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

Ask away...

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? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 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.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good answer. Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marsden

You seem to have thrown your hat into the ring a week after the discussion page warned that anyone who wished to be considered for ArbCom should list himself "immediately." Were you aware that the "race" had essentially been declared closed before you entered yourself into it? Has the "race" been re-openned without an announcement? Has some special consideration been made for your candidacy, and if this is the case, do you know why it was made? Marsden 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair question. I didn't see anything that said that it was closed. I saw suggestions that it might be closed "soon". If I was incorrect -- if it was, indeed, closed -- I will of course withdraw my candidacy. In fact, I only put my hat into the ring after I noticed that someone else had done the same thing the same day. So, to my knowledge, the "race" has not been re-opened (since, to my knowledge, it was not closed); to my knowledge, no special consideration was made for my candidacy. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response, JP. Do you think that your comment at the administrator's incidents noticeboard about suggesting "that other editors do anatomically impossible acts" the day before you announced your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee demonstrated a level of good judgement and objectivity suitable for membership on the Committee? Marsden 04:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In that particular case, very much so. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for answering the question directly, JP. Another candidate might not have been so willing to be accountable for his past behavior. Marsden 05:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from BDell555

Could you provide an example of someone "editing in good faith but blinded by political views" such that he or she should be indefinitely blocked? Would somone who is known to be associated with an organization like stormfront.org be an example? How about someone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood or, alternatively, a contemporary equivalent of the Stern gang? Would you revert an edit that sources a publication by a controversial organization like ihr.org even if it could be proven that the document cited was 100% accurate and/or endorsed as fully accurate by another, uncontroversial organization? If so, which other organizations would you consider to be in need of the same treatment? Would you deny, without further inquiry into the document's claims, arguments, or methodology, the possibility that any document or publication by such an organization could be possibly be accurate?Bdell555 07:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I won't provide such an example; that would imply pre-judgement should I become an arbitrator and should any such person be brought before the panel. At any rate, people shouldn't get blocked because of their views; actions are what matters. The obvious example is User:Amalekite, whose associations were irrelevant -- but posting a list of Wikipedia Jews on a Nazi website could not be construed as anything less than intimidation. As far as ihr.org is concerned, that's easy; ihr.org is dedicated to the propagation and perpetuation of falsehood, and thus is not a valid encyclopedic source except as an example of such falsehood. Any organization dedicated solely to holocaust denial would be handicapped by the same antagonism toward reality, and would be similarly useless as a source. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I posted "JayJG, Jpgordan, and Fred Bauder are members of Wikipedia's leftist cabal" to a right-wing website would that be "anything less than intimidation"? Would I be indefinitely banned if I claimed that User:Amalekite was a Nazi and there had been several documented incidents of people being incited to commit violence against persons who were accused of being Nazis? Or would I be banned if, in the context of some sort of dispute, I posted the name, profession, ___location, and phone number of some third party, in the manner of Fred Bauder on his candidate Q&A page?

Would you extend the principle you apply to ihr.org to an organization like the Soviet Union and its sympathizers which have denied verified atrocities like the Katyn massacre or, alternatively, various contemporary Turkish organizations which deny the Armenian Genocide, or are some atrocity deniers to be held to a different standard than others?Bdell555 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd judge each case according to its merits should such cases arise. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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: I'm 51 and retired; my last employment was at eBay where I was Chief Engineer; before that I was at Autodesk for about a decade.

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: No idea, really, how many I'll need. It depends entirely on the number of other arbitrators and the caseload. Since I'm retired, I have the time.

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: I've been more of a janitor than a creator of articles. However, my experience in the real world is sufficiently broad to make up for my shortage in actual article creation.

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

A: None. It's possible I made one or two edits before I registered, but I'm not sure. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. Fred's revision is pretty good and workable. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from -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?

• 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.

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.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Jusforasecond

Support of a user with numerous policy violations

Could you explain your rationale behind supporting User:deeceevoice, a user who has broken wikipedia policies on numerous occassions? Many of her violations are documented at her RfC[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice] and RfAr[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice], and include use of the term "crakkka". Some of her language is targeted towards vandals, but much of is directed towards editors in good standing. Is it your belief that some editors should be permitted to ignore wikipedia policies?

• See Wikipedia talk:Civility#User talk: for my feelings on this. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Three follow-up questions, these will be my last.

1) The link your provide covers how to deal with editors coming to a another user talk page behaving with a lack of civility, but what rationale do you give for supporting deeceevoice beyond those instances, such as on article talk pages?

2) Your example of telling off a nazi antagonist sounds reasonable on the surface of things. It would be the sort of violation that I would hope an arbitrator would not punish greivously. However, as you know, deeceevoice has attacked editors asking her politely to behave with civility. In light of current wikipedia policies and under your proposed modifications, do you believe this behavior is acceptable?

3) Finally, do you believe that behavior that violates current policies (such as civility violations on your own talk page) should be overlooked, as long as you personally disagree with those policies, as either an editor or as an arbitrator?

-Justforasecond 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Most of the stuff cited in your persecution of her was from her talk page, and even most of that was so trivial and barely even approaching my own definition of incivility, that I haven't even bothered analyzing anything else that you might have complained about. And I'm currently unable to give a reasoned response to you, as I think you are continuing your damaging behaviour, and I feel that saying anything other than "shut up" to you would be counterproductive; I've no longer any reason to assume good faith on your part. I don't expect your support in these elections. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks on users filing RfArs

I filed the RfA against deeceevoice. As far as I can tell, this is the proposed solution when a user violates wiki policy and refuses to address an RfC. Can you tell me, then, why you've posted comments on my talk page saying that I make you "sick to your stomach" for filing the RfAr? What do you believe is the appropriate action when a user has violated policy repeatedly and refuses to respond to an RfC? Do you support attacks on users who have followed protocol and filed RfArs to address wikipedia issues? Lastly, why have you chosen to support a user who has a well-documented history of violating policy, while attacking me?

Thanks for your time Justforasecond 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't that you filed an RfAr. Your obsession with persecuting another user -- quite effectively and successfully, as we've seen -- is damaging to the polity of Wikipedia. If I am chosen to become an arbitrator, I will certainly recuse myself from any action involving you (and, for that matter, any action involving Deeceevoice, should we be lucky enough for her to return after the damage you've caused settles down.) Until then, I'm a plain ordinary user-janitor disgusted with your behavior and angered by the result, and as a result I made an intemperate posting, for which I was properly briefly blocked (as befitting a first offense). The appropriate action when an RfC fails and is withdrawn is to consider whether the RfC was appropriate in the first place. WP:DICK is a very important principle here. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]