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

Trilemma
Through my time on wikipedia, I've attempted to add dispassionate, non partisan contributions to a variety of topics. I've added some pages relating to Pennsylvania politics, while contributing to a number of national figures. I've also helped establish the depth of material on current NBA players, and added a number of movie titles.

Arbitrators need to be dispassionate, dedicated and cogent, and I think my track record on wikipedia demonstrates these qualities. Upon election, I'd hope to help make the arbitration committee a more effecient operation, while maintaining precise and non biased decisions. I believe that severe action should always be a last resort relegated to the most egregious of circumstances and the wikipedia community should continue to foster a genial climate of respect and honesty. Most disputes can be resolved peacefully and civilly, and this is a testament to the strength of wikipedia.Trilemma 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:42, 21 December 2005 (UTC))


 * Yes. Trilemma 01:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus
PurplePlatypus 08:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
 * 2) Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
 * 3) What are your views on the proposed policy Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)


 * I believe that civility is of the upmost importance, and even longstanding editors sometimes don't hold to this. Regardless of the number of edits one makes, one should always maintain civility, and rudeness shouldn't be accepted. Of course, unless the rudeness is rampant, severe and longstanding, severe action usually isn't necessary. We all can make mistakes and get overheated at times.
 * I am currently an undergraduate student, studying business and political science. I try not to react harshly to criticism, even when it oversteps the boundaries of civility. If they're correct, I try to recognize mistakes, even if they're not being civil about it, though I will point out their improper tone.
 * I support the current policy as a whole and I don't think I would have trouble following the guidelines set forth. All provisions in it seem reasonable and effective to me.

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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


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

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 07:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I could spend much of my time, even 50-60% of my wikipedia time, on arbcom matters. The amount of time isn't an issue to me, and I would try to work to expedite the process, while not losing the quality of service.
 * Update of NBA player pages and wikifying improperly formatted pages found through the random article function.
 * I don't think those projects would be severly affected.

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?


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


 * Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being 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?

--Victim of signature fascism 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I do hold strong political views about most subjects (ranging from very conservative to very liberal), however I try to edit fairly in regards to political matters, and as such, have worked to maintain order on controversial figures who I disagree with personally. I don't think my personal political opinions affect my actual editing, and I'd consider recusing myself from any situation where my personal bias could interfere with my decision making.


 * It all depends on if those decisions are just or not. I think all cases are a matter of right decision vs. wrong decision, regardless of whether something 'goes with the flow' or not. I would object to anyone attempting to follow popular opinion in the face of what's the proper decision.


 * I don't think anything is automatically without merit. That's not to say some cases are rather lacking of merit upon viewing ;)


 * I think that's a good decision. It's a matter of covering all bases, so to speak. Trilemma 06:50, 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?

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?

''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?''

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 01:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, Jimmy Wales owns the site, and the decisions are his. Hopefully there's never a time when his opinion and the opinions of the community at large are in conflict.
 * Jimbo Wales does not actually own the site. The site is owned by the Wikimedia Foundation which is a trust operated on behalf of the wikipedia community. Jimbo Wales currently holds the position of chief executive of the site.


 * Again, I think ultimately, it's Jimmy's call. Even if we don't like it, he owns the site and decisions are his to make. I'd hope that he'd consider the community, but whatever he says goes.


 * However, regardless of whatever Jimbo Wales says about the subject, could you give your own opinion of how it should be. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * My mistake on the ownership.
 * I don't think that a poll is in and of itself enough evidence to show arbitrator misconduct and to prove that they shouldn't be in their place. But, if that's supported by evidence to clearly show this, I'd say it should be that they'd be removed from their position. Trilemma 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, it's hard to say what substantial is. I've added information for political figures who I disagree with, and have sought to remove vandalism from their pages. I've added information to articles explaining the viewpoints of those I disagree with as best I can. Trilemma 02:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Substantial = not "some people disagree" nor "some people disagree because the cat gets sick when you feed it fairy liquid, but that's a stupid argument" nor "some people disagree because of a theory that I'm not going to explain because that would be helping the argument against myself". Adding information about people you disagree with DOES NOT COUNT - I could easily go "Hitler is a very nasty man", but that would not be NPOV. Adding information supporting the case of people you disagree is what is being asked for, e.g. in the previous example, such information would be "Some people consider Hitler was a very nasty man, but he thought what he was doing was right due to his belief about the AAAA people being x, y, z". Could you therefore give such an example? Is it possible for you to give such an example? Are there many such examples in your work, or harldy any (no need to list them, b.t.w.)? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say there's many examples, as especially as of late I've been concentrating on smaller issues like formatting randomly found articles. But, an example would be some work I did on Jack Murtha's page (a man who I respect but disagree with). One example would be in Michael Savage's article, when I noted a counterargument to one of the criticisms of Savage's statements concerning response to protests (he recommended responding violently, supporters maintain that he meant it only in response to violent protests). I hope this helps :) Trilemma 04:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What about articles about people you don't respect and also disagree with? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't respect or agree with Michael Savage ;). Beyond that, there's not too much I can give you in that regard. I've spent much more time on NBA articles than political leaders. I'd have no problem doing such activity, though, as wikipedia's role is to provide non biased information, regardless of personal opinions of editors. Trilemma 18:17, 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?

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.

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?

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.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolitely
 * There isn't anything that I have particular disagreement with in the code of conduct.
 * I think expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee would be a good idea, so I'll support that. I think that it shouldn't grow too large, but expanding it to help expedite the procedures would be sensible. If that wouldn't be acceptable, a type of pre-Arbitration committee could be established, to give a cursory glance over cases and establish that there is a need for it to go before the Arbitration committee.
 * I haven't voted at the proposed modifications to rules, because I don't feel strongly about the propositions, one way or another. Trilemma 18:17, 5 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 21:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)