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

I am Maywither. I am the most amazing and awesome Wikipedian ever. Place me on the committee and I will not make you sad. Maywither 14 December 2005


 * Brevity is... wit! Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 12:35, 15 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?''

A: Yes, I have strong opinions about everything, and no I would not recuse myself.
 * Why would you not recuse yourself? Do you not think that would be viewed as corrupt? --Victim of signature fascism 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * A: I would not recuse myself because I don't need to. Nothing would be viewed as corrupt.

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

A: I will contest the decisions of all other arbitrators.

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

A: No, nothing is automatically without merit.

''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? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?''

A: Yes, and yes.

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

A: No, it's much too negative. More like "The Eight Commandments" than a "Bill of Rights."

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

 * 1) How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

A: I will spend all of my Wikipedia time on Arbcom business.


 * 1) If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

A: No projects would be negatively affected by my absence.


 * 1) To what extent would those projects be affected?

A: N/A

Question by Radiant
Since your edit history doesn't really tell us anything, could you give some other indication that you are in sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia process and community to make a capable arbiter? Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 01:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

A: I'm sure it's not all that hard.

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?
 * A: No I don't believe that the community should ever strip arbitrators of their position.

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?
 * A: No.

''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?''
 * A: I always contradict myself.

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 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?
 * A: No.

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.
 * A: I would have this Code of Conduct deleted.

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?
 * A: Expanding the number of seats would be good, but I propose you should alleviate the backlog by letting me personally deal with it.

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.
 * A: No, rules are made to be broken anyway, and are a waste of time. This is an encyclopedia, not a game.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Rob Church
A curious statement and a curious lack of coherent responses to questions on this page.
 * Are you insulting me?
 * Not at all.


 * 1) Do you have any idea what you're letting yourself in for?
 * Yes
 * What would you say to convince those who, judging by how little understanding you actually exhibit, based on this page alone, would beg to differ?
 * I would say, "I am the most amazing and wonderful, and that's that."
 * 1) Why wouldn't you feel a need to recuse yourself from cases in which you had a personal interest or prior involvement?
 * Because I'm not a crazy bitch.
 * Why is that relevant? I'm asking why you don't feel you would need to recuse yourself from binding arbitration on a case you were personally involved in.
 * Because, that's why.
 * 1) Wikipedia's biggest problem, in your opinion, is...?
 * Crazy bitches.
 * Care to elaborate?
 * No.

Ta. Rob Church Talk 13:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Expanded. Rob Church Talk 13:16, 6 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 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)