Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ronline
Hi! I'm candidating for the ArbCom because I believe in justice in Wikipedia and think I can bring about positive change as to the fairness of arbitration procedures. I have worked in mediation in the past, and also in various cases at both the English and Romanian Wikipedias. If I become an arbitrator, my most important consideration will be to look at both sides impartially and to guarantee that the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way. I am a firm believed in dialogue, and I always aim to make sure that both sides understand very well what the dispute is about, since I believe that alienation and misunderstanding is the most significant and most dangerous root of conflict. It is only through true justice and transparency that we can bring about a better, more stable and more trustworthy Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask any questions on this page. Thanks, 
Ronline ✉ 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
- Yes, very much so. I'm very keen on having a solid framework for user rights.
Ronline ✉ 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
- I think WP:Civility is very important in that without respect for each other, the process of building Wikipedia becomes very problematic. In my opinion, respect, understanding and empathy are the core community values we need in order to streamline work on an encyclopedia and reduce community conflict. I generally don't view rude, arrogant editors too well, no matter what their credentials or expertise may be. As I said before, I think rudeness and uncivility breeds conflict and misunderstading, affecting the progress of Wikipedia. Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think WP:Civility is very important in that without respect for each other, the process of building Wikipedia becomes very problematic. In my opinion, respect, understanding and empathy are the core community values we need in order to streamline work on an encyclopedia and reduce community conflict. I generally don't view rude, arrogant editors too well, no matter what their credentials or expertise may be. As I said before, I think rudeness and uncivility breeds conflict and misunderstading, affecting the progress of Wikipedia.
- 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?
- Well, I current work for a non-government organisation that seeks to further minority rights. I'm generally very open about constructive criticism. If criticism is uncivil, I'm not one that gets angry - I generally try to talk to people and hear out their queries before making a judgement on their behaviour. At Wikipedia, and in real life, I have often been involved in cases where two people were having a dispute, and I tried to get both of them to look at the problem more calmly and empathise with each other. As to professors, they would probably say I take criticism quite openly and without worry (for me, free speech is tantamount), though to be honest, I have also been called stubborn my some people (in the sense that, I've accepted criticism but not always followed out suggestions which I consider to not necessarily be beneficial/positive). Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I current work for a non-government organisation that seeks to further minority rights. I'm generally very open about constructive criticism. If criticism is uncivil, I'm not one that gets angry - I generally try to talk to people and hear out their queries before making a judgement on their behaviour. At Wikipedia, and in real life, I have often been involved in cases where two people were having a dispute, and I tried to get both of them to look at the problem more calmly and empathise with each other. As to professors, they would probably say I take criticism quite openly and without worry (for me, free speech is tantamount), though to be honest, I have also been called stubborn my some people (in the sense that, I've accepted criticism but not always followed out suggestions which I consider to not necessarily be beneficial/positive).
- 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.)
- Yes, I have read the policy and I agree with it, particularly the structures that seek to ensure user rights in arbitration. For me, this is very important, because I think the Arbitration Committee has to act in the utmost fairness and transparency to be considered (otherwise, as I said before, alienation and conflict sets in, and that's most detrimental for any society or community). Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, I have read the policy and I agree with it, particularly the structures that seek to ensure user rights in arbitration. For me, this is very important, because I think the Arbitration Committee has to act in the utmost fairness and transparency to be considered (otherwise, as I said before, alienation and conflict sets in, and that's most detrimental for any society or community).