Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/AGK/Questions: Difference between revisions
Extended confirmed users 45,817 edits |
Extended confirmed users 45,817 edits →Questions from Collect: answered User:Collect |
||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
# {{ACE Question|Q= Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"? |
# {{ACE Question|Q= Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"? |
||
|A=<p>No, certainly not. We do not measure the effectiveness of arbitration by the number of sanctions the committee hands out or the length of its written decisions.</p><p>During my previous terms, a handful of cases were closed without action:</p><ul><li>{{ArbCase|SchuminWeb}}, where we responded to the principal party's absence not with a case ''in abstentia'' but rather by providing a reasonable period for return. When the party did not return, an orderly removal of permissions took place.</li><li>{{ArbCase|Neelix}}, where again the committee did not bay for blood.</li><li>{{ArbCase|Arbitration enforcement}} ordered a review of the underlying project procedures but did not sanction any individual user.</li><li></ul><p>Arbitration cases provide a structured examination of disputes that the community is unable to resolve. I approach cases with the mindset of asking "How can we try to resolve this dispute?". <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;"> ■</span>]] </span> 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)</p>}} |
|||
|A=}} |
|||
# {{ACE Question|Q=If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits? |A=}} |
# {{ACE Question|Q=If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits? |A=<p>The arbitration policy deals quite comprehensively with the standards around conflicts of interest: [[WP:RECUSAL|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Recusal of arbitrators]]. I think – rather uncontroversially – that where an arbitrator has an actual or perceived inability to deal fairly, impartially, and legitimately with a given user or topic, then they should recuse.</p><p>To your scenario, and without being given the particulars, I naturally agree that your hypothetical arbitrator obviously ought to recuse from any proceedings – relating to that editor, the content that formed the context, or both. <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;"> ■</span>]] </span> 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)</p>}} |
||
# {{ACE Question|Q= Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow ''fully reasoned responses'' to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"? |A=}} |
# {{ACE Question|Q= Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow ''fully reasoned responses'' to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"? |A=<p>Without knowing the particulars – in your hypothetical, no, it would never really be appropriate.</p><p>Arbitration is by its nature a slow process. Characterised by legal''-esque'' procedures, disputes often spend days or weeks mired in the process. Some cases have taken many months. Rarely, then, would it be unfeasible to grant an extension of time for a party to respond to large amounts of eleventh hour evidence.</p><p>Being inflexible about clerical matters (like evidence length or submission deadlines) often creates a number of problems, all serious. Arbitrators can be denied the advantage of useful information, evidence, or analysis. Disputants can be denied "due process"; while the committee isn't a court, the Wikipedia community still needs to live with its decisions – and a perceived injustice makes that harder. Finally, rushing cases – even when done with good intent – can create a great deal of commentary and further discussion, which often turns the committee "into the story" and is time not spent trying to resolve and rule on the dispute itself. <span class="nowrap">[[User:AGK|<span style="color:black;">'''AGK'''</span>]][[User talk:AGK#top|<span style="color: black;"> ■</span>]] </span> 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)</p>}} |
||
Revision as of 16:24, 11 November 2018
Individual questions
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}
Question from Gerda Arendt
- Can you agree with Opabinia regalis here?
Yes, I agree with the jist of Opabina's comment. Where an editor couches good points in blunt language, or uses an expletive to express them, they do not in all cases behave disruptively.
I do not think we can pre-define incivility: rather,
■ 16:18, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]
Questions from Collect
- Does opening a case imply that "sanctions must be applied"?
No, certainly not. We do not measure the effectiveness of arbitration by the number of sanctions the committee hands out or the length of its written decisions.
During my previous terms, a handful of cases were closed without action:
- ■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]
- If an arbitrator is not disinterested in an editor (such as openly and strongly criticizing an editor's edits on the editor's talk page) has the arbitrator ceased to be impartial with regard to such edits?
The arbitration policy deals quite comprehensively with the standards around conflicts of interest:
■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]
- Is it ever proper to allow an "accused" an extremely short period of time to respond to accusations made when the editor was actually far from home for an extended period, such as offering under three days to respond to several thousand words of "new accusations"? Ought the "clock be stopped" in order to allow fully reasoned responses to such "new accusations" and "new evidence"? And where an arbitrator provides their own evidence in a "proposed decision," ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence"?
Without knowing the particulars – in your hypothetical, no, it would never really be appropriate.
Arbitration is by its nature a slow process. Characterised by legal-esque procedures, disputes often spend days or weeks mired in the process. Some cases have taken many months. Rarely, then, would it be unfeasible to grant an extension of time for a party to respond to large amounts of eleventh hour evidence.
Being inflexible about clerical matters (like evidence length or submission deadlines) often creates a number of problems, all serious. Arbitrators can be denied the advantage of useful information, evidence, or analysis. Disputants can be denied "due process"; while the committee isn't a court, the Wikipedia community still needs to live with its decisions – and a perceived injustice makes that harder. Finally, rushing cases – even when done with good intent – can create a great deal of commentary and further discussion, which often turns the committee "into the story" and is time not spent trying to resolve and rule on the dispute itself.
■ 16:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)]