Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ajwebb: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:01, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 15:15, 19 March 2023

(6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 26:

I would have to agree on the Code of Conduct as well as the Bill of Rights. Arbitrators are not "above the law" and must strictly follow rules and guidelines so that all users are treaded with fairness in an orderly manner. Users should obey policies and conduct themselves in an orderly manner as well. This is to ensure that Wikipedia will sustain for future generations. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

--<font colorspan style="color: darkred;"><font facespan style="font-family: georgia;">[[User:Herschelkrustofsky|<span style="color: darkred;">HK</span>]]</fontspan></fontspan> 15:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==

Line 33:

''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?''

I believe that the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances. As for certain circumstances, this could include a variety of things. Most specifically, this should include serious offences such as abuse of powers, harassing other members as well as fellow arbitrators, and outright arguing or taking specific sides regardless of clear judgment, should be grounds of dismissal. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

''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 believe as the majority, the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions. As long as the majority can be determined easily and clearly, that should be the decision. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

''[[WP:NPOV|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 have not introduced a substantial opinion that contradicts my own political or religious viewpoint. However, I would not add my own opinions to an article. Wikipedia is not a forum for your own political or religious viewpoints. Instead, it is a place where all users of the Internet can receive free and neutral information. This is why I always keep an open mind and viewpoint, even if the matter contradicts my own political or religious viewpoints. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

Thank you for asking these questions. I would be happy to answer any others that you might have. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:01, 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]]?

Yes, I pledge to abide. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

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.

There are not any parts of the Code of Conduct that I do not agree with. I am in full support of the Code of Conduct. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

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 support expanding the number of seats in the Arbitration Committee to a reasonable number. However, this may not immediately alleviate the backlog. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

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 have not voted at the Proposed Modifications to Rules yet as I was not aware of the article. Thank you for brining this article to my attention, as I will now review it. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to ask me these questions. I will be happy to answer any other questions that you might have. [[User:Ajwebb|Ajwebb]]

==[[Anarchism]] page==

How would you deal with the ongoing problems on the [[anarchism]] page?[[User:Harrypotter|Harrypotter]] 17:50, 9 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]] 20:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)