2015 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?
- If an administrator states (hypothetically) "You will vote however you like, and I am frankly not interested in changing your mind, but you should at least be honest about why you are opposing me. At the moment, you are not", would that administrator be considered "involved" or "impartial" in any way with the editor in whose talk space he made such an edit?
- Are arbitators under any reasonable obligation to afford editors who are out of the country on a trip, or have other substantial reasons for absence from a case, any delays in considering cases concerning them? If such a person is given only 1000 words to rebut 1000 words from each of five or more "evidence providers", is that a reasonable limit to place on the defendant, or ought the limit be raised to allow rebuttal of each such section?
Each nominee shall be given a chance to answer this set of questions, with each question being valued on a scale of 0 to 5.
For my view of answers to other questions posed, see User:Collect/ACE2015/cribsheet
Grading is the last part of this - I note here which candidates have not yet answered all of my questions posed:
For the questions I posed, the grading is based on whether the person actually sees the same issues I see regarding ArbCom.
For the first question - the question is about what the goal and function ("ambit") of ArbCom is or should be.
The second question seeks to elicit positions about whether impartiality must be assumed without strong evidence to the contrary, or whether even a hint of partiality ("involvement") is enough to cast doubt on an person's absolute neutrality in a case.
The third question seeks to see how candidates weigh equity v. process. Here I admit to my own bias - equity is the proper primary foundation here, and those who prefer "process" get lower grades. Those who insist on following the exact rules in arbitration cases at all times, even where equity is tossed out the window, fail.
| Candidate | Grade |
|---|---|
| Callanecc | Fail |
| Casliber | Fail |
| Drmies | C - Pass |
| Gamaliel | Fail |
| GorillaWarfare | Fail |
| Hawkeye7 | Recommend |
| Hullaballoo Wolfowitz | C - Pass |
| Keilana | Fail |
| Kelapstick | Fail |
| Kevin Gorman | Recommend |
| Kirill Lokshin | Recommend |
| Kudpung | Fail |
| Lfaraone | No timely answers |
| Mahensingha | Fail |
| MarkBernstein | B - Pass |
| NE Ent | Fail |
| Opabinia regalis | C - Pass |
| Rich Farmbrough | Recommend |
| Thryduulf | C - Pass |
| Wildthing61476 | B - Pass |
18:08, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Grading: Answers which show no particular original thought will get a "Gentleperson's 'C'".
Internally contradictory answers, or answer which appear to fail in understanding anything in my opinion can manage to get a zero only by really trying hard to do so. 0.5 to 1.5 is the usual "failing grade", and 4 to 4.5 is nearly perfect.
The goal is to use questions as a tool to understand the thought processes of candidates more than anything else. A total score of 10.5 will be the cut-off for "recommended" and any scores 7 or less will be an outright "F". 7.5 to 10.0 will be a "C." I do not base any of this on personal opinions about any arbitrator candidates, nor do I reduce scores for "non-admins" or the like. Collect (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |