Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Jpgordon: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
No edit summary |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. (Task 2) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.
I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants ''wants'' a dispute.
I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.
I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on [[WELL|the Well]]), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.
==Question from SlimVirgin==
Hi Jp, this is a question about trolls and other kinds of bad-faith editors. We have all dealt with certain types of editors, where going through the full process of an arbcom case feels like a terrible waste of time and energy, because even a glance at their edits shows they're not making good contributions to the encyclopedia and are causing trouble. However, they may not be bad enough for an admin to give them a long or indefinite block for disruption. They inhabit the twilight zone of what Carbonite has called the semi-troll.
What's your view on how the arbcom should position itself with regard to these users? On the one hand, we all want to see some form of due process. On the other, the arbcom isn't about giving every dog its day, but about getting the trains to run on time, as someone on the mailing list said. My own position is that the arbcom should have zero tolerance of trolls and semi-trolls, and I feel we all know them when we see them, but I can see that some people would find this too harsh a view. What's your position? [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
:Good question. I don't think arbcom is the right place for a zero-tolerance approach; administrators and other editors should, however, be supported in their lack of tolerance for trollery. Arbcom has to be flexible; certainly, keeping the trains running on time is the top priority, but keeping the trains running on time means having a good respect for the train crews. [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy|Wikipedia is not therapy]]; we don't have any particular responsibility here to provide emotional support for troubled adolescents who wish to express their disdain for authority by wasting the time and energy of the huge mass of encyclopedists here. What Arbcom should be for primarily is to arbitrate disputes between well-intentioned editors who are having trouble reconciling their differences with each other. Assuming good faith requires us to assume that each editor, until proven otherwise, is working to better Wikipedia. But as one particularly annoying well-intentioned but utterly wrongheaded user wrote recently, [[WP:AGF]] is a rebuttable assumption. It's also the case that good faith isn't sufficient; an editor might be editing in good faith but be blinded by political views or have emotional problems that make their good faith work to the detriment of Wikipedia. It's these subtleties that Arbcom has to be most careful about. I'm far less likely to label people "trolls" than some other editors; I think, for example, that both Rex-with-all-the-numbers and Zephram Stark truly believed they were fighting the good fight; they just could not understand that their methods and their rhetoric was totally discrediting and drowning out any positive contributions they might otherwise be making.
:So, to make a long story endless, I think "trollery" shouldn't be an issue for Arbcom; I'd just as soon see the term kept out of Arbcom discussions at all. It's not a helpful label. "Disruptive asshole" should suffice. (Oh, I think I'm not supposed to say that.) --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 18:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
::Good answer. Thank you. ;-) [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] [[User_talk:SlimVirgin|<sup
==Question from Marsden==
Line 53 ⟶ 60:
==Questions from [[User:-Ril-|-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?''
#''How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?''▼
#''Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?''▼
*I'm as opinionated as the next person; certainly I hold strong political opinions. Since ArbCom is primarily about disputes between editors, I don't see it as much of an issue; I'd deal with content-related cases on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, I'd recuse myself from disputes that I was involved with; however, my interpretation of "involved with" is not as expansive as some disputants in RfAr cases have suggested it should be. A hypothetical might be an arbitration case involving one of the other editors who, like me, keeps a watchful eye on Jewish-related articles. [[User:Jayjg]], for example. I would not automatically recuse myself simply because we work together on some of the same articles; there would have to be a stronger taint of impartiality than mere congruence of interest. ▼
#''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?''▼
▲''How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?''
*If I wanted to just "go with the flow", I wouldn't waste my time or anyone else's by putting my name forward for ArbCom. Anyone can say "ditto"; I'd rather help make intelligent, informed, reasoned decisions.▼
▲''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?''
*Yes, I support this decision. Unilateral bad behaviour is usually pretty easy to fathom; but in some cases, both parties are acting poorly, and in some cases, it's the editor bringing the case before committee that's the primary bad actor. The duty to rule on all relevant behaviour also should have the salutary effect of reducing frivolous ArbCom complaints. If you're acting badly, don't expect to be treated with deference if you complain about other editors' reactions to you. ▼
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
▲*#I'm as opinionated as the next person; certainly I hold strong political opinions. Since ArbCom is primarily about disputes between editors, I don't see it as much of an issue; I'd deal with content-related cases on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, I'd recuse myself from disputes that I was involved with; however, my interpretation of "involved with" is not as expansive as some disputants in RfAr cases have suggested it should be. A hypothetical might be an arbitration case involving one of the other editors who, like me, keeps a watchful eye on Jewish-related articles. [[User:Jayjg]], for example. I would not automatically recuse myself simply because we work together on some of the same articles; there would have to be a stronger taint of impartiality than mere congruence of interest.
▲*#If I wanted to just "go with the flow", I wouldn't waste my time or anyone else's by putting my name forward for ArbCom. Anyone can say "ditto"; I'd rather help make intelligent, informed, reasoned decisions.
▲*#No.
▲*#Yes, I support this decision. Unilateral bad behaviour is usually pretty easy to fathom; but in some cases, both parties are acting poorly, and in some cases, it's the editor bringing the case before committee that's the primary bad actor. The duty to rule on all relevant behaviour also should have the salutary effect of reducing frivolous ArbCom complaints. If you're acting badly, don't expect to be treated with deference if you complain about other editors' reactions to you. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]]
==Question from [[User:Justforasecond|Jusforasecond]]==
Line 107 ⟶ 108:
Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
*Not particularly. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not build a model of democracy. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
**Please note that I was answering on the basis of the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_prerogatives&oldid=31773278 revision] of December 17th. The current one seems just weird and mostly unnecessary. ''Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality or sexual preference.'' Well, no. It doesn't. Has anyone suggested it does? ''You may copy and/or distribute any content on Wikipedia, subject to our licensing terms.'' Well, yeah. Anyone can. That's what the licensing terms say. Likewise, ''You may fork, that is, to copy any or all of Wikipedia's content and use it to start your own Wiki.'' And ''You may go through dispute resolution when you are in a dispute with any other user.'' -- well, yeah, that's what dispute resolution is for. I'm kinda scratching my head about what it's supposed to be for now. However: I do stand by my original statement: Wikipedia is [[WP:NOT|not]] an experiment in democracy. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 04:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
== Questions being asked by [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] to all candidates ==
Line 130 ⟶ 132:
--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*I can't see any method whereby such "stripping" might occur, and certainly not by the "community"; the Board would be the logical body to make such decisions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. By the way, every time I see your signature my gut reaction is to ignore everything it is appended to, as it reflects either ignorance or hyperbole or both.
*No.
*Mu.
--[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
::What are we to interpret by "Mu"? Are you stating that, excepting edits which are inherently neutral (e.g. fixing obvious typos, lists of names etc.), or cover fairly neutral topics (e.g. [[Dress size]]), you only ever add content that supports your own POV? --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Interpret it however you want. Look at my edits. Most of them deal with vandalism, and I'm not particularly selective about where I remove vandalism, including vandalism I happen to agree with (for example, I'm one of many editors who both loathe George W Bush and remove vandalism, whether anti- or pro- Bush, from his page. Likewise Rick Santorum, Jesus Christ, and Kwanzaa.) I'm not going to give any absolutes. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
As an additional question, arising from your responses. Are we to take it, from your comment about my signature, that you are unwilling to [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] / that you ignore [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]? [[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
*Take it any way you want; I'm not responsible for your interpretations of my words. However, my gut reaction is not the same as my measured reaction; what I said is that your signature makes assuming good faith a lot harder than it needs to be, since either you have no idea what fascism is, or you somehow believe that being asked to use a reasonable signature can be equated with the politics of Mussolini, Franco, or Hitler. Actions have consequences; words sometimes do too -- and the consequences of your signature include rendering anything you say less credible. If that's how you want it, it's your problem, not mine. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
==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. —[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
#As of which edit? The sentence, ''Any activity relating to an open or newly submitted ArbCom case which violates the spirit or letter of this guideline constitutes a conflict of interest'' is too widely open to intepretation. I do think the entire thing is instruction creep. [[WP:DICK]] should suffice. If the policy is put in place, of course I'll abide by them; to do otherwise would violate [[WP:DICK]] (the only rule that matters.)
#I disagree with "no ex post facto rules". Again, [[WP:DICK]] applies. Just because someone has found a new way to be a dick doesn't mean they should get away with being a dick. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide a training ground for legalistically minded annoyances.
#I've been promoting expanding the size of the committee from the start. I've even proposed a possibly workable structure for it.
#You can look at the votes themselves; it's much easier than my summarizing. My signature remains --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
== Form questions from [[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ==
#What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
#How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?
—[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#It should be in ArbCom's purview; perhaps I've missed a debate about it, but I always assumed it ''was'' in ArbCom's purview.
#Rather closely, but not obsessively. I'm not a literalist except when programming; this would inform my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#Obviously, but how liberally do you think it should be applied? —[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
*Not very liberally -- like any penalty. But swiftly when necessary. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 08:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
==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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&curid=895730&diff=34790720&oldid=34790144#Template:User_against_scientology|recent templates] surviving AfD that appear to contrast with [[WP:NPA|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 [[WP:NPOV|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.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=34797833&oldid=34788153]
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? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
*I'm really torn on this one. I think POV-based [[granfalloon]]s on Wikipedia are both harmful and inevitable, as long as we have user pages and talk pages. I am not convinced they are harmful enough to do anything about, though; their harm is mitigated by their self-identification and the public nature of editing. Things like "User against Scientology" could fairly be construed as a personal attack on any editor who happens to be a Scientologist and dealt with accordingly. --[[User:Jpgordon|jpgordon]][[User talk:Jpgordon|∇∆∇∆]] 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||