Standard disclaimer: This represents my views and opinions, especially on Wikipedia philosophy. I encourage you to do your own research.
How the scoring works
I read the answers to the questions that I've asked and score them as to how the candidate's views align with mine. I also score experience. I give out the final numbers after that. Towards the voting time I give out what my recommendations are (it's relative to the final scores; think of grading on a curve).
Good experience. Got a 88.76% score in the 2009 guide (average was 68.13%), with similar questions, so I expect to support again, but we'll see how they go this time.
Score: 74.45%
WikiProject question totally out there - this removes too much power from a WikiProject.
Utilitarian perspective on the tango question. Which has its pros, but it seems they aren't interested in mitigation at all.
Didn't answer the question for the banning one. Candidate only said when bans happen, not when they would vote for one.
Neutral. The candidate has not finished answering all questions, so their score could be 7-8% higher. But even with that, they still fall in the neutral range.
Good experience. Got a 70.00% score in the 2008 guide (average was 59.56%), and 77.72% in 2009 (average was 68.13%), with similar questions.
Score: 91.22%
View on WikiProjects seems to start out wrong. It eventually leads to the same conclusion that I have regarding WikiProjects, but... it bothers me slightly. Didn't take off too much though.
Wish there was a little more detail on the tango question, at least the first part. And someone could definitely provoke someone else to anger, though that person definitely isn't innocent, that could be noted.
Overall though, Coren tends to reflect my views on the project and has for the last two rounds.
Inertia is a serious problem on the project. The Internet keeps growing and changing; we have to adapt.
Support. Usually 90% after the curve is a Support, but 90% before the curve will definitely be a Support.
Desysopping incident noted. It was quite a few years ago.
Delay question - seems a bit discouraging, like the delay must be something that must be accepted.
Good answer to the WikiProject question.
Answers to #3-4 weak. Generally there's a good "game plan" to deal with such users that involves multiple options.
Answer to #6 way too short.
Not too impressed with the answers to the questions, some more effort should have been put into them. They don't have to be entire paragraphs (and I'd prefer that they be concise!) but I really didn't get enough to go off of. Communication is essential as an Arb.
Not lookingvery good. I don't care if it's a personal attack or not, ArbCom members can't just tell people to eff off. That's going to cost any civility points this user earns. But whatever, I give everyone the chance to answer the questions...
Score: 61.96%
No experience, and thus almost no experience points.
The answers were surprisingly good for an editor at this stage, I'll admit.
ArbCom members are allowed to question the parties involved. I think diffs are important here to prevent a clear and accurate picture of what's going on rather than someone's soapboxing.
Mentoring sounds like a good idea, but if the editor's not clueful at all, it's just going to be super annoying.
Didn't answer question #6 fully and doesn't seem to support mitigation at all (not that I'm endorsing it in every circumstance).
Number 8 a bit vague.
The civility stuff / lack of experience worried me from the getgo. With a quantitative system like this, you hope that your system works to account for this. Thankfully, it seems to have - on a qualitative scale, this isn't a candidate fit for ArbCom (though with some experience and maturation, I could see this changing).
Oppose. I don't think the curve is going to be so large that 61% will be a support.
Good experience. Got a 76.47% score (without question 10a, a controversial question) in the 2009 guide (average was 68.13%), with similar questions, so I expect to support again, but we'll see how they go this time.
Score: 91.72%
Good answer to WikiProject question.
Didn't answer the first part of the question. The second part of the question is really good though. The rubric wasn't that great this time around; I hope to fix this next year.
Otherwise, no issues, and did very well on the questions.
Neutral but I'm voting oppose based on my experiences.
2013 postscript: the Racepacket case was a bit unusual, but generally her positions have been reasonable, even if I didn't agree with them completely, so oppose was probably a bit overkill.
Inactivity question - I actually changed the question for this candidate since they were a party to the Tree shaping case. One of those rare coincidences, and I didn't think it was fair to make the candidate answer the question otherwise.
Took off a point for the WikiProject question - makes WPs a bit too weak.
Tango answer way too vague.
Again, took off 1 point under activity. Not a deal breaker though.
Tango question: first part a little vague. Second part a little vague as well: doesn't discuss mitigation.
Relatively newer user, so didn't get as much experience points.
Otherwise I'm pretty impressed.
Support
The actual scores
As I've hinted at on the talk page, the questions were too easy this year. The average was 76.68%, the highest it has ever been by far. That's way too high; the highest before this was 68.13%. Therefore, the curve was not very generous at all. I calculated final percentages by dividing the final score by 96 and taking that percentage from there. Over 89% was a Support, over 70% was a Neutral, and below was an Oppose. After this normalization, the average was a 79.88%, which is a percent or two above what I usually do, but I wouldn't have 8 supports otherwise.
