly contradict Wikipedia policies will get all of one point, etc.

Grading: As I use .5 gradations, there is a subjective difference between adjacent grades. That said, I regard a 1.5 as a "Gentleman's C" with lower grades given only for very perfunctory answers, no answer (if a candidate does not have an hour now, will they have 10 hours later to work on a case?), or an answer which appears to have no support from the other candidates. Any grade under 14 total is pretty much a "do not recommend", 14 to 17 is a "not opposed" and 17.5 or higher is "recommend". One guide uses a subset of my questions - the far right column is the sum of the values for 4, 5 and 7 as I scored them

List of ArbCom candidates:

                Q1    Q2    Q3   Q4   Q5   Q6   Q7   total     4, 5  and 7
 1 Calidum       3     2     3    2.5  2    1    1    14.5      5.5
 2 Courcelles    2.5   2.5   3    2    3    2    2    17.0      7.0
 3 DeltaQuad     1     1     2    2    3    1    2    12.0      7.0
 4 DGG           1     1     3    2    3    1    1.5  12.5      6.5
 5 Dougweller    3     2     2.5  2    2    2    2.5  16.0      6.5
 6 Dusti         3     3     3    2    2    2.5  2    17.5      6.0
 7 Euryalus      2     2     3    1.5  3    2.5  2.5  16.5      7.0
 8 Geni          1     1.5   1    1.5  1    1    1     8.0      3.5 (last second)
 9 Guerillero    2     2     1.5  2    2    2    2    13.5      6.0
10 Hahc21        2     2.5   3    -    3    3    2.5  16.0      5.5
11 Isarra        2     1.5   1.5  1.5  1.5  2    1    11.0      4.0
12 Kraxler       2     2     3    2  no other answers  9.0      2.0 (very late)
13 Ks0stm        1.5   3     3    3    2.5  2.5  2    17.5      7.5
14 PhilKnight      no answers at all to anyone         nil      nil
15 Salvio giuliano 1   1.5   3    2    1.5  1.5  1.5  12.0      5.0   (very late)
16 Stanistani    2     2     3    1.5  2    2    1.5  14.0      5.0
17 Technical 13  2     2     2.5  2    3    2    2    15.5      7.0
18 Thryduulf     1     0     1.5  1.5  1    1    1.5   7.5      4.0 (the only candidate supporting "no fault" sanctions as a "Gordian Knot" solution) 
19 Wbm1058       3     3     3    3    3    3    2    20.0      8.0
20 Yunshui       3     1     3    1.5  3    3    2.5  17.0      7.0

Recommended

Dusti

Ks0stm

Wbm1058

Honourable Mention

Courcelles

Yunshui

Special Award:

PhilKnight (since withdrawn as a candidate) for showing no inclination to answer any questions at all from anyone

Cheers to all, even those who did not have the time to answer the short set of questions. Collect (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, The only criteria used here are the answers to a short list of questions, designed to find out how people view the position at hand, and what they find to be most important to the functioning of the committee. I did not count edits, look at AfD votes or anything else, but have found over the past half century or so that comparing answers to the same questions gives substantial insight into who the person is, and that is enough for me. Collect (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would anyone believe that a candidate for ArbCom could ever post with a straight face:

I'd like to make the following affirmation: "Charles Rangel[6] succeeded Michael Grimm[7] as a man who was elected in a district with the official number 13." I'm certain to get an A for that,

His answer score here was already yucky, but statements like this make me think we should have some literacy requirements as well. Collect (talk) 21:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)