1. 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) 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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) 14:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to both questions. As I said in my statement, these are also questions for the Community as a whole to address, possibly with the nomination of more arbitrators and the reduction of the term length (to try to minimise burn out). Within the current system, I would support a "docket" system, where two or three arbitrators are assigned to a case to take charge of the verification of evidence and the general management of a case. I can't see how it is a useful allocation of the scare human resources to pretend that each of fifteen arbitrators should read each of five or six hundred diffs. A docket system would not prevent any arbitrator from commenting on any case: it would merely spread out the bureaucratic tasks.

These tasks also include the case management, although this is always a fine balance, in RL justice as on WP. I don't agree that the proliferation of subarguments is such a great problem in ArbCom cases—it is surely useful to allow users to express their grievances in a controlled environment—but, if it becomes a problem, it can be resolved by a more active approach to case management than has been the norm under the current Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 10:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Anwser. Both are true, although not usually in the same case! I think we need to find some way to reduce the current workload for each individual arbitrator, or rather to allow them to take a closer interest in fewer cases, while maintaining and increasing the total throughput of the Committee. A "docket" system is one possibility, as I outlined above. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

Answer. I think that the current Committee hit a low, even by its own standards, with the "permanent legal threat parole" in the Jeffrey Vernon Merkey case—a "remedy" which already applies to every editor on Wikipedia! Otherwise, I think the Committee erred in dismissing the THF-DavidShankBone case simply because one of the editors was inactive, and I would have liked to have seen even a partial decision in the Allegations of apartheid case, dispite its obvious complexity. Physchim62 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, east.718 at 16:19, 11/6/2007

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 16:59, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I must admit that I don't tend to "closely follow" user RFCs—I have enough user conduct problems of which I am aware and of which I know the background, I don't really relish going and finding more of which I don't know the background—but my general impression is that they are variable in their "fairness". My views on the "discussion" which lead to the blocking of User:Sadi Carnot are well known, and the case is currently before the arbitrators so I shall refrain from commenting further here. Physchim62 (talk) 11:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?--ragesoss 22:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I think the concept of a "scientific" point of view on Wikipedia is very problematic. It is a term which tends to be bandied around by PoV-pushers who have no idea of what science or the scientific method actually are. After all, it is very difficult to define "the scientific method"—it's a little bit like the Invisible Pink Unicorn, with a bit of training you know what it is when you see it. I think we have all the tools necessary to build an encyclopedia without relying on such a shaky concept as SPOV. Physchim62 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? — Soleil (formerly I) 23:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I think the Committee should be twice as large and that the term length for it's members should be half as long (18 months instead of three years), but these are points which must be determined by the Community as a whole, not the Committee in conclave. Otherwise, I think the Committee needs to examine its internal management of its human resources and its caseload, in order to improve the service it offers to the Community in terms of the speed of resolution and the coverage of points of dispute. Physchim62 (talk) 11:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. Let us not forget that the vast majority of edit-warriors don't come before the Committee. In a way, your question seems more suited to an RFA than an ArbCom election! That said, the edit-warriors who do come before the Committee tend to be among the more destructive and disruptive, and they should expect no quarter. My philosophy in applying a ban would be the same as I have used as an administrator—a sanction is justified if no other remedy would be as effective in preventing the disruption to the encyclopedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What about uncivil editors (including those making personal attacks)? What factors should the Committee consider in deciding whether and how to sanction them?

Answer. HOW DARE YOU ASK ME THAT QUESTION!!!!!! sorry... Incivility is a problem on Wikipedia as it is a problem in everyday life. While we have to accept that our editors are human beings and that they sometimes lose their temper, editors who are repeatedly poisoning the working environment should be encouraged to take a wikibreak, and such a break should be forced upon them if they cannot take the hint. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson?

Answer. I think the Community has to realise that some of its trolls have a sysop bit. Desysopping is perfectly justified when administrative actions are causing undue disruption to Wikipedia. It is preferable to desysop when admin actions are concerned rather than impose the more serious sanction of a ban, although obviously admins have no special immunity from being banned if their actions merit it. I think a temporary suspension can be a useful wakeup call, especially in the case of new admins: as pointed out in the Pedophilia userbox wheel war case, WP:BITE applies to admins as well as editors. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Under what circumstances should the Committee consider an appeal of a community ban?

Answer. The Committee should always consider an appeal from a community ban, even if it is simply to dismiss it rapidly. Otherwise, I think the criteria for allowing an appeal (partial or complete) should be the same as for ArbCom bans, and based on the well known ArbCom principle that every banned user is potentially redeemable. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. Two recent cases, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid and Wikipedia: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?

Answer. If the Committee cannot agree, it cannot agree: the only solution is to remit the case back to the Community. It might be that Jimbo Wales decides to step in to impose a solution, as he has been known to do from time to time in the past, but that is not a matter for the Committee. I would say, however, that I would consider a partial solution better than no solution at all: all decisions by the Committee are, by their essence, partial solutions and the Committee should not be afraid of pointing out that it cannot solve every single problem on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your consideration. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you successfully nominated any article that you've heavily edited to Featured or Good Article status in any language version of Wikipedia? Cla68 08:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. On principle, I do not nominate my own articles for either FA or GA status, and I try to stay as far away from these processes as possible. However Ammonia is a good article mostly thanks to my editing in the summer of 2005, and I have contributed to the editing of Acetic acid and Raney nickel in order that they could become featured articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. I would like to think that the ideal Arbtration Committee would have a cross-section of the Wikipedia community, rather than any particular personality type. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you have any experience in real life that could relate to activities arbitrators have to deal with?

Answer. Well I've done several different jobs in real life, but maybe the most relevant one to this question was teaching physics and chemistry at a French junior high school. That's not to compare the Wikipedia Community to a bunch of rowdy twelve-year olds, perish the though! A schoolteacher is an example of a RL role where the "authority" comes from the Community at large rather than from the people who are most directly affected. And just as the students don't choose their teacher, neither does the teacher choose his or her students—he or she has to do the best they can with the kids that are put in front of them.

If you've never been a schoolteacher you might like to ask yourself how a single person can keep control of thirty adolescents who really don't want to be there. Violence is a very bad solution, quite apart from the fact that it's illegal in most school districts! Teachers keep discipline in class by following two golden rules:

1. The rules are made clear right from the start, and all members of the Community accept that the rules exist. You cannot simply invent a rule when you feel like it and still expect it to be followed.
2. Sanctions are applied proportionately to the transgression, and fairly to all transgressors. There should be no favorites and no bullying.

I would hope that administrators and the Arbitration Committee would follow these principles in resolving disputes on Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time. Majorly (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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?

Answer. Yes, three years is a long time—ridiculously long, in my opinion. Before we start inventing new "recall" mechanisms, wouldn't it be simpler just to reduce the term length of arbitrators? How about 18-month terms, with an election every six months? Tranche B's term could be shortened to end in June 2008, and Tranche C to end in December 2008, as a transitional measure to implement the new system.

Other than that, I'm not against recall in principle, but I find it hard to see a system which would not be so complex and unwieldy that it was never used. Getting 200 Wikipedians to agree on anything is a complicated and time-consuming process! Would that be worthwhile simply to remove an arbitrator? Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

Answer. Absolutely not. There is no technical limit to the number of checkusers or oversighters we can have, so a user with these tools who is temporarily inactive is in no way "hogging" tools which could be granted to another user. I would be against the imposition of an artificial limit—I think we should have as many checkusers and oversighters as we have trusted users who wish to perform these functions—but the final word lies with the Board rather than the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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?

Answer. ArbCom should be very wary (and is very wary) of stepping into a legislative role which is properly reserved for the Community and/or the Board. On the other hand, arbitrators are not expected to check their intelligence in at the door when they perform their functions: they should not pretend all is well when it obviously isn't, nor that we have well-written policy if it is clear that we don't.

The "safety check" is ArbCom's role to provide solutions to specific disputes which are brought before it. As things stand, ArbCom does not rule on hypothetical disputes, nor does it go looking for disputes to rule on. Within this framework, I think it is legitimate for the Committee to point out discrepancies in policy and to suggest solutions to the Community at large. Physchim62 (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your time and good luck. WjBscribe 23:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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, — xaosflux ^Talk 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. Allow me to quote from my reply to WJBscribe above: "I would be against the imposition of an artificial limit—I think we should have as many checkusers and oversighters as we have trusted users who wish to perform these functions—but the final word lies with the Board rather than the Arbitration Committee." Physchim62 (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am reading interesting, thoughtful answers on this page, but I can't get past the fact that you are involved in a case at ArbCom right now. Do you see what that might concern an editor? Can you convince us that we should not be concerned?

Answer. "Convince [you]"? I don't know! But ArbCom is there to be used, isn't it? As I have mentioned above, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on the details of the Sadi Carnot case: my comments there are already a matter of public record. I would point out that the case was brought with my encouragement [1], and that I would have filed it myself had Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) not filed it first. The comments of various uninvolved users (some of whom are candidates in this election) tend to indicate that there is sufficient community concern about the banning of disruptive users (whomever these may be) to justify the attention of the Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you think this 'election' is the right form of selection of arbitrators? Please explain why, or why not.

Answer. In general, on Wikipedia, we say the Polls are evil, but how would we do things differently? WP:RfArbship? I don't think that would address the problems of having enough active arbitrators to serve the Community. At least with the current system we have the participation of a larger segment of the Community than currently !votes on RfAs and RfBs, and we have a reasonable ratio of candidates to places to ensure a real choice.

All the same, I would say that four weeks of questions is longer than is necessary. Given the disparity in the number of questions between candidates who declared early and candidates who declared later, it appears that even the questioners are getting tired! And (at the time of writing) we're not even half-way through the process! As I have said above, I would support twice-yearly ArbCom elections to go with 18-month terms. Under this system, the questioning of candidates shouldn't be longer than 10–14 days: we also have an encyclopedia to write, after all! Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. If you are not selected, how would ArbCom be hurt?

Answer. ArbCom wouldn't be hurt at all if I were not elected, how pretentious it would be of me to suggest otherwise! All that any candidate can hope for is that this election results in an Arbitration Committee which is revitalized and which retains the confidence of the Community. I include, in "Community", the nearly-a-million individuals who edited English Wikipedia last month and the two-hundred-million-or-so individuals who consulted our encyclopedia in the same period. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. Nationalist-dispute related cases with large numbers of participants crop up regularly. Do you have an opinion as to why? Do they need to be handled differently from other ArbCom cases?

Answer. I think the question of "why?" is much easier to reply to than your implied question of "how should we deal with them?"! Wikipedia aims to be a global encyclopedia, not just an encyclopedia of the "Anglosphere". At the same time, it tries to ensure that its reputation and its bandwidth are not diverted to the partisan promotion of a one political cause or another. Far be it from me to say that it is simple to reconcile these two principles in actual cases, and many administrators have encountered practical problems which have been so serious that ArbCom has had to become involved (myself included—see the Catalonia case).

Up until now, ArbCom has treated these cases from a purely "user conduct" viewpoint, and this still seems to be the only approach which has clear Community consensus. Within this framework, I would suggest that both ArbCom and the Community-at-large be more liberal in issuing topic bans in these cases. An editor who only wishes to add his or her political point-of-view, and to articles which are already contraversial, is not an editor who is useful to the project. I would not shed a single tear to see them leave as a result of their soapboxing being frustrated. Physchim62 (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jd2718 22:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, if anything, do you believe is wrong with the current arbitration process, and/or the committee? This includes anything related to the committee and its actions. If appointed, what do you intend to do to resolve these issues? I (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. This question is surely a mistake. Allow me to point you to my answer to exactly the same question above, and to our guidelines on the use of alternative accounts. Physchim62 (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to ask twice. I forgot I had already asked. I (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. You seem to be under a misconception here: the Arbitration Committee has next to no role to play in possible legal actions against the Wikimedia Foundation. Real life legal disputes are dealt with by the Board, who pay legal counsel in Florida and who can hire counsel in other jurisdictions as is necessary. The Arbitration Committee helps to enforce the local policy on English Wikipedia, which is, of course, but only in part, designed to minimise the risk of the Foundation finding itself involved in a court case.

If a user finds an article which might be in violation of the law, the first response is ((sofixit)). If the article can't be fixed for whatever reason, they can ask for help at WP:ANI or at many other Wikipedia forums. If there are issues of user conduct, the Arbitration Committee might eventually get involved, but this would be for breach of Wikipedia policies and principles, not to pretend to rule on real life law! RL law is NOT determined by Wikipedia:Consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think Wikipedia does enough to retain experts? What, if anything, should we do to encourage more experts to contribute, and how should we handle experts who cite their own work? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I'm not sure that it's helpful to distinguish between "experts" and "other editors": it certainly isn't traditional on Wikipedia, and we have grown to over two million articles without the need for such distinctions. An "expert-edited" online encyclopedia is currently standing at around 3600 articles…

Obviously we should do our best not to lose editors! ArbCom can help in this process by promoting a certain "rule of law" (as I described in my reply to Majorly above), and in not unduely adding to Wikipedia's already horrendous complexity. Soon, if we are not careful, we will need Wikipedia:Noticeboards' noticeboard!

Editors who cite their own work can be useful, but they can also be problematic. The criterion for any given article shoulc be "is it a useful addition to the encyclopedia?" Editors who are making useful contributions should not be harrassed for sterile claims of some supposed "conflict of interest", while editors who are repeatedly making unuseful contributions will eventually have to be asked—or forced—to leave. Physchim62 (talk) 15:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. What sort of evidence can establish a case of abusive sock puppetry? What do you think of Checkuser evidence versus behavioral evidence? - Jehochman ^Talk 23:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I think the key word to remember here is disruption. If there is disruption, we need to find some form of solution for it, whether it is sock-linked or not. If there is no disruption, I don't see why admins should be wasting their time on it, and I am quite suspicious of certain "high-profile" admins who seem to have declared themselves some sort of "Wikipedia Bureau of Investigation". People who have sysop tools should also have the discretion to know when not to use them!

To return to your question about sockpuppetry investigations, everyone should remember that these are very rarely conclusive. Indeed, our most disruptive trolls already know how to get around many if not most of our current defenses. A response from CheckUser is not just a technical tool, but also involves a judgement call from an uninvolved respected user. "Behavioural evidence" is obviously subjective, but can be quite compelling in many cases. Admins should weigh up the evidence which they have available at the time, along with the potential future disruption to wikipedia, when making their decisions. So long as they do that, they should have the support of the Arbitration Committee. Physchim62 (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. Not usually, no, for reasons which I explain in 2 below. On the other hand, if ArbCom is considering a (totally hypothetical case) involving, for example, serious personal attacks made by a user and a channel op comes forward to say that the same user has been blocked on #wikipedia for making the same sort of attacks, I think it would be a little silly to disregard the evidence just because it comes from IRC. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. ArbCom has no formal "jurisdiction" over these channels, just as it has no jurisdiction over other Wikimedia projects apart from English Wikipedia. If channel operators wish to act on the basis of ArbCom decisions, that's entirely their own business. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. A completely unworkable idea. Who would ever read the logs? In any case, the logs would not cover private messaging. See also 2 below. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can emails and IRC logs, etc., be published on Wikipedia? Why or why not? Should they, or shouldn't they?

Answer. Emails and IRC conversations are private, and cannot be published without the consent of the parties for simple reasons of copyright, without even looking at the moral questions involved. Why should email and IRC be any different from other private conversations? Are you suggesting bugging users' houses to record any conversations concerning WP which they might have with family members? (An exception exists for occasional public IRC debates, such as public Board meetings or the recent Signpost interviews with Jimbo and Anthere: everyone involved knows that these are publicly logged and might be published in part or in whole.)

Emails and IRC logs texts are also difficult if not impossible to verify, and so could place the Foundation in a difficult situation with regards to diffamation laws. And if they can't be verified, what purpose would they serve? Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Gracenotes, and do you believe this was the correct decision?

Answer. The jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee extends only to English Wikipedia. As such, users are not "required to answer to the Committee" for their actions outside this project, and the Committee should not accept cases based solely on off-wiki activity.

However, editing Wikipedia is not a right. In my answer to 1(a) above I mentioned one hypothetical situation in which ArbCom might well decide to consider the off-wiki activities of a user in deciding remedies related to an on-wiki complaint. There might be other cases in which a user has lost the confidence of the Community because of off-wiki activities, and it would be equally wrong of the Committee to step in to "protect" such users.

ArbCom has never intervened in the initial nomination of administrators—we have a separate group of trusted users who examine such cases. While one should be wary of saying never, I cannot imagine an example where it would be appropriate or legitimate for ArbCom to step in to overrule the bureaucrats. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Answer. The scenario doesn't seem particularly credible—it is far worse than any recent wheel wars, including those which have reached ArbCom for resolution—but the principle is quite simple. OTRS actions are privileged, they should not be undone by admins without OTRS access. Ever. So the second admin is looking at a suspension or withdrawal of the sysop bit, depending on the real circumstances of the case. The third admin acted correctly. The first admin should not have mentioned a possible legal threat in the edit summary, merely the number of the OTRS ticket which would allow appraisal of the blanking. He or she should possibly also have considered the utility of oversighting the relevant edits. Neither of these minor faults would merit ArbCom sanctions. Physchim62 (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. What is your (emphasis heavily intended) definition of a wheel war?

Answer. A wheel war is a disruption of Wikipedia through the repeated reversion of administrative actions. I think the term has been thrown around far too often, to the point that it has become virtually useless as a classification of behaviour. Let us not forget that most disputes between admins are solved before they get to formal dispute resolution, let alone ArbCom: this includes disputes in which admins are reverting each other, sometimes repeatedly. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think an arbitrator should be active in all cases he has no conflict or interests in?

Answer. Of couse not. There are a multitude of real life reasons why an arbitrator might be temporarily unavailable: illness, moving house, marriage, holiday, arrival of children or death of family members etc etc etc. No sane organization would expect its officers to serve for each and every of the 1096 days between 2008-01-01 and 2010-12-31, and I don't think Wikipedia should either. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. If the arbitrator is active, should he be expected to comment in workshop / arbcom discussion pages?

Answer. I don't think it's useful to have all fifteen arbitrators commenting on each Workshop, but I agree that there should be some arbitrator input. As I've mentioned elsewhere, I think that a couple of arbitrators should be assigned to each case to deal with any case management issues during the evidence and (especially) workshop phases. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. 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?

Answer. There is a persistent feeling that some long-standing editors—admins in particular—get "privileged treatment". This is ironic, because policy, guidelines and ArbCom decisions all say exactly the opposite! As I said above, if we are to retain respect for our policies, we should apply sanctions proportionately and fairly, without favorites or scapegoats. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. How can WP:CIV and similar issues be enforced? Should they be enforced as efficient as 3RR?

Answer. What a strange comparison—I wasn't aware that WP:3RR was applied particularly efficiently…

Wikipedia:Civility may be enforced by any of the tools available to admins, from simple reminders through to blocks of increasing length. I am not in favour of any fixed scale of penalities, as each real case is different, but editors whose inability to remain civil brings them before ArbCom should not expect any sympathy. Physchim62 (talk) 13:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 18:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you comment on the arbitration re Sadi Carnot? [2]

Given that there is a discussion of the subject in a peer reviewed article in a reputable journal [3] do you still think you should have put the capture-bonding article up for deletion? Keith Henson 20:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. No, I will not comment on the Sadi Carnot case while it is still under arbitration. My comments there (in which I suggest that you be topic banned and placed on probation) and on the AfD debate to which you refer are of public record, and should answer any queries. Physchim62 (talk) 13:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It might interest readers of this question to note that Hkhenson (talk · contribs) has only 91 mainspace edits since 2005-10-14. There are an additional 35 deleted mainspace edits, mostly deleted as a result of the AfD discussion mentioned above. My count suggests that the questioner, for all his other qualities, does not have the right to vote in this election. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good non-answer. It should be noted that Physchim62 also proposed sanctions against Kww (talk · contribs) and Jehochman (talk · contribs). Both did valuable service to the Wikipedia exposing the Sadi Carnot mess (not to slight a number of others who dug into it). I would suggest that those considering this business look into Physchim62's strong support of Sadi Carnot back to last spring except the material has conveniently been deleted. Perhaps someone could suggest how it be made available? I think it is of interest here that Physchim62 will not reconsider his stand on AfD of capture-bonding on the basis of valid WP:RS information. [4]

As to the comment, I did not know I might be permitted to vote on Physchim62's rise to arbitrator prior to him bringing it up. Thanks. Keith Henson 16:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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?--David Shankbone 18:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I think we should be wary of falling into the trap of "prepackaged opinions". Wikipedia is not some Arbiter of Truth, and the Arbitration Committee tries as far as possible to avoid ruling of issues of article content for exactly that reason.

To try to answer your question, I think that the problem is more subtle than you suggest. The two hundred million or so individuals who read English Wikipedia each month come here looking for information. Given that they've taken the time to look in the world's largest encyclopedia, I think we can credit them with the intelligence to form their own opinions! But let's not forget as well that sometimes they come looking for information about opinions… We should also be flexible enough to be able to give them that information. Physchim62 (talk) 13:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Do you think an administrator should use his administrative privileges on topics/articles/projects in which he is directly involved and has strong opinions about? (i.e. conflict of interest).

Answer. This is a volunteer project. I am not paid for my editing, nor do I have any financial interest in editing Wikipedia. The same is true of the vast majority of our users. Are you suggesting that administrators should not edit articles in which they are (intellectually) interested? That administrative tools should only be used in areas which the particular administrator knows nothing about? That hardly seems a sensible way to develop the encyclopedia.

I would also add that I think that "conflict of interest" is a term which is thrown around far too often on Wikipedia. After all, you are an administrator on Catalan Wikipedia and you sometimes edit articles related to Catalonia on English Wikipedia: does that mean that you have a conflict of interest? I think not. You certainly have "strong opinions" about subjects related to Catalonia, opinions which are only shared by a minority of Catalans I mught add, but that does not stop you from editing these articles either here or on cawiki. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the question. I never asked if you should edit an article but if you should use your administrative privileges in an article in which you hava POV. You should not deviate the question by bringing spurious claims about myself(and if you had had checked, when you requested for Arbitration, my contributions at ca.wiki you'd have realized that there I am sometimes "accused" of being Estatista, which is the exact opposite of your accusations against me. Besides you brought spurious accusations against serious and commited users while you protected one very disruptive user, who was blocked by the arbitrators, and not us.) Moreover, I have no administrative privileges here, so there is no "conflict of interest". Do you mind anwering my question?--the Dúnadan 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you think an arbitrator should arbitrate (pardon the redundancy) in such cases, that is, if asked to arbitrate on some discussion in which you have strong opinions about, would you accept or not and why?

Answer. The question of recusal is one to which it is difficult to respond in clear-cut terms. Arbitrators obviously have to be seen to reasonably neutral in their handling of cases. Arbitrators can always ask for advice from other members of the Committee and/or from clerks if they are not sure whether they should recuse themselves or not. However, I don't think it is useful to say that an arbitrator should recuse themselves just because they happen to know something about the subject concerned!

I would guess that there is an implied question here: "would I recuse myself from a future case concerning Catalonia?" The answer is an obvious "yes", given the level of my past involvement with these subjects, including bringing an arbitration case against yourself (among others). You will note that I have not even edited Catalonia articles recently, much less taken any administrative action: I think it is less contraversial for other admins to look after these articles, now that I have brought the problems to people's attention through the arbitration. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I have not said anything about editing but about using your admin powers. Moreover, I am not referring to any case concerning Catalonia, but to any future case of whatsoever subject. I am concerned, as a user, because you blocked an innocent user by assigning him a false sockpuppet (and were proven wrong), you wrongly accused me of sockpuppetry (and were proven wrong), wrongly accused other users of being disruptive (and no punitive action was taken against us by arbitrators) and you failed to include an accusation against a very, very disruptive user who cursed, insulted other users and violated several rules at Wikipedia for which he was blocked seven times (one of them permanently). This user, happen to agree with your POV, so you brought a spurious accusation against us by opeing a Request for Arbitration. It failed to bring your expected outcome, and now you want to be an arbitrator. So if you are given new responsibilities as an arbitrator, my question is, how should we expect you to behave in articles (whatsoever) in which you might have a conflict of interest?

3. Being that we are all human, how easy would it be to you to acknowledge you are wrong on an arbitration decision? Would you rectify your decision and apologize to the pertinent parties?

Answer. Arbitration decisions are collegiate. That doesn't guarantee perfection, of course, but it does mean that any rectification would also have be collegiate. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The are indeed collegiate. And if you, as a member, are willing to rectify your decision, that suffices as an answer to my question. However, even after you were proven wrong by blocking an innocent user and accusing me of sockpuppetry -and proven wrong on both accounts- you did not offer an apology. In fact, when I asked you to open a fair trial instead of unilaterally blocking User:Benimerin you responded in a very inappropriate way by saying it was "none of my business". Should we expect the same behavior in the future?--the Dúnadan 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. If an administrator is involved in a Request for Arbitration and users bring purported evidence of abuse of his/her privileges, what would be your line of action as an arbitrator towards the administrator and why?

Answer. I realise that purported abuses of admin privileges are particularly worrying for the Community but, in terms of the Arbitration Committee, I don't see why they need any special treatment, different from that given to other questions of user conduct. The role of the Committee is to calmly look at the evidence and to decide if any further action is needed. Administrators are not always right, but they're not always wrong either! Just like other users who find themselves involved in an arbitration. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. Thanks. --the Dúnadan 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. What should be the extent of a proposed action as an arbitrator? Do you think an arbitration should be a simple verbal reprimand or do you think that effective -and even drastic- actions should be taken (i.e. permanently blocking extremely disruptive violent users)? If you thing the latter is better, how should a drastic action be handled?

Answer. A sanction should be proportionate to the transgression which gave rise to it and at the lowest level necessary to preserve the integrity of the encyclopedia. In some cases, an indefinite ban is the lowest reasonable level, but this should be imposed based on the facts of the case and not because of some fixed scale. Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you answer. I sometimes don't think the integrity of the encyclopedia is preserved by condoning the action of users who curse, insult other users and violate rules to the point of being blocked eight times. What is the lowest level in such cases?--the Dúnadan 21:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6. Having requested for arbitration yourself, were you pleased with the outcome, specifically on the Request for Arbitration on all articles related to Catalonia? Given that several users brought [purported] evidence of your misuse/abuse of your administrative powers, do you think the Arbitration Committee handled the issue properly by giving absolutely no opinion on the matter -much less a proposed action? (i.e. should ArbCom have at least commented on it? Do you think ArbCom is too lenient to the point of not even expressing an opinion when it comes to administrators or do you think ArbCom failed to read all the opinions expressed thoroughly or failed to communicate their thoughts? --the Dúnadan 00:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. I notice that you missed one option there: that, just possibly, I might not have abused my administrative tools in this case… Physchim62 (talk) 13:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but arbitrators didn't even comment to say you didn't. Several users brought "evidence", arbitrators did not even say: we've reviewed it, he didn't. Complete silence, and the case was closed. If administrators did not see any misuse (I think abuse was a strong word, I apologize), they should have at least commented on it, in my opinion. So my question is, let me rephrase, do you think this lack of "comment" is due to lack of time, lack of resources (say, very few admins) or little involvement in this issues? What would you do, if elected to change that, if that is the case?

--the Dúnadan 19:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You recently called for the recall of your fellow candidate Durova as an administrator on this ANI subpage. In the event that both you and she are appointed to the committee, do you anticipate being able to work amicably and productively with her? —Cryptic 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. Myself and Durova have worked amically and productively together in the past, and I look forward to doing so again in the future in whatever capacity we might each hold on this project. Physchim62 (talk) 13:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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? AniMate 12:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Of my recent mainspace contributions, I am happiest with my rewrites of molar mass and molar volume and my addition of molar mass constant. These are fundamental topic in chemistry, but often badly understood: 95% of professional chemists have never heard of the molar mass constant, even though they use it every working day!

However, I don't think that article writing and text improvement are the only ways which an experienced editor can help the encyclopedia. I have also been involved in discussions on sytle guidelines for molecular structure images, on a project to allow searching of Wikipedia by molecular structure and with a collaboration with IUPAC to improve the referencing of certain chemistry articles. Physchim62 (talk) 12:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer. No. The first I heard of the block, or of User:!! for that matter, was when the incident was reported at WP:AN/I. Physchim62 (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your views regarding debates such as WP:RFAR/HWY and WP:SRNC? (In terms of dispute resolution).

Answer: Hmm, well, there was some dispute resolution, and the (long) process ended with a compromise which seems to have consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. 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?

Answer: I think WikiProjects are very important to the encyclopedia. They facilitate discussion between editors and project management of improvements. However, I don't think that editors get any special "rights" just because they have come together to form a WikiProject: WP:OWN and WP:MOS still apply. Many projects have style guidelines (such as these from WikiProject Chemicals), but they are exactly that—guidelines. A few WikiProjects also have wider Community roles, such as WP:PHYSICS and WP:CHEMISTRY in article RfCs, or WP:WPSS in the management of stub categories, but this situation has come about through the normal Community process of consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3. Do you believe that parent WikiProjects have the right to impose standards (such as article layout) on sibling WikiProjects? (Case in point: WP:USRD and its state highway projects)

Answer: Wikipedia is not meant to work by one group of editors "imposing" their views on others. Any group of editors who tries this may well find that another rather special group of editors called the Arbitration Committee might do some "imposing" of its own. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

4. a) What is your definition of canvassing? b) Does it include project newsletters or IRC?

Answer: My definition of the sort of canvassing which we should be worrying about is some sort of disruptive series of edits in support of a WikiCause.

I think rather too much fuss is made about canvassing on Wikipedia. I don't think it's disruptive simply because it falls withing the dictionary definition of canvassing. Would it have been disruptive had my signature appeared as below during these elections? Of course not, but I wasn't allowed to modify it because someone has come along and said that "canvassing is evil".

Canvassing on project newsletters and on IRC has always gone on ever since such things have existed. I think that users should accept this and get on with the business of writing an encyclopedia, rather than worrying about how to try to make Wikipedia somehow 'holier than thou'. Physchim62 (talk) (ArbCom) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

5. 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?

Answer: Vandalism is a bit like pornography: it's hard to give an exact definition, and indeed not everyone has exactly the same definition, but you tend to recognise it when you see it.

I find it hard to see any occasion where a block would be appropriate on a good-faith editor: we should always favour discussion as more effective in the long term. Page protection shoud only be used in such cases where it is necessary for housekeeping. Physchim62 (talk) 11:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is currently a proposal at the Village Pump (Policy) that policies be protected from free editing[5]. 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)[reply]

Answer: I support Guy's idea, it think it would be helpful, although it's not the only possible solution, nor does it address the whole problem.

Wikipedia has too much policy, which changes too often and which is often inconsistent with itself. Protection of policy pages would alleviate the second problem and hopefully stop the third from getting any worse. However, I hope that the Community will also take the opportunity to reexamine each of its policy pages to see if they really need to be hard policy, or whether a set of guidelines might work just as well.

As for the Arbitration Committee, written policy is only one of its tools. We have no written policy against crass stupidity, for example, but that's rather different from saying that crass stupidity is desirable, or even tolerated, on Wikipedia. Bad behaviour does not become acceptable simply because there is no written policy against it! Or rather, if you're trying to game the system, don't, because the Arbitration Committee (along with those users who help it out on individual cases) know the system rather better than you do! Physchim62 (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Can/Should Arbcom create wikipedia policy? Or develop a proposed policy for community vote?

Answer: It can't and it shouldn't. It would be a distraction from its main role of providing remedies to concrete disputes between users. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2. Do you intend to help create or propose wikipedia policy as an Arbcom member?

Answer: The precedent from past Arbitration Committee is that individual arbitrators are perfectly entitled to participate in policy-making, just as any other user would be. Having said that, I've not been particularly active on policy talkpages in the past, and I don't see why that should change now. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Blue Tie 13:25, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I am disappointed at the fact that you did not continue answering my questions above. There are several issues that I believe must be addressed if you are to aspire to new administrative responsibilities.This time, and I will beg your pardon, I will be much more direct in asking my questions, expecting much more specific answers:

• Will you use your administrative privileges again (not editing, but admin tools) -or even your privileges as an arbitrator- in articles in which clearly you have shown a very extremist and particular POV against those who disagree with your POV and protecting those who agree with your POV? Background: [6], [7] and [8], [9].

You had said above, in my first set of questions that you would [citing] "recuse myself from a future case concerning Catalonia? The answer is an obvious "yes", given the level of my past involvement with these subjects... I think it is less contraversial for other admins to look after these articles". That would have been a wise decision given your evident partial behavior by claiming that different POVs are "vandalism", whereas your POV is not. I was surprised however, by your most recent behavior -I guess you decided not to abide by your own words- in a more recent dispute between Maurice27 (talk · contribs) (with a history of vandalism, insults, edit warring and 3RR violations) and several other users in an article related to Catalonia, namely Catalan Countries, you again, used your administrative privileges in a very partial way.

Several users, not one, disagreed with Maurice27's edit and brought elements to discuss, like User:SMP and User:Casaforra. User:Maurice27 broke, yet again even after his eight blockage WP:3RR. User:Xtv reported him to the notice board. Needless to say, there is enough history -and concerned users can follow the links provided in the bullet above- to prove that you agree with Maurice27's POV -an evident disruptive user who has being blocked eight times for his extremely disruptive behavior- and that you continue to protect him and your particular POV by misusing your administrative tools. The other administrators who had reviewed Maurice27's case forgave his 3RR violation and did not block Casaforra, but you jumped in -in an issue in which you have a POV- to block Casaforra who did not violate 3RR![10] Please don't tell me again that your administrative decisions are "none of my business". If you are to aspire to new positions, and we are to vote for you, they are the business of any concerned user in Wikipedia. The questions are:

• Why didn't you abide by your own word and decided to intervene partially again in articles in which you clearly have a particular POV? Should we expect the same behavior -intervening in issues in which you have a clear POV and not abiding by your own word- as an arbitrator?
• Administrator User:Pablo-flores, as an example, has acted impartially in articles in which he has a POV. When he blocked a page in which he had a POV, he asked other users to discuss and reach a consensus, but refused to participate in it so that there would be no "conflict of interest". After the consensus, which he didn't particularly liked- he unblocked the page. Would you agree with me that administrators should have a history of impartial decisions if they are to aspire to the position of arbitrator? Do you think you have such a history to back up your candidacy?

--the Dúnadan 17:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 17:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you determine if something that someone said is "offensive" or not? Are you more likely to find comments that offend you personally "offensive" than those that only seem to offend others? How does your thought process work when dealing with matters of civility? futurebird 18:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have just today blocked [11] another admin, Hesperian, for a dispute in which you were involved concerning a TfD [12] (just reversed by a neutral admin after a complaint at [WP:AN/I]). :What will be your attitude on ArbCom to administrators who block in disputes in which they are involved? DGG (talk) 15:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Mailing list

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?

Secret evidence and secret communication of arbitrators with non-arbitrators

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?

Recusals

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?

Community oversight over the arbitration policy

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?