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

Hello, I'm Jtkiefer, a registered user since June 2005, and an anonymous editor for a long time before that. I've been an administrator since late August 2005, and I'm now active in the Welcoming Committee and the Stub Sorting WikiProject.

The arbitration process needs to be streamlined; this is widely agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. The arbitration case duration has been reduced without compromising diligence, but I feel that this can be improved even more. Good members who become involved as arbitrators are often alienated by the process; their experience is lost when they resign or leave the project, and I feel that this problem too must be given serious attention.

I feel that the arbcom should be willing to ban users when necessary and should not hesitate to do so in the case of blatant trolls and vandals, at the same time I feel that the arbcom should have a streamlined system to deal with such blatant abuses and that the arbcom should be strict but fair whenever blocks or bans are called for. Jtkiefer T

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)''


 * A: I don't think how old I am is not really relevant here and I value my privacy so I am declining to answer that question. Jtkiefer T  02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?


 * A: I don't know how many hours a month, however I visit Wikipedia every day so I would be able to spend a good of that time working on arbcom work as well as other things that I am involved with on the wiki. Jtkiefer T  01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

''Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.''


 * A: I have experience both with writing article content and having article space disputes. The most notable example for both I can think of is Green Day where there is a still ongoing issue with what category of music they fall under.  Jtkiefer T  02:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.


 * A: This is the only username I edit under and I have no plans on editing under any other names in the future. Jtkiefer  T - 20:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Request from Dragons flight
Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions:   Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

My views on a few of the here proposed modifications to the election rules

Proposal 1: It is unlikely that the community would be willing to accept someone as an Arbitrator who they wouldn't be willing to accept as an admin, and this would eliminate clearly inappropriate candidates at a stroke.

It is unlikely but not impossible and I think that we are better allowing anyone to nominate themselves for the arbcom vote than require that only admins can since even though people may be prejudiced against voting for people who are not trusted admins the same could be said for the fact that not all admins are trusted and that there are many fine users who are not yet admins, however would still make good arbcom members.

Proposal 3: Even though in a perfect system it would only be needed due to arbitrators resigining for reasons outside of Wikipedia for the time being it would be nice to have a system where any empty seats can be filled halfway through the year if needed.

Proposal 4: As noted before, I support the idea of having more arbcom members but only if a workable system can be implemented to reduce the load on individual arbitrators and reduce burnout.

6: I'm against the idea of alternatives only because it is a bit of a cop-out to the bigger problems surrounding the arbitration committee

Jtkiefer T - 20:57, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Question from Tony Sidaway
''You are an arbitrator, and before you is a case in which an editor has upset a lot of people from the start. You look at his actions and you can see that the reason is that he's a prolific editor but his editing isn't quite up to snuff. His edits don't always match the style guide, but he's obviously trying his best, his good faith is clear, and his edits are useful after being cleaned up, but that requires a lot of work and some editors who do this are upset. What remedies do you propose for this situation?''

Answer: I would recommend that one or more users who are willing to help the user learn the ropes and who the user can ask of advice of be assigned to help the user bring their edits up to compliance with the style guide and to help acclimate the editor to how articles are written. In terms of the editors who are upset I would strongly advise them to not bite the other editor and to assume good faith. Jtkiefer T 02:15, 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?
 * Answer:No, I think that that arbitrators should use good judgement as to whether they should recuse or not and anything in addition to the already existing ikipedia:Arbitration_policy is just instruction creep. Jtkiefer T  21:20, 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.
 * Answer: I feel that this entire proposal is unecessary especially it is all already part of Wikipedia policy. Jtkiefer T  01:05, 6 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?
 * Answer:I won't pledge to anything, however I agree with possibly expanding the number of seats if it would help with the arbcom case load. Jtkiefer T  21:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

 * 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?''
 * Answer: I do hold certain opinions that if they were to be the main or a major issue in a case brought before the arbcom I would recuse myself as a matter of ethics, I would also recuse myself if I have had interactions with any of the users who are party to the arbitration which would unduly influence my ability to judge the case in a fair manner. Jtkiefer T  00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
 * Answer: I am willing to stand up for what I believe even if other arbitrators disagree with me, that being said I am always willing to hear why I may be wrong though if I still disagree with them I will stand by my decision. Jtkiefer T  00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
 * Answer: No, I think that every request should be looked into and if it is without merit then it should be rejected but no case is automatically without merit as long as it is brought in good faith. Jtkiefer T  00:34, 6 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?''
 * Answer: Yes, I belive that both sides should be held accountable in an arbitration case if both sides have acted in a way in which they should be held accountable for. Jtkiefer T  00:34, 6 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?
 * Answer: I think only if the arbitrator has committed a grevious violation of the Arbitration policy or has proven themselves unable to fulfill the job of arbitrator and that arbcom members should only be stripped of their powers with overhwelming community support and if possible the support of Jimbo. Jtkiefer T  01:01, 10 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?
 * Answer: No, though I think that in a case like that Jimbo should be asked to look over the issue and if he endorses stripping the arbitrator of their position and then if there is overwhelming support to strip an arbitrator of their position then it should be done, this should also be done at Jimbo's discretion if an arbitration committee member has committed a grevious act in which Jimbo and/or the board thinks an immediate stripping of their position is needed. Jtkiefer T  01:01, 10 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?''
 * Answer: I'm sure I have introduced opinions that contradict my own views at one time or another but whether they are substantial and when I have done that I cannot remember. Jtkiefer T  00:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Celestianpower
What is your favourite Pizza topping? --Cel e stianpower háblame 12:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC) HINT: user vegetarian
 * Answer: In the words of Wallace from Wallace and Gromit Cheeeesse!!!  Jtkiefer T  21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:Jtkiefer
How do you interpret WP:IAR? Jtkiefer T 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer: I Interpret ignoring all the rules as a statement of fact that the rules should be flexible to situations where the rules may not Adequately cover the current situation. I do not see it is an excuse to commit unilerateral actions against current community consensus or as a replacement for good sense.  Jtkiefer T  01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you implicitly support Jimmy Wales/User:Jimbo Wales? Jtkiefer T 01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Answer: I support many of his decisions and the fact that he does not make decisions rashly without examining the facts. That being said I do not hesitate to ask him for reasoning behind his decisions if I do not understand why he did not do something or why he did something.  Jtkiefer T  01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you belive Administrators are a law unto themselves?
 * Answer: No, I believe that administrators first and formost serve the community. Administrators should when possible ask for feedback from fellow editors on the Administrators noticeboard before doing anything that may be deemed controversial as a matter of courtesy.  Jtkiefer T  01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you believe the arbitration committee is a law unto itself?
 * Answer No, arbitrators are accountable for decisions they make in the sense that they may be asked and should be able to answer why they made a decision. The arbitration committee is also accountable to Jimbo and the board as well as the community at large.  Jtkiefer T  01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Form questions from Simetrical
&mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
 * Answer:I think that desysopping should be used if an administrator has abused their position, for example using their position to harass or bully other editors. Jtkiefer T  02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?
 * I think they should follow policy when possible, however I don't think policy should overrule good sense and I think that intention of the policy should be taken into account as well as the exact wording of the policy. Jtkiefer T  02:29, 10 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 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)