Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Edivorce

Questions from -Ril-

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

I belong to one of the two major political parties of the United States and at times take partisan positions. If these positions impacted on a dispute I would disclose this. I believe in "liberal" application of recusal, that it is my preference is to step down if a party can articulate why she feels I even appear to have a bias. This needs to be raised prospectively to make sure that it is not an attempt to avoid an unfavorable decision. I strongly believe that an arbitrator is a "creature of the parties."

If it needs to be raised prospectively, then the only fair thing to do is to declare which party is it you belong to? --Victim of signature fascism 20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a fair point, and I would if a dispute was in front of me that called for such a disclosure.--Edivorce 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Arbitrators owe the parties a duty of independent reasoned judgment. The only way I would go along would be if the other arbitrators convince me of their position.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

No.

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

Any party that requests relief, and can support that request with evidence and a basis for the request should be considered. I believe that it is important for an arbitrator to act consistently; as this helps the entire community order its behavior. I have no “recent cases” in the wikipedia context.

--Victim of signature fascism 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
1. I do not believe that petty incivlity as defined in WP:Civility should be a matter for arbitration. Its role is to smooth out potential problems earlier in the resolution process, and as such is invaluable. It would be wrong, however, to apply sanctions against petty violations. Serious incivility as defined in WP:Civility, however, actually impacts on the work of the community and the well being of the members and should be enforced as any other policy, and apply to all members. --Edivorce 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
1. I'm a lawyer and mediator. I went to law school and also have an undergraduate degree in Psychology. I have taught classes, including Dispute Resolution 500, a graduate level course in negotiation, mediation and arbitration at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Recently I have taken course in programming and web development. Lawyers are a thick skinned bunch, criticism snd rebuttal are constant matters, so not much attention is paid to minor incivilities. I have not encountered many serious problems. I'm always pretty much civil to my students. I wish they would discuss issues more in class. --Edivorce 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)
1. When I have participated in arbitrations for the American Arbitration Association an oath of duty is always required of the Arbitrator. This emphasises that the process is controlled by rules that bind the arbitrator as well as the parties. I am not certain that the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct is a finished product, but it is a good start. I would like to see more emphasis on 1) assuring that the arbitrator hears all relevant evidence raised by the parties, and 2)requires that the arbitrators decisions be supported by the evidenced and is based by the policies, guidlines, practices and consensus of the community. --Edivorce 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, I support this effort to assure the rule of law in arbitration phase of the Dispute Resolution process. I would have some question about the application of item (2) pretaining to ex post facto law. I'm not sure what that means in an environment of bold editing. Is it intended to prevent certain changes in content, or is it meant to apply to preventing punitive sanctions against community members who broke no rule at the time of the "offense"? If it is the later I support it, not the former.--Edivorce 16:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]