I have lurked on Wikipedia for several months now, learning about the system and all of the unique elements that make Wikipedia the fascinating endeavor that it is. I have recently begun to add my own touches to articles, interconnecting and disambiguating and wikifying. I admit freely that I am relatively new to this process, particularly given the experience of many other candidates.

That might be a strength.

I am eager to provide a fresh perspective to the committee. I haven't been around that long, I don't have any biases to fall back onto. Nor do I have a preconcieved notion as to how the site (or the committee) should function. This may make me a sort of "odd man out", where a pseudo-outsider is brought into the committee to provide just that fresh perspective. My experience is with the encyclopedia; I believe it is the duty of each committee member to evaluate the merits of each case in terms of impacts to the Wikipedia project as a whole. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and any decision must reflect that ultimate goal.

I agree with and support the hastening of the process; arbitration should not take forever. It is important to ensure that the committee is able to make an informed and reasoned decision, and time must be allotted for due diligence. With the committment of the committee members, I believe that this due diligence does not need to take forever.

It is unfortunate when a case escalates to the point of ArbCom's involvement, but such cases can and will occur from time to time. The committee's committment to swift and fair resolution of such matters is precisely why such a committee can be effective as a final semi-judicial authority.

ZZ 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Since your edit history doesn't really tell us anything, could you give some other indication that you are in sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia process and community to make a capable arbiter? R adiant _>|< 01:56, 30 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm aware that my edit history is meager, and that there isn't a whole lot of documentable information about my views and familiarity with the Wikipedia process and community. The fact that I am aware of the existance and function of the Arbitration Committee should separate me from the vast majority of users who pop on for information only, as well as those who watch and tinker with one article. There is more than the encyclopedia here; there is a whole support system powered by the efforts of its volunteers. ArbCom is part of this, and a vital part.

So, no, I can't show you how I know how the community works, only that I know why it works. ZZ 02:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Are you aware that those who become part of ArbCom eventually go crazy? - Ta bu shi da yu 14:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

That is the rumor I've heard. My day job is in municipal government, though - people going insane in the face of illogical and arbitrary circumstances is nothing new. I live in Ohio, after all. ^_^

- ZZ 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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?

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?

-- Victim of signature fascism 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll take these one by one.

I am a registered independent and a recovering Catholic. I believe that I am sufficiently analytical and impartial to be able to review a case or topic without permitting what little bias I have to enter into my decision. Our decisions should (in theory) be based on procedural and functional criteria within the context of the encyclopedia; outside concerns should be set aside.

That said, if there is some item of personal significance to me, to the degree that would preclude rational judgement, I would of course stand aside.

There is a committee of arbitrators for a good reason. The design of both the committee and the election process should ensure that, though one or more members of the committee may exhibit strong tendencies or bias in a particular direction, the plurality of opinions and views from other members should balance the committee. The group is selected by the community, and should (in theory) reflect the overall characteristics of that community; going with the flow shouldn't necessarily be viewed as bad.

Again, individual actions must be dealt with individually. Overall, however, the committee is designed in such a way as to check and balance itself. If we as a committee cannot reach a consensus on individual actions within the committee, then something must be adjusted until the committee can function.

Requests to readdress cases should be viewed with a critical eye. The determining factor must be the request itself. Is the applicant simply calling "BS" on the committee and/or the original decision? Or, is there some legitimate point of information or evidence that was not raised? If so, Why wasn't it raised? It's not a revolving door, but legitimate lapses should be addressed.

The specific actions being reviewed must be dealt with in the context in which they took place. That includes the stimuli that caused the individual to act or react as he/she is accused. The committee's authority is not all-encompassing, and should not be; but the actions of others are legitimate points of information in the context of the issue under review, and should be investigated. Note, I say investigated, not sanctioned - except as normal procedures allow.

I hope this helps to explain my position on these issues. ZZ 02:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another question

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?

-- HK 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Both documents seem well debated and considered, though I note that both documents are proposed standards, and not adopted or formalized standards as yet. 95% of the guidelines so proposed could be collected under the heading of "Common Sense", and committee members would generally do well to abide by them to what degree is possible.

Questions of recusal, ex post facto rulings, and adequate explaination of decisions are good examples of common sense rules. The committee, and each member thereof, should act in such a way as to minimize questions about the competence and validity of the rulings issued. Identifying potential questions about the ruling, both through prompt recusal, detailed exposition of the ruling and how it was derived, and a keen eye for the context of each issue, should all contribute to decisions that make sense. ZZ 02:45, 11 January 2006 (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 01:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, I'll take these one by one.

The committee and its members should exist as a check and balance against themselves. If a member of the committee frequently acts beyond the bounds of his/her authority as a committee member, or if a member continually breaches the rules of the committee (and those of the community in general), then the committee should be able to impose sanction for "Conduct Unbecoming a member of the ArbCom". This could be abused, and that is where Jimbo comes in. False or unreasonable sanctions on one member could (and should) result in sanctions against the members responsible. In this manner, the committee cannot become a bloc with dictatorial authority (mainly because the committee lacks enough members to counter-act the shenanigans).

It takes votes to elect a candidate, so it should take votes to remove a member of the committee. The trick is setting a threshold that ensures that the vote is one expressing the views of the community (or at least a large cross-section of the community), rather than a few disgruntled individuals who lost a decision and can rally support effectively. Recall petitions frequently require a number of signatories related to votes cast in that or a previous election; a similar standard might work here. As before, there are checks in place beyond this sort of censure; if used effectively, this step should never become necessary.

None of the edits I have done touched directly on anything of a significantly controversial nature, so I don't think I can really give you the answer you want. I will say, though, that if my belief in a point of view is strong enough to brook any sort of debate, then I would see no problem with inviting alternative points of view. If my chosen POV is defensible enough and correct enough to warrant my belief, then contradictory points of view can only serve to demonstrate my belief's correctness.

The best debates, on any topic, are those where all facts and ideas are presented and the audience is invited to come to their own reasoned conclusion. If my position is so superior, then I cannot believe that I would lose such a debate.

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?

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.

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?

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.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Again, one at a time.

1. The recusal guidelines make sense, as I note in an above response. If I have a conflict of some sort, it hurts my position to fail to recuse myself.

2. Again, it's a document in progress - but, generally, it's a document that makes sense. We're attempting to form a committee based on common sense, aren't we? These codes of conduct would seem to be a good step toward that end.

3. Expansion of the committee seems to be the best way to alleviate the backlog. I'd be happy to hear a better proposal, but I don't know of one.

4. My votes are there for all to see, though I note that I references many of these issues in my statement and in above responses.

I hope my answers are of some worth; Please feel free to follow-up if I can further explain my positions. Thanks. ZZ 03:51, 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 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply