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

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Questions from Majorly
These are generic questions, so apologies if you've answered them elsewhere :)


 * 1) How do you think that your personality would make you a good arbitrator?
 * Well, I've tried to answer this in my statement, but to expand a little, I think I stay calm in most disputes on the project. I try and guide people through them rather than escalate issues. I actually find the arbitration process interesting as well which is important when you are expected to keep going for three years. I also believe I communicate well with other users, which I believe is essential - if someone has a problem, I try my hardest to help them. If someone has a query about any aspect of my editing, or anything I'm involved in here, I strive to answer as quick as possible - this is important so people aren't left in the dark. Lastly, I think I can be firm, but fair as an administrator which I strongly believe should be an attribute of an arbitrator. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?
 * Hmmmm, this is a tough one - I'm a soccer referee if that counts? Actually I guess in some ways it is similar to being an arbitrator; I have to deal with misconduct in a manner that would not make a situation worse, I have to strive to make the game flow, allowing all participants of it to do a better job, but sometimes, I have to discipline players when all other methods such as discussion have failed, to protect the match from disruption. Ryan Postl et hw ai te  02:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time.  Majorly  (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from east718
Thanks, east. 718 at 02:06, 11/1/2007 02:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * That's a very good question. I hear a lot of people say that arbitration doesn't move fast enough, but it's also important to remember that every member of the community should be given ample opportunity to have their say in a case before it progresses, so, as you say, things don't fall through the cracks. As an arbitrator, I think I'd spend a lot of time in discussion on the worshop pages, it's important to note everyones feelings on the case. I have to say, one current problem is that there are often cases that sit with no progress made on them for a long time - I'd try and speed these cases up, going through evidence and writing up proposals for voting so we sort disputes out in the quickest possible manor, but without sacrificing the quality of findings. Ryan Pos<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  02:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Normally, I'd put a personal question here, but I don't know anything about you. This space is reserved. Couldn't find anything useful as you seem to be one of the everyman admins, so you get another hardball. 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?
 * Generally speaking, I think the committee have made the right decisions in most of the cases that they have worked on. I'd like to draw attention in particular to Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. By the end of the case, there were a lot of people calling for Jeffrey_O._Gustafson to be desysopped, but the committee instead used their judgement and only suspended his adminship for 30 days. Jeffrey recognises that this short suspension has made him see things in a different light and he has become much better at communication since. I was a little disapointed at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from I

 * 1) What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committe? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? i <font color="Black">(talk) 02:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think on occasion, the arbitrators don't give enough weight to the communites views from the workshop pages. I've noted above that I would spend more time in the workshop, talking through the dispute with users. I'm a strong believer that the community can still sort out it's own disputes, even after a case has been accepted for arbitration. The workshop is the best place to get the views of all sides across - even the arbitrators. I'd also like to see more of an open arbitration committee, willing to discuss its actions when concern is raised - generally speaking, I think they're actually quite good at this, but there have been times when actions seem to come out of the blue with little explanation afterwards. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  02:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Picaroon

 * Please see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 and User:Picaroon/Stats. Do you have time to vote on most of the approximately eight cases a month that will come before the committee? Would you resign your post if you found yourself consistently (say, 2-3 months on end) unable to even get near that goal? Under what conditions besides inactivity would you resign your post?
 * I've watched arbitration pages for quite a while now so I am under no illusion as to how much work there is involved. I believe I'm active enough to be able to participate in the vast majority of cases. If an arbitrator becomes inactive for an extended period, then resignation is the correct thing to do so the committee can move forward efficiently. The only reason I'd resign my post apart from inactivity would be for conduct issues on my behalf. I believe the committee should set an example to the community, if I did something that made this untenable, then I would leave and allow someone better suited to take the role. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what conditions should non-arbitrators be granted access to the arbcom mailing list? Former members, checkusers/oversights who have never been on the committee, board members, others?
 * I'm a strong believer that only the arbitrators and Jimbo should have access to the ArbCom mailing list. The list should be there for discussion among arbitrators, and I see a lot of former members are still on the list. If the community no longer wishes for someone to be an arbitrator, then I don't believe they should still help make the decisions by private discussion. I can however understand that sometimes checkusers should be given access to the list if they are doing investigations for the committee. I can't see any viable reason why board members should have access to the list. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you show an example or two of a normal case (ie, accepted via committee vote on WP:RFAR, not dismissed without remedies) where you largely disagree with the final decision? Please explain why you disagree with the outcome, and say what you would've supported instead (or, alternately, why the case shouldn't have been accepted).
 * I was a little disapointed at Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee. I would probably have been more inclined to support a decision where any administrator could place an editor under supervised editing where there is evidence that they have acted disruptively on pages relating to the case, rather than just one specific type of disruption. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please list the total number of alternate accounts you have used, and please list the usernames of as many as you feel comfortable making public.
 * I've registered three accounts here. Obviously this is my main account, I also had User:Ryanpostlethwaiteontheroad which was for use on public computers, but unfortunately I lost the password. My alternate account now is Mclovin. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should a case be heard completely via email, as opposed to onwiki? Under what conditions should the committee block a user without making public the full extent of the reasoning (for example, this user)?
 * I think cases should be heard in private when there is clear risk of invading someones privacy/ If the only evidence for a case is going to "oust" someone, then the committee should make the decisions behind closed doors. It's important however that, after the case, the arbitrators fully explain the reasons behind having a case via email. Another good reason why the arbitrators should kere a case by email is when the prjects integrity is at stake by having on-wiki discussion about it, cases that spring to mind here are the paedophile advocacy blocks - where on wiki discussion could seriously damage wikipedia's credability and have real life issues for the people involved. The Melsaran block was a prime example of a case that had to be heard in private, I believe this was due to privacy concerns so it was the correct thing to do. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Jimmy Wales desysop of a few days ago? (see Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/My desysop of Zscout370‎)? What should he have done differently, if anything? What role should the committee have had in this?
 * I think I made my feeling known about this at Jimbo's RfC, but to emphasise, I'm a strong believer that as a community, we need a leader to move us in the right direction, and sometimes, to simply crack the whip. If people undo an action from Jimbo, then they should expect the possibility of some repercussions. The arbitration committee would have been an ideal group for Jimbo to discuss both the block and desysopping with before hand (I'm not sure if this did occur). As the community reacted in the way it has done to Jimbo's actions, I think a review from the arbitration committee could well be a good idea, if only to show transparency. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Under what circumstances should the committee implement an indefinite ban on a user? Under what conditions should probation/supervised editing be instituted instead of a ban of any duration?
 * The committee should issues bans when there is no other action that would remove the disruptive behaviour to the project. I've said it a number of times now, but probation or editing restrictions often stop problematic behaviour in their tracks and wherever possible, should at least be tried before users editing rights are removed. I don't think it's a good idea for the committee to indefinitely ban a user, a year is long enough for most users to think about their editing patterns - and if the problematic behaviour continues post the ban, then it is easily revisted. The only time I think the committee should indefinitely ban a user is if there are real legal threats(although the community should be easily able to deal with this), or a threat of massive disruption if the user was ever to return/ Reform is always better than banishment. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What constitutes a wheel war? Was the Requests for arbitration/BJAODN situation a wheel war? How about Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot and Requests for arbitration/Alkivar? Thanks for your time, Picaroon (t) 02:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer using the the traditional thought that a situation becomes a wheel war on the third action (i.e. Admin A deletes a page, Admin B restores it and Admin C deletes it again) if there is not a strong consensus to repeat the original action. However, it's my belief that an administrator should discuss any undoing of another administrators action thoroughly before acting, and a good place for that is AN/I. I disagree that the BJAODN dispute was a wheel war, the issue happened in two stages and a lot of time passed inbetween each one, there was also a lot of dicussion into the restoration of the pages upon the initial deletions. The Sadi Carnot blocking and unblocking was a sad situation, I believe that it did constitue a wheel war as administrators blocked and unblocked numerous times when both sides didn't really have a consensus to do so. With regards to Alkivar, I believe this is a good definition of a wheel war; when an admin blocks a user and someone else unblocks a user leading to the original blocking admin reinstating the block without discusion - in my opinion that is extremely bad practive for an admin to reinstate his block/deletion when someone has already undone it once. I don't believe however that one wheel war action by an administrator should lead to ArbCom discipline, if it was inappropriate, an RfC would be the best course of action at first to give the admin time to respond to the concerns and change the way he acts in the future. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions by Jaranda/Jbeach56

 * What do you think about self-admitted alternative accounts, see User:MOASPN, and User:Privatemusings as an example? Jbeach sup 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are often some very good reasons why users have secret accounts, often due to real life concerns or privacy issues - I think these are very good reasons for someone to have them. However, I also believe that the owner of the account has a responsibility to tell a couple of trusted users the name of their main account so contributions can be checked and it can be vouched for that the account is not being used abusively. If no-body knows what the main account is, then there is no accountability for the editing so no-one would know how both accounts are interacting which I believe to be a violation of WP:SOCK. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you think of Wikipedia Review? Jbeach sup 03:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If Wikipedia review was a site that allowed people to raise valid concerns about how wikipedia works and the general reliability of the project I think it would have a valuble place here and we could all learn something from it. But this isn't the case. Wikipedia review quite often attempts to harass other users and has attempted to out a number of high profile wikipedians, it's not there for accountability purposes. There are a lot of users that operate there that we have banned or blocked from editing, and troll the forum looking to stir trouble - we should take it as a pinch of salt and get on with what we do best. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Heimstern
My questions are kind of nitty-gritty, but I'm not looking for really specific answers as much as trying to see your thought process and approaches to the issues.

1. What is your philosophy on how to handle edit warriors? Under what circumstances should the Committee ban users who continually edit war, and when should they use lesser sanctions, such as paroles or editing restrictions? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding what sanctions are appropriate?
 * I like to think that all edit warriers can change, and should be given a chance to before severe remedies such as bans should be given. If no community or ArbCom editing restrictions have been tried prior to the case coming in front of the committee, then I believe a revert parole is an appropriate measure. What you have to take into account is a users history of edit warring, and although a block log can tell a lot, it doesn't paint the full picture - some users game the system to avoid 3RR blocks. If there is very severe edit warring, then a one-revert-per-page-per-week parole/restriction could be used, for less severe cases, a one-revert-per-page-per-day parole/restriction could be adopted. I think the committee should be more open to looking at prior cases if there is continued edit warring from a user post a decision made by the committee, and that's something that I would like to try and do. If everything else fails, then a ban is an appropriate measure. You should also put other things into the equation such as civility and other general disruption to the project - which may lead to more or less severe measures. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?
 * Similar to the above I like to see civility paroles put in place before we banish users from the community, the problem with this is that they are hard to enforce. It's important that the committee considers all other factors regarding the incivility, especially if the attacks were provoked. If they were, then remedies should apply to all involved. If a user has constantly acted in a incivil manor, and been provided with opportunities to change, then the collaborative environment that is Wikipedia may not be the place for them, and a ban should be considered. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

3. When should an administrator be desysopped? In particular, how should a sysop's failings be weighed against his or her useful administrative actions, and when do the failings merit removal of adminship? When, if ever, is it appropriate to use a temporary suspension, such as was used in Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?
 * I think some administrators take a lot of abuse for the work they do (especially the admins that deal with images) and occasionally, there's premature attempts at getting an admin desysopped. Something that the committee must consider is whether the admin in question still has the trust of the community, if this is the case then they should be no desysopping. The committee should also recognise that admins do make mistakes; an admin that has made 100,000 actions and made 100 mistakes could probably be excused, but an administrator with 200 actions and 100 mistakes probably hasn't got the right ethics to be an admin so should be desysopped. If dispute resolution methods have been tried and there are still serious problems with how an administrator acts with the tools, then a desysopping should probably be considered. What the committee must do is make sure an administrator isn't being lynched for one big mistake and thoroughly evaluation the admins actions over an extended period. I'm not normally in favour of temporary desysoppings - admins are either trusted or they aren't, but the case of Jeffrey O. Gustafson has opened my eyes somewhat, he himself has admitted that since the restoration of his tools, he looks at things with a new and improved outlook and takes more care when acting. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?
 * If an editor is community banned, the community has decided that they do not wish the user to edit here any more. I'm a strong believer that the committee shouldn't overide community consensus and if a user has requested an appeal of their ban, the committee should discuss this with the community before making a decision - in many ways they should let the community hear the appeal. A time when the committee should hear an appeal of a community ban is when there is an administrator willing to unblock the user, despite many others not wanting that - this can cut down on misuse of admin tools and stop wheel wars before they happen, making a more tranquil environment for us all to work in and allow thorough investigation of the users contributions. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

5. Two recent cases, Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, were dismissed with no decision made after the Committee had been unable to come to a decision concerning wrongdoing or sanctions. In both cases, the arbitrators seem to have felt that the cases' issues were no longer current, either because the community had resolved the issue or because a participant was no longer active at Wikipedia. Now, consider a similar situation in which the Committee cannot agree on finding concerning user conduct or on appropriate sanctions, but in which the case issues are clearly current What should be done in such a case?

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A major problem you highlight is the arbitration committee taking too long to make decisions on cases. An important aspect to remember is that although the dispute may have calmed down - there was also questionable conduct which led to the case being accepted - this is fine if the community has handled the dispute and come up with its own remedies, but if not, and it's simply a case of not being current, then sanctions are probably still needed to stop the dispute happening again. If the committee is finding it hard to decide on appropriate sanctions then compromises should be sort so that a majority of arbitrators can decide on sufficient remedies to end the dispute. Public discussion between arbitrators and the community can often help, but I believe it's important that in these cases, dicussion continues until something appropriate is put on the table. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 04:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting question. I'm a scientist myself and I can assure you that a scientific point of view is not always neutral. The problem with science articles here is that they are open to original research, which in many ways doesn't give a neutral point of view. If scientific information is backed up with reliable sources, then it most probably will conform to a neutral point of view. NPOV and SPOV are very similar in the respect that they must show both sides of the story, and both should be well sourced, if there is science going against a particular theory stated in an article, then it should also be included. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Sean William

 * 1) In your opinion, what is the best way to deal with revert-warriors brought before ArbCom?
 * 2) What is your opinion about revert parole (1RR limitations, etc.)?
 * 3) What is your opinion about civility parole (also known as personal attack parole)?

Thanks. Sean William @ 16:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's OK with you, I'd like to answer all those questions together. I'm a strong believer that revert parole works, and gives users a chance to change their ways before stronger remedies are applied. That said, I think that if a user has already been given a chance with community paroles or other arbitration paroles then they have had their chance and bans should be considered. I said it further up this page, if I was appointed, I would like the arbitration committee to re-examine cases should the paroles they give decide on fail to work. If there are further concerns raised that editors are not changing, then a review of the case should be undertaken. I have a similar position on civility parole, we should give users a chance to change - however, civility parole is hard to enforce and more traditional methods such as mentorship may be a better option (provided a suitable mentor can be found). Often incivility and revert warring go hand in hand, and this may speed up the need for severe remedies. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xaosflux

 * 1) As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants.  Thank you, — <font color="#FF9933" face="monotype">xaosflux  <font color="#00FF00">Talk 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * I think it's important due to the serious nature of the work of checkusers and oversighters that they are only appointed when absolutely required (i.e. when the current checkusers and oversighters are no longer able to cope with the work level). At present, as far as I'm aware, we don't need any new oversighters, but there is a large back log at RFCU, and I think a couple of extra checkusers to help in that area. Obviously, these would have to be trusted members of the community, but I don't believe a public vote is a good way to appoint them, hence why the ArbCom deal with these appointments. It's important that when check users are needed, everyone is given the opportunity so the committee should publisise they are looking for them, a larger candidate pool will lead to better users being chosen to get the flag. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Lar

 * 1) A perennial issue with ArbCom is the increasing caseload. What do you personally think of the idea of splitting the caseload somehow so that not all active arbitrators participate in every case? Possible ways are self selected per case, split the arbcom into two parts semi permanently and assign randomly or round robin or by current case load (some cases are more work than others), split cases by jurisdiction (subject area or nature of case, perhaps) or other ways (which did I miss?). Please discuss the technical issues, pros and cons of this idea as a way to gain insight into your thinking about the Arbitration Committee in general. Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages)
 * I think the committee is small enough already, if we were to split the committee in two, then we have problems on them coming to a sensible consensus on cases. A smaller committee would give too much power to one arbitrator, and if a couple of arbitrators were against what the rest of the committee saw as good principles, it would slow down the cases further and could lead to fewer appropriate remedies being adopted. There's also a problem with inactive arbitrators - this has been a major problem recently, and if assigned arbitrators to different cases then you could see motions adopted with vote from as little as three people. I think the best thing to do to help with the increasing work load is for the arbitrators to work harder :-) <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If the committee were larger (and the inactivity issue addressed so we didn't have 3x the arbitrators but exactly as many active ones as before, for example), would this be a viable idea? If so, how much larger, and if not, why not? ++Lar: t/c 20:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If there was a larger committee then this may be possible, but then you run the risk of different sections of the committee coming up with different remedies - an inconsistency in a part of the project that shouldn't have any. If this were to happen, then maybe 20-24 arbitrators would be a good number, but time will be wasted selecting arbitrators for partuclar cases when the most important thing is solving the dispute. One change that might be a good idea is having stand in arbitrators that step into the shoes of inactive arbitrators so the activity of the committee doesn't diminish. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "WP is not a democracy", "WP is not an experiment in governance or social justice", "WP is not fair", "There is an inherent right to edit WP by all", "Some people may act in good faith but are nevertheless not suited to working on this project, despite best intent". Which of these statements do you agree or disagree with? Why or why not?  Thank you! ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC) (Note:Generic question for all candidates, other candidates are WELCOME to copy this question in to their subpages, thanks for the idea Xaosflux!)
 * One of the main statements I agree with here is that we are not an experiment in governance - we are all equal on the project and every user (when acting in a non disruptive manner) deserves to have their say and all users should be able to discuss issues with each other on a level playing field. I disagree that everyone has a right to edit here - I only believe they do if they are acting in good faith. If a user has disrupted the project then they are simply not welcome, and arbitration and community bans show that not everyone has a right to edit here. I believe mostly that wikipedia is fair, we have plenty of users here and consensus usually gets to the bottom of disputes, but I would agree that there may be cases of the project not being fair in areas where less people participate. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Question(s) from Porcupine

 * 1) Does the rise in Wikilawyering - in the sense of taking the words of policies literally rather than the spirit - on Wikipedia, in particular respect to the 3RR and No Original Research concern you? Why?
 * It's important that we take policies by the spirit that they are meant, rather than the letter, although I'm of the opinion that if a policy is wrong, then it should be fixed to make it clear as to how it should be interpreted - but the spirit of the policy should only be used if it of benifit to the project. With respect to 3RR, I think it works fine as it is currently enforced, any blocks should be preventative in nature and if there's multiple edit warriers, page protection may be a better idea than a block for all involed, allowing the users to discuss changes on the talk page, I don't think a three revert rule violation should automatically result in a block, if a user has reverted more, and then realised their mistake and promised no further reverts on the page, then a block would only serve as punitive sanction. With regards to no original research, I think a firm approach is required to keep the project credible, if there's no citation available, then maybe this isn't the place to state the statment. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If you answered yes to the above, then how would you use your role as arbitrator to positively affect the issue?
 * I guess as an arbitrator I'd enforce policy in the way that any other user should do, it's not an arbitrators job to dictate the policy. I think this goes back to earlier points that I've made about it being important for the arbitration committee to interpret the community consensus. If the consensus of the community is that a policy should be interpreted in a particular way, then that's what arbitration findings should be based upon. I've said in my statement that I believe I'm in touch with the community, and I believe I understand the way we interpret most policies. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you balance the general sentiment against wheel-warring with the unblock template and other methods of easy-block-appeal? I personally think that if WP:WHEEL is to be interpreted in such a way as to outlaw the casual overturning of another admin's decision, then it is commonly broken - and rightly so - and ought to be scrapped. Would you agree?
 * I'm under the impression that the unblock template is a right of appeal for any blocked user. If a neutral admin decides a user should be unblocked, I still believe they should attempt discussion with the blocking administrator rather than straight unblock. I wouldn't class an unblock without discussion from a user using the unblock template a wheel war, more a case of bad form. I see a wheel war as multiple reversions of admin actions, not a block and then unblock. The term "wheel war" is an important concept and shows admins repeated undoings and reapplications of admin actions are serious matters. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Would you expect admins to back each other up, and generally support each other's decisions, save in very exceptional cases? Why?
 * Admins shouldn't back each other up if they don't agree, that suggests that admins are on a different level to the regular user. The project is built on differences of opinions and generally benifits from this. Admins make mistakes, and if they occur, they should be rectified by users comminicating with the admin and trying to point out the perceived errors. If all admins agreed with each other and backed each other up, then we'd have a hierachy of power which would lead to administrators making all the decisions and non admins having no say - that wouldn't be good for the project. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to answer these questions; they may be worded misleadingly with respect to my own, personal views! --Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 18:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from CO

 * 1) Question one: Is consensus really possible with over 200 people commenting on different processes?
 * Answer: In most discussions there is a consensus possible, even with a high number of people commenting. For serious issues, I think this is where the arbitration committee can help when no consensus can be found. They can take a logical look at the different points of view and attempt to find where the true consensus lies. In many ways, the committee can act as a neutral observer and make rulings after looking over everything. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Question two: Does Wikipedia need some sort of governing body? If no, isn't ArbCom a governing body? If yes, what would you propose?
 * Answer: I think the main governing body that wikipedia has is the WMF board - they only act in the most serious of circumstances to dictate policy. This is important to keep the project organised and inline with certain legal requirements. I'm a strong believer that any community needs a leader, and here we have Jimbo. Jimbo only steps in when he feels he has to, but when he does, he should be respected. Someone keeping tabs over everything is important for when disputes get out of hand - if he has to discipline some users because of this, then he will have the projects interests at heart. I don't think the arbitration committee is a ruling body - it's simply here as a final step in dispute resolution, for when the community has failed to solve disputes. If this was a ruling body then it would dictate policy, but this is not within the scope of the arbitration committee and is instead entrusted to the community. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  00:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Question three: Do you think ArbCom and Wikipedia groups in general (such as MEDCOM) need to be more open?
 * Answer: I think groups such as the arbitration committee and the mediation committee need to be more open to discuss issues when the community has concerns about them. It's important that they aren't seen as inaccessible to the rest of the community. In many ways, members of both committee's are trusted members of the community, and have been given there position due to a consensus from the community, they should respect that and try and stay in touch with all community issues. I'm actually a member of MedCom, and I feel proud that the members we have are all extremely good communicators and very much open to discuss concers raised. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  00:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Giano
This edit of yours here Ryan would publication of the IRC logs bear that out, or were you stretching the truth a little? In fact we both know the answer - so why were you lying? Giano 23:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That edit was made at 9 in the morning, I'd just got out of bed and clicked my watchlist on a flying visit before going to uni and saw you removing Alisons comment - I tried to ask you in a friendly way if it was really worth the hassle. I certainly don't log into IRC for a quick 2 minutes before going to uni - so the publication of the IRC logs should certify this. I have my own mind Giano, so I think for myself - if I believe something needs acting upon, I act on it, if I don't, I leave it. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So you don't use IRC at all then? Giano 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I do, but more for social reasons. It's good to get to know other editors on the project and actually discuss things that are happening in real life to them (It's better than using wikipedia as a social networking site). Actually, one thing that I really don't like about IRC is that decisions are often made on there - for transparency, everything should be discussed on-wiki where everyone has access. I hate the fact the IRC is limited to a small proportion of the community. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you had better go and check the logs Ryan. Giano 23:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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?

Thanks, Wanderer57 01:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually don't think the RFCU process is that fair on the user that it involves, there's a tendency to lynch mob when someone makes a mistake. However, it's the best dispute resolution method we currently have for user conduct. When there a real concerns raised, I think it gives the user an opportunity to seak consensus on what the problems with their editing are and gives them a chance to change, but going back to my first point, it shouldn't be used when someone has made a good faith mistake. One good thing about the process is that it let's all sides of a dispute have their say in a formal environment, and if there is a consensus of serious concerns, it can open the eyes of the user involved. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  01:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Daniel
1: The use of IRC evidence in arbitration cases has flared up in certain cases. A few questions on this:-
 * a) Do you believe that IRC conversations in Wikipedia channels (ie. #wikipedia, #wikipedia-en, #wikipedia-en-admins) should be admissible in arbitration cases where it is directly relevant to the dispute at hand?
 * If they are directly relevant, then the arbitrators should look at the evidence from these avenues. The committee should take a look over every single piece of evidence that they have available to them so they can do the right thing - I don't however believe that the logs of these discussions should be brought onto Wikipedia. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * b) Do you believe the Arbitration Committee has the jurisdiction to sanction users in these channels when it relates to Wikipedia disruption? If not, should it?
 * I think the committee should only sanction users in these channels if there participation in the channels has had a detremental effect on the project, meaning that IRC discussions have led to actions being performed on Wikipedia. It all links in with transparency, and the committee should look at every single cause of disruption in a particular case. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * c) If so, what are your thoughts on possibly creating an official Arbitration Committee IRC logging account in these channels for the purpose of providing corrupt-free logs when required for deliberation?
 * I don't believe this should happen, as it gives the impression of the arbitration committee being like big brother. There's privacy issues involved here as well. I don't think it should be the norm for the committee to look into IRC conduct for every dispute, only if it is brought to their attention. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

2: Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?
 * I'm a strong believer that emails and IRC logs should not be published on Wikipedia unless there is prior consent from all parties, they are private venues for dicsussion and no-one in principal agree's to them being published. If a case involves an incident with emails or IRC, then the committee should consider this in private, but fully explain the reasons why they have made decisions based on this. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3: Are Wikipedians, in particular administrators, required to answer to the Committee for their activites outside English Wikipedia (ie. on other Wikimedia Foundation projects, Wikipedia-related websites including The Wikipedia Review, conduct linked to Wikipedia etc.). Should they be? If so, should the Arbitration Committee have intervened in the case of Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?
 * Generally speaking I don't think the committee should step in for conduct off wiki, unless it is directly related to the project. There's cases where people are harassed through email or IRC, and in this case, it may be appropriate for the committee to step in to stop this in what could be considered wikipedia related tasks. I don't think the committee can have much juristiction on behaviour outside wikipedia - except maybe in exceptional circumstances where there is a negative effect on this project. As far as the gracenotes RfA is concerned, it's a little different, because he was getting opposed because he stated that he wouldn't blindly remove links to attack sites on wiki. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

4: Theoretical situation: an OTRS respondent blanks a section of an article on a living person, clearly stating that it is an OTRS action based on a semi-credible legal threat in the edit summary. The respondent then protects the article and leaves a note on the talk page asking for the section to be rebuilt, citing OTRS again. An administrator comes along and unprotects it 15mins later and reverts to the old version. A series of administrative and editorial reversions take place, with protection and unprotection (with content reversions) occurring three times in quick succession before both administrators are emergency-desysopped.

The article is then reprotected by a third administrator, and a case brought before the Arbitration Committee. Upon reviewing the OTRS ticket privately on the mailing list, it contains a semi-credible legal threat which is now being dealt with by legal counsel. With regards to the three administrators, what sanctions do you 'support' applying to each of the three?
 * That's a very tough question to be honest, and hard to answer without knowing the exact context and history behind it. I don't think I'd support any sanctions against the protecting admin - they were obviously acting to stop a legal threat for the foundation. It was obviously extremely bad practice for the unprotecting administrator if he knew that it was protected due to an OTRS ticket, especially the number of times it was unprotected. I'd probably support a temporary desysopping, but the history of the administrator would have to be taken into account. Some questions that would obviously need to be asked are: Do the administrators have a good history here (does the OTRS admin have a good record with his OTRS actions? Has the unprotecting admin been sanctioned before by the committee or had an RfC for admin actions?)? Was there on-wiki discussion about the protections? If so, was there a strong consensus for unprotection? Were all sides aware that this was an OTRS action because of a legal threat? Answering these would certainly help to ascertain what sanctions, if any should be brought against each person involved. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

5: What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?
 * I prefer using the the traditional thought that a situation becomes a wheel war on the third action (i.e. Admin A deletes a page, Admin B restores it and Admin C deletes it again) if there is not a strong consensus to repeat the original action. However, it's my belief that an administrator should discuss any undoing of another administrators action thoroughly before acting, and a good place for that is AN/I. I don't believe however that one wheel war action by an administrator should lead to ArbCom discipline, if it was inappropriate, an RfC would be the best course of action at first to give the admin time to respond to the concerns and change the way he acts in the future. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Addhoc
Are there any subject areas that you would recuse yourself from? Thanks! Addhoc 14:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's a need for me to recuse myself from any article subjects per se, but maybe in wikipedia space, any arbitration case that involved the username policy I'd probably recuse from. What I would do however is recuse myself from any case which I had had prior involvement in, or any case which I had a conflict of interest, or perceived conflict of interest - this can come about for numerous reasons. I think this is important so that arbitration is recognised as a neutral venue to solve disputes with all the arbitrators having no prior involvement in cases - in many ways it's about transparency. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Ultraexactzz
Best wishes in your candidacy, and in your tenure on the committee should you be elected. I'm asking this question to most of the candidates, so I apologize in advance if you've already answered a similar question from another editor.

Some background. I was an avid reader of the encyclopedia until December 2005, when I decided to begin editing. I had started to delve into the workings of the project, reading about AfD's and the ANI and, most interestingly, the work of the Arbitration Committee. When elections came around in December 2005/January 2006, I thought that a fresh perspective might be of value to the committee. So, in my haste to pitch in, I made my 13th edit (!) by nominating myself to the Arbitration Committee.

Needless to say, it did not go well.

However, I did find some editors who supported my candidacy on moral grounds, offering encouragement and concuring that a different perspective was of value in the committee's work. Looking back, it got me thinking, as this round of elections begins: What is the most valuable trait for an arbitrator? Your statement and answers to other questions will address this at length, I'm sure, but if you had to distill the essence of being an effective arbitrator into one word, what would that word be? ZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of qualities that an arbitrator should have. In my opinion, the most important is that they should be firm, but fair. Arbitrators are expected to act in a neutral and calm manner - they shouldn't hand out sanctions because they're upset by a case. They should recognise that users have the ability to change, but also that if a users actions are becoming increasingly disruptive, then sanctions are the only way to stop this. I also believe an arbitrator should be open to discussion - communication is key in such a collaborative environment and the should be openly explain decisions. Finally, I believe an arbitrator should be friendly, they should not think they are bigger or better than any other member of the project and strive to remain focussed in the face of stress. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Bloodpack
How would you described the present condition/status of the Wikipedia community in general from your own POV? †B lo o d p ac k† 21:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the community is fairly strong at the minute. I can see the community has grown somewhat over the past year and that's a good thing - it gives more minds and different ideas to give more perspectives within discussion. However, when the community grows, there's also an increase in disruptive users (it's inevitable) so it's important that all areas of dispute resolution are open and working at an efficient level. The best advice I could give to the community to move forward is that we should always work to try and avoid battles on the project, and respect other users view. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Wikidudeman
In my experience, many larger arbitrations seem to suffer from the fact that the arbitrators do not spend as much time on examining the evidence and statements as they should be spending. Examples of problems that arise would be proposals not being used or relevant issues not even being addressed. This is probably due to the large backlog and caseload. What would you do to ensure that all arbitrations are ended efficiently and fairly and that all issues and concerns are addressed and all needed remedies met?  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've already expressed in my candidate statement that I'd like to be more of a community arbitrator, I think I'm in touch with issues within the community and be able to act in the commuities best interests. I think it's important that arbitrators look over all the evidence that is available. I've stated previously that I'd like to spend more time in discussion at the workshop pages. I think this is important to get a feeling as to what the community wants. It can also help to difuse disputes within the arbitration pages. Specifically, I'd like to make more use in the workshop of the analysis of evidence section, allowing the community a real opportunity to discuss before proposals are taken to voting. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  00:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question 2 from Wikidudeman
In some arbitrations, editors will introduce numerous irrelevant proposals in an attempt to obfuscate the real purpose or create a fog cloud with unrelated material to misdirect the arbitrators from the intended purpose of the arbitration, generally user conduct. What will you do to prevent arbitrations from getting off track due to editors introduction of irrelevant material in mass which can sometimes cause confusion or the false impression of difficult or complex circumstances for arbitrators.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion, discussion and then more discussion :-) If I was elected, I'd spend a lot of time discussing cases with the participants than the current arbitrators do. It's important that everything is looked at in arbitration, and sometimes cases take a tangent away from the original reasons the cases were brought. By discussing the evidence, you move away from only seeing the facts as they are originally put across and it allows a greater understanding of the the dispute in question. What one person thinks is irrelevant, may mean a lot to another person, so it's important to get every possible piece of evidence down - even that seems like the scope of the case is moving. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  18:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Anonymous Dissident
By submitting a candidacy for the December 2007 Arbitration Committee Elections, you are indicating your commitment to Wikipedia, and your belief in its continuance and worth as a project. What do you personally see for the future, both near and distant, of Wikipedia as a collaborative effort to bring free knowledge to the planet, and what are your feelings in regards to the Arbitration Committees relation to the successful endurance of the quality and credibility, among other aspects, of Wikipedia, and of Wikipedia itself?
 * I'd like to say that we're going to keep on growing, moving even further up the Alexa rankings and become a site that is renowned for it's credible content. I think Jimbo suggested this around a year ago, but maybe now is the time to work on quality of articles rather than quantity. With the growth of the project, we have also got to accept the fact that disruption is likely to increase - be it in the form of vandalism or other general disruptive editing. This is where the arbitration committee has to step in. Sanctions must protect the encyclopedia from disruptive behaviour - if the community is unable to do this for themselves. The arbitration committee should help to create a mellow editing environment so the community can keep improving both the content it's policies and guidlines. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:23, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Geogre
Several times over the past twelve months, ArbCom and the Administrators noticeboards have come face to face with the practice and consequences of "back channel communications" between users (communication by private means or non-Wikipedia means). Do you believe that administrators and users "need" to have private conversations? If they do not need them, do you think that media that cannot be transported over to Wikipedia (IRC, instant messageners) have a proper use? Do you think that media that should not be ported over to Wikipedia (e-mail) because of the expectation of privacy inherent in them have a proper use for non-Arbitration purposes? Geogre 21:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think IRC serves it's purpose when administrators or other users want quick advice, it's good to ascertain whether something should be taken to AN/I for instance, but nothing major should be discussed within the channels. I wouldn't say that administrators need IRC at all, and there's a few good reasons why we shouldn't have official wikipedia IRC channels. There is a great use of the IRC channels however, and that's real time collaberation - article writers often get together on IRC and dicuss changes as they are being made so I don't think they should be done away with all together. I think there's need for privacy with some non-arbitration information, so it's important that we still have the email function - what one person might consider a privacy infringement, another user may not. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Coren

 * Part of the Wikipedia philosophy is that, in theory, even the worse vandals can be coaxed and tutored into becoming valuable editors. Is there a point at which you will judge someone to be "beyond redemption"?  That is, where it no longer appears reasonable to expend further efforts towards reform and exclusion becomes unavoidable? &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * However much we try and help users change their ways, there's always the ones that aren't willing to accept what the community is trying to tell them. I strongly believe it's important to give users every opportunity to change, that's why I belive editing restrictions can work well - but only if the committee is open to re-examining old cases where these restrictions haven't worked. If a user has gone against arbitration commitee, or community restrictions that have been put against them, and they show that they are not willing to accept them, then it's inevitable that they will be seen as beyond redemption and bans may have to enforced. That said, it's important the community is able to consider further restrictions before the arbitration committee has to step in. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  01:31, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The principal mandate of the Arbitration committee is to interpret the policies, guidelines and community consensus. There are cases, however, when individuals or the community will turn to the arbitrators to make policy, or draw the line in the sand in gray areas.  How do you feel about those cases, and where do you feel the responsibilities and authority of the committee fall?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the committee's major objective is to enforce policy when the community has failed to come to agreement itself. It's not the committee's job to create the policies themselves, we're a community and that should be left to consensus, but I would agree with the sentiment that sometimes to have to clarify grey area's. If the committee must clarify policy, I think they should listen to what consensus is telling them, but in the back of their minds, they should look out for the long term interests of the project. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Neil
I note you've only been a member of Wikipedia since October 2006. I am unsure just over a year is enough to give you the necessary experience and perspective to function well as a member of the Arbitration Committee. Could you convince me otherwise? Neil  ☎  13:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question Neil, as it's one I had to address myself before considering this nomination. I originally came to Wikipedia to create an article on my friends band, it got deleted and I wanted to know why - the processes amazed me and I wanted to learn more so I looked deeper into the workings of our project. It facinated me how much there is to it so I decided that I had something to offer (luckily for me, The Wild Beasts are now notable!). Since I've been here, I really believe I've got a good understanding of how things work. I've commented on numerous changes to policy and I'm a regular commenter to incidents on WP:AN/I and other dispute resolution discussions. I've already mentioned above that I've helped in the workshop at a few arbitration cases and quite a few of my proposals have been taken forward by the current committee. Currently, I'm serving as a mentor to a number of users that the community has decided to put under community mentorship, so I fully understand the disputes that can arise here. I'm also a member of the mediation committee which has given me a firm understanding on the best way to solve disputes. I guess to answer your question, although I've only been here a year, I've developed enough experience through the areas I've participated in to make a good arbitrator, and my involvement in numerous community discussions has let me know what the community wants. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  01:23, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from User:Veesicle
What are your opinions of secret evidence being given privately to ArbCom? To what extent is this acceptable? User:Veesicle 23:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think sometimes, secret evidence is needed if there are privacy concerns at stake. It's not fair that any editor should be faced with the possibility of real life problems for edits they make here. If a user has got evidence that is likely to infringe on a persons privacy then of course it should be passed straight to the committee's mailing list rather than appear on-wiki. I think however, to have a transparent process, evidence should be posted within the project, so the community is able to evaluate it's reliability and users mentioned in the evidence can offer a rebuttal. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Warlordjohncarter
One basic question. I noted that Lar above has asked about what you think of maybe trying to formally split the arbitration committee into multiple subcommittees. My question is regarding your opinion of the idea of perhaps increasing the number of members of the committee, or possibly decreasing the required quorum, to the point that it would be more easily able to "break up" into smaller groups who would be able to take on a greater number of concurrent cases, and with luck speed some of the processes. These groups would not necessarily all have the same members every time, but would hopefully include those members of the committee who have a particular interest in or knowledge of the subject or point of contention. Would you favor or oppose such a development, and why? John Carter 00:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Any sub-committee has the potential to create inconsistances, even if it is rotated. I'm also not sure whether it would speed up proceedings, there would still need to be a similar percentage of support for proposals to pass and with that, you still have the potential for arbitrators to be inactive. Another problem with creating sub-committee's is that you then have to waste time choosing who is going to take each case - time which would be better working on cases. I would suggest however that an increase in the number of arbitrators would be a good idea. The more active arbitrators we have, the more we have working on cases meaning it's highly likely that more arbitrators will move cases into the voting stages (which at present I believe to be the step that causes delays). <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:51, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
Have you successfully nominated any articles you've edited for Featured or Good Article status? Cla68 01:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't actually :-( I tend to create smaller articles as expansion to existing bigger articles. It's certainly something I'm going to fix over the next year and I aim to work more on getting articles up to good and featured article standards. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from WJBscribe
A few questions from me. I'm asking all candidates the same thing. I don't think anyone's asked these yet but I they have, feel free to just point me to a previous answer. Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 02:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Appointment to the Arbitration Committee is for three years - a lot can change on Wikipedia in three years. Should there be a mechanism by which the Community can recall an arbitrator in whose judgment it loses confidence? Do you have any thoughts as to what form that mechanism should take?
 * Personally, I think any arbitrator should respect the community enough to resign the post themselves if there are serious concerns raised about their position. If the community has lost confidence in the judgement in an arbitrator, then of course there should be some mechanism in place to deal with this. There's pro's and con's of any given method of doing this - by leaving it upto the committee to decide on, there's perhaps the thought that it might not be a neutral envirnment, but you would hope that the committee would respect the communities desire. The dispute resolution channels could probably be used here, and if these had be tried (with a consensus that a change in attitude was required) and failed then a direct appeal to Jimbo could quite possibly be the best avenue to take. I don't think a "de-arbitrating" vote would be in the best interests of the project. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) ArbCom is responsible for assigning checkuser and oversight access to users of the English Wikipedia. Would you advocate withdrawing the access in the case of someone someone who failed to make sufficient use of it? If yes, what sort of activity level would you say is required?
 * I would actually. As we only have a very limited number of users that hold CheckUser rights, we should consider withdrawing CheckUser access from the users that don't use it. They can then be replaced by other users who will be both trust worthy, and make use of the tools. I don't think that we should take it liberally - I mean, people do have spells of inactivity and we shouldn't punish a CheckUser for wanting to spend time away from the administration side of the project and concentrate on main space work. I think if someone hasn't used the CheckUser tool for 6 months, it may be an idea to think about removing it. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Where the Community finds itself unable to reach a consensus on the formulation of a given policy, do you think ArbCom has a role to play in determining that policy?
 * If the community fails to reach a consensus on forming a policy then I can't see how there would be a consensus to implement that policy. The committee shouldn't make policy and shouldn't make the community adapt any given policy. However, during cases, the committee can often help by clarifying policy - but when doing this, they should think about what the community wants. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from jd2718

 * 1) I've seen it written that to be a good arbitrator a WPian must first be a good editor. Do you agree with this sentiment? How would describe your own editing?
 * It depends how you determine editing. I think an arbitrator must be firm but fair. They should be active within the community and understand what the community wants. I don't think they have to be the best featured article writer, but they must have a firm understanding of policies and guidelines which you can get just as easily though taking part in policy discussions and implementing them in admin areas such as XfD. I think I'm more of a discussion editor, I try and take a lead on issues which involve the community and I believe this is important for an arbitrator. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Would the ArbCom be diminished if you were not elected? If yes, how? Note, I'm not looking for a rehash of your candidate statement.
 * There's plenty of other candidates who are running that would do a fine job as an arbitrator. What I've said all along is that I would try and stand up for what the community wants, and I really believe I can do this more than any other person. I'm a strong advocate of assuming good faith which is important at arbitration so people don't get harsh sanctions for doing little wrong. What I believe I could bring to the committee more than anything is explanation - I want to explain actions to the community and strive to answer concerns at the earliest possible point. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  21:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Does Assume Good Faith apply identically to administrators and non-administrators?
 * AGF applies to everyone - I believe that everyones equal here and the same standards should be applied to everyone. If we start having different standards for different user groups, we'll simply fall apart - admins bossing regular users around isn't the way a community works. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Should cases involving nationalist disputes and multiple editors be handled differently from other ArbCom cases?
 * The reason why nationalist disputes get so out of hand is because the editors editing them are very passionate about the subject. Likewise with multiple editors having a dispute over an article. In these disputes, it takes two to tango and it's likely that disruption is coming from more than one source. Article/subject probation or mentorship can work well in these disputes (unlike most other disputes) and it allows everyone to attempt to sort the dispute out without the immediate need for greater sanctions. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I note you are a student. To help assess your likely stability over the next three years (ArbCom term), at what stage are you in your studies? What comes next? Are you facing a new application process (advanced degree? job?) and/or major relocation? Jd2718 00:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I've just finished my BSc in Pharmacology and I'm now studying for a MSc in Biomedical and Forensic Science, it's a one year course, so I'm currently applying to study PhD's in cancer research. I'll be staying in Manchester for the next 3/4 years so I wouldn't say there'll be a massive change in my life (except of course traveling home every now and again to see my . <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from xDanielx
What is your opinion on the distinction between private (i.e., consensus through arbcom elist) and public (i.e., WP:RFAR) ArbCom decisions? Should both be regarded as equally authoritative? Does the ArbCom have an obligation to make the former publicly accessible upon reasonable request (assuming no privacy issues are involved)?
 * I think both have the same authority - it's the same committee that's making the decisions at the end of the day. I'm of the belief that information should only be kept private if there are privacy issues involved or for information that would prove detremental to the project if released. I think the committee should strive to answer all concerns about it's decisions, and where at all possible, release the information to the community. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  22:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Revolving Bugbear
In light of the recent ruling in the French courts re WMF:

The servers for English Wikipedia are hosted in the United States, and the WMF is incorporated in the United States (Florida, specifically). But Wikipedians can access and edit Wikipedia from anywhere in the world (with the possible exceptions of China and Burma, maybe, but that's neither here nor there). Given that, as an ArbCom member, you might be dealing with issues such as possible legal threats against Wikipedia, whose laws does Wikipedia need to follow? What should be done if there is a legitimate concern raised by a Wikipedian that an article may be in violation of US law? What about law of a country other than the US? - Revolving Bugbear  16:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia should strive to follow laws in all countries, but there obviously big differences, especially with respect to BLP and copyright. As the foundation is based in the USA, this is the law we should primarily follow. I'd like to say however, that it's not the arbitration committee's job to interpret law and whether the project is infringing on it. The committee should refer all legal matters to the foundation who can properly interpret the concerns. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Piotrus
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?
 * Not everything, but the vast majority. If you put yourself up for nomination, in effect you are committing to it for three years and you should strive to make every effort to participate in as many cases as possible. It's important however that an arbitrator fully reviews the evidence put before him before making any comments or votes - otherwise you end up voting for the sake of voting which doesn't make the final decision credible. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?
 * I'm of personal belief that arbitrators should attempt to discuss cases whenever possible, so yes, I think an active arbitrator should actively discuss on discussion/workshop pages. It's important to get a full feel for each case, and this can help by discussing issues with parties in the dispute. Discussion also helps the community understand the decisions the committee make. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you think some editors should be more equal than others? I.e. should incivility of experienced editor - one who registered years ago and wrote or contributed to many articles - be treated differently from incivility of a relative newcomer?
 * I don't believe any editor should have a free pass here, it leads to a hierachy of users and makes some people want to leave. It's important that we recognise that new users can easily be driven away by incivility and we have the potential to lose some great editors. One thing that should be recognised is how often incivility occurs from a user. If it's once every 10,000 edits, that could be put down to a small lapse in judgement. If every edit they make has a incivil tone then there is more of a chronic problem. Serious acts of incivility should be treated the same, however long the users been here. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?
 * Repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA are very serious matters and can destroy the environment for editing. In the worst cases it can lead to users being bullied out of the project. It's my opinion that civility can be dealt with via paroles and supervised editing. If a user is aware that they are being superviced for civility, they are often much more thoughtful in their responses and calmer in the face of heated discussions. This method of dealing with them also gives administrators the ability to deal with incivil editors with short, sharp sanctions that can hopefully nip it in the bud before the situation gets out of hand. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:03, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Jehochman
What sort of evidence can establish a case of abusive sock puppetry? What do you think of Checkuser evidence versus behavioral evidence? - Jehochman Talk 23:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well obviously there should be some form of behavioural evidence that someone is abusing sock puppet accounts or else a CheckUser shouldn't even be run. You've got to look at both CU evidence and behavioural evidence to look at the whole picture. CU evidence isn't always reliable - if someone has the technical knowledge, there's ways of gretting round CU evidence so it shouldn't always be relied upon. That said, behavioural evidence should be thoroughly studied - a lot of inconclusive edvidence does not make someone guilty. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Dragons flight
As recently as last February you were violating copyright by cutting and pasting text from other sites into Wikipedia. Even if you are no longer doing that, you still don't appear to have much experience writing articles or dealing with the disputes that arise while doing so. While Arbitration is not directly focused on content, Arbcom members still ought to understand the needs of content writers and have a familiarity with how content disputes develop and are usually resolved.

Why should I believe that you understand the content creation process well enough to arbitrate in tricky content related situations? Dragons flight 01:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question, and I'd just like to point out that the incident you mention was from my early days here, it was an honest mistake and it is something that isn't going to be repeated. I agree that some may have concern about my lack front line dispute experience because I haven't really got into any content disputes, but I think that I have gained more than enough from being a member of the mediation committee where we handle some of the most difficult content disputes. I also mentor a couple of users and am fully aware of the problems we have in certain subject area's, and the reasons why these arise. I also often comment on content related disputes on WP:AN/I and recognise problematic behaviour. If I did not have the experience in these area's I too would agree that I shouldn't be an arbitrator, but I really do believe that I have the necessary understanding and skills to do a good job. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Points of View: When does including "notable" points of view become problematic for NPOV?
When I first came on to Wikipedia a year and a half ago the project was more centered around "Just the facts" - articles were more crafted around the who, the what, the when and the where, with some emphasis on the why. Of late, the why has taken on a dominant role in articles on contentious issues, with each side in the political spectrum putting forth their own "notable" mouthpiece to spin what the who, the what, the when and the where means. Do you think this is a positive development? Do you think this is educational, or do you think it makes Wikipedia another platform for the dichotomized public debate--that there are two sides to every issues, and two views--that is prevalent in American society?--<font color="#0000C0">David <font color="#0000C0">Shankbone  18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this question, it's something which I've been noticing more and more recently. I agree that the why in articles has taken quite a strong position of importance in articles, especially in nationalist articles. The problem when two different sides present the why is that it often leads to edit warring, often over extremely minor issues. It takes the emphasis off creating a neutral article and leads to a lot of wasted time in pushing each sides point of view. I'm of th view that it is often sometimes better to skip over the why, and concentrate on the other areas - the reader can often be left to determine the why themselves, simply by having the bare facts infront of them. Wikipedia isn't the place to push political views, it's the place to create an ecyclopedia - unfortunately, sometimes this doesn't come through in some users editing. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:50, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Question from Marlith
What do you want Wikipedia to be ten years from now? <font color="Green">Marlith  T / C  18:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see wikipedia continue to expand, but more in terms of size and quality of articles rather than number. I'd like to see more work done to bring existing articles upto FA/GA status, and hopefully in ten years a significant number of our articles will be at this standard. I'd also hope that all our policies and guidlines will continue to develop so that the community is more able to deal with its own problems, leaving less disputes which need arbitration. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from AniMate
Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution. However, first and foremost, we are here to work on an encyclopedia. Editing and adding to the project should be everyone's first priority. Can you point out some of your recent mainspace contributions that you are most proud of? <font face="Comic Sans MS" color="Navy">AniMate 12:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd probably say I'm most proud of the article on football refereeing in England which I created the other week. It's not a huge article, but but I think it covers all the main points that there are within the subject without overlapping from the referee (football) article. I also created the medical papyri article not so long ago, and this has led to the creation and expansion of medical papyri related artcles. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Cla68
So that it won't look like I'm targeting anyone in particular, I'm asking this question of all the candidates. Were you a recipient on the email list used by Durova to distribute her evidence used to wrongfully block !! as detailed in this ArbCom case? Cla68 (talk) 01:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't on that list. The only mailing lists I'm a member of are the unblock and mediation committee mailing lists. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  13:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Rschen7754

 * 1) What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).
 * I don't agree that WP:SRNC is an ideal method of dispute resolution, consensus is formed from discussion, not through polls. I think in this case, formal mediation would have been a good option in terms of dispute resolution, because in essence, the problem started as a content dispute, but it lead onto user conduct issue. One remedy which may have been a good idea in this case would have been to put state highway articles under probation, so that editing in these areas was carefully watched to cut out the disruption. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is the purpose of a WikiProject? Do you believe that WikiProjects b) own articles or c) can enforce standards (such as article layout) on articles?
 * Wikiprojects are here to collaborate efforts on particular topics, they do not own the articles. Key policies and guidlines such as WP:V, WP:N and WP:MOS overule any consensus that the wikiprojects come to in respect to these. Wikiprojects do really help to improve articles and offer great ideas on particular subjects, but encyclopedia wide policies should be taken into account first. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on child WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)
 * They can set standards to help the collaboration environment, but they should respect the core policies. As I said above, wikiproojects help with collaboration in particular subject areas, but Wikipedia's policies and guidlines overule the wikiprojects when they are in conflict. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?
 * Canvassing can occur on wiki and off wiki, project newsletters can canvass users to take part in discussions, but I also appreciate that it is important in many cases that project users are made aware of discussions that directly relate to articles that they are involved with editing. Obviously, it is possible for canvassing to occur via IRC and email, but with these methods in many ways private, it is a difficult issue to sort out. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) a) In terms of vandalism and good faith but horrible edits, where do you draw the line? (scenario: an editor makes a mess of articles that cannot easily be fixed). b) Should blocks, protects, and / or rollbacks be in order?
 * Rollback shouldn't be used if someone is making a good faith effort to edit an article. Likewise protection shouldn't be used, because in essence, what you describe is an edit war. If auser had been warned previously for their problematic edits, and they have showed no sign of changing, then blocks can be used to protect the articles in question. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  20:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. --Rschen7754 (T C) 06:58, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Risker
There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing. Amongst the reasons for this suggestion is to prevent parties from revising policy in a way that favours their point of view, to prevent edit wars on active policies, and to maintain a stable policy base so that users can rest assured that they are staying within policy. Do you believe that this is a good course of action for the encyclopedia? Please respond from your perspective as a prospective member of Arbcom who would be responsible for interpreting policy (but feel free to add your opinion as an editor as well). I will be asking this question of all candidates. Thank you. Risker (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy develops all the time and we have a lot of people watching over our policy and guidline pages. If there's anything remotely controversial done to a policy page then it's quickly reverted, so from that perspective, I don't think we need protection to protect the policies for sneaky changes for an editor to get his own way. If an edit war breaks out, administrators will quickly lock the pags down (probably more so than any other page) so again, permanent protection isn't needed. All in all, I think it's important that our policy and guidline pages are left open - development of them is important and protection would only hinder this. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from Blue Tie
1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?
 * ArbCom should never create policy, it should be left upto the community to create. There are sometimes where the committee has to clarify policy, but this is as far as they should go. If a policy needs creating urgently, then it can be a good idea for the committee to encourage the community to do this. I certainly don't think the committee should create policies to vote on - we work by community consensus here, not voting. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member? --Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Per my answer above, it's not the committee's job to create policy, so no, I wouldn't have any new policies to proopose if I was on the committee. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  23:10, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


 * thanx--Blue Tie 23:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Question from SilkTork
How would you vote on this proposed principle: "While anyone may edit Wikipedia without the need to register, that meta-editing activities such as voting in an ArbCom Election are best protected by registering than by sleuthing". <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5">SilkyTalk 17:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, it's a tough one. I think everyone has the right to anonymity here, but registering an account and being seen to have good judgement can give credibility to your arguments. It's important that we keep editing as open as possible, and IP's often give some great contributions, even in meta-discussion, but not knowing who the user behind the IP is can lead to a loss of that credability of argument. <font color="#000088">Ry<font color="#220066">an<font color="#550044"> P<font color="#770022">os<font color="#aa0000">tl et hw ai te  19:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions from Irpen
The questions below refer to the issues of ArbCom's integrity and transparency that needs to be maintained despite the universally accepted view that certain things should remain private. Arbitrator's private mailing list, known as Arbcom-l and the arbitrators only IRC channel may obviously include information that cannot be made public under any circumstances. Additionally, being aware of the intra-ArbCom communication may give case parties an obvious advantage over their opponents. Who do you think should have access to such a list besides current arbitrators whose community trust has been confirmed in election that took place within the last 3 years? Should it include users that where never voted on? Should it include users who were voted 4, 5 or more years ago? Should users who are parties of the case, comment on the case, present evidence on the case, be allowed to have read access to the list where the case is discussed by the decision makers?
 * Mailing list

What is your opinion about the parties of the case (or anyone) contacting arbitrators privately about the case? This is not an hypothetical issue and it  has been brought up in past cases. The obvious drawback is that if charges are brought secretly, the accused cannot see them and respond. Would you support an amendment of the arbitration policy that would prohibit parties from writing to arbitrators privately in relation to the cases? Giving evidence that has to be private due to its sensitive nature would of course be exempted but should this be the only exception?
 * Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

Arbitrators who are parties of the case or have an involvement with the case parties that can reasonably be considered to affect their impartiality are expected to recuse. What involvement constitutes the ground for a recusal has traditionally been left to the arbitrators' own discretion, except for obvious cases when arbitrators themselves are case parties. While recused arbitrators, especially the case parties, are allowed to take an active part in cases, collect, present and discuss evidence at the case pages, the same way as ordinary parties, they retain the opportunity to read the thoughts of other arbitrators at Arbcom-L and respond to those privately. It is technically difficult to exclude arbitrators from communication on a case they are involved. But would you support a prohibition for such arbitrators to discuss the case with other arbitrators through the private communication channels, except when submitting evidence whose nature warrants non-publicity?
 * Recusals

Policies are written by the community and not by the ArbCom. However, at some point the ArbCom made it clear that the arbitration policy is exceptional in this respect and that the ArbCom intends to control the main policy that governs its own action rather than be governed by the policy written by the community. Would you support returning the control of the ArbCom policy back to the community or should the ArbCom write its policy itself?
 * Community oversight over the arbitration policy