Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/barts1a/Questions

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator?
 * A: I will be prepared to vote in and act upon requests for arbitration after reviewing the evidence presented and coversing with other members of the arbitration committee if it is a tough decision. I will also be willing and able to draft proposed decisions for other members of the Arbitration Committee, fairly review every block appeal presented and discuss said block appeals with other members of the committee before accepting or declining the block appeal.


 * I am willing to oversee the distribution of permissions and ensure that all candidates requesting permissions such as Rollback and Oversight are requesting them fairly. If the need arises I will be willing to run checkuser tests on suspected sockpuppets and oversight/supress any edits that are in gross breach of wikipedia policy (Except in cases where ignore all rules applies. I will interact with the public in a professional and calm manner at all times; finally: I will be willing to manage the emails that arrive to the Arbitration Committee mailing list and forward them to whoever is best qualified to handle them if the need arises for me to do so.


 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * A: This will happen to every Arbitration Committee member sooner or later; I will cope with the stress of the position by reminding myself that they are cowering behind a screen and most likely will never be willing to confront me in real life.
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * A: I would oppose this if it were presented in a case I was deciding because it simply is too vague. This could be interpreted in many ways which could potentially undermine the principles Wikipedia is based on.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: I would support this simply because it discourages bad editing with the well-known phrase "If you can't say anything nice; don't say anything at all."
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: I would support this because it prevents users from getting stuck in Wikipedia's no legal threats policy.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: I would support this because it allows a user to prevent 'outing' by publicly posting personal information and allows for the wishes of someone who does not want said information to be visible anymore to be carried out.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * A: As the question says: Each case is different; with relatively new users it's better to take a softer position to encourage them to stay on wikipedia as much as possible with gentle nudges in the right direction. If an admin was clearly, irrefutably and frequently abusing their permissions I would not hesitate in revoking their permissions without a prior ArbCom case.
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * A: I disagree with this statement because I believe ArbCom is like the Parliament House in Australian politics; where the rules are formed and voted on.
 * 1) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
 * A: The ArbCom is usually the last port of call for dispute resolution. As such; they are expected to come to a decision when the wider community fails to do so. Because of this I believe ArbCom should establish procedures that will allow the community to achieve a binding dispute resolution.
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A:
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A:

Individual questions
This section is for individual questions asked to this specific candidate. Each eligible voter may ask a limit of one "individual" question by posting it below. The question should:
 * be clearly worded and brief, with a limit of 75 words in display mode;
 * be specific to this candidate (the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages);
 * not duplicate other questions (editors are encouraged to discuss the merging of similar questions);

Election coordinators will either remove questions that are inconsistent with the guidelines or will contact the editor to ask for an amendment. Editors are, of course, welcome to post questions to candidates' user talk pages at any time.

Please add the question under the line below using the following format: -
 * 1) Question:
 * A: