Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Laser brain/Questions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 | Candidates | Laser brain
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cassianto (talk | contribs) at 13:49, 10 November 2019 (+1). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question
|Q=Your question
|A=}}

Question from Peacemaker67

  2. What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
    As I mentioned in my statement, ArbCom should be a mechanism of last resort. I think the decision to accept the case was a poor one based on the initial filing. That said, ANI can be ineffective at handling long-term behavioral issues and if a tightly defined case had been made detailing such issues with illustrations that community options had been exhausted, accepting would be reasonable. --Laser brain (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rschen7754

  2. Why did you resign adminship in 2017? --Rschen7754 05:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Question from Carrite

  2. What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?

Question from Banedon

  2. Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
  2. If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)

Questions from Newslinger

  2. When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
  4. To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?

Question from Gerda

  2. I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?

Question from Cassianto

  2. Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist, as you well know. As someone who is acutely aware of the kind of disruption that IB discussions bring, I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just a symptom?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates/Laser_brain/Questions&oldid=925496612"