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

Revision as of 00:23, 4 January 2006

Latest revision as of 16:48, 19 March 2023

(10 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 92:

How about the proposed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]]?

--<font colorspan style="color: darkred;"><font facespan style="font-family: georgia;">[[User:Herschelkrustofsky|<span style="color: darkred;">HK</span>]]</fontspan></fontspan> 00:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

==Questions to many candidates by [[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]]==

Line 136:

:# If I felt I would be unable to be objective, or felt that a conflict of interest would be perceived even if I felt myself capable of objectivity, then I would recuse.

:# Definitely. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 21:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

==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?''

: '''No''', except that arbitrators are subject to re-election and may be removed by Jimbo should their suitability for the position fall into severe question. I believe that is sufficient. Arbitrators should be very hard to remove.

''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?''

: '''No'''. 200 Wikipedians is very far from a majority of the site's many thousands of active users. By the nature of things, and the fact that a RFC has no actual consequences, RFC participants are self-selected. Only those who feel passionately about an issue participate. I suspect many users believe, like me, that it's not worth participating in.

''[[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?''

:My primarily factual basic subject matter expertise means I don't often get into such a situation. However, I have done so in the past and will do so again, no doubt. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 07:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:44, 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]]?

: '''No'''. However, I can pledge to abide by the majority of it. I have an issue with the clause that says that having expressed a strong opinion about a case disqualifies an arbitrator. I have strong opinions about vandalism and disruption, and do not consider these to disqualify me from cases involving someone accused of either. I also disagree with the statement that arbitrators can only work from the evidence presented and cannot seek or solicit evidence from other sources. I do pledge to recuse if I have a significant conflict of interest (i.e. when it strongly appears I may not be fair) or if I believe myself incapable of being fair.

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.

:Aside from the above, I disagree with the notion that an Arbitrator be prohibited from any communication with any party to an arbitration outside the arbitration itself. Both arbitrators and those party to a case remain Wikipedians and (barring injunctions or previous ArbCom remedies) may continue to work on the encyclopedia. It is frankly ridiculous to prevent communication on matters not associated with the ArbCom case. On matters associated with the case, in the interests of openness, I believe links or summaries to such outside discussion should of course be posted.

:I also disagree with the statement that 'equal offenses should be punished equally'. For one thing, I do not believe the ArbCom should have to consider individual acts in isolation: the totality of the case should be what is used to judge what remedies are appropriate.

:I also believe that ArbCom remedies should not be seen primarily as ''punishment''. They are intended to prevent a problem from recurring. While I agree that no ''punishment'' should be decided in an ''ex post facto'' manner, I believe that the ArbCom should be able to impose restrictions on an editor's FUTURE conduct even if that past disruptive conduct was not expressly prohibited.

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?

:IF the current arbitration backlog proves insoluble with a full complement of Arbitrators as currently structured, THEN I would definitely support an expansion. I am not wholly convinced yet that this is necessary, but I am open to the idea.

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. As a candidate, I did not consider it proper to participate in such a decision.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Thank you. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 07:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

== Form questions from [[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ==

#What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?

::There's a reason we don't hand out admin abilities with a new account: some of them can cause damage and need someone who can be trusted. If someone has shown that they cannot be trusted with those abilities, then they should not have them. 'Cannot be trusted' means more than having made a mistake or two; it means using them with bad faith, or repeated inability to understand when they should be used.

#How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

::Policy is a guide to doing the right thing. While there are some instances of 'the right thing' that are not laid down in policy, and instances where in fact following policy could be seen as doing the wrong thing for the circumstances, admins should depart from the spirit of established policy when using admin abilities only with trepidation. Minor technical violations of the wording, but not the spirit, of policy are less critical, I feel.

::If an admin decides that the good of the project over-rides policy, then they should tread carefully. If the situation is not an emergency, attempting to change policy is the better tactic. If there is not time to change policy, preferably the admin should ask for advice from others before taking action.

::If an admin does deliberatly not follow policy, they should explain their actions fully and publicly. If other admins disagree and change things back, things should be dealt with by either changing policy or through the dispute resolution process, rather than warring over the action.

&mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

::Thanks, —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 04:35, 10 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]] 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:It's a concern, that's for sure. As a project with a goal, rather than a social space, everything must be interpreted in terms of the good of the project. This includes keeping contributors happy, of course (although not above all else). Most userboxes are mostly harmless, and while creating them and using them does not directly contribute to the encyclopedia, fostering a sense of community is a worthy task in itself and an eventual gain for the project.

:Users should never use explicit personal attacks on Wikipedia; [[WP:NPA]] is clear. Furthermore, [[WP:CIVIL]] asks us to treat others and their beliefs with respect, even if we disagree. Userboxes that attack others or their beliefs, or are divisive are contrary to WP:CIVIL and the core principles of this project.

:I would urge all Wikipedians to avoid bumper-sticker statements of divisiveness on their userpages.

:The role of the Arbitration Committee is not to create policy. If selected, I would uphold our existing policies of user conduct as appropriate, in a spirit of encouragement towards productive editing rather than factionalisation and strife. —[[User:Morven|Matthew Brown]] ([[User talk:Morven|T]]:[[Special:Contributions/Morven|C]]) 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)