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

I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia, but I enjoy the community and feel that I would be a strong addition to the Arbitration Committee. Before registering, I browsed Wikipedia with an interest on learning the entire process of editing, contributing, submitting AfD, and other procedures. Wikipedia is focused on allowing people to receive the gift of free information and to make sure that all users follow proper procedures and enjoy contributing information. I would follow all procedures accurately, professionally, and do my best to resolve the situation and work closely with other members of the Arbitration Committee. Even though I am a new member to Wikipedia, I promise to fulfill all requirements and be very active with the Committee. I love Wikipedia and contributing, and I’m sure it will be a lasting process. I would be a successful mediator and vote decisively and accurately. I do not hold personal opinions of members, as everyone deserves a fair resolution process. Feel free to ask any questions or concerns that you might have. I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. Ajwebb 20:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from -Ril-

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

I hold political opinions. However, I do not hold strong religious opinions. I was raised as a Christian, but I do not hold any opinions regarding religion. If a case was centered on politics, I would not "choose sides" because of a political opinion that I might have. All users deserve fairness, and it is my duty to make sure that their case is looked at fairly, no matter what my political opinions are. Ajwebb


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

I do not wish to cause arguments or disputes with other arbitrators. However, if I feel that a decision is not valid I will contest it so that the parties involved are treated fairly. From this point, I hope that the other arbitrator and I are able to reach a fair decision. Ajwebb


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

No. I do not believe that this is what Wikipedia or the Arbitration Committee stands for. All users of Wikipedia deserve fairness, and that is what I intend to uphold. Every request will deserve the same attention and respect as another. Ajwebb


 * In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision?

Yes. I believe that we need to look at all parties involved so that we maintain fairness. We cannot accurately make a decision by looking at one party, because other parties may have been involved or caused a dispute themselves. Ajwebb

--Victim of signature fascism 17:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Another question

 * What are your views of the proposed Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights? 

I would have to agree on the Code of Conduct as well as the Bill of Rights. Arbitrators are not "above the law" and must strictly follow rules and guidelines so that all users are treaded with fairness in an orderly manner. Users should obey policies and conduct themselves in an orderly manner as well. This is to ensure that Wikipedia will sustain for future generations. Ajwebb

--  HK   15:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-
(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

I believe that the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances. As for certain circumstances, this could include a variety of things. Most specifically, this should include serious offences such as abuse of powers, harassing other members as well as fellow arbitrators, and outright arguing or taking specific sides regardless of clear judgment, should be grounds of dismissal. Ajwebb

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

Yes, I believe as the majority, the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions. As long as the majority can be determined easily and clearly, that should be the decision. Ajwebb

''wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?''

I have not introduced a substantial opinion that contradicts my own political or religious viewpoint. However, I would not add my own opinions to an article. Wikipedia is not a forum for your own political or religious viewpoints. Instead, it is a place where all users of the Internet can receive free and neutral information. This is why I always keep an open mind and viewpoint, even if the matter contradicts my own political or religious viewpoints. Ajwebb

Thank you for asking these questions. I would be happy to answer any others that you might have. Ajwebb

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion
I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

Yes, I pledge to abide. Ajwebb

2. Are there any parts of Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

There are not any parts of the Code of Conduct that I do not agree with. I am in full support of the Code of Conduct. Ajwebb

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

I will support expanding the number of seats in the Arbitration Committee to a reasonable number. However, this may not immediately alleviate the backlog. Ajwebb

4. Have you voted over at Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Proposed_modifications_to_rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

I have not voted at the Proposed Modifications to Rules yet as I was not aware of the article. Thank you for brining this article to my attention, as I will now review it. Ajwebb

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to ask me these questions. I will be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. Ajwebb

Anarchism page
How would you deal with the ongoing problems on the anarchism page?Harrypotter 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):


 * I am concerned about |recent templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive.

I am inviting all candidates including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)