Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Questions/General

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed change to Q10

I propose to reframe, or possibly complement the question "Proposals for change" to be more specific, for instance:

"If you were tasked to rewrite a new arbitration procedure with the stated goal to reduce overall drama, shorten evidence gathering and improve upon the perception of overall fairness of the process, how would your ideal arbitration procedure look like?" MLauba (Talk) 14:49, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

General Request for Comment

Questions which will be asked of all Arbitration Committee candidates need to be finalized by 00:01 November 11, when nominations will begin. I am adding the above RFC tag to request additional input. We are not going to have time for a full RFC here, so the focus should be on collaborative editing, rather then on a formal RFC style discussion. Monty845 07:36, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposed questions for all candidates
  1. The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not considered binding to any extent in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is this avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position?
  2. The "Five Pillars" essay has been mentioned in recent discussions. Ought it be used in committee findings, or is it of explanatory rather than of current direct importance to Wikipedia?
  3. Biographical articles (not limited to BLPs) form a substantial part of conduct issues placed before the committee. Without getting the committee involved in individual content issues, and without directly formulating policy, how should the committee weigh such issues in future principles, findings and decisions?
  4. "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Ought the committee be concerned about any evidence of factionalism, or is the principle of WP:CONSENSUS sufficient for any article dispute, whether a "faction" is present or not? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, is the proper course of action elimination of such a faction, or ought the decision be aimed at reducing the size of such a faction on any given article or articles?
I recognize these are not the "usual questions" but suggest they are "on point" for some of the decisions made in the past three years. Collect (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - well thought out and thorough questions. I think this would be on point and agree with you. Vacation9 12:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Given the time frame we are facing, and the lack of objection, I've added the above questions and tweaked the list, the questions are added as questions 3e, 3aii 3aiii and 5d respectively. Do either of you see any particular questions that should be removed? Monty845 16:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! I have looked over all the questions and it seems ready for the 11th. It'll be interesting to hear out this year's nominees! Vacation9 17:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(COI acknowledgement: I'm a sitting arbitrator whose term expires this year, and will be answering the questions myself if I run again.) I think the wording of question 1 is overstated. While the Arbitration Committee pages have stated since the Committee was created in 2004 that the Committee will not be bound by "precedent," at the same time we frequently decide cases with reference to principles that were developed in early cases—not because they are "binding precedent" or "stare decisis" in some legal sense, but because they are consistent with policy and with editors' expectations. And in deciding whether to sanction an editor who is a party in Case 2, we certainly are free to consider that the same editor was the subject of an adverse finding and was sanctioned or warned in Case 1. So I suggest that this question be rephrased a bit. Thanks for your consideration. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What if the question was reworded to simply ask: To what extent should past cases be precedential?? Monty845 21:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps were not considered binding to any extent in any ... which would meet the concern here? Collect (talk) 04:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the strict vs lenient dichotomy, the question is asking for candidates to express how harsh the committee should be in its decisions, so its not really a false dichotomy. The question is really asking about how aggressively the committee should use its authority to sanction editors, not to choose one extreme or the other. As for the factionalism question, it is a slightly leading, but its something that comes up, and I think that candidates should be sophisticated enough to be able to handle a somewhat leading question. Monty845 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duplication in general questions

As a potential candidate I haven't said too much about the question set, but I just noticed that general questions 5(b) and 5(d) overlap significantly. It might be worth combining them—but it should be done quickly, before candidates start answering them. Sorry not to have pointed this out sooner. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:40, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest the less explicit question be removed - the purpose is to get detailed and contemplative responses, not fast mini-essays indicating traditional boiler-plate <g> which is how many RfA questions are posed. Collect (talk) 13:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest merging and rewriting the two questions something like this. Thoughts? Happy‑melon 14:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

I think every candidate for the upcoming election should fill out the civility questionnaire which would allow !voters to scrutinize their opinion on this relevant issue. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire My76Strat (talk) 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This would actually be a really awesome thing to have happen! It's a bit late in the game, and the questionnaire is time-consuming, so it might be difficult or impossible for some candidates to complete, but I would really like to read their takes on the items in the questionnaire. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have a problem with that, though I should note that I did a fair amount of work (re-)editing the first half of the questions of the questionnaire[1]. - jc37 04:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I completed this questionnaire just now. — Richwales 08:41, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll hopefully make some significant inroads on mine by the end of the day. WormTT(talk) 08:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This questionnaire has (from the beginning) been criticized as a manipulative instrument to gain support for its authors' agenda. It certainly violates accepted standards for survey questionnaires.
Candidates may ignore it, if they wish. I would, lest I waste my time and appear to engage in a deceptive practice. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Civility_enforcement#Civility MBisanz talk 19:24, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Well, while you all are minding your manners because your positions requires it, I intend to point out just how ridiculously biased and slanted the questionnaire is. But the last time I did that on a biased survey, they decided I was a troll and ignored me (that silly gender thing). Seriously-- they didn't count me in the tally. But not to worry, Risker-- the bias in the way the thing is framed is evident. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Survey is also a classic example of tl;dr. Seriously, I've just plowed through the "executive summary" of the Leveson Report (48 pages) and it was snappy compared to that drivel. We're bound to have people who know how to frame surveys, why don't people ask for advice before circulating such things?--Scott Mac 19:08, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, for the future ... Mike Christie (talk · contribs). So, on the bias ... where did the meme that "Malleus's friends" come to his defense every time he curses take hold, anyway? How about, people who work very closely with Malleus on top content and don't agree with his cursing but do watch his page and do know that in almost every instance, the blocking or agitating admin was involved, was poking, was taunting, was behaving as bad or worse then Malleus, or failed to address the other party who was poking Malleus. To the point that it became a self-fulfilling prophecy. That Malleus became a target because of his block log. Not to excuse Malleus's language when these things happen-- I don't-- but it is not about language, it has always been about a double standard and uneven application of civility for admins and non-admins. And that this "survey" so clearly targets Malleus (without naming him) and misrepresents the issues completely really must stink from Malleus's point of view. It looks like, craft a study to get the result you want so you can use it according to a preset plan. Nice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I restored this discussion, which was improperly hatted in a one-sided fashion. (I do not object to the hatting of this entire section, and its moving or copying to another forum.)Kiefer.Wolfowitz 14:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012/Questions/General"