Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Questions/General

questions from my ACE2014 draft

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

1. Can a case be opened without presuming that sanctions will be necessary? Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

2. Do minor sanctions such as limited topic bans require specific findings that each editor named has violated Wikipedia policies or guidelines in that topic area? If an immediately prior WP:AN/I discussion did not show any support for a topic ban, should ArbCom impose one without specific findings of any violation of a policy or guideline?

3. Under what circumstances would you participate in a case where you did not read the workshop and evidence pages carefully?

4. "Stare decisis" has not been the rule for ArbCom decisions. For general rulings and findings, is this position still valid, or ought people be able to rely on a consistent view of policies and guidelines from case to case?

5. Is the "Five Pillars" essay of value in weighing principles in future ArbCom cases? Why or why not?

6. Many cases directly or indirectly involve biographies. How much weight should the committee give to WP:BLP and related policies in weighing principles, findings and decisions?

7. How would you personally define a "faction" in terms of Wikipedia editors? Is the behaviour of "factions" intrinsically a problem, or are the current policies sufficient to prevent any faction from improperly controlling the tenor of a Wikipedia article? If the committee determines that a "faction" rather than an individual editor is at fault in a behaviour issue, how would you suggest handling such a finding?

from User:Collect/ACE2014 initial draft. Collect (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Has any serious candidate answered #5 in anything but the affirmative? Protonk (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Yes. E.g.: Pillars, principles, guidelines and essays have to take a back seat, they are probably too broad to be used in committee findings, one no answer, a couple of your posited affirmatives, a semi-affirmative, another no answer, two affirmatives, a two-handed answer, I think that the pillars are used in the principals section of cases on a regular basis and that this is a good practice, what are findings but things, including explanations, that are agreed upon so as to proceed to actions?, the pertaining evidence, guidelines and policies would be of more help. are representative answers. 4 out of fourteen meet your expectations from last year. Collect (talk) 15:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Ok, cool. Apologies for framing that question too aggressively. Protonk (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• In re: question 7, how long have you been asking it and how pleased are you with the responses you've gotten? Protonk (talk) 15:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wide range of interesting responses -- many very thoughtful ones in fact. And to demonstrate one's "thinking processes" such a question is more valuable than "how does your c.v. help you here?" or the like. I find that the ones who give thought to this are generally ones whom I trust to give thought to questions while on the committee. This question dates to 2011 when it was included in the "general questions". Collect (talk) 16:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Variants of the "faction" question go back even further - 2010 for sure. In 2009 there appears to have been over 40 questions posed of each candidate. Collect (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

It appears that some truly strange questions were asked in the past - and the answers, looking at the individuals involved, are very strange as well :) Collect (talk) 00:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Litmus test questions

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

These questions are meant to provoke a response to illuminate candidate positions for the voters. I imagine these questions may be better for non-arbs rather than sitting arbs, especially to make the non-arbs more of a known quantity.

1. The case brought between the WMF and Peteforsyth et al has stalled in the face of the "superprotect" function and other WMF statements. What is your position on this case and its proposed suspension?
2. ARBCOM has in the past acted as an arbitration body, not a governing council for en-wp. Do you agree with this stance?
3. Do you forsee circumstances where ARBCOM should settle disagreements about Wikipedia content, beyond issues of user conduct?

I welcome any comments on these proposed questions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

I think (2) and (3) are already covered in the general questions draft from last year, albeit in different words. As to (1), that question can be asked, but I prefer the general question that asks the candidate to suggest cases he believes have been handled well and less well. (Given the tiny number of cases this year, I think a lot of candidates will wind up discussing this case anyway.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

(raising hand) easy questions! 1. "He who pays the piper" is the position the WMF is in - the most that could be gained was gained, but pursuing the ArbCom case was not going to get en-Wikipedia anything more. 2. Actually ArbCom does not do what is normally considered "arbitration" in the first place. It is a quasi-judicial body which can enforce sanctions on editors primarily for policy violations or violations of behavioural guidelines, where the policies and guidelines are under the control of the "community." 3. No. Collect (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Judging general questions generally

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think we should develop a framework to think about these questions and determine which kinds of questions should be included in the general slate. A few basic ideas:

1. Questions which would've been answered by a thorough candidate statement should be removed. For example, "What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?" strikes me as something that a serious candidate would've answered already.
2. Questions which refer mainly to a specific crisis de jour are likely not general. Last year it was BLPs, this year it will probably be the WMF business. These are often important questions and their answers can be valuable to voters but they aren't general in any sense. The question itself should be very different when asked to a sitting arb vs. a new candidate, as a sitting arb may be asked to expound upon their action or inaction in the case in question while a new candidate should be asked their opinion on the matter or how they would've voted were they on the committee.
3. Questions which negate their own premise should be viewed with skepticism. On the current slate we have a few questions which are basically "it's generally accepted practice for arbcom to do X, but when do you think arbcom should do !X" These invite anodyne answers or answers in which the candidate reframes current practice in their own words. Or if a candidate feels particularly strongly about some feature of arbcom which is slow or unlikely to change they might say so in their statement or in response to a properly general question.
4. Finally, questions where the answer is ultimately uninformative should be treated with skepticism. I'm looking at our question on serving 2 year terms and the frankly bizarre question on outing/harassment. What answer to either of those questions that a self-interested candidate would offer could help voters make a determination? Further, questions like these which ask candidates to speculate on fundamentally unknowable future events don't inform voters as to how they would actually behave as an arb. I could say right now that I see no barrier to serving a two year term and 6 months from now get a job on an oil rig or lose my job because some lunatic didn't like getting banned and called my boss.

We certainly have enough specific questions (between questions asked to all candidates by editors and questions directed at specific candidates) to cover the above cases. Removing questions which are insufficiently general can lighten the load of candidates and allow for better and more interesting specific questions. Protonk (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

1. I disagree - some voters will take a quick glance at the statement, and look more thoroughly at the Q&A; and some of the extremely unserious candidates will be noted by answers to such questions that are either negative or clearly evading.
2. The fact that it was a "specific crisis de jour" doesn't mean that the key issue will never become major again. This is especially the case with BLPs.
3. The question of whether the Arb candiudate accepts the premise is possibly relevant to those voters who have a stroing opinion about the premise (positive or negative).
4. As to the fourth, I would tend to agree - provioded that the question is clearly such which meets your stated criterion. For example, we don't want to have too many arbs resigning during the term - this would likely cause one 9r both of many one-year terms the next election, and ArbCom working with a low number of arbns on any given case - neither is desireable.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)Reply

We could just not do this and hardly anybody would even notice

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I think these standard questions are an exercise in futility. All this discussion goes into them, and then they are simply ignored by voters. While I have no hard evidence to substantiate that I would point out that if you look at how many user-submitted questions duplicate some part of one or more of the standard questions it seems clear that the candidate responses are generally not being read. So why waste the effort? Beeblebrox (talk) 17:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

• I agree that these are pretty pointless, but (at the risk of sounding Gilliamesque) if we're intent on being insane let's try to go about it in the sanest way possible. I don't think we're likely to remove the questions entirely so it makes sense to me to try to knock them down to 2-4 questions rather than offering a slate of 10. Protonk (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply

Attempt to reduce/reword the general questions list

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

1.What experience, either on or off Wikipedia, will you bring to the committee if elected?

2.Have you participated in any Wikipedia dispute resolutions procedures in the past?

3.Are you more generally in favour of using strong sanctions (extended bans, blocks, desysoppings) or more generally in favour of using warning processes and lesser sanctions for behavioural misconduct, looking at ArbCom sanctions placed in the past year?

4. Do you foresee any events which would prevent you from serving a full two year term?

5. Has the committee been too apt to accept cases or too unlikely to accept new cases, looking at the proposed cases in the past year?

6. Under what circumstances, if any, should the committee weigh in on policy issues on Wikipedia?

7. Many arbitrators, for various reasons, have their real life identities made public. Would such an event affect you adversely in being able to remain on the committee?

8.Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence not made known to that user?

I trust this eliminates a lot of the "d'oh" questions, and ones which require taking sides in any way on past decisions etc., as well as questions which likely are not in the purview of the candidate even if elected. Collect (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply