The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, or should not, legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.
The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspilage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. I've been a Wikipedian since December 2004 and an administrator since July. Dmcdevit· t 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. You seem to have made a real fan in 129.82.30.53. ;) Marsden 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: Since this is already on my user page: I am 18 and a student at Reed College. However, I don't think this has any relevance to the position. If you are looking for some kind of measure of maturity or experience, I suggest you look at my actual contributions. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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: Having spoken to arbitrators, I'm convinced that 1-3 hours a day, with extra time on weekends, is sufficient. Of course this will vary with the case load, but I'm up to the task. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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 appreciate your opinion, but I must disagree with your premise. I don't believe that article namespace contributions are "very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants" other than insofar as they make me a knowledgeable participant in the Wikipedia community. I could point to a few articles I've worked on (I have, I think, two FLs, and have made significant contributions to Black Death, for instance), but I recognize that I have been otherwise preoccupied in the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces recently. Rather, I think that my experience to make a good arbitrator, and my "understanding the mindset of disputants" in particular, comes from the many mediations and discussions, whether formal and high-profile or casual and low-key, with a range of personalities and situations. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: None. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 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 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
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? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?
-- Victim of signature fascism 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:
What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(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 substantial edits to articles?
-- Victim of signature fascism 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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. 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you deal with irrational administrators? Especially when a bunch of them gang up on ordinary mortals. Shivraj Singh 09:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page? Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Naturally it would wrong to ask on whose side you would come down on, but I am more interested in how you might try and resolve what is perhaps a paradox. However, I feel that the concept of creating two POV pages as if they some how balance out, is a very bad idea. Perhaps there should be another facility ( wikimania?) where people can pretend that abstract nouns and private property. You certainly are prepared to put Lightbringer on manners, but seem prepared to tolerate just as abusive behaviour on the anarchism page. Harrypotter 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
(I decided to ask this question based on something I wrote on the talk page of your voting page.)
Several voters have taken exception to your use of the terms "problem users" and "productive editors" in your opening statement. I suspect some people are interpreting your comments to mean something you did not mean to imply, so I wonder if you could clarify by answering the following questions. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
James F. have written in his statement the following:
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll support you.-- AndriyK 06:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, or should not, legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.
The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspilage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. I've been a Wikipedian since December 2004 and an administrator since July. Dmcdevit· t 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. You seem to have made a real fan in 129.82.30.53. ;) Marsden 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: Since this is already on my user page: I am 18 and a student at Reed College. However, I don't think this has any relevance to the position. If you are looking for some kind of measure of maturity or experience, I suggest you look at my actual contributions. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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: Having spoken to arbitrators, I'm convinced that 1-3 hours a day, with extra time on weekends, is sufficient. Of course this will vary with the case load, but I'm up to the task. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
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 appreciate your opinion, but I must disagree with your premise. I don't believe that article namespace contributions are "very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants" other than insofar as they make me a knowledgeable participant in the Wikipedia community. I could point to a few articles I've worked on (I have, I think, two FLs, and have made significant contributions to Black Death, for instance), but I recognize that I have been otherwise preoccupied in the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces recently. Rather, I think that my experience to make a good arbitrator, and my "understanding the mindset of disputants" in particular, comes from the many mediations and discussions, whether formal and high-profile or casual and low-key, with a range of personalities and situations. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: None. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 8 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 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
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? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?
-- Victim of signature fascism 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:
What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(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 substantial edits to articles?
-- Victim of signature fascism 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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. 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you deal with irrational administrators? Especially when a bunch of them gang up on ordinary mortals. Shivraj Singh 09:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page? Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Naturally it would wrong to ask on whose side you would come down on, but I am more interested in how you might try and resolve what is perhaps a paradox. However, I feel that the concept of creating two POV pages as if they some how balance out, is a very bad idea. Perhaps there should be another facility ( wikimania?) where people can pretend that abstract nouns and private property. You certainly are prepared to put Lightbringer on manners, but seem prepared to tolerate just as abusive behaviour on the anarchism page. Harrypotter 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
(I decided to ask this question based on something I wrote on the talk page of your voting page.)
Several voters have taken exception to your use of the terms "problem users" and "productive editors" in your opening statement. I suspect some people are interpreting your comments to mean something you did not mean to imply, so I wonder if you could clarify by answering the following questions. Thanks, – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
James F. have written in his statement the following:
Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll support you.-- AndriyK 06:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)