User:Collect/ACE2016

2016 questions:

Questions from Collect

2. Should the existence of a "case" imply that the committee should inevitably impose "sanctions"?

4. If an administrator has openly stated an aversion to an editor on that editor's talk page, is that sufficient to indicate that the administrator is no longer impartial concerning that editor?

6. a. In cases where the person involved in a case is actually out of the country during that case, should the case be delayed to afford that editor sufficient time to address any issues raised?
   b. Where multiple editors present evidence against such a person, should that person be afforded additional space for rebuttal?
   c. Where evidence is added at the last minute, should the clock be stopped to allow actual time to rebut the last-minute evidence?
   d. Under what circumstance, if any, should arbitrators be allowed to present evidence in the proposed decision which was not previously presented by anyone else?

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 (8 for the last question).

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 the Committee.

Candidate	Grade
Calidum	14.5 Recommend
Delta Quad	15.0 Recommend
DGG	13.0 C
Doug Weller	13.5 C
Euryalus	17.0 Recommend
Ks0stm	13.0 C
LFaraone	7.0 incomplete
Newyorkbrad	15.5 Recommend
Mkdw	12.5 C
Salvidrim	12.5 C
Writ Keeper	12.0 C

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.

The goal is to use questions as a tool to understand the thought processes of candidates more than anything else. A total score of 14.5 will be the cut-off for "recommended" and any scores 9 or less will be an outright "F". 9.5 to 14.0 will be a "C." I do not base any of this on personal opinions about any candidates, nor do I reduce scores for "non-admins" or the like.