Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Duplication

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I think that questions 8 and 5C are pretty similar... Perhaps delete one of them? --Elonka 02:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cases and motions are, from my perspective, very different, and are treated very differently by the community and by the Arbs themselves. While I can see how you view the two questions as duplications, I personally want to keep them both, and keep them separate. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ah, thanks for the clarification, that sounds reasonable. --Elonka 14:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question 6e

Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"e) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues which you believe are being currently handled by ArbCom which should really be handled by the WMF instead?"

I don't object to the question, but it could use clarification. Division of responsibilities regarding what? Are we talking about division of responsibilities regarding privacy, division of responsibilities regarding the leak investigation, or division of responsibilities as an overall statement that goes beyond the scope of the leak? Sven Manguard Wha? 14:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm less concerned about the leak (though that's a valid topic as well), and more interested in the division of responsibilities. Right now the WMF is asking members of the Arbitration Committee to discuss these matters (see User_talk:Mdennis_(WMF)#Current status and other threads on that page). I am also thinking of Shell Kinney's reasoning for resignation, here.[1] I'd like this (what should be the line between what the WMF should be handling, and what ArbCom should be handling) to be something that's brought up to the candidates to get their thoughts on it, but am not sure on the correct phrasing. Or we could just make the question something like, "What do you think of past arbitrator Shell Kinney's reasoning for her resignation?" But that might be too specific. What do you think? --Elonka 15:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

How about replacing 6e with the below (it would become the new Q7)?

#'''Division of responsibilities:''' 
#:a) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the WMF? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?
#:b) What do you think should be the division of responsibilities between ArbCom and the community as a whole? Are there issues currently being handled by one that should really be handled by the other?

Sven Manguard Wha? 16:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Sure, that would work. --Elonka 18:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Move

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would anyone object just moving the current questions to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Questions/General and continuing development there? Monty₈₄₅ 19:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

No objection from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not really. Go ahead. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

RFC

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

{{RFC}} The Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Questions/General page contains the current draft of the mandatory questions for the Candidates in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011. Per the election RFC, we are suggested to continue discussing the questions until the nominating period begins on November 12. As the main RfC has closed, I an opening a new one here to attract additional contributions and discussion. Monty₈₄₅ 20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

• Note The project page should be full protected at 23:59 on November 11, as it will be substituted by candidates, and it is important that all candidates get the same general questions. Monty₈₄₅ 21:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I was one of the people that put this list together, and it was initially much larger than it is now. A few things to keep in mind in this RfC:

• It is beneficial to neither the candidates, nor the voters, for there to be too many questions. There are currently 20 questions (i.e. 20 parts of question that need to be individually answered). That number really should not rise to more than about 25. We don't want to overwhelm everyone.
• A great many things that could be asked, or could be asked in more detail, were ommitted in favor of questions that provided more room for the candidates to take the question in the direction that they want to take it. In 2010, the "Skills and experience" question had over a dozen parts, instead of two. By not listing every conceivable skill, we allow the candidates to pick and choose themselves which skills to advertise. It is up to an individual candidate, not the questioners, to sell that candidate to the community. Don't think of it as us giving them enough room to hang themselves, think of it as us giving them enough room to paint the picture that they want to paint.
• It is strongly advised that you discuss adding or removing questions here, before doing so in the questions page. Changes may be reverted if there is no consensus for them.

Let's not make ourselves crazy here. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Question #3

Latest comment: 13 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Question #3 has a large quote. Please link to the source of that quote, which will assist the candidates in understanding the context in which the statement was made. Risker (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Complete history of the quote. TLDR: It was an answer to a question asked in the 2008 election, which became, in slightly modified form, a question for all subsequent elections.

In the 2008 ArbCom election, Mailer Diablo asked candidates the question: "Hence or otherwise (of Q1), should ArbCom be in the business of creating new policy, amend an existing policy, or abolish any policy as a result of any outcome of a case? If so, should the community be consulted on such matters beforehand?" to which Vassyana answered: "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. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generall be allowed to resolve the matter." In the 2009 election, Davewild took the quote, verbatim, and incorporated it into the question: "In last year's election one of the successful candidates said in answer to a question "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. A discussion and the normal wiki process should generally be allowed to resolve the matter" Do you agree or disagree, and why?" In 2010, it was part of the general questions because Tony1 took the 2009 questions and copied them over to the 2010 page. Many of the 2009 questions were edited or edited out. Tony1 altered the wording during the transfer to: 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. Do you agree or disagree, and why? ...which was edited before the election to read: 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. I took that question from 2010 and incorporated it into my proposed set questions during the RfA, which then was transformed into the general questions for this election. Applicable links: 2008, 2009, 2010 1, 2010 2, 2011.

I don't believe that we should link to any of that. The context is largely irrelevant, and isn't needed to answer the question. Certainly the absence of context has not prevented people from formulating excellent responses in the previous election. Adding in links or a statement of context would be cluttering and distracting, and might taint the answers. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Well, one of the first things I learned as an arbitrator is that context is vital in understanding the underlying meaning. I seem to recall having made a very similar comment in the past about this question. In particular, I am concerned that there would be a question where candidates are expected to comment on the statements made by another candidate 3 years ago prior to the time that the person making the statement was a member of the Arbitration Committee, and when that user has not been active on the project for nearly a year, so a follow-up to that user ("Do you still feel this way?") is not viable. Risker (talk) 15:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry, but I honestly can't understand your question. I tried to guess, but since you're still online, I figure it would be best to just ask you to clarify what your concern is. Is it that Vassyana is inactive and thus people would be commenting on his statement without him being able to respond? Is it that Vassyana might have changed his mind, making repeating the statement bad? I'm really at a loss here. Sorry, Sven Manguard Wha? 16:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

My concern is the expectation that candidates be asked to comment on a position that someone took in the middle of an Arbcom election campaign three years ago. Standard questions should not revolve around the personal opinions of one particular community member, particularly one who is no longer active and who made the statement so long ago. It's reasonable to ask a question in this subject area; perhaps asking candidates to provide their interpretation of a section of a community-approved policy (like WP:ARBPOL for example, which includes this topic area) would be more appropriate. Risker (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In other words, I think Risker is suggesting that the question be asked directly, without the quotation. I agree with this suggestion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the clarification Risker. I happen to disagree with you, but I understand where you're coming from and since there really isn't any time to debate this and get additional voices, since the questions lock in 7 hours when the nomination period starts, I'll set about rewriting it. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

P.S. I really hope you're running for another term this year Risker. No offense to NYB (who I approve of, for the record) but I happen to think that you're the best Arb on the committee. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The question I came up with is as follows:

ArbCom and policies: ArbCom has not historically made or altered Wikipedia policy, and it does not include matters of Wikipedia policy in its scope of responsibilities. Policies, however, often play a role in cases brought before the Committee. Can, and should, the Committee take positions on the appropriateness, effectiveness, or clarity of policies as part of the case resolution process? If so, should ArbCom be allowed to make changes to policy directly, or recommend specific changes to policy as part of the case resolution process? Please give reasons.

Is this suitable? I'd like to get at least the two of you to sign off on it before the change is made. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, Sven. NYB correctly interpreted my comments. And thank you very much for the compliment, it means a lot to me. Risker (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I dropped a message for NYB to take a look, and if he signs off on this, or barring that, no one complains in the next hour, I'll stick it in. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

In general it looks fine, although some people might disagree with the first few words. Perhaps "ArbCom has historically taken the position that it does not make or alter policy" (which is pretty clearly true) as opposed to "ArbCom has historically not made or altered policy" (which I think is true but is more debatable). Not a big deal in either event, though. Thanks for your work on the questions, even though I don't have the opportunity or the need to answer them this year. And I certainly join in the hope that Risker will be a candidate in the election. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions by NuclearWarfare

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As the proposal to allow unlimited good-faith questions has passed, I intend to ask a fair number of them to every candidate. They are currently located at User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011/Questions. I would appreciate any comments that people wish to give. NW (Talk) 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Grammatical error

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In Question 6, Private information, please change this:

What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong in before, and in response, to the mailing list leak?

to this:

What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong before, and in response to, the mailing list leak?

This error has already been corrected on the subst'd question pages, but needs to be fixed here for future candidates. Thanks. On behalf of the election co-ordinators, Skomorokh 15:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Done Anomie⚔ 17:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Cheers Anomie, appreciate it. Skomorokh 14:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Adding questions

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So how do I add a question? Do I place it here?--Peter cohen (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

The "general" or default questions are set for this year, but you can ask candidates questions by proceeding to their /Questions subpages (e.g. Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK/Questions) and using the same format as the previous questioners. Skomorokh 23:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)Reply