User talk:Rschen7754/ACE2011

On Tango[edit]

Perhaps I focused the the wrong part of your question. You seem to be asking whether A misbehaving and ending up goading B into misbehaviour should be considered a mitigating factor in evaluating B's misbehaviour. To me, that answer is clearly no (which is what I tried to convey in my answer). The flipside, however, is that this is certainly an aggravating factor to A's original misbehaviour (which is why I said that looking at the context is necessary).

Part of the reason that it's so bad that B reacts badly to A's misbehaviour is that this will necessarily distract attention away from a rational examination of how A behaved in the first place (thus defeating B's intent) as well as being to the detriment of everybody else around the dispute because of the resultant fallout. — Coren ^(talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I personally believe that B should still be held responsible for anything serious that was committed; he shouldn't necessarily get off scot-free. That being said, it's a person's natural reaction to not respond kindly to other editors who aren't playing nice, and that should be taken into account. --Rs chen 7754 03:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but if you're reaching the level deserving sanctions before the committee then you've long past the level of understandable kneejerk (or you reacted way, way out of proportion). I've occasionally blown off steam at a really aggravating editor before; but I notice and back off. Before behaviour raises to the level the committee would consider sanctions, one would have had plenty of opportunities to back off or correct aim. — Coren ^(talk) 13:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tango too... and more[edit]

Yeah, I look at the question as worded, and my response, any my reaction is that if you want to take away points from me for sanctioning the users that prompt disruption in addition to the ones who engage in it... then I don't want those points. "Always" and "never" aren't an accurate characterization of my answer to the three-part question six: "Often" (though that was elided in my "short answer"), "no", and "no" are.

Likewise I wouldn't want any points for supporting enabling Wikiprojects to bully editors who don't agree with particular style guidelines. I make absolutely no apologies for this: I am on record saying that there are too many rules, many of which don't add enough to the encyclopedia to be worth the increased barrier to entry to new users in the project.

Then for 3 and 4, it's not clear if you're asking follow-up questions, or simply penalizing me for not following through into areas that weren't part of the actual questions. I considered 5 to be a follow-up question to 3 and 4, and answered the three questions together as a unit.

Overall, I'm really not impressed with the "gotcha" scoring, especially given your instructions that the first several were explicitly "short answer" questions; your understanding of that appears to differ markedly from mine. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm not super happy with how questions 6-8 turned out on the scoring overall. It's difficult to score number 6 out of 10 points, and the question could have been worded a bit better. Question 7 and 8 turned out to be reciting the textbook answer, and I'm not too happy with how that turned out. But I'm stuck with the system this year. It's way better than the system last year where I was trying to score the general questions, and people gave super vague answers for the "skill set" question, and I was left giving awkwardly low scores.

When I make my final recommendations, I do look for large gaps; I don't assign 85.05% Oppose and 85.45% Support, for example. I realize that I'm not always being 100% consistent, but I'm consistent enough to put people in the same range, at least.

As far as question 2, I suppose that's where we'll have to disagree then.

I use the points so I can quantitatively tell which candidates to support and which to oppose, and so I don't have to be too subjective. Nobody's ever gotten 100%, and nobody is expected to get 100%. The highest score is 91.22% this year; back in 2008 nobody broke 90%. The highest score anyone's ever gotten was Newyorkbrad at around 94% in 2010. What I do is normalize the final percentages and take the top candidates. Last year, the lowest "Support" was a 73%. Keep in mind that not everybody's going to buy into my opinions; most support Risker, for example. --Rs chen 7754 06:58, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from the front page: "I read the answers to the questions that I've asked and score them as to how the candidate's views align with mine." --Rs chen 7754 07:01, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mitigation[edit]

Just to clarify I support limited mitigation. And I appreciate you liked my answers, I think that's the only positive statement I've gotten so far. And thank you for pointing out that arbs can ask questions of candidates. I must admit I'm not too familiar with the whole process, and I hadn't seen examples of that. I also think evidence pages have their purposes, but they should be kept at a more reasonable level. Hot Stop talk-contribs 22:28, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]