I asked these in the 2011 election (I was too busy to do so last year iirc) and got some favourable comments about them. As such I propose that they are considered for inclusion in the standard questions this year.

1. Are there any topic areas from which you will (almost) always recuse? If so please list them.

   This gives an idea of where to look for any potential problems, and to get an idea of their feelings about recusal.

2. If a party or observer to a case request asks you to recuse on a case, how will you respond? Will it differ if the request comes before or after you have offered an opinion about the request?

   Again this looks to find out their views regarding recusal.

3. In what circumstances can incivility be excused?

   Incivility is a perennial feature of arbitration requests, it would be useful to see a candidate's views on it. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I've read through the proposed question set and made a few minor copyedits for grammar, consistency of capitalization, and such. No substantive change is intended.

As a sitting arbitrator (though I'm not up for reelection this year), I probably shouldn't do more than that with the question set, but for what it's worth, I think some of the questions could use some updating. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 16:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Your not even up for election this year, I for one would see no a problem if you wanted to boldly update some questions. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm tempted to spend an hour and prepare a revised question set that would tailor the questions better to the Committee's current work. It will be a significant enough rewrite that I'll post it on this talkpage below, where the community can consider it and adapt those aspects it approves of, rather than make those input directly in the existing question set. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 19:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I've drafted a template {{ ACE Question}} for question and response formatting, per some comments last year. It is largely based on the format used by User:Worm That Turned last year, with some tweaks to compress it into one template.

Could probably shorten the template with a redirect like {{ ACE Q}} or {{ ACEQ}}. Thoughts? Monty ₈₄₅ 19:05, 14 October 2013 (UTC) reply

... Well, I like it ;) Worm^TT( talk) 08:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC) reply

(Note: Per the thread above, below is a working draft of a question set for 2013, tailored and updated a bit to address current issues, and simplified in formatting and wording. I've done my best to keep the questions straightforward, reasonable in number, and free of unnecessary jargon or "Bradspeak." I haven't yet put these in any particular order. Comments and questions and edits most welcome—this is just a thinking piece for the community's consideration. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)) reply

1. What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, will you bring to the Arbitration Committee if elected?
2. What experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes, both formal and informal? Please discuss any arbitration cases, mediations, or other dispute-resolution forums in which you have participated.
3. Every case is evaluated on its own merits ... but as a general matter, do you think you would you side more often with those who support harsher sanctions (bans, topic-bans, desysoppings, etc.) against users who have misbehaved, or would you tend to be on the more lenient side? What factors might generally influence your votes on sanctions?
4. Please disclose any conflicting interests, on or off Wikipedia, that might affect your work as an arbitrator (such as by leading you to recuse in a given type of case).
5. Arbitrators are elected for two-year terms. Are there any circumstances you anticipate might prevent you from serving for the full two years?
6. Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well, and one you believe it did not handle well. For the latter, explain what you might have done differently.
7. The ArbCom has accepted far fewer requests for arbitration (case requests) recently than it did in earlier years. Is this a good or bad trend? What criteria would you use in deciding whether to accept a case?
8. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures? How would you try to bring them about?
9. What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's overall role within the project? Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom, the community, and the WMF office? Does the project need to establish other governance committees or mechanisms in addition to ArbCom?
10. It is often stated that "the Arbitration Committee does not create policy, and does not decide content disputes." Has this been true in practice? Should it be true? Are there exceptions?
11. What role, if any, should ArbCom play in implementing or enforcing the biographies of living persons policy?
12. Sitting arbitrators are generally granted automatic access to the checkuser and oversight userrights during their terms. If elected, will you request these permissions? How will you use them?
13. Unfortunately, many past and present arbitrators have been subject to "outing" and off-wiki harassment during their terms. If this were to happen to you, would you be able to deal with it without damage to your real-world circumstances or to your ability to serve as an arbitrator?
14. Should the Arbitration Committee retain records that include non-public information (such as checkuser data and users' real-life identities) after the matter the information originally related to is addressed? Why or why not?
15. Under what circumstances, if any, should the Arbitration Committee take action against a user based on evidence that has not been shared with that user? That has not been shared with the community as a whole?

I realize that we already have a lot of questions, but I'd like to float the possibility of adding one more, based upon recent discussions at WT:ARB. If the consensus here is against making it a general question, I will very likely end up asking it manually of each candidate.

During the past year, the issue of confidentiality of the arbcom-l mailing list has been a topic of discussion at:

• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Thinking about the mailing list
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 13#Mailing list, again
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 14#Mailing list
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 14#You've got mail(ing list)
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 15#Seeking feedback on draft language about the mailing list, and
• Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee#Checking back

What are your views about how confidentiality on the mailing list should be handled?

I think it might be appropriate to put this question in place of (rather than in addition to) what is now Question 4-d, "ArbCom Practices: Private information". -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd be uncomfortable with that. For one thing, every single link you put there were threads which you started, which implies this is an issue which you see as important, but that view is not necessarily shared by the rest of the community. More importantly though, question 4-d discusses a much broader area with respect to private information and there are are areas which it is important that the potential arbitrators should consider. Worm^TT( talk) 09:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

My reason for providing the links was to provide candidates the background to the issue. (Note Risker's comment at WT:ARB about not wanting to confront newly-elected members right after the election with an RfC if the issue comes to them as a surprise.) The reason there are so many links is... well, if you have to ask, you'll never know. As I hope you know from the discussions, this will be an issue the new Committee will face, because I intend to start a community RfC about it after the election unless the current Committee adopts something similar from the draft in Risker's user space. I'm perfectly receptive to discussion about pruning some or most of the links, and about keeping the existing Q 4-d with something like this added to it (instead of as a replacement). I'll also point out that there's a case to be made that 4-d deals to some extent with events that are now somewhat in the past. But, in any case, if the sentiment here is against making this a general question, I am entirely OK with just asking it myself as an individual question. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Apologies for the delay in replying. I'd be happy with something similar (with pruned or at least minimised links) as part of 4-d, and I'd also be happy with some pruning of 4-d, as you say it is rather in the past. Worm^TT( talk) 08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Oh, no problem, and thanks for that very helpful answer. Let me take you up on that. Taking into account what you have said here, I'd like to propose the following revision of question 4-d:

d) Private information: With particular reference to the arbcom-l mailing list:

i) Currently, much of ArbCom business is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?

ii) What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?

iii) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee? If yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?

iv) To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to see evidence used in Arbitration proceedings? To what extent, if any, do Users have the right to question witness' statements against them?

v) If your real identity is not already widely known, do you intend to publicly identify yourself if elected?

In writing that, I reordered and condensed the existing sections, in order to make the issues more current, and less focused on the leak that happened a few years ago. I created a new part ii, as a revision of what I originally suggested as a question. It still has two links, but the first is to Risker's draft page, and the second is to the one discussion at WT:ARB where there was draft language. Does that work better? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd be happy with that, certainly. Looks like you've done a good job there! Worm^TT( talk) 06:45, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

That's very nice of you to say that, thanks! So, let me ask other editors watching here if we have consensus to make this the new question 4-d. Do we? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:04, 22 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I would like to urge that we not have a new question "4-d", or an old question "4-d", or any other lettered subquestions, much less with roman-numeraled subparts ("4-d-i", "4-d-ii", etc.) to be answered individually. From my experience as a candidate in 2010 and 2012, I can tell you that simply dealing with the formatting of the question set, and making sure that everything remained well-formatted and readable (and that readers could readily tell the questions from the answers, etc.) took a completely inordinate amount of time, and mistakes were still made, by me and lots of other candidates. It's also too easy to miss a subquestion or sub-sub-question along the way. I urge that we simplify the question set both substantively and my simply numbering the questions consecutively. The simplified question set posted immediately above is one possible approach in that regard, but of course there are many others. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 22:55, 23 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I can attest to that. I've been a candidate in two of elections and found the questions gruelling to say the least. Especially considering the number of other general questions which got put on by other people with interests. I was quite exhausted by the end of it. However, since there are only 10 people watching this page - perhaps you'd like to take step to bring this to a wider audience? Worm^TT( talk) 06:32, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I have to be offline most of the day today, but if you or someone could cross-post this as appropriate, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, I'll do it tonight. Thanks. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 13:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree with you both. As someone who has "merely" been a voter, I find the format quite hard to read, when I want to learn what the candidates think. I think a format of question 1, question 2, and so on, perhaps with grouping by topics under headings, would work better, with each numbered question just a short and simple question without sub-questions. Of course, then, there would need to be enough questions to cover enough issues. My apologies to Brad and to the other editors who have suggested simpler questions for not commenting earlier about that, but my available time for editing has been limited lately. Anyway, the one thing I really feel strongly about is that, if we change to a short-question format, I want one of those short questions to be something close to number "ii" in my draft just above. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm having a difficult time understanding the format issue difficulties. I am sure the questions themeselves can be diffcult and time consuming but if one takes and copies the code and answers under each question (if only with 'See my response to 1.b, above') then it's done, eg.:

1. Skills and experience:

   a) What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the Committee if elected?

   Answer: 'I like wiffleball, blah bah blah'

   b) What kinds of personal experience have you had with the Wikipedia dispute resolution processes? If applicable, please provide links to Arbitration cases where you have been involved, or offered an uninvolved statement or evidence.

   Answer: "I referee wiffleball blah blah blah

2. Conflict of interest:

   a) Please disclose any conflict of interest that might affect your service on the Committee?

   Answer: I am unaware of any such conflict of interest, blah blah, blah

--What am I missing? Alanscottwalker ( talk) 11:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC) reply

1. An arbitrator stated during a case I will merely say that now arbitration of the dispute has became necessary, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would be able to close the case without any sanctions. Problematic articles inevitably contain disruptive contributors, and disruptive contributors inevitably require sanctions. Do you feel that once a case is opened that impartial arbitrators will "inevitably" have to impose sanctions?

2. Do sanctions such as topic bans require some sort of finding about the editor being sanctioned based on at least a minimum amount of actual evidence about that person, or is the "cut the Gordian knot" approach of "Kill them all, the Lord will know his own" proper?

3. Do you feel that "ignoring evidence and workshop pages" can result in a proper decision by the committee" (I think that for the large part, the evidence and workshop phases were ignored in this case is a direct quote from a current member about a case) Will you commit to weighing the evidence and workshop pages in making any decisions?

4. Past Cases: The Arbitration Committee has historically held that prior decisions and findings were not binding in any future decisions or findings. While this may have been wise in the early years of Wikipedia, is any avoidance of stare decisis still a valid position? How should former cases/decisions be considered, if at all?

5. 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?

6. 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?

7. "Factionalism" has been seen by some as a problem on Wikipedia (many different names for such factions have been given in the past). Do you believe that factionalism is a problem? Should committee decisions be affected by evidence of factionalism, in a case or around an article or articles? If the committee makes a finding that "factions" exist as part of a conduct issue, how should factionalism be treated in the remedies to the case?

The latter questions were asked in the 2012 elections, and I found the answers in general to be quite useful in determining the positions of the candidates. If they are not asked on the main query page, I shall certainly ask them all of each candidate, so I rather think that the sensible course is to ask them directly of all. Collect ( talk) 22:10, 28 October 2013 (UTC) reply

It looks so much clearer and is streamlined. Let's not encourage candidates to fluff up the language of their responses. Could NYB's version be used? Tony (talk) 09:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Not loving the lack of a question about civility, since people are still bringing that to ArbCom, but I do think these are generally better done. Conciseness is good where possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2013 (UTC) reply

This is far too many "general" questions. Try to pare it down to 5-7 total; there are currently 29 questions. That's really all anyone needs, because in reality everyone knows the answers to give in order to get elected. But let's look at some specifics:

• Conflict of interest: Anyone who says they've received nothing of monetary value in any Wikimedia role is lying through their teeth, even if they've not received a single penny, been awarded a scholarship, or anything else. The reason? Having "Wikipedia volunteer" on one's resume has been a valuable addition that has definitely assisted several editors in netting gainful employment. Simply editing this project has a real monetary value.
• Arbcom practices section: Reduce this to no more than 4 questions. Right now there are 14. (Just because they're grouped doesn't mean they aren't individual questions.)
  • Five pillars: the desired response is obvious from the bias of the question.
  • Private information: Way, way too many questions, most of which would require advanced knowledge of the actual use of, and contents of, the mailing lists.
  • Division of responsibilities: pointless questions, since these delineations have been essentially set in stone since before I joined the committee almost 5 years ago, and there is zero reason to think this will change. If candidates think it should change, they should answer in the "what will you try to change" question.
• Challenges facing the project: Remove this entirely. None of those questions are within the ambit of Arbcom, and the general questions should not encourage this sort of off-topic meandering. It only encourages others to add off-topic questions.
  • In particular, remove the "factionalism" question, which links to a page that has little to do with factionalism. It's the Wikipedia:Tag team page (and it's a double redirect at that - come on people, you're supposed to be editors!).
• Add "2013 motions" to the "reflections on 2013 cases" as an option for someone to include a motion that was handled well/poorly.

When I was a candidate 2 years ago, there were 19 "general" questions; each year, the general questions become more bloated and the "best" answers more obvious. Let's nip this in the bud now. Risker ( talk) 03:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As per my threads above, I fully agree with Risker that there are too many questions, and too many convoluted questions. I don't know that I agree with asking as few as 5 general questions, but most of her comments here make eminent sense. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 05:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It's rather doubtful that everyone puts "Wikipedia volunteer" on their resume, but if the arbitrator candidate views that as a "conflict of interest" that is useful information on their thinking. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:30, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Alanscottwalker, one of the questions asks "Have you ever been paid or received anything of monetary value related to your position as an editor, an administrator, or the holder of any other position of trust on any Wikimedia project?" That's not my definition of conflict of interest, it's someone else's, and it's one that I think is quite ludicrous but is reflective of the current obsession with "paid editing" which, once again, has nothing to do with Arbcom. Whether or not a candidate thinks it's a conflict is immaterial, because that's not the question. This is a trap question because answering truthfully will increase the likelihood of failure, but answering "gosh no, I've never received a penny!" without realizing that the full question is "did you get reimbursed for your travel from the chapter, did you get a free t-shirt in recognition of your edits, did you receive a wikimania scholarship, or did SomeBigCorp. pay you gazillions to fix their article?" will also be used as weapon to go after someone. Risker ( talk) 12:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

It is hardly difficult to answer that ("Other than a Tshirt and travel reimbursement to ___ because I was a__, I cannot think of anything." if that is how the candidate thinks about that question) and it is not just the answer that is of interest, it is the thinking that goes in the answer. You mean how they answer questions is what people will base their decisions on? That is their purpose. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:52, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree with Risker here. Whether someone has received any money from the Foundation or a chapter is not of relevance to their suitability as an arbitrator. Keep the questions simple, and ask people the questions you want them to answer. If someone answers in such a way that you want more clarity then ask them a followup question. Whatever you do, do not ask "have you stopped beating your wife?" questions because they are not relevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

What? There is nothing leading in the question. Moreover, if the answer says, "I assume you don't mean my Wikimedia Foundation or chapter work, but other than that I have not." That's thier answer. Regardless, they will probabely have talked about thier foundation and chapter work already. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The focus on that one particular question (which personally I don't mind being asked) seems to have derailed discussion of the broader issue of restructuring the question set. With the election soon to start, I am quite surprised that these threads haven't received a lot more attention. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

We generally don't get enough participation here. I think that may be in part because even if someone doesn't get their preferred questions here, they can just ask them as individual questions. Anyway, I've replaced the questions with your proposal, as a starting point, perhaps the change will spark a flurry of discussion before the deadline at 00:01 Sunday. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, that's a little bit more radical a move than I might have suggested :) but we'll see what the comments are. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I agree, this is a daunting list of questions especially considering that any Editor can throw even more questions at the candidate, no matter how obscure the subject. Seriously, I don't know how anyone could tackle all of these questions without doing substantial time researching, writing and revising ones responses. The "popular" answers (do they really exist?) don't seem at all obvious to me but, then, this is the first election I've been through. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• I can tell you as a candidate last year I found answering the long list of questions an exercise in futility as it was pretty clear that almost nobody reads the replies, they just add their own questions. Candidates feel they must be accommodating so they go ahead and answer the whole massive pile of them, which takes several hours if you want to give real, honest, answers and then they sit there more or less unread because even reading all that takes longer than most users are going to bother with. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• I've been away from editing for a while, and, seeing Monty's effort to move discussion along, I want to say that the move to a simpler set of questions is something I support. But I also want to add one more question that I raised in a section higher up on this talk page. I suggest adding the following question:

16. What are your views about possible changes to procedures concerning the confidentiality of communications on the arbcom-l e-mail list, as proposed at the bottom of this draft page and in this discussion?

Consistent with what I see other folks saying here, if the consensus is against adding this question, I will most definitely ask it individually of every candidate. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Woops, am I correct that I'm saying this too late, and I will have to ask it manually? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 01:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Minor issue: I see we have "Identify a recent case or situation that you believe the ArbCom handled well" & "Are responsibilities properly divided today among the ArbCom" but then "What role, if any, should ArbCom play" & "What changes, if any, would you support in ArbCom's procedures". Is there a rule about this? Mark Arsten ( talk) 21:28, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Heck -- I refer to a musical group " Beatles" <g> so I see no reason for ArbCom to need a definite article when that group does not in most usages. Collect ( talk) 23:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Since "ArbCom" is really just slang/shorthand/jargon rather than the actual name of the committee, there is really no need to be grammatically correct. Or to put it another way, what is correct is determined by actual usage, and the prevailing usage seems to be to drop the article and just say "ArbCom." If someone wants to add "the", that's ok, but it is not required. Now that this crucial issue is out of the way, let's hope we get some good candidates! Neutron ( talk) 03:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I believe the correct usage would be either "the Arbitration Committee" or "Arbcom" (i.e., the article is used with the full name, but not the abbreviation). Risker ( talk) 07:18, 10 November 2013 (UTC) reply