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

Revision as of 03:14, 6 January 2006

Revision as of 20:06, 9 January 2006

Line 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]]==