Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/Richwales/Questions
Moved comments[edit]
Moved comments from #Questions from AlexandrDmitri[edit]
- Incoming mail, Case management, Ban Appeals support, Higher permissions or Technical team? Why?
- Forgive me, but I don't understand what you are asking here — or if, perhaps, you are asking me to comment on several separate issues. Please clarify.
- Which of the internal teams do you feel is the best fit for you, and why? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
- After reviewing the description of the internal teams, I would say I probably have aptitude for the incoming mail team and the technical team. On the other hand, the responsibilities listed for these teams strike me as things that could be done by clerks and don't require the regular decision-making skills expected of arbitrators. I do note, of course, that "all arbitrators may participate equally in all aspects of the Committee's work". — Richwales 04:49, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- Would you be keen on expanding the role of the clerks to include these duties, bearing in mind that currently we do not have access to the relevant discussions. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
- My understanding so far is that the material involved is potentially of a sensitive, confidential nature — things which people in general must not be granted access to. That clearly makes the problem more complicated. Nevertheless, we do already have users (e.g., CUs) who are entrusted with confidential data despite not necessarily being arbs. If it's possible for a subset of sufficiently trustworthy clerks with the necessary technical skills to take care of the responsibilities of the above two teams, it seems to me that this would be worth exploring. Then again, I admit I might change my mind once I was in the middle of things and had a more complete understanding of the issues — or if other people who already have that understanding are satisfied that it's not feasible for non-arbs to handle the tasks in question.
Moved comments from #Questions from GabeMc[edit]
- Do you think it's appropriate for an admin to close an RfC/RfM when said admin had previously participated in an AN/I report discussion, supporting the resulting indef-block for a highly vocal party to the mediation from which the RfC originated? 2) Assuming that a) this has in fact happened, and b) you indeed think it's inappropriate, what then would you suggest as a remedy? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 01:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- Given only the facts as stated above, I would have to say that this admin's actions — while arguably unwise — were not technically inappropriate. The policy on involved administrators says that an admin who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role is not considered to be "involved" (and is thus not prevented from subsequently acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area).
As I said, I think this admin's making the closure may have been unwise — and there are enough admins around that it would probably be better to let someone else do the closure, thus avoiding even the possibility of appearing involved. But (IMO) it isn't technically a violation of WP:INVOLVED or any other policy I'm aware of, so it would not be proper to impose any sanctions against the admin in this situation.
Again, I'm responding only to the facts you provided. If this question is based on a real scenario, it's possible that my reaction to the real situation might be different from the above.
- Given only the facts as stated above, I would have to say that this admin's actions — while arguably unwise — were not technically inappropriate. The policy on involved administrators says that an admin who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role is not considered to be "involved" (and is thus not prevented from subsequently acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area).
- To clarify, the admin did not interact with the editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, in fact during the AN/I report which blocked said editor, said admin asked for an uninvolved admin to step-in, implying that even they felt involved beyond the point where sanctions from them would remain appropriate. I wouldn't assume sanctions against said admin would be needed; however, IYO, would the closure remain valid with this in mind?
- Two separate questions here — is the closure valid? — and did the admin misuse his tools?
Clearly, if the closing admin was WP:INVOLVED, then the closure is suspect. Even if this appeared to be a borderline case, a review might be appropriate simply to clear the air.
Using admin tools as a means to gain an advantage in a dispute in which one has been involved is a very serious breach of our core values, so we can't nonchalantly dismiss this issue without looking into the facts. If the admin in question sought help from an uninvolved admin, then went ahead and did the close himself after a day or two because no one else could be bothered to do so, that may constitute poor judgment, but it's not as serious as if the closing admin seems to have made the close himself because he was afraid some other admin wouldn't see thing his way. Assuming you're asking (in a roundabout way) about a real scenario, it's quite possible it might end up thrown in the lap of ArbCom — for which reason I probably shouldn't speculate beyond what I've already said, just in case I end up being one of the sitting arbs who has to deal with the case.
- Two separate questions here — is the closure valid? — and did the admin misuse his tools?
- Thanks for taking the time to respond. 1) As to the validity of the closure, that's debatable. I will say that elements of it did directly contradict the position of the mediators and the active parties prior to the close. 2) The closing admin only discussed and supported the indef-block, they did not use admin tools in any way to sanction the editor who was a party to the mediation and dispute. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 02:44, 3 December 2012 (UTC)