Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions/General

Last year's election involved a time-consuming process in which editors wrote "general" questions that candidates were expected to answer. Although these questions were copy-edited, trimmed, conflated and organised by the election coordinators, they were still voluminous (36 questions, some of them multiple), and voters were also faced with the task of reading many individual questions put to candidates. There were many complaints by voters about the amount of time and effort required to form their opinions of the candidates through the questions.

This proposal is to streamline the 2010 election process by generating consensus beforehand on a set of the most probing general questions, to more efficiently expose candidates' suitability or otherwise for the position. This draft is based on last year's questions, but without named questioners. Only one question, No. 2, has been added, given the phenomenon of early resignations. Voters would of course be free to ask any individual question they wish on a candidate's election page or on user talk page.

Four principles were used in reconstructing the general questions:

• The emphasis is on the skill-base and practicalities of being an arbitrator.
• Questions that are more likely to result in side-stepping and predictable, "safe" responses have been avoided.
• Wide-ranging political questions have been downplayed, although several questions concerning the role and operation of ArbCom itself are retained.
• Questions concerning particular parties in recent cases have been dropped in favour of probing generic skills.

We ask users to respond to the proposal in principle; to suggest improvements in wording; and to suggest, if they wish, the removal of specific questions to make the list more manageable. Users who wish to suggest additional questions are asked to ensure that they are brief and probing, and to nominate which questions they should replace.

ACE2010 general questions

1. Your accounts: Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have recorded substantive edits from

   A:

2. Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?

   A:

3. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? You may wish to express these roles in order of your interest in each and your ability to perform it, and add brief comments where appropriate about your skills for each.
   • (A) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
   • (B) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
   • (C) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
   • (D) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Banned User Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
   • (E) overseeing the allocation and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
   • (F) drafting responses to other inquiries and concerns forwarded to the committee by editors;
   • (G) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (H) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (I) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic and reminding colleagues of internal deadlines.

   A:

4. Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
   • (A) "Private correspondence"

     A:

   • (B) "Responsibility"

     A:

   • (C) "Perceived legal threats"

     A:

   • (D) "Outing"

     A:

5. Confidentiality: Do you have demonstrated experience in coping with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for the confidentiality of personal information?

   A:

6. Conflict of interest. Do you have demonstrated experienced in identifying and managing conflicts of interest, either in yourself or in others?

   A:

7. Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you in a case, either way?

   A:

8. Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as other editors' baiting or repeated content abuses, such as POV pushing or original research?

   A:

9. Desysopping: Do you believe that, over the past year, Arbcom has desysopped too many, too few, or about the right number of the administrators who have come before it? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A:

10. ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.

    A:

11. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made any direct content rulings, i.e., how an article should read in the event of a dispute. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Should it sanction users for repeated content policy violations, even if there is no record of repeated conduct policy violations? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?

    A:

12. Success in handling cases: Of the cases handled by ArbCom in 2010, which one(s) as a whole do you think it handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choices.

    A:

13. Proposals for change? What changes, if any, would you make in how ArbCom works (apart from any other proposals you have made above)?

    A: