Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions/General

Last year, 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 year, the General Questions have been streamlined from 2326 words (36 questions) down to 583 words (8 questions)—intended to be those that are the most probing and that will efficiently expose whether each candidate is suitable for the position.

This draft is extracted from last year's questions, but without named questioners; only one question has been added, No. 2, given the phenomenon of early resignations.

The emphasis is on:

• the skill-base and practicalities of being an arbitrator.
• questions that are less likely to result in side-stepping and predictable, "safe" responses;
• the avoidance of wide-ranging political questions, although several questions concerning the role and operation of ArbCom itself are retained;
• questions concerning particular parties in particular cases, in favour of probing generic skills and background.

Voters are, of course, free to ask one individual question on a candidate's election, or any number of questions on their user talk page.

ACE2010 general questions

1. Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should show how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to be an arbitrator.
   • (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:

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. 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:

4. 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? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?

   A:

5. 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:

6. Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? 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:

7. Success in handling cases: Of this year's cases, nominate those you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.

   A:

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

   A:

9. Personal information: If you are willing to state your approximate age, gender, location, and/or to write a short biography of yourself, please do.