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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: 39. I am a high school teacher, rocknroll ukulele player, and wikipedian.

Q: 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?

A: Sad to say, initially it may be 50 per month. But once procedures get into place, I think it would be upwards of 25 hours per month.

Q: 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.

A: er...my edits probably speak for themselves. I do not have any specific examples.


Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: No others.

[edit] Form question by Snowspinner

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 am a high school teacher.

[edit] Form Question from karmafist

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 18:31, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I’d look for a fair solution. I am not going to take sides. I want to find solutions that benefit all involved.

[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?

I certainly hold strong political and religious opinions. However, I guard the Bill Clinton article from vandalism just as much as I guard the George W. Bush article. I am as interested in a fairly written New York Yankees article as I am a Boston Red Sox article. I value and uphold the spirit of NPOV.

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

I am fully capable of going against the grain when necessary.

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

I am open to reviewing and re-evaluating cases.

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?

I feel an arbiter is bound to examine what has been presented, and should shy away from expanding a case beyond its original breadth. The duty of an arbiter is not to investigate, but to arbitrate.

[edit] Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

There are 1,000s of wikipedians and plenty of different experiences. It is difficult to build a community in a faceless, formless realm like the Internet. The main focus of the project is to build a trustworthy, comprehensive encyclopedia. I hope that this can be done through consensus, partnerships, cooperation, dignity and humility. Wikipedians need to keep open minds; they need to see other POVs. In the end, rather than polarizing issues, Wikipedia would be best served by providing space and coverage of many POVs, through exposition. Jimmy Wales is a benevolent dictator. It’s always been that way. If I am part of the ArbCom, my goals and actions will similarly have benevolence as its foundation.

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)

Yes. Some sort of code of conduct would be useful. There needs to be accountability.

[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 17:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

If used properly, common sense is best. Most users use common sense. I don’t want a wikipedia-world in which arbitration is the norm. I want a wikipedia-world in which people work together, try, make mistakes, forgive mistakes, and work harder. I am opposed to using rules to justify actions.


[edit] Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

  • 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 key to the survival of wikipedia. We must all be willing to turn the other cheek, bite our tongues, commend others, help others, not take the bait of a troll, and lead by example. Trying and forgiving are of utmost importance.
  • 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?
N/A
  • 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.)
There needs to be a code of conduct in place. People with authority need to be accountable for their actions,

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Most certainly. If we are going to have authority structures, we need to have rights laid out to those not in positions of authority.

[edit] Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

  1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
As stated above, initially, up to 50 hours a month - but once procedures become efficient, probably upwards of 25 hours per month.
  1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom deliberations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
My major project involving Afghanistan is already on hold.
  1. To what extent would those projects be affected?
N/A

[edit] Questions from Zordrac

  1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
Transparency?
  1. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
No.
  1. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
No. I support free speech.
  1. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
I would not participate in the case.
  1. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?
Most certainly. Committee members are not Gods. They can make mistakes, and the system itself is not perfect.

[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?

People given authority need to be accountable for their actions. I fully support a process for removing arbiters.

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?

The process for removing arbiters should be well-thought out. We need to insure that mob rule doesn’t enter into the factor, which this example might describe.

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 create and/or edit articles that go against my personal politics.

[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?

Yes.

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 may. I have to find sometime and go over it tooth and comb.

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?

I will not make any pledges. It is possible that it needs to be expanded in size, but it is also possible that it needs to be reduced.

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.

No. It’s on my list of things to do.

[edit] Form questions from Simetrical

  1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
  2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

answers:

  1. Penalty for what? i can imagine such a penalty for cheating or fraud, but certainly not for making an unpopular decision. Kingturtle 03:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Admins need to make judgment calls on the fly - but they mustn't abuse their powers. there is less bureaucracy when admins are given the freedom to act boldly. i do not think it is wrong for an admin without warning to give a 30 minute block to an IP address, for example. Kingturtle 03:48, 10 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 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)