Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Questions

Introduction

During and after the December 2009 election, there were many complaints from 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 584 words (8 questions)—intended to be those that are the most probing and that will most efficiently expose whether each candidate is suitable for the position.

All but one of the questions are extracted from last year's questions, but without named questioners; Question 2 was added 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.

Instructions

General questions. All candidates are expected to provide responses to the "general" questions (see below), which will be transcluded to each candidate's question page.

Individual questions. Eligible voters may ask a limit of one individual question by posting it directly on a candidate's question page beneath the general questions. Candidates are not obliged to answer all of the individual questions on their page. An individual question should:

• be clearly worded and brief (not exceeding 75 words);
• be specific to a particular candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (voters are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions).

Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates on their user talk page at any time.

Eligible voters

Editors who had 150 mainspace edits on a single user account on the English Wikipedia as of 00:01 UTC on 1 November 2010 are eligible to vote, and may also post individual questions. Wikipedians who are ineligible to vote are welcome to participate in discussion on candidates, but may post questions only on candidates' user talk pages.

Instructions for candidates

Each candidate should have their own question page, at a subpage of their nomination statement entitled "Questions". On this subpage, the list of general questions should be substituted, and may be answered thereafter.

If you believe a question is immaterial or irrelevant, please note that fact in lieu of answering, but do not remove questions from your own question page. If the question contains a personal attack or other offensive material, other editors will remove it for you.

If you run into any difficulties, please ask at the election talkpage or approach the volunteer election coordinators on their noticeboard.

The questions

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 indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
   • (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) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
   • (g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
   • (h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
   • (i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
   • (j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.

   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, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?

   A:

Individual questions

This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:

• be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
• be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
• not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format:

1. Question:

   A:

---

Candidates' answers

• Balloonman
• Casliber
• Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry
• David Fuchs
• Elen of the Roads
• FT2
• Georgewilliamherbert
• GiacomoReturned
• Harej
• Iridescent
• Jclemens
• John Vandenberg
• Loosmark
• Newyorkbrad
• Off2riorob
• PhilKnight
• Sandstein
• SirFozzie
• Shell Kinney
• Stephen Bain
• Xeno