Feedback on the elections is solicited from participants.
Instructions on asking "General" questions
Foreword
This questions page may be used to pose a single question to everycandidate in this year's election. The questions, posted at /List, will be transcluded to the question pages of each and every candidate on 17 November. Candidates will then be invited to answer each question as they see fit. Additional questions specific to individual candidates may be posted at that time, and should be placed directly on the candidate's question page.
After 17 November, no new questions will be added to this list, so that all candidates receive the same list of general questions. Questions may still be posted to individual candidates throughout the remainder of the election, as needed.
Eligible voters
Wikipedians who had 150 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 1 November 2009 are also eligible to post questions. Wikipedians who are ineligible to vote are asked not to post questions, but are invited to participate in discussion on the candidate.
Questions should be clearly worded and brief, should not duplicate other questions (though editors might discuss merging similar questions, if they so wish), and should specifically relate to the candidate and/or the tasks and responsibilities of members of the Arbitration Committee. Questions which are deemed by consensus to be candidate-specific (i.e., questions that only make sense if answered by a particular candidate), or questions which are otherwise unsuitable may be removed from the general list, but may later be asked to those specific candidates. Should a question removal be disputed, a discussion may be initiated on the talk page.
Candidates
Question pages will be created for each candidate on 10 November, or when the candidate submits their nomination (if nominating after that date). To answer a general question: copy it over onto the "General questions" section of your own "/Questions for the candidate" page (accessible through your statement, presuming you followed the instructions and created it with {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}}!), and answer it there.
If you believe a question is immaterial or irrelevant in some fashion, you may note that fact in lieu of answering, but please 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.
General questions
General Questions for the 2009 Elections should no longer be added to this page. Please consider asking your question to the candidate(s) directly. Thank you for participating.
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
What do you find to be the most important characteristic of a successful arbitrator on Wikipedia? This can be either a historic trait seen in one or more of the 53 arbitrators who have served since 2004, or an ideal trait that you would like to see in future arbitrators.
As an arbitrator, do you think that the process of desysopping of administrators should remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo) or would you prefer that a community based process is also put in place? Should the process of (a) reviewing admin actions that may have breached policy, and (b) desysopping, remain solely with the Committee (and Jimbo), or would you prefer that a community-based process also perform these roles?
Questions from Tony1
Is it appropriate for ArbCom to set up a subcommittee to deal with allegations by users that administrative actions have breached policy? Tony(talk) 15:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[Conflated with LHvU's above, with his agreement.]Tony(talk)14:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide evidence of your ability to write concise, clear English. You may wish to refer to your ability to detect ambiguities and unintended consequences in text such as principles, remedies and injunctions.
A:
Questions from Davewild
Over the last year Arbcom has desysopped a number of admins. Generally do you think Arbcom have (a) not desysopped enough (b) got it about right (c) desysopped too much over this period? Why?
Over the last year Arbcom has made a few changes in how it runs, such as introducing the Ban Appeals Subcommittee and establishing the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. What changes (if any) would you make in how the Arbitration Committee works?
What do you think of the Arbitration Committee's decision to set up Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development earlier this summer? If you were one of the founding members of the advisory council, please explain why you accepted the invitation to join the committee.
Do you support Arbitrators being elected longer than a two year term? Would you accept a term longer than two years if appointed to one by Jimbo Wales?
Name, in order from greatest to least, the entities or people you believe should have the most influence over individual Arbitrators and over the Arbitration Committee as a whole.
Do you feel that the English Wikipedia's current BLP approach is correct in all aspects? Why or why not? If not, what needs changing?
Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an administrator without a prior ArbCom case? Be specific.
As of May 2009, only 5 of the 16 Arbitrators had made more than 500 edits to the mainspace in the past calendar year. Several arbitrators' past 500 edits stretched back over 12 months.[1] Considering this, do you feel that the Arbitration Committee is qualified to judge conduct disputes that overlap heavily with content disputes? Please elaborate.
As an arbitrator you will find that most of your work is done away from enwiki, either on mailing lists or on the private Arbitration wiki. How will you cope with the tension between the community desire for openness and the need for confidentiality for personal information about parties to arbitration decisions?
Do you believe that there is a need to take steps to avoid 'groupthink' among committee members, and if so, what steps would you take?
Do you agree with the committee's decision to reban the_undertow/Law (see motion here)? Would you have handled the situation differently?
Why do you think the committee chose to desysop Jennavecia but not Jayron32 (the motion to desysop Jennavecia was passing with all arbitrators having voted when Jennavecia resigned, the motion to desysop Jayron32 had been and was rejected; see the previous link)? How would you have voted?
Iridescent and MZMcBride have both publicly admitted that they knew that Law was the_undertow at the time of Law's RfA. While MZMcBride did not vote in Law's RfA, Iridescent did. Noting that Iridescent is currently a user who has the ability to request the admin bit back at WP:BN at any time and that MZMcBride is currently a sysop, what do you think, if anything, should the Arbitration Committee have done?
I've noticed that many arbitrators, both former and sitting, have tended to migrate away from mainspace editing as they become involved in the project's more political aspects. Do you feel it is important to maintain some level of contributions to articles even as an admin, bureaucrat, and of course, arbitrator? –Juliancolton | Talk02:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom cases sometimes become huge, divisive messes, diverting vast amounts of editor time and goodwill into pointless arguments, oppressing and even driving away constructive editors who get caught up in them (the description 'Kafka-esque' seems to arise quite a lot), and leading to nothing except "remedies" that are really just retributive punishments (often ill-targeted) that fail to remedy any real problems. How far do you agree with this, and what would you do about it?
The Arbitration Committee has changed significantly in scope and size since its initial creation. Which of these additional duties do you embrace? Which would you discard, and how?#How do you deal with the tensions between privacy and transparency?Removing with permission of Tznkai: very similar to Sam B's first question.Tony(talk)09:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would you prioritize the following issues within arbitration matters: Privacy of living persons, privacy of editors, administrator conduct, CU conduct, OS conduct, content disputes, conflict of interest editing, conduct on noticeboards boards, conduct on RfA, conduct on XfD, conduct in editing, conduct on policy pages, arbitrator conduct, tracking complaint?. Feel free to add issues and answer however makes sense to you
What is one relatively minor reform you would like to make to the Arbitration Committee's workings?
What about a major one?
Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you read? How much of that traffic will you actually read?
Not all Wikimedia Projects have an Arbitration Committee, and some that did have a committee no longer do so. Do you accept or reject the view that the English Wikipedia benefits from having an Arbitration Committee? Why?
Out of all the cases handled by the Arbitration Committee in 2009, which one(s) do you think the committee as a whole handled (a) the most successfully, and (b) the least successfully? Please explain your choice(s).
A number editors in the community have expressed concern that the Arbitration Committee is becoming too powerful and expansive in response to some committee actions including the creation of the Advisory Council on Project Development and BLP special enforcement. Do you agree with them? How will you deal with such concerns if you are successfully elected to the committee?
For the purpose of the following five questions, please assume the principles in question are directly relevant to the facts of the case that you are deciding as an arbitrator. Would you support or oppose these principles as written should they be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? (To keep the amount of time required to respond to these examples to an absolute minimum, I personally would consider one or two sentences to be ample reasoning for the "why" part of this question; that kind of statement length is akin to many of the Arbitrator votes on the proposed decision pages of a case.) (Daniel)
(As a point of further clarification, it is entirely unnecessary to read the case these principles were originally decided in — the intent of these questions are to establish your opinion on the general principles that are linked to, while working under the assumption they are directly relevant to a case you are deciding.)
Q. Originally RfARs were named in the style of Party X v. Party Y in line with the idea of two groups in opposition to each other (eg. User:Guanaco versus User:Lir). Later it was changed to naming an individual user (eg. Husnock). Now cases get random names like Highways 2. What naming convention do you believe is the appropriate one for ArbCom to use in designating case names? under what circumstances should a case name be changed after opening, such as in A/R/Zeraeph?
Thank you in advance for your candidacy and for your thoughtful answers.
Previous questions deal with the removal of administrator privileges. However, on a slightly different topic, do you believe that the rights of the community are best upheld by ensuring that the community-directed RfA structure is the only forum for acquiring or reacquiring administrator privileges? That is: do you support or oppose the recent Committee practice of bypassing RfA by directly re-granting previously revoked administrative privileges without community comment or approval?
Keeping some of last year's questions and adding new ones. NB: I will be basing my vote on your initial answer.
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 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?
Nationalist and ethnic edit wars: In my opinion and many others', the worst problem to plague Wikipedia. Do you have any thoughts on how to solve this problem? For example, should the Arbcom be more willing to issue sanctions, such as bans, topic restrictions and revert restrictions (and if possible, maybe comment on when different types of sanctions are appropriate)? Should the community, particularly administrators, take on more of the responsibility for this problem? If so, how?
Civility: How and when to enforce civility restrictions remains controversial. How admins should enforce it is largely outside the scope of this election, so I ask you this: To what extent and how should ArbCom enforce civility? Is incivility grounds for desysopping? Banning? Are civility restrictions a good idea? To what extent is incivility mitigated by circumstances such as baiting or repeated content abuses (POV pushing, original research etc.) by others?
How will you attempt to improve ArbCom's efficiency and ensure that cases do not drag on for months?
Questions from Majorly
a) In your opinion, how important is the dispute resolution process?
b) Do you feel that it is important the community tries to resolve issues before arbcom step in?
c) Would you consider taking a case where it is clear, for example, that an admin has lost community trust, but has had no RfC, attempts at resolving the issue etc?
Would you say that arbcom are/should be too tough/too soft on editors who frequently flout community norms?
Questions from Hipocrite
Would you please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses that you have made substantive edits from?
If it's discovered that some admin (call him/her Example) is, in fact, a sock of a banned user, and that some users (including, but not only, admins) who had voted in Example's RFA knew this at the time, what measures should be taken against those voters?
Questions from EdChem
An arbitrator who is a participant in a case, and thus recused from acting in his or her official capacity, still retains access to confidential materials (mailing list posts, the ArbCom wiki, etc). Is her or his reading these materials acceptable? What (if any) use of these materials by the recused arbitrator is acceptable, and what safeguards (if any) are needed to prevent inappropriate usage? I am thinking (for example) about actions like making case-related comments on the ArbCom list, emailing editors who have submitted private evidence, and posting additional evidence / comments on wiki relevant to concerns expressed privately by the other committee members. Should inappropriate usage be dealt with publicly on wiki, or privately between ArbCom members?
Questions from Newyorkbrad
1. Bearing in mind your individual skills and interests, your familiarity with the arbitration process, and your other on- and off-wiki commitments, which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator:
(A) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
(B) Reviewing cases, carefully analyzing the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions drafted by other arbitrators;
(C) Reviewing and voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and for clarification or modification of prior decisions;
(D) Reviewing and helping to dispose of 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 granting and use of Checkuser and Oversight permissions, including vetting candidates for these privileges and supervising elections 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 checkuser if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
(H) Carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators generally are given oversight privileges also);
(I) Internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming Arbcom-l mailing list traffic, reminding colleagues of internal deadlines, and the like;
(J) Assisting with policy- and procedure-related discussions, such as working to finalize the long-pending revision of the Arbitration Policy;
(K) Other arbitration-related activities (please explain).
2. One issue on which arbitrators (and others participating in cases) frequently disagree is how "strict" versus "lenient" the committee should be toward users who misbehave and need to be sanctioned. Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, as a general matter in the types of cases that tend to lead to split votes among the arbitrators, do you think you would side more with the those tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or those who vote for a greater number of bans and desysoppings? In general terms, what types of factors might lead you to vote for a less severe sanction in a given case, and what types of things might lead you to believe that a long-term ban or a desysopping is necessary?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
