Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Doc glasgow


 * This candidate has withdrawn from the election. The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this page.

Since this is a late entry and the race will start soon, I’ve looked over the questions everyone is asking and tried to pre-empt a few of them: 

My thoughts:

 * On delays: Justice delayed is justice denied. I think we need to consider two things. Firstly, whilst some cases can be complex or controversial, some have obvious outcomes – perhaps we should sometimes cut to the chase and propose simple findings almost immediately. Secondly, I’d like Jimbo to consider appointing enough new arbs to allow two groupings, splitting the case-load.


 * On process (much of this is learned from painful personal experience and silly mistakes) Process is important as long as we always keep the encyclopaedia in view. Don’t ignore process unnecessarily. So often when someone attempts to short-circuit some debate, we end up with six debates over whether the curtailment was justified. Perhaps it was, but it was also often counter-productive. Equally, no one should insist in process for process’ sake: ("Hey undelete that and send it to xfD, so we can unanimously delete it properly"). That is also a waste of time


 * On IAR This is probably a misnomer. It should be 'pay heed to all the rules - then apply common sense'. If IAR is used correctly, then the community should be left saying 'well, yes, of course, obviously'. If they don't, then consider that you may have got it wrong, and learn. Don’t ever use IAR if you know that good users will object to the result.


 * On Checkuser and oversight Checkuser need to be extremely limited and kept in hands of responsible and competent people. I don’t think I’d want it, as I’m not very technical. Oversight isn’t as big a deal. There would be no harm in more permissions being given. On the other hand, there may be no need.


 * On crats The community has trusted the crats with the power to determine RfA consensus. Generally arbcom should not second guess them. It is unhelpful if we have appeals against every borderline decision. Having said that, if the decision was clearly irrational, or in bad faith, then a review of both the decision and the decider would be necessary.


 * On remedies Remedies should never be punitive, only preventative. (Although sometimes the only means of preventing a user ab-using Wikipedia is an outright ban.) If an otherwise good user is disruptive in one subject area, or in project space, then we should remove them from that locality for a time – not deny ourselves the rest of their valued contributions.


 * On policy: within the frameworks laid down by the foundation, the community makes policy – not arbcom. Arbcom interprets and applies. However where policy is unclear, or non-existent, a little creativity may be the best way of temporarily holding things until the community decides what it wants to do.


 * On community input into decisions Arbcom should listen. Often contributors to decisions have important insights. I’ve offered my wisdom to arbcom on a number of cases. However, unlike an admin judging consensus on a debate, arbcom does not exist to follow, but to lead. In this election, the community will choose the people whose wisdom it trusts. It then needs to trust them to do the right thing.

My credentials (see further my nomination statement):

 * Age – old enough
 * Arbcom experience: I’ve been a minor party in two cases (and one is still sub-judice). But I’ve involved myself in several others. I defended, prosecuted, commented – and I think I’ve got the hang of it.
 * Just some of the specific cases I've been involved in:
 * -Ril-2 presented evidence against disruptive (subsequently banned) user
 * Requests for arbitration/KJV involved myself (successfully) to ensure arbcom didn't mistaklenly make a content decision.,  and particularly
 * Pedophilia userbox case presented compelling evidence that led directly to the blocking of troll Dschor (subsequently banned)
 * Most recently Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability
 * I've participated in numerous RfCs


 * Article writing: I’ve never bothered with the technicalities of feature writing, but I’ve written a few. Some of my earlier dabbles are here here, the rest in my contribs. As I’ve said, my expertise is religion, but I’ve given up on that (writing, not believing) because my creed included neutrality and accuracy, not being reverted by ignorant people with agendas. This bad experience would make me an arb with little patience for pov-pushers those who drive off our sane editors.
 * Admin stuff: I’ve done NP patrol, RC patrol, AfD closing, speedy deleting, prod checking, sub-sorting, flower-pressing and now I mainly do more complex stuff on OTRS. I think I’ve dabbled in most of Wikipedia.
 * Policy creating: As a new user, I came up with the phrase ‘not asserting notability’, which became CSD A7 (whether that was a good thing or not, you can decide!) As a RC patroller I created the concept and templates for . I tried to write a compromise Userbox proposal, which almost got consensus, and wrote one of the ancestors to PROD. See a fuller list here.
 * My mistakes:I regret my role in the userbox fiasco – it was petty. I regret getting fired up in the recent Giano case – it was silly. I also regret shooting JFK! Anything else? (Seriously folks, I think we’d all get on better if ‘sorry’ was used a bit more often.)


 * (N.B. for clarity. I still believe my original actions (personal attack block, and posting on ANI for review) were wholly justified and reasonable. I believe myself vindicated by the overwhelming support I received on ANI. I regret the silliness of bothering to defend my decision in the face of what was partisan and unreasonable criticism from some. I should have simply explained my action and left it at that. (Note added after withdrawing from election)--Docg 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)) 


 * (I'm being bold and refactoring questions below to try to keep this readable)--Docg 10:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

from maclean
1. Do you have dispute resolution experience in any of the following areas: Mediation Committee, Mediation Cabal, Third opinion, Requests for comment, or Association of Members' Advocates? If not successful with the Arbitration Committee, will you seek a position with the Mediation Committee?


 * A: I've not really been big on joining things, and wearing badges. (I did RC patrol without joining CVU, welcomed without the welcoming committee, and tried to be nice to people without Esparanza.) As for mediation, yes, I've done it informally. Here's one example that springs to mind . I've also been active in many RfCs (although I tend to avoid the ones that are degenerating into witch-hunts and slug-fests. If I'm unsuccessful here? I'll just carry on being useful where I feel I can best be - I'll rule nothing in or out.

2. In your candidate statement and in notes above you mention that your experience with on religion-related articles has given you little patience for POV-pushers. Is it possible to turn POV-pushers into otherwise good editors? In your experience, does this transformation ever happen in reality?


 * A: Actually, I'm usually a very patient person. It is just that I think extending too much patience to hard-nosed problem users is unfair on other members of our community. We might reform the odd one, but at the expense of driving off driving off many good users in the meantime. That's a poor exchange.


 * Of course, often reform will often occur. Many n00bs don't grasp NPOV initially. They treat us like a discussion forum and forward their views. In many cases, they get gently pointed to our ethos, they 'get it', and go on to be great wikipedians. Sometimes we'll have to shout at them a bit (nicely) before that happens. But when someone has a string of 3RR blocks, and a history of disruption, the odds that they'll suddenly change are significantly lower. Certainly a proportion of these people can still be reformed - but does the collateral damage to the community make it worth it?

from Carcharoth
First, thanks for running, and thanks for the summary above of your views on the questions that have been asked elsewhere.

My question arose when I was looking at your block log. It seems to me that you have, in the past, decided to leave. Can you explain why you left, why you came back, and, if elected, whether you would commit to a three year term and not similarly leave the project again? Thanks. Carcharoth 05:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A: OK, I never really did manage to leave; and I guarantee I've given up trying. At the beginning of June 2006, I burned out a bit. I got too sucked into certain things (see above), and needed to back off and reflect. I requested desysopping, and whilst waiting for it, to my shame, for a few minutes engaged in minor mischief making (principally redirecting deletion review to Tony Sidaway's talk page.) I thought it was harmless fun, as did others (including Tony) - but to those who felt otherwise I apologise.


 * After two weeks Wikibreak, I got drawn back in. I spent a couple of months doing exclusively content editing using the alternative account User:Aoratos. (And before anyone screams 'sock puppet' - the account was openly declared.) This was a good experience, and reminded me what it was like to be a 'normal user', and have trade on the strength of your case rather than throw your reputation about. Every admin should try it occasionally. Eventually I decided I was more use as an admin, and returned to my main account. I may wiki-break in the future, but I'll not try 'leaving' again. It doesn't work, and it can be simply melodramatic. Since I joined wikipedia, I've been more or less continually active, and I don't see that changing in the next three years.

from AnonEMouse
1.A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * A: Which power? Sorry don't understand the question.
 * The power to decide whether a proposed policy has consensus. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't so much about 'power' as practicality. If arbcom is to make decisions based on policy, then if will have to come to a view as to what policy currently is. There is simply no other way to go.--Docg 16:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

2.Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * A: See my statement above on this (perhaps if you responded to what had been said on these pages, rather than just posting standard form questions - then these pages might be more illuminating for everyone.)
 * Sorry (per your note above :-)), but you'll notice I promised in the disclaimer that I'd ask all candidates these questions, and have for over a month, can't backslide now. Referring to an answer elsewhere is perfectly acceptable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

3.Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * A: Yes, and no. A valued contributor doesn't get a 'get out of jail free card', however, - but in placing restrictions on bans, arbcom needs to have thought to the impact on the project. Someone who has 20,000 good edits and one instance of misbehaviour is of net worth keeping. Someone whose 'main contribution' is misbehaviour probably needs shown the door.

4.If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * A: I'm not going to weasel out of an answer - I'm just not going to give you one. This election is not about retrying old cases. I was involved in that case, I had my issues with it, but re-heated grievances don't serve us well. If that offends you, oppose me, and take your agenda elsewhere.

5.While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * A: Gosh, that's not a question, it is a trap. Before I've answered the question you've told me how you are going to interpret my answers. I'd rather positively argue my case than grumble after the event. The one time I seriously thought arbcom was loosing the place was when they were on the brink of passing this finding (it was 4-0 in support), but I interceded, convinced the arbs that they didn't really want to pass a content decision, and turned it about. As an arb, I will use my common sense, argue the case, go out on a limb where necessary. But I won't go looking for reasons to grumble after the event.

6.It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * A: I've already said I'd be a writer.

7.For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?
 * A: There are issues, but the community is free to make its choices. Frankly, that's a statement not a question.

8.One just for you: As an arbcom member, how would you treat an admin who comes before the arbcom for having redirected the administrator's noticeboard to another administrator's talk page? How about for deleting the Articles for Deletion page?AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A: Trout-slap the first, and be sure the second would not do such a thing again (that may, or may not, require de-admining).

from Ragesoss
In the Wikipedia context, what is the difference (if any) between NPOV and SPOV (scientific point of view)?
 * A: Sounds awfully like a content dispute to me. I'd need a lot of convincing before I'd recommend arbcom involve themselves in that. NPOV = "representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias." that means we proportionally describe all notable points of view, and evaluate none. The view(s) of scientists are likely to be given more prominence in many fields, since they are often/usually dominant in the modern discourse. On one hand, we don't want minor quackery given undue prominence. On the other, if a lot of people believe something, we should describe what and why, and what others make of it, but not use weasel words to imply it is false (that's evaluation - we don't do evaluation). However, this is a balance for editors to work out on the talk pages, not for arbom. If arbcom is involved, then it is because something is broken, or someone isn't willing to work collaboratively.--Docg 15:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

from Dfrg.msc
In one sentence, what will you bring to the Arbitration Committee? Dfrg.m s c 1. 2 . Editor Review 23:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A: In one word, me.--Docg 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting in the elections
Hello, the ArbCom elections are coming up very soon and I was wondering if you would give your public assurance not to vote or comment on other candidates. I think this will help keep friction to a minimum. Imagine how ugly it would be if two people who vehemently publicly attacked and opposed each other both ended up sitting on the ArbCom together. I think, in the best interests of decorum, these kind of conflict of interest issues should be avoided. -- Cyde Weys 20:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A: I am happy to give that assurance. I didn't intend to vote - and I'd be happy if no candidate did. But even should others feel they wish to, I will not. I agree that candidates voting is unlikely to benefit the community.
 * Hello, I'd say that you ultimately reserve the right to excercise your vote. It should be already understood by all respected and high-esteemed candidates that by the end of this election, there should be no hard feelings regardless of supports or opposes. As from my observations at the January elections, hard feelings usually come not from the votes, but from the comments that are associated with the votes. Henceforth, I think restraining to comment in your votes is the best way to go. - Good luck and best regards, Mailer Diablo 22:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I don't reserve my right. I've actually waived it. Whilst you may well be right, I believe their is little to be gained by voting, and at least potentially a loss to the community. If I were elected, it would be better if any new colleague didn't think 'Doc though I wasn't any good'. So, I will be silent - and for me that's rare.--Docg 22:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. I respect your decision. - Mailer Diablo 05:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

from Badbilltucker
Thank you for volunteering to take on this task, and for putting yourself through having to answer these questions. For what it's worth, these particular questions are going to all the candidates.

1. I've noticed that a total of thirteen people have resigned from the committee, and that there is currently one vacancy open in one of the tranches. Having members of the committee resign sometime during their term could create problems somewhere down the road. What do you think are the odds that you yourself might consider resigning during the course of your term, and what if any circumstances can you envision that might cause you to resign? Also, do you think that possibly negative feelings from others arising as a result of a decision you made could ever be likely to be cause for your own resignation?
 * A: Good question. Three years is a long time - so I'd guess it is difficult for anyone to give hard assurances. My commitment to the project is long-term, and I'd hope/intend to stay the course. I think my record shows that I say what I think, and that popularity isn't vital to me. So, no, negative reactions would not drive me to resign. I'm made of sterner stuff than that.

2. There may well arise cases where a dispute based on the inclusion of information whose accuracy is currently a point of seemingly reasonable controversy, possibly even bitter controversy, in that field of study. Should you encounter a case dealing with such information, and few if any of your colleagues on the committee were knowledgeable enough in the field for them to be people whose judgement in this matter could be completely relied upon, how do you think you would handle it?
 * A: If people have knowledge, then we need to listen very carefully to what they are saying. If people have a proven track record of good judgement, then we need to doubly do so. However, they will still need to make their case. In any arbitration case, I will be responsible for exercising my own judgement. I will listen, I will think, but I will not rubber-stamp anyone else's views (even if they be Jimbo).

from TheronJ
1. Your candidate statement mentions that you have "battled with POV pushers, trolls and nutters of all creeds and none" in the area of religion, and have dealt with "libels, copyvios, agenda pushers – and problem users" in various articles that raised WP:LIVING issues. Do you feel that you have been identified with a particular "side" in any of these issues that may give rise to calls for recusal in disputes relating to religion or biography articles? If so, what process would you use to decide whether to recuse in conflicts relating to those articles?


 * A: I don't believe I am identified with any side on many issues. Actually, i now seldom edit in my particular field. I believe my record on content neutrality speaks for itself, indeed it was positively commented on during my RfA. However, with recusals, perceptions is always important. Justice must be done and seen to be done.


 * To give a full assurance: I will recuse if I believe I have a conflict of interest due to the subject matter or any history of conflict with any party, or a reasonable perception of the same. I will seriously consider rescusing on the request of any fellow arbiter or established wikipedian. I will certainly recuse at the reasoned suggestion of any two other arbiters. However, I do not believe those circumstances will often occur.

2. Based on your background, any prior conflicts, etc., are there any other areas or topics where you anticipate receiving requests for recusal, or where you might consider self-recusal? If so, what are those areas and how would you decide whether to recuse? Thanks, TheronJ 19:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A: Not particularly. I no longer edit highly controversial articles. If in doubt as to a perceived conflict of interests I will consult my fellows for a disinterested view. See my above answer.

Questions as yet unanswered
Place questions here, thanks


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.