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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi! I'm candidating for the ArbCom because I believe in justice in Wikipedia and think I can bring about positive change as to the fairness of arbitration procedures. I have worked in mediation in the past, and also in various cases at both the English and Romanian Wikipedias. If I become an arbitrator, my most important consideration will be to look at both sides impartially and to guarantee that the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way. I am a firm believed in dialogue, and I always aim to make sure that both sides understand very well what the dispute is about, since I believe that alienation and misunderstanding is the most significant and most dangerous root of conflict. It is only through true justice and transparency that we can bring about a better, more stable and more trustworthy Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask any questions on this page. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Yes, very much so. I'm very keen on having a solid framework for user rights. There is perhaps one point I'm not that supportive of, namely #5 ("All Administrators must enforce Arbitration Committee rulings.") which is open to interpretation and I think places a somewhat unfair burden on administrators, especially in conflicts of interest. Ronline ✉ 07:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

  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?
I think WP:Civility is very important in that without respect for each other, the process of building Wikipedia becomes very problematic. In my opinion, respect, understanding and empathy are the core community values we need in order to streamline work on an encyclopedia and reduce community conflict. I generally don't view rude, arrogant editors too well, no matter what their credentials or expertise may be. As I said before, I think rudeness and uncivility breeds conflict and misunderstading, affecting the progress of Wikipedia. Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. 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?
Well, I current work for a non-government organisation that seeks to further minority rights. I'm generally very open about constructive criticism. If criticism is uncivil, I'm not one that gets angry - I generally try to talk to people and hear out their queries before making a judgement on their behaviour. At Wikipedia, and in real life, I have often been involved in cases where two people were having a dispute, and I tried to get both of them to look at the problem more calmly and empathise with each other. As to professors, they would probably say I take criticism quite openly and without worry (for me, free speech is tantamount), though to be honest, I have also been called stubborn my some people (in the sense that, I've accepted criticism but not always followed out suggestions which I consider to not necessarily be beneficial/positive). Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia: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.)
Yes, I have read the policy and I agree with it, particularly the structures that seek to ensure user rights in arbitration. For me, this is very important, because I think the Arbitration Committee has to act in the utmost fairness and transparency to be considered (otherwise, as I said before, alienation and conflict sets in, and that's most detrimental for any society or community). It is deeply disappoint to read of cases where arbitrators are friends or acquiantances of one side involved in arbitration and therefore pass unfair judgements. As to the specificity of the code - some users have raised doubts over its length, saying that it should be more general. I believe, however, that the Arbitration Committee should be treated seriously and should act professionally. Sure, Wikipedia isn't a court or anything, but there should be a structure - the ArbCom, in this case - that deals with matters very seriously and impartially. Ronline ✉ 07:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 07:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

  1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
If elected to ArbCom, I would prioritise this activity in front of others, because I think we need a working, fair justice system here at Wikipedia. So, I can't tell you in exact terms, but I will spend as much time as is necessary. Ronline ✉ 08:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  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?
To be honest, it would probably affect longer-term series or article improvement projects, such as Romania-related WikiProjects or improvements of articles to bring them up to featured status. However, in recent times, I have become less involved in encyclopedia matters and more involved in administrative-community matters, so hopefully the change won't be as significant. Of course, in arbitration-intensive times, other activities of mine such as mediation between users or in disputed articles (such as Talk:Moldovan language) may also suffer. While I do favour mediation over arbitration, I do think that ArbCom is more important as a fair system for higher-level disputes than the MedCom. Ronline ✉ 08:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  1. To what extent would those projects be affected?
In terms of WikiProjects, I probably wouldn't have as much time for research and organisation - instead, my edits would be more related to copyediting and the like. So, I suppose some Romania-related articles (which is where I contribute most) would suffer, even though there is an ever-growing Romanian Wikipedia community at en.wp that usually work on the very same articles as me. Ronline ✉ 08:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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?
Well, to an extent I suppose I do hold strong political opinions, though not religious ones. I'm atheist, humanist and liberal, so I don't think any of those values will ultimately conflict with ArbCom cases. I'm not American, so I really have no strong opinion concerning George Bush. My philosophy is centred around the promotion and achievement of human liberty and happiness, and anything which brings that about, be it on Wikipedia or in the real world. Ronline ✉ 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
Very willing. I'm not one that goes with the flow, as you can see by my involvement in discussions at Wikipedia:Stable versions and other such pages. My interest is to bring justice to Wikipedia and create a better community, not go with the flow. Ronline ✉ 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
Not at all! That's why I proposed the structure of Wikipedia | The Ombudsman. I think every user should have the right to an ArbCom appeal, and that in many cases this appeal may be justified. That's the only way to ensure a fair and vibrant community. Ronline ✉ 01:18, 2 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?
Yes, I do. I think ArbCom should fully investigate the activities of all people involved in a case, including the complainant. Again, that's for purposes of fairness. If there's one thing that I definitely don't like, it's the ganging up on the "defendant" user. No matter how much wrong one has committed, he is entitled to a "fair trial", treatment with respect and an appeal. That's how I see it. (I really enjoyed answering these questions by the way - I think they approach the essence of what ArbCom is all about!) Ronline ✉ 01:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] 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?

Yes, I do believe that certain members of the ArbCom should be stripped of their status when they have been found to have passed an unfair judgement. This, in my opinion, should be decided through a Wikipedia:Ombudsman. This should be done through community consensus, similar to an RfC, but the standards of the review should be must higher and should involve Jimbo Wales. Ronline ✉ 23:59, 6 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?

Yes. I think even 150 may be too much to ask (maybe 100:50 instead of 150:50). Basically, I think if it comes to an RfC against an arbitrator, and there are people who bring credible facts and proof that that arbitrator has acted inappropriately, and they are in the majority, the arbitrator should be stripped of his or her function. I firmly believe in ArbCom transparency, neutrality and accountability, and any form of trying to protect the ArbCom in light of genuine injustices they passed is a gross miscarriage of justice, in my opinion. Ronline ✉ 23:59, 6 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?

Well, not to a great extent, but one example that qualifies is Moldovan language. My political viewpoint on that issue is that a Moldovan language does not exist per se, however, I have added information to that article that did contradict my point of view, since it was sourced, and also information that supported my point of view. Overall, I try to source all of my edits, and I try to maintain as neutral a view as possible. To be honest, however, I haven't actively tried to add information to articles that contradicts my viewpoints. To me, however, my core values are more important than my specific viewpoints, and those values are liberty and tolerance. So, I think that in any article or topic, I think about those values first and then my viewpoints. Ronline ✉ 00:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

Very much so. I don't want to sound like I'm approving everything here just for the sake of it - for me, a conflict of interest is a big mistake in any justice system, including the ArbCom. For this reason, I strongly believe in the recusal guidelines and I will abide by them. Ronline ✉ 00:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

The Code of Conduct has three core elements that I really appreciate: recusal, adequate explanation of decisions ("accountability") and recourses. The section on recourses, however, is very brief and vague in my opinion. I have heard of numerous cases where people have been unhappy with ArbCom decisions, and I think these people should be helped and given a set of clearer steps and processes that they can undertake if they feel they have been mistreated by the ArbCom. Ronline ✉ 00:11, 7 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?

Yes, I think expanding the number of seats is not only important for efficiency but for fairness. The more arbitrators there are, the more views there will be on an issue, and the greater the chances for a case being evaluated fairly. I support expanding the number of seats to 15. I think if there are more than that, the ArbCom does become a bit too large. I was initially thinking of 11 arbitrators, so this may be a good interim step. One idea I fully support (and I congratulate who came up with it) is the Proposal 4 at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules, which proposes that a group of 24 arbitrators be formed, of which only 9 deal with any given case. Ronline ✉ 00:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Yes, I have voted, on the following issues:
Proposal 1 (allowing only admins to candidate in elections): Weak oppose - I feel this blocks out users who may not want to be admins for various legitimate reasons but are still valuable to the project and may make great arbitrators
Proposal 3 (block voting): Support - more rrequent elections is a good thing, since quite a lot of vacancies seem to occur in the ArbCom
Proposal 4 (expansion of ArbCom to 24 seats): Very strong support - this is an idea I like very much, as per question 3 above.
Proposal 5 (runoff): Weak support - seems like a good idea that would enable greater opportunity for review of candidates by the electorate
Proposal 10 (nullify sockpuppet votes): Support - no real views on this issue, since sockpuppets should of course be banned from voting (but isn't this already standard practice on WP?)
For a more detailed version of my view on the above proposals, you can read the actual page where I voted, but I think the above sums it up quite well. Ronline ✉ 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries! I enjoyed answering them. Ronline ✉ 00:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form questions from Simetrical

  1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
Well, it depends on how it's applied. I think it's a reasonable penalty if the case is centred on admin abuse. For example, if an admin has abused his/her function or does not have the character of an admin, desysopping is a much better penalty than, say, probation or blocking. Ronline ✉ 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think admins should never use powers that go beyond policy, but that it's OK to use common sense if an admin feels that policy is too harsh. So, an admin should follow policy very closely and make sure that the powers they use don't abuse policy. However, I don't mind admins "underusing" their powers - i.e. applying more lenient blocks to users, if they feel these measures are justified. Ronline ✉ 04:58, 11 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 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Candidate_statements_Ronline_54eb.html"