Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/DoctorMike
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Statement from User:Linuxbeak
Seeing that you've only been registered since January 4th, and as of your listing you had a grand total of 19 edits (which includes your listing), I will be very to-the-point.
You don't have a chance. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. You have been here for less than half a week and you're running for a position that is one of the most important positions in Wikipedia. You don't have the time or the experience to run. I'm sorry to be so brash, but it's the truth. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 15:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your opinion.;-)--DoctorMike 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
--HK 16:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Fully Support Bill of Rights. Unless one is going to change the structure of Wikipedia to lock pages to non-registered users, most proposals for member behavior is largely futile. One can edit from any IP address, which can be any WI-FI IP address on the planet--true trolling will only be controlled by diligent members. On the other hand, the proposals of a Magna Carta is overdue--this election seems to highlight that there is a desire for 'power' among some mods which I think could be corrosive to the spirit of Wikipedia if not curbed. Fully agree with no Ex Posto Facto, no punishment for mere disagreement, etc. Do not see much merit to alternate proposals under Arb Code of Conduct.--DoctorMike 20:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Question
You state that you are a clinical psychologist practicing in Southern Virginia. I don't mean to call your veracity into question, but when I checked the online license lookup on the website for the Virginia Board of Psychology I wasn't able find a listing for a licensed clinical psychologist in that state by your name as given here. Given your short edit history, this concerns me. Can you help me understand the discrepancy? Thanks. Crypticfirefly 05:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
No Problem: LTC Michael Russell, Ph.D. Tradoc Command Psychologist, Fort Monroe Virginia: http://www.tradoc.army.mil/surgeon/index.htm i.e.: http://www.moaa.org/magazine/November2005/f_aftershock.asp http://www.wbamc.amedd.army.mil/NewsCenter/NewsCenter.asp?Article=suicidearticle2003.htm http://www.alfrankensense.com/movies/braininjury.wmv (I did a series of these carried all over the world on Armed Forces Television.) http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/books/green-ramp/pope5.htm (etc...) I make a "Guest Appearance" in next month's Harper's Magazine: http://www.harpers.org/MostRecentCover.html If you would like to look up my current License, try Washington State. Federal Health Care employees may carry a license under any of the State or Provinces. As I am from Seattle, Washington State makes sense. --DoctorMike 20:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
- I am concerned about 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. [1]
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 20:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I am concerned about the use of WIKIPEDIA for any advertising purpose --either pro or con a particular religion, political party, or idea. One can purchase advertising, this is not a free forum to tout any product or service. If one is representing WIKIPEDIA, they should adhere to a neutral stance.--DoctorMike 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
