Arbitration is one of Wikipedia's most difficult and intense jobs. To be a good arbitrator requires the ability to look at the ideas behind two or more groups whose opinions differ sufficiently to be beyond less serious forms of reconciliation. Part of this requires being able to look at the key ideas behind vitriolic arguments, and seeing how they can be made to work together. Some of the most violent arguments, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, begin with small misunderstandings.

My personal background gives me unique insight into how to resolve arguments and avoid the pitfalls of communication. My childhood was spent between parents who argued non-stop, and I often had to find ways to help them come to peace and understand one another. I have also lived in many different countries, so I am not only fluent or highly skilled in many different languages, but I understand the different cultural sensibilities that can further provoke arguments. Along with other users, I founded the Scandinavian Mediators Club, which seeks to help people on Wikipedia who speak a Scandinavian language and need assistance.

In terms of my theories regarding the Arbitration Committee and its place on the Wikipedia project, I feel that more should be done to make sure that conflict is resolved before it arrives at the ArbCom. This would involve greater integration between the members of the Arbitration Committee and the various mediation groups on Wikipedia, as we can only work efficiently when we are working together. There are just too many editors, articles, and areas on Wikipedia in which arguments can develop. On the flipside, I feel that the cases that do reach the ArbCom are currently processed too slowly, spanning across weeks of arguments and evidence gathering. This needs to stop, as such long periods of uncertainly can dampen the growth of the project by failing to provide precedence or a good solution to problems.

I have been looking forward to working on the Arbitration Committee since I found out about it. I have been active on Wikipedia since May 2004 and an admin since December of the same year. If elected, I intend to make sure that the Arbitration Committee becomes more culturally sensitive, is better able to interact with members whose first language is not English, is more active in promoting mediation before arbitration, and acts more promptly. Thank you! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 02:40, 24 October 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 22 years old, and I'm a teacher at the Consulate of the People's Republic of China in New York City. I teach adults to speak adults and return to China as better English teachers. I am also currently a graduate student at New York University, and am building on my bachelor's degree, issued by the same institution, in photography. However, I am not sure that I wish to continue towards the path of my MFA and am considering transfering to the Africana Studies department. In the past, I have worked as a translator for several different institutions.

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: I don't think that there is an average to anything in life, but that being said, I usually am up editing well into the wee hours of the night. I am willing to give up some of my editing and writing in order to be an attentive and active member of the arbitration committee.

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 have worked either as a solo agent or in collaboration with other editors to produce nine featured articles, but my experience working on the MTR-series of articles could probably best attest to my experience working in collaboration with different editors. I have worked for over a year with many different people to create the most comprehensive database on the Internet of information about the MTR, Hong Kong's metro system, on the Internet. We have more information on Wikipedia than even the MTR's own corporate website! I stand up for my principles while editing, which has occasionally lead to small and limited personal conflicts, all of which have been resolved on the talk page without any lasting hurt feelings. I have had frank discussions with other editors on IRC about disputes I have had, and have always been willing to accept opinion, even when it runs against me.

I have lead teams to translate articles, and founded the Vienna WikiProject. I am also one of the most active South African editors, and have worked with the team of South African editors on both the English and Afrikaans Wikipedias to help South Africa have a larger presennce here.

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

A: Other than editing under a few IP addresses (very, very rare- usually when I forget to log in), I haven't edited under any other usernames.

Hmm, arbitration is about making the tough calls and cutting the gordian knots. Have you considered looking into the mediation committee or (better yet ;-P ) mediation cabal as a possibility?

Kim Bruning 17:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Of course I have :) You and I have talked about it many a time, in fact! User:PZFUN/signature 22:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Hm, wel, without getting too personal but I grew up in a highly disfunctional family, which has presented me with bullshit and lies and counter lies since I was a child. Now, as a teacher, I get more bullshit (albeit of a different variety) from my students on a daily basis. I have learnt how to weed out what is real and what is false from my life experience, as I would surely not be where I am today without that skill. User:PZFUN/signature 22:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

When policies overlap, I think two things need to be done. First, the overlap needs to be brought up to the community, however that takes place outside of the arb com space. Secondly, I tend to think that the fewer rules there are, the better. Being Danish, I find rules to be important guidelines (and thus I tend to ignore IAR — ironically), but the less restrictive the policy, the better.

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

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 am gay, and I am a liberal, however I do not feel that these facts would cloud my judgement. No-one is fully impartial, but I am willing to look at both sides of an argumet, always, even if I disagree with one on personal grounds. If I did feel so strongly about something, I would recuse myself, although I cannot imagine the circmstances in which that would be necessary. User:PZFUN/signature 22:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

I am outspoken when it comes to my own beliefs. If I disgree with something, I will make my case clearly. I am not the kind of person to agree with something because it requires less work.

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

Not in the lease, and in fact, I remember having a large argument at my grandparent's dining room table when I was a kid about the Timothy McVeigh dealth penalty case. I thought very strongly that since evidence was withheld from his lawers, even though it would not have effected the outcome of the court case, he deserved another trial to make sure that his legal rights for justice were served. So in that regard, I do not find "appeals" as such to be automatically meritless.

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 agree with this. Evidence presented to the arbitration committee is often biased to make one side look better than the other. Going the extra mile and actually going to look at all the data presented is necessary for an arbitratior to form their own opinion.

- User:PZFUN/signature 22:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:01, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I have never agreed with making Wikipedia more authoritatian in structure, and in fact, have referred to Jimbo Wales several times as a facist (sorry!) in regards to this Arbitration Committee process whenit seemed that he would summarily appoint people to the Arbitration Committee without public consultatin. I think that Wikipedia needs order in order to function, but I have no aims at establishing a Wikipedia Government, as such. User:PZFUN/signature 22:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

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 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

No, I do not. I feel that it is too top-heavy and restrictive of ArbCom members both as members of the broader Wikipedia community as well as within their roles as arbitrators. User:PZFUN/signature 22:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

Yes and no. No because I feel that it is sad that such a policy is necessary, and yes because as a gay male, I know all too well that it is. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?

That's a difficult question for me to answer, mostly because I try to keep the two items separate in my mind. A good editor is someone who makes good edits, not necessarily the most polite or civil person. That being said, a great edtior is someone who is able to not only make good edits, but be an asset to the Wikipedia community over all. Therefore, I have nothing against uncivil editors as long as it does not cross the line into rudeness or meanspirited actions.

1. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?

Yes, I'm a teacher of English literature as well as a graduate candidate in photography from New York Univeristy. I'm Danish, we're not hot headed. Criticism and critique alike are welcome, as my talk page says, I'm a big boy, I can take it. My professors would probably say I'm a little distant and quiet, but a good egg over all.

1. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

I do believe I would act in accordance, but I'm mixed as to whether or not I believe such a policy is necessary.

Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)}`

PurplePlatypus 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

As much as is necessary for me to perform my duty to the best of my abilities.

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

Probably my work on South African geography.

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

I probably couldn't obsessively add articles anymore, but it would probbaly be better for my social life in the long run, anyway! :) Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:56, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

(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?

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?

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?

-- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a fairly disorganised question, however from a legal standpoint I do not like the idea of voting to remove judges of their power, especially if they make a controversial decision. While not directly applicable to Wikipedia, I dislike the idea of being able to sttrip an arbitrator of their position for their actions in light of their decisions - However, a case could be made for such an action if the behavior of the arbitrator became overall unacceptable.

I also tend not to edit controversial subjects, mostly geography, so I don't feel I can answer that question. Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 do. If I feel I am unable to act impartially, I will remove myself from a position of judgement.

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.

I disagree with the role and responsabilities of an arbitration committee member being expressly defined, however I like the idea of general guidelines.

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 cannot pledge such a thing as I'm unclear as to how having more memebrs of the ArbCom would speed decisions up.

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, because I'm on holidya at the moment in Namibia and have very limited Internet access.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You're welcome! Páll ^{(Die pienk olifant)} 19:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

— Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You currently say you are on holiday at the moment in Namibia, where you have limited Internet access. Do you take trips where Internet access is so scarce (such as Namibia) often enough for it to take away from any duties you may have as an ArbCom member? If you have any questions, please ask. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with 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 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. [1]

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? -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply