Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Feedback/Questions for the candidate

Questions from east718

 * 1) Do you feel that the Arbitration Committee takes too long to close cases? Or do you feel that they act too hastily and some important facets of cases occasionally fall through the cracks? Either way, what will you do to remedy it?
 * The average time the Arbitration Commitee takes to close cases is approximately 6-8 weeks. I believe that this time is quite reasonable. The Commitee cannot take less time because it would then be unfair to the parties involved. The Commitee needs time and dedication to a case, so they can have enough time to ponder on a completely reasonable and error-proof solution or choice. I don't believe that the Commitee needs more time to deal with a case, but if it does take more thant he average time, I would not object to it. This would just mean that the Commitee is dedicating more thought for a solution, which is what the Commitee is all about. Feed  back  ☎ 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Can you give some examples of proposed principles, findings of fact, or remedies on voting subpages that you disagree with? How about some proposals that actually passed? If you consider any completed arbitration cases to be failures in their intent, scope, or remedy, could you please name them and your reasoning why?
 * I don't believe any completed arbitration to be a failure. Failure would be a term to describe a completely negative event and outcome which we would be better off without. The Arbitration Commitee does what is write for the community and would rarely decide on a solution which has absoulutely a negative explanation and unrelevant foundation. However, all remedies the Arbitration Commitee decides on are always positive and helpful, but this does not mean that they aren't too severe or too soft. I believe that long-term bans are completely unjustifiable, even though the banned users have done the worst the can do. I believe that indefinite blocks should be used for these types of events, and give the banned user as chace at being a helpful part of our community in the future. If they choose not to, they can leave on their own choice, but we should never give up on any Wikipedian; and if they say they are now good Wikipedians, we should believe them as we should never stop assuming good faith. Your question asked for an example; well the Commitee has recently banned User:Sadi Carnot for a year, which even though has a positive effect in the community, is still unjust. A yet understandable and just ban is (Moby Dick's) who was banned in August from harrasing the other editor involved and from editing the articles he had caused most disruption of peace. Feed  back  ☎ 21:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, east. 718 at 21:26, November 20, 2007

Question from Wanderer57
Based on ‘Request for comment on user conduct’ processes that you have followed closely, how would you rate them in terms of fairness to the accused?


 * (Just to be clear. Some candidates wondered if my question was "aimed at them". I'm asking all candidates the same generic question; it is not aimed at anyone.)

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)