User talk:Tony1/Sandbox for ArbCom general questions

Some starting comments (feel free to add more). Manning (talk) 01:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Question 2.1 and 2.5 are basically the same
 * Three questions (3.3, 5.1, 5.2) on the Law/Undertow case seems excessive. One should be adequate. (I clerked that case so there's potential COI here).
 * Is there a presumption of fact in Q3.4 with the word "recent"? I thought this had happened on several occasions previously. (Need to research that).
 * Question 4.3 and 4.8 are basically the same


 * Hope you don't mind me commenting here. First to say that I think the 'single question' rule (I admit to missing on reading it) is a bit pointless given that any editor can go round asking it to each candidate's page individually. Second, I'm quite happy to merge 2.1 and 2.5 as suggested by Tony1 on my talk page. Third, my question about the pithiness or verbosity was motivated largely by the fact that this often comes up in talk pages about arbitration decisions. If forced to drop one question, I would drop that one. The question about 'groupthink' is much more interesting and significant in informing the community about candidates for the arbitration committee. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sam - I really like the question on "groupthink". However I'd like to see you clarify your exact meaning though, as I'm not certain that what I think it means matches what you actually intend. (Plus none of the candidates are likely to have your perspective as a former arb either). Manning (talk) 13:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The problem with these questions are that a few dozen real wonks will study them and be fascinated. But when you multiply this by the number of candidates, the vast majority of the electorate will take the view "too long, didn't read".--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)