Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 6 November 2006 (Reverted edits by 87.165.188.168 (talk) to last version by Scobell302). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please ask your questions here. Thanks! Nandesuka 14:56, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Chacor

A question I ask of randomly-selected candidates (although it was originally planned for all to answer):

• What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Chacor 15:03, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer: As the number of admins makes clear, the bar in terms of getting admin privileges in the first place is fairly low. I don't view it as unnecessarily burdensome to ask ex-admins in the situation you describe to go through RfA again. It's clear that AC/the bureaucrats can resysop ex-admins at will, but I think such privilege should be exercised sparingly, along with an explanation to the community as to why the need for such action was compelling.

This is completely separate from the question of whether the RfA process as it exists is working well. Nandesuka 22:47, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Newyorkbrad

Welcome to the race. My standard questions. Newyorkbrad 15:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process?

2. Would you anticipate participating in the actual writing of decisions. If so, do you have writing experience relevant to this task?

Answer to question 1: More arbitrators, and smaller panels of arbitrators per case. Right now the number of arbitrators necessary to hear a case (as opposed to deciding to hear a case) is gated by the number of non-recused arbitrators available, which seems a bit awkward to me. Instead of that, simply say that each case requires (picking a number out of a hat) three arbitrators, and different panels could hear different cases. Along with this you'd certainly need a mechanism to decide that certain cases needed to be heard before the whole committee.

Answer to question 2: Yes, and yes. While the current "workshop" model has some attractions, sometimes I've seen workshop pages play out like a poker game, with opposing parties bidding successively more and more argumentative, punitive, or strident principles, findings of fact, and remedies. The presence of an arbitrator actively writing on these pages usually seems to quench — or at least subdue — such tempers quickly. From that perspective alone, having more actively writing arbitrators should improve the process considerably. I have written a number of pieces professionally, but typically don't refer to them on Misplaced Pages because I prefer to be judged based on the quality of my contributions on-wiki, rather than by my external works or credentials. I'll look through my contributions to Misplaced Pages over the past few years and try to find some diffs that give you some idea of my writing talents. Nandesuka 23:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Fys

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
2. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Take a look at Misplaced Pages:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 17:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

1. Nandesuka, can you point us to a dispute in which you have benefited from mediation? (or which could have used mediation?) Have you been involved in an arbitration? Please comment.

2. Your statement explains why you think you would make a good arbitrator. What would the ArbCom be missing if you were not elected? Jd2718 19:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Question(s) from xaosflux

1. As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux 19:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

5. Are "honourable" long-standing contributions and having the role of being sysop mitigating factors when dealing with chronic cases of incivility and other forms of policy violations?

From Scobell302

Having ran in last year's ArbCom election, have you learned anything from that election that you'll be applying to this election?