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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Link to Vita

link to vita --Edivorce 22:19, 12 January 2006 (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?

I belong to one of the two major political parties of the United States and at times take partisan positions. If these positions impacted on a dispute I would disclose this. I believe in "liberal" application of recusal, that it is my preference is to step down if a party can articulate why she feels I even appear to have a bias. This needs to be raised prospectively to make sure that it is not an attempt to avoid an unfavorable decision. I strongly believe that an arbitrator is a "creature of the parties."

If it needs to be raised prospectively, then the only fair thing to do is to declare which party is it you belong to? --Victim of signature fascism20:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
That is a fair point, and I would if a dispute was in front of me that called for such a disclosure.--Edivorce 21:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

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


Arbitrators owe the parties a duty of independent reasoned judgment. The only way I would go along would be if the other arbitrators convince me of their position.


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

No.

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?


Any party that requests relief, and can support that request with evidence and a basis for the request should be considered. I believe that it is important for an arbitrator to act consistently; as this helps the entire community order its behavior. I have no “recent cases” in the wikipedia context.

--Victim of signature fascism 15:58, 15 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 do not believe that petty incivility should be a matter for arbitration. Its role is to smooth out potential problems earlier in the resolution process, and as such is invaluable. It would be wrong, however, to apply sanctions against petty violations. Serious incivility, however, actually impacts on the work of the community and the well being of the members and should be enforced as any other policy, and apply to all members. --Edivorce 16:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
I'm a lawyer and mediator. I went to law school and also have an undergraduate degree in Psychology. I have taught classes, including Dispute Resolution 500, a graduate level course in negotiation, mediation and arbitration at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. Recently I have taken courses in programming and web development. Lawyers are a thick skinned bunch, criticism and rebuttal are constant matters, so not much attention is paid to minor incivilities. I have not encountered many serious problems. I'm always pretty much civil to my students. I wish they would discuss issues more in class. --Edivorce 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
3) 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.
When I have participated in arbitrations for the American Arbitration Association an oath of duty is always required of the Arbitrator. This shows that the process is controlled by rules that bind the arbitrator as well as the parties. I am not certain that the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct is a finished product, but it is a good start. I would like to see more emphasis on 1) assuring that the arbitrator hears all relevant evidence raised by the parties, and 2)requires that the arbitrators decisions be supported by the evidenced and is based by the policies, guidlines, practices and consensus of the community. --Edivorce 17:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC))


Yes, I support this effort to assure the rule of law in arbitration phase of the Dispute Resolution process. I would have some question about the application of item (2) pretaining to ex post facto law. I'm not sure what that means in an environment of bold editing. Is it intended to prevent certain changes in content, or is it meant to apply to preventing punitive sanctions against community members who broke no rule at the time of the "offense"? If it is the later I support it, not the former.--Edivorce 16:03, 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?
I would be willing to commit 10 - 15 hours per week. --Edivorce 03:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


2) 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?
As I am new to Wipipedia, no projects would suffer. I would be willing to make dispute resolution and ArbCom my principal contribution to WP. Giving my backround (see http://jkrobertson.net) this seems appropriate. --Edivorce 03:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
3) To what extent would those projects be affected?
N/A. See Above. Merry Christmas --Edivorce 03:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:37, 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?

First, I wish to make clear that my response has nothing to do, not one way nor another, Jimbo Wales. This seems an odd way to frame an important question. I believe arbitrators rely on the consent of parties, and ultimately the community. I believe that a decision of an arbitrator should be set asside only for failure to consider relevant evidence or provide a reasoned basis. I believe in liberal recusal, basically permitting parties to choose mutually acceptable arbitrators. I believe that there should be a seperation of the arbitration function from the enforcement function. Taken together, this set of beliefs leaves arbitrators only that power the parties to the dispute grant. This makes "stripping" them of the position somewhat irrelavent. I suppose some means of removing arbitrators from a roster for abuse or administrative reasons, such dishonesty or not finishing work in a timely manner, needs to exist.--Edivorce 14:29, 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?

I will not take a position on this matter.--Edivorce 14:29, 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?

My editing experience is somewhat limited. I have edited to "tone down" NPOV without removing "facts" which I did not agree with. --Edivorce 14:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:07, 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?

I believe in liberal recusal. The proposed guidlines set too high of a bar. There are more situations in which I be willing to recuse myself.--Edivorce 14:38, 6 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.

I do not view this proposed policy as a finished work. It seems mostly concerned with addressing existing grievances of specific users, rather than a well thought out Code. It would be helpful to review other Codes of Conduct of neutrals in established dispute resolution procedures, such as ombudspersons, American Arbitration Association, community mediation, etc. --Edivorce 14:47, 6 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. Because of my belief in liberal recusal and the consensual basis of arbitration I would greatly enlarge the roster of arbitrators. --Edivorce 14:38, 6 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.

I did not vote in this matter. I felt it appropriate to stand for election/selection under whatever procedures that exist, although it seems unclear what those procedures are exactly.--Edivorce 14:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choice not to be an admin

I strongly suggest that you reconsider your decision that you would become an arbitrator but decline to be an admin. In particular, as a non-admin, you cannot examine deleted pages, which may play a significant role in cases brought before you. It would be absurd to have to recuse yourself because you couldn't examine the evidence, but more absurd to sit in judgment while ignoring part of the evidence. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is important to separate the function of rendering a decision from enforcement of sanctions. I also agree with you concerning the importance of reviewing all relevant proffered evidence. It is not access permissions that I wish to avoid but enforcement authority. Relevant evidence such as deleted pages can be provided by administrators temporarily granting the arbitrator needed permissions or otherwise provided by administrators to the arbitrator. --Edivorce 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. Being an admin is no big deal. If you so choose it can be nothing more than having a few additional software priveledges, most importantly the facility to view deleted pages. There would be no obligation to use admin powers in any other way whatsoever. As a Judge I don't think you'd decline a key to the Law Library would you?! --kingboyk 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think your attitude towards being an administrator is the healthiest view an administrator can possess. I also believe it is the view of the vast majority of administrators who are working hard to help the project of building an encyclopedia progress as smoothly as possible. After reviewing a number of ArbCom cases however, I see that many people who become involved in arbitration do not share that view of admins. They see them agents of social control. I am not saying they are right. I am saying that is how they see it. If I were to be accused of a crime I would not like to be judged by a court ran by the police. That does not mean I don't value police. People who receive sanctions can not be expected to praise the process that results in the sanction, but we should do everything reasonable to make the process be, and appear, impartial.--Edivorce 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment (a question from AndriyK)

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--AndriyK 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe the motive expressed is noble and correct. That is, protecting and nurturing the project of building a encyclopedia using open source principals, and a community capable of the supporting the on-going development of such an encyclopedia. I am a bit taken back by the phrase "taking measures we see fit" as I believe ArbCom to be governed by the policies and practices of the community. It is likely that James F. might agree with me here and is just focusing on another aspect of ArbCom at the moment.--Edivorce 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the answer. I'll support you.--AndriyK 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discuss ArbCom Candidacy on IRC

I will make myself available for discussion concerning my ArbCom candidacy on IRC on the Wikipedia general channel irc://brown.freenode.net/wikipedia at the following times-

Monday, January 16, 2006
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EST ( 7:00pm – 8:00 pm UTC)

Friday, January 20, 2006
2:00 pm - 3:00 pm EST ( 7:00pm – 8:00 pm UTC)

I hope to chat with you then.
--Edivorce 19:48, 12 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 20:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


I do not completely understand why Wikipedians so openly share information about their persons that is not immediately relevant to the task of building and supporting an encyclopedia. But they do. One way they do this is the use of templates which communicate group membership, likes and dislikes. I will refer to these templates as "identity templates" to contrast them with more encyclopedic "content templates". Much of this may relate to fostering a sense of community and belonging. This is part of the dynamics of any open source project.

It is not my personal taste. My user page does not contain such declarations of tangential personal information. (Of course it is not tangential if aimed at identifying colleagues to collaborate on projects) I would be even less inclined to express dislikes and prejudices with "identity templates".

Despite my personal tastes, I have a strong belief in freedom of speech and expression. This is not limited to the First Amendment (applies to only the United States, and only to state action, and so has no direct application to WP) but is a core personal value. It is axiomatic to open source that “information wants to be free” (quoting RMS).

In the end, however, how ArbCom responds to these templates and their users should be controlled by neither my tastes nor my principled beliefs, no matter how dearly held. It is controlled by the arbitrator’s duty to apply findings of facts, based on the evidence, to the policies and practices of the community. I do not believe that the policy against personal attacks limits the templates, unless they are directed at, intended to taunt or harass an individual user. Much would depend on facts as they develop in specific arbitration matter.--Edivorce 22:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's get more specific. What role does a template advocating the overthrow of a government play in fostering community, and how does it help the encyclopedia?
On a less pressing concern, let's talk about other uses of template space. When the next elections in a major English-speaking country take place, it's likely that some users will create templates for the purpose of electioneering. What would your personal reaction be to this? How will you react when organised blocks of Wikipedia editors take the fight for political ascendancy onto resources that were paid for by people who believed that they were financing the building of a neutral encyclopedia? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


There are doubtlessly perfectly good Wikipedians who believe in some form of Anarchy or Atlas Shrug type of libertarianism who might well display such a "smash the state" template. Those who might find offence are not insular, but probably rather mainstream, and do not require our protection. Tolerance of views, especially unpopular ones, ultimately fosters community. If you find yourself insular and repressed you are more likely to commit vandalism, POV pushing and other mischief.
I would, of course, limit such "identity" templates to user pages; they have no place in the encyclopedia proper. Donors should be informed that users and editors are allowed space, separate from the encyclopedia proper, that permits a wide range of individual expression, including political views. This is permitted because it fosters community and thus advances the mission of the encyclopedia.
But all of this is just my views. An arbitrator should apply the community’s policies and practices to the facts of the dispute. --Edivorce 05:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)