Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions/General

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 Ban Appeals 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: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think 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: