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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My statement is reproduced here:

Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!

Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.

Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.

Third Poscript, or, Talking Points:

  • Humour
  • Pragmatism & Effeciency
  • Down with advertising!

D. G. 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Questions

  1. Would you be terrific, in your post? D. G. 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    Absolutely. There is no doubt about it, to be certain. D. G. 02:17, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  2. Blah blah blither blather ArbCom? Andre (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
    I beg to differ on that issue, Andre. Respectfully. D. G. 02:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  3. What is your stance on the affirmative action taxation of gay marriage in the crack-addicted aborted baby military occupying Eurasian prostitution embezzlement organized crime church tort schools, and how will this affect your ability to arbitrate as effectively and ineffectively as you can and cannot? -Silence 06:36, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
    Well, naturally, I think we should see who can contribute more money to my campaign, gay crack-addicted aborted babies, or the Eurasian prostitution organised crime/schooling religious establishment. I think this will, unfortauntely, affect my ability to arbitrate extremely strongly. Namely it will increase it much, just as danger increases alertness. With the Eurasian tort threat always in my mind I will have my senses heightened to a level that I will become one with the cases I arbitrate and whir out verdicts like a mechanised verdict-rendering machine. Thus, I would be wary. Unscrupulous opponents of my campaign may try to destroy this Eurasian tort threat in order to sabotage my performance. D. G. 22:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  4. How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.) --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    I'm eighteen and I work for a real estate firm.
  5. 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? --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    I honestly don't think that if done right arbitration should really be an extremely time-consuming, extremely straining activity. It seems to me that if that's the case, something is being done wrong, something isn't being done effeciently, and something needs to be changed. I'm completely eager to change that, if it needs to be. And if not, then forget it. I think the answer to your question is "as long as it takes," whether it be four hours or ten hours or whatever it should eventually be, till the job gets done. If you rephrase the question in that way-- how much of the job am I willing to get done well? The answer is all of it, and then after that, that's it. D. G. 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
    If time proves you wrong on this, will you really be willing to spend a large time on this? I'm kinda interested since some of the other candidates states they'll use significant time on the commitee. vidarlo 18:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
    As I've said, if circumstances prove me wrong as to how much of a commitment is required, I am nevertheless entirely prepared to spend however long it takes. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. 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. --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    Actually, I'm a bad arbitrator. D. G. 02:51, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  7. Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under. --jguk 00:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
    I've edited under User:Not Wikipedia Administrator and under User:207.99.6.125, and I stand by my full edit histories. I encourage prospective voters very strongly to examine them personally, as they're the best way to get to know a candidate as an editor and Wikipedian. D. G. 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
  8. Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm actually very glad you asked me this. More than anything else, having gone through the new jersey public schooling system has necessarily made me a brilliant expert at both processing and generating bullshit of any and every classification. In fact, if I could name only one thing I'm terrific at, it's processing and generating bullshit. In a more wikipedian context, I am sure that if you just take a cursory look at my edits you will find yourself rolling in bullshit. This should settle any doubts. D. G. 00:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
    One thing I sure as hell don't do is split the difference. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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?

The only strong political opinion I hold is that the debate over abortion is overdramatised and wastes excessive political resources in the United States, resources that are not proportional to its relative importance. I don't expect it to come up, but if it does, and someone suggests or I find that it could be the case that it'd be less than expedient for me to arbitrate on the matter, I'd be happy to step aside for a bit. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Terribly willing D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

No, but I certainly view the vast majority of them to be, unless there are new facts of which we were not previously aware of. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 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? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

That makes sense to me. It's arbitration to resolve conflicts, not some sort of inquisitory trial. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question by Ted Wilkes about his Conduct Code proposal

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't. Your proposal is stupid. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's a very good idea, and I think it should never, ever, be invoked to justify an administrative action. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:34, 9 January 2006 (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?
Civility is one of the core pillars of Wikipedia. The most important thing to remember is that through it all, no matter how much we may disagree, we are all focussing on the same goal, that of creating a free encyclopaedia. As long as there is that bit of united strength, I think we can smooth over most any conflict. When that civility and reasonableness is no longer there, all bets are off. That said, that is why some of the POV trolls are so dangerous. They do not really believe in the project; they merely want to extoll their own ideology. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (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?
This is just a strange question. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (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.)
It makes sense to me, and I believe I'd generally act in accordance with it. I don't think it ought to be passed though. There's enough of a backlog already without binding arbitrators' hands and creating a process to investigate the investigators. Unless you hope the code will be self-policing, in which case whether or not it is real policy is entirely moot. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

There is nothing contained on that page that I disagree with. However, it's all said elsewhere. I think your bill of rights is incredibly stupid. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:54, 9 January 2006 (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?
All of it. I'm retiring from editing. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (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?
All of them. That's life. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. To what extent would those projects be affected?
They would be terminated. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:32, 24 December 2005 (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?

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?

What these questions seem to be asking me to do is take sides as to the sovereignty of Jimbo Wales. I'll eat that bait, thank you, and side well on whichever side it is that says that Jimmy is great. From the start, Jimmy Wales has acted as a terrific patron of the Wikipedia community, and has shown restraint and judgement. You want to tie his hands up and take away even the small token right to exercise his overarching good judgement in the case that it might be necessary for the good of the free encyclopaedia, a right he has rarely exercised and hardly abused. Frankly, work on something more worthwhile, please. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 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?

I'm a cop, not a doc. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 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?

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.

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 Wikipedia: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. —James S. 06:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

The answer to all these questions of your, James, is yes, I'm in favour of all that, and it's good, and so on. This is all hardly objectionable. Who isn't in favour of recusal in case of conflict of interest and so on? Pitch me some tougher questions next round. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 09:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism page

How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page?Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Protect them all and let Jimbo sort them out. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] advertising

"advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes" <-- can you expand on this? --JWSchmidt 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have no views on the advertising thing. That was just political opportunism designed to trick those who foolishly did into voting for me. In reality I feel the issue is close to moot. What's wrong with an ad here or there? D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 21:31, 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 20:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


No, I wasn't aware that this was one of Wikipedia's most major problems, and I don't believe it is too much of a cause for concern. Why do you care? D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 01:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)