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

I welcome and encourage any questions, and will answer every one quickly. Thanks! --Golbez 01:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Herschelkrustofsky
What are your views of the proposed Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?

--  HK   16:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Code of Conduct: I think that recusal is an important aspect if the ArbCom is to remain objective and neutral, and would not hesitate to recuse myself in a conflict in which I am involved. The Process section seems to fit with what I think and have said as well. And I do think that in addition to being quicker, decisions should be explained well, though I'm not sure if I would say that they are currently not explained adequately. So, I suppose, long story short, I thnik the Code of Conduct generally looks like a good guideline. I might, however, disagree with the portion that says talk posts by banned users should not be removed; if a user has been blocked by the ArbCom, which is the final step of the conflict resolution process (and therefore, not done quickly or on a whim), then they should also lose their ability to circumvent the block and possibly troll others, unless their comment is of a neutral standing. In other words, once blocked for an offence, their statements on that offense in other pages from other accounts of IPs should not just be left alone. But this is a minor aspect, since a blocked editor should not be editing talk pages anyway, so come to think of it, that section is moot (Unless it's referring solely to removal of past edits, and not future ones. It's vague on that point. I agree that the editor's past contributions to talk pages should not be altered.)


 * As for the Bill of Rights, the diff you linked specifically: It looks good except for "All Administrators must enforce Arbitration Committee rulings." This sounds like a requirement, that if an administrator comes across behavior that should be enforced, that they have an obligation to. They do not; they do, however, have an obligation not to circumvent the ArbCom rulings. That is, if ArbCom rules a user is to be blocked for a month, an admin must not undo this - but no admin is obligated to do it, either. Otherwise, it looks sound, though I'm not sure if it has any use. The policies page and WP:IAR kind of fit all points, and I think it focuses too much on the ArbCom, like they can arbitrarily remove people, or bring cases, or such. There are no laws in the United States that pertain specifically to Supreme Court Justices, and that's the equivalent of the ArbCom here. I think it's focusing too much on making people concerned that ArbCom has too much power (because if it didn't, then why so many rights involving it?). So, long story short: It doesn't seem bad, but it doesn't seem useful, and seems to focus too much on the ArbCom, when other policies (like the aforementioned Code of Conduct) seem sufficient in that regard.


 * Thanks! --Golbez 02:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-
Responses following each question in normal indented script. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

''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?''


 * The only strong political opinions I suppose I have are on the grounds of rabidly supporting anarcho-capitalism; I will note, however, that process wins out over personal biases. When User:Hogeye (whom I've known for some time on an anarcho-capitalist forum) started making edits that didn't work, violated WP:3RR], process, etc., and was brought to conflict resolution on it, I told him on the other forum that he needs to calm down, and that he was in the wrong. So I do believe that I can remain objective, but in the case that I feel I cannot, I will recuse myself. But this is not a guarantee that I will recuse myself simply because the issue is about something that I'm passionate on; quite to the contrary, I could help weed through the statements. (I may be a rabid supporter, but I also have a great respect for editors like [[User:Kevehs who are against it but edit within the guidelines of process and respect. Being opposites politically does not necessitate being opponents.)


 * Generally, I've avoided getting embroiled in political fights (I have very few edits to anarcho-capitalism, for example); I've found it's much easier to stay sane here if you focus on other things, like making an encyclopedia, rather than trying to convince people of your political point of view. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * Very willing if the situation calls for it. As a new arbitrator I would be likely to observe more than be active, but that would quickly change as I got the hang of it. I have disagreed with arbitration decisions in the past, and that would not change if I were a member of the committee. I'd be much more vocal of them, since I'd actually be in a position to attempt to change them and convince others. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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


 * No, though I do believe that most major violators are without redemption. The few exceptions to this, however, have convinced me that every case needs to be examined. However, even if I do not automatically see them without merit, that does not mean I automatically see them as reasonable, either. It depends on the case. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

''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?''


 * Allow me to review that case... it seems that you are referring to Statements of Principles 10 and 11 (which mention that the ArbCom may look at the whole controversy, rather than just the target of the case), Finding of Fact 10-12 (which are specifically about Guy Montag, who was the person who brought the arbitration case against Yuber), Remedies 3-5 (misnumbered 2-4, which involve sanctions against Guy Montag and Jayjg, and indeed, Guy Montag received a harsher penalty than Yuber did). Arbitration is the final step in the conflict resolution process. A conflict necessarily has at least two parties. The moral of the story is, if your actions are worse than the person you are complaining about, and they are on the same matter, then do not be surprised when arbitration turns against you. To answer the question: I think I do support this decision, yes. The conflict must be resolved, and the conflict involves all parties. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The question concerns the principle not the case. For the purposes of the question, it doesn't matter what the other facts of the case were, nor who was involved, just that the arbitration committee made that particular decision. But you have otherwise satisfactorially answered this question. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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?


 * The only ability an arbitrator has that a standard administrator does not is the ability, I believe, to use CheckUser; yes, they make decisions, but they are not the only enforcers of those decisions. They are equal, on an enforcement level, to any other administrator. So in that respect, I can't think of a reason why an arbitrator would be removed. However, if someone suggested a specific possibility, I can offer a specific opinion on it. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators are also able to make arbitration decisions that are binding on the community, and admins are compelled to enforce them, so it really doesn't matter who enforces them. And although they are equal about enforcing the decisions, they are are not in making them. A situation, for example, where an arbitrator demonstrates completely biased judgement an woeful disregard for wikipedia policy, would still enable them to enforce their judgement on the community, hence there would potentially be a reason for the arbitrator to be removed. There is a specific situation being referred to here, involving a specific arbitrator, which over 200 members of the community are discussing right now. However, that you aren't aware of this fact is probably a good thing, for your sanity.
 * Admins are compelled, but not required. Just as we have a community ban of certain users, the community of admins could refuse to carry out a ruling they disagree with. And I do realize what you're referring to now. However, I'm not sure if people should be removed from the ArbCom for things done outside the job of arbitrator (unless, of course, they were banned for disruption, etc.) --Golbez 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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?


 * An arbitrator is elected. If something changes sufficiently to turn the community strongly against them, then we would see what to do. But I don't think, at this time, that I can say that such a thing could be done. Again, an arbitrator is just someone who assists in making final rulings about conflicts. The only reason that I can think that such a large segment would be against them is that if the arbitrator made an unpopular decision. These things happen, and arbitrators should not have to be afraid of community backlash because they supported or opposed certain sanctions or users. So no, I don't think they should be "forcibly" removed. The petition should be presented to Jimbo and to the ArbCom as a whole, and they can make the decision about their own member. --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

''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 19,000 edits, so I don't know if I can find one. Part of being passionate about a subject is knowing that to convince people of it, you have to be accurate and honest with it. I'm not a huge fan of some currently en vogue theories, but I correct my friend who is equally so when he says inaccurate or exaggerated things about it. Have I done it here? Possibly, and probably. As I said before, I offer the Hogeye case. Though, I tend to 1) avoid political articles, and 2) I typically try not to hold incorrect viewpoints, so there are rarely facts that contradict them. :) --Golbez 03:18, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not asking for you to find one, just whether there is at least 1 amongst the 19,000. Many articles cover subjects which have more than one stance, and if you have made 19,000 edits, then I suspect you have probably met such an article. Are you saying that you always hold your own viewpoint (owing to whatever reason) to be correct, and that you never find facts or opinions which contradict them? Are you willing to include, yourself, opinions which strongly contradict those you personally hold?

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I research things heavily, and if I find an error, I adjust my viewpoint rather than adjusting the facts. Facts are stubborn things, viewpoints are malleable. As for including opinions that contradict them, of course. That's part of NPOV, to present both sides of the argument, even if I strongly prefer one. If only one is provided, then there is no context, and no learning can come of it. --Golbez 04:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks! --Golbez 03:18, 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?


 * I think that recusal is very important, and I would recuse myself from any case that fits those guidelines, (since they seem to make sense). I'm not sure if these rules should be "binding", though. Common sense wins the day, which the proposal mentions, and we shouldn't need too many rules on this. So, will I abide by them, as part of a common sense recusal policy? Yes. They all seem to make sense. However, I will prefer "common sense" over "letter of the law" in this case, though I think such conflicts will be rare. --Golbez 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * It looks okay to me, except for the ex post facto bit; I'm not sure if we have a huge problem with that. I figure the arbcom is intelligent enough to realize that a comment made 6 months ago that was okay then is not bad under a ruling made 6 weeks ago. --Golbez 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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 have to get on the ArbCom first to see how it operates and see if it's possible to make proposals for accelerating it. If not, and if the backlog persists, then yes, the arbcom should be expanded, though probably not by much. --Golbez 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:31, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Golbez 18:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Form question from Simetrical
What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's definitely a valid penalty. If the arbitration process can't, then who can? It should only be used in any situation where the conflict is about use of admin powers, though. Not even using the admin revert should really fall under this IMO, just the abilities to delete/undelete and block/unblock. --Golbez 20:48, 12 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 20:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this all came up very suddenly, and we haven't really had time to digest it. We know there are socialists, Lutherans, panAfricans, lesbians, etc. here, and folks have just found a new way to advertise their particular points of view. While I have no problem with it on their user page, to logical extends of course, the question is, should the template space be used for such things? And that brings up bigger questions, like should user-centric templates (like the wikistress meter) be used at all? But it seems like the people fighting to keep the templates don't seem to understand that they can have the exact same sentiment on their page, without using the template system. And therefore, the only reason to keep the templates is to make it slightly more convenient to attack (or support) these groups from your userpage. And if that's the only qualification, then I err slightly towards removing them - there's no reason Wikipedia should make it easier to attack (or support) a chosen group. But again, we haven't really had time to have a calm discussion about this. I don't think it will be a huge problem in 2006, as eventually a decision will be made and they will either be kept (not too likely) or purged. If people leave with them, then the question must be asked, why was the ability to attack (or support) a particular group so important to them on Wikipedia? In summary: I have no problem with having the box on their userpage, but using Wikipedia resources to ease it and give it an air of official approval is bad. --Golbez 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)