I see the job of the Committee as to sort out problems that have gotten so bad that no one else can deal with them, and that are wasting the time of editors who are here to write, and to seek the ideal solution: the one that ends up with the least damage and lets the people who are here to work cooperatively and productively on articles do just that.

I believe strongly in keeping a civil and productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, and not being overly bound by precedent in search of a proper outcome. I also believe in using no firmer a touch than is necessary to remedy a problem.

There are certain issues I am firm on, including civility and respect as well as the proper use of admin powers. I also am a strong supporter of ignoring all rules, which makes me all the more disturbed when that guideline is abused for ends it wasn't meant for.

As a temporary appointee I believe most of my time on the AC so far has been spent "learning the ropes", and have found I would rather write articles than serve on the AC; what sane person wouldn't? But it hasn't made me want to snap yet, either, so I will fill the post if I am wanted back. Questions welcomed.

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

I've lived with my significant other for two years; does that count for anything? :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The right thing. Perhaps I don't always succeed, but that is certainly the aim. Our policies are sometimes vague and cannot specify everything, and they will never be otherwise. The only thing to do is to take the specific situation into account and judge what's right, which guidelines are more important to follow, which course of action best furthers the goals of the project. Certain things are fundamental: be civil and respectful to your fellow editors, follow NPOV, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Others can slide without lasting harm. In general I like to err on the conservative side if I am unsure: the one that has the fewest negative side-effects and is easiest to recover from. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 don't believe I hold any opinions that affect my judgment to the degree that it would be necessary to recuse myself from a case over them. I list some of my political and religious positions on my user page; however, I do not edit articles in these areas, as it's not where my primary areas of interest or knowledge lie. I would recuse on any case where I did believe myself to be unable to hear it fairly. (Also, I don't care how you break a boiled egg, so long as it's hard-boiled enough that I can take out the yolk...)

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

I am willing and have done so, though much of the associated discussion is not public. I won't sign blindly, and do not support measures without reading thoroughly through the case, even if I have nothing to add to what has already been done afterward, as often happens.

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

Of course not. Some of them are without merit, but I would not reject without consideration.

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. It's a rare conflict where some party is the only one causing the problem, and it seems irresponsible not to address the problems wherever they might lie when a case has been brought to our attention. I believe my current behavior reflects this, yes.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Whether or not Wikipedia should be more orderly is not a matter for the ArbCom to decide. That is the community's job; the AC is tasked with upholding those standards so that the community can produce an encyclopedia. My personal opinions aren't relevant to whether or not I would uphold those standards fairly. It is the current state of affairs—and seems likely to be for the indefinite future, regardless of media furor—that our policies and guidelines are created by us, and open to interpretation as good sense and the goals of creating an encyclopedia demand; this is what I intend to uphold. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:48, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I'm 23, currently a freelance musician and a student on hiatus before graduate school. (I studied music and mathematics; what I end up doing for graduate work is still up in the air.)

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: Too many, really! Not just the reading of cases, but in keeping up with the rest of Wikipedia enough to know what's going on. I'd say roughly an hour per day on arbitration alone. I am willing, yes. (There goes everyone's estimation of my sanity.)

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 created many articles, including one I've gotten through FAC ( Rebecca Clarke), but my experience in article space has been all but uncontentious; my experience in policy and informal dispute resolution has been more useful. ( Hugo Wolf, another article that is primarily my work, is long dead, else I may have had to do battle with the Brahmsian POV-pushers, but in general classical music is a peaceful area.)

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

A: I've never edited (other than tests) under another username. User:Brainleakage is mine to test the non-admin, uncustomized interface, and I registered User:Kat Walsh as my real name (which redirects to my current userpage; it's possible I may switch to using it in the future). Oh, and for full disclosure, User:Gmaxwell is my significant other; yes, I would recuse on any issue he was significantly involved in.

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:25, 6 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 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Not in that form and probably not at all; see answer to PurplePlatypus below. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In your case, this is asked to clarify your candidate statement. Xoloz 17:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I think it applies more to non-administrative editing (for which it is essential) than admin functions: if "rules make you nervous and depressed", you probably shouldn't be an admin. However, policy cannot cover everything, and it would be an exercise in futility to attempt to make it do so; IAR exists for those tricky situations that policy hasn't thought of yet or wasn't intended to cover, when attempting to blindly follow the policy that exists would result in doing the Wrong Thing. Note that our rules are usually written such as to specify that exceptions should be made where it makes sense to do so—so then are we ignoring rules or following them? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

No, I don't. The statements that are good, in fact, I think already exist in some fashion or another, and the ones that are not are simply not acceptable. The Committee exists to be a flexible body that uses its judgment and interpretation to handle problems on Wikipedia, and this document wishes to put it in a straitjacket. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (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?

   I think civility is very important to any collaborative project: I certainly don't have any desire to work on a project where there is a continually hostile atmosphere. I think editors who have expertise but do not work civilly with other editors need to first attempt to be mediated with. If this fails, restrictions on personal attacks and incivility are called for; ultimately someone who refuses to work productively with other editors should not stay on the project. It's an unfortunate tradeoff to make, but how many other equally qualified contributors are driven off by one who makes editing unpleasant for eveyone?

2. 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?

   Only as a student (and department tutor). For most critiques it is mostly my own opinion that matters to me: I know when I've done well and when I haven't, and I usually don't need reminding of it, though I will take feedback given. The opinions of those I particularly trust and respect I take to heart, and a harsh one is hard to take; the opinions of others I take impersonally. I imagine my professors would tell you much the same.

3. 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 think it is unnecessarily legalistic, and some of the points I do not agree with; and most of what I do agree with I believe is already in place. I would like to think that in general I do uphold the standards of conduct one would expect. It would simply be too lengthy for this forum to respond point-by-point to that sprawling document, so as a general statement: arbitrators should hold themselves to the highest standards of conduct they expect from others. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

PurplePlatypus 07:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

   Well, judging by recent activity, a large chunk of it.

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

   Well, it'd be a bald-faced lie to say my article-writing and cleanup isn't affected—I don't do much RC patrol and I only do minor edit sprees when bored and uninspired—so I won't. Arbitration is more of a time-sensitive task than writing, as slow as it may seem to go, so I prioritize it appropriately, though I am still slowly chipping away at plenty of things in article space. Other things I do are mostly things I can do when I have a spare 15 minutes and aren't affected; a good deal of that is answering mail sent to Wikimedia, which I've been doing behind the scenes anyhow.

3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

   My article creation rate has dropped rather a bit, though I'd like to make more time for that now that the mail queue is a bit more under control. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

   I do support having a private discussion list for arbitrators to discuss current cases, and keeping confidential evidence confidential; the first is greatly beneficial and the second is necessary. I like the growing use of the Workshop pages for interaction and discussion; also, I will answer reasonable questions about my own actions, and would expect any other arbitrator to do the same.

2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?

   No. The admin bit is unimportant, though a user's general pattern of contribution to the project should be taken into account, administrator or not.

3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?

   Not by virtue of being critical alone.

4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?

   Naturally, I would recuse, and present my evidence just as anyone else would.

5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

   They can be reviewed, actually, and of course they should, and in fact many are. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:50, 25 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:24, 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?

No; this is a power reserved for Jimbo, though he should be willing to consider community input.

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?

No: answer exactly as above.

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?

I haven't, because I don't edit at all in areas where I have a strong political or religious POV. The vast majority of my article space contributions are in the area of classical music. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

-- Victim of signature fascism 01:46, 5 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?

I do not, though many of them I do agree with. I will recuse in all situations where I do not believe I can fairly hear a case, or where there appears to be significant conflict of interest. I will consider all reasonable requests that I recuse, and the conditions under which I will do so largely overlap with those named, but I do not pledge to support that particular document.

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.

Yes, there are. I think my answers above should be sufficient to detail most of my significant positions, as I'm not going to analyze that whole document in detail here. If you would like to know something specific I haven't answered yet, you are welcome to ask.

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 will not pledge anything, as it's not my decision to make, but in general I do support the idea and think there are enough good candidates this time to reasonably do so. Though it is entirely possible that we will find an enlarged committee does not make it go any faster!

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; as a candidate and current Arbitrator I have largely refrained from commenting on process. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Kat, are you actually sane? ;-) Rob Church ^Talk 13:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Can I answer this one? - brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

brenneman: yes. Rob: does that answer your question? Mindspillage (spill yours?) 11:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?

   My opinion on it is that is is an appropriate remedy when a user has shown a pattern of abuse of admin rights. I also believe that when desysopping is warranted, it should not be for a fixed period, but rather that a user must regain the trust of the community and stand for adminship again when they are ready, and I encourage people to consider such requests fairly.

2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

   I think they should follow policy as closely as is possible. Our policies are very flexible, perhaps more some than some may think; they are usually written with some explicit statement like "in cases where this does not apply, do something suitable", and so interpretation differs. Any admin should always be able to justify why their interpretation was correct and in the spirit of building the project, particularly so where policy was unclear or broken, and I think a job for the Arbitration Committee is to say when they were justified and when their behavior should be recognized as unacceptable. My admin philosophy is a conservative one, and any problem that can be solved without admin rights should be. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

— Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

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 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I am in agreement with him here. I am also in agreement with his answer on his own candidate statement, that he should not as a sitting Arbitrator publicly comment on current cases, and nor will I. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:00, 12 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 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree that it is a cause for concern. I do not believe we should be allowed to have expressions of hate on userpages, nor very divisive and polarizing statements. In particular, I do not like the divisive userboxes, not least because their packaged and standardized format makes it appear that they are statements endorsed by Wikipedia, and it is damaging to the community. ("This user is a Democrat" I don't see as particularly bad, especially if you cannot tell by their editing behavior, but "This user would like to kill GWB" is. "This user is a Christian" OK, but "This user thinks atheists should burn in hell" isn't.) The silly ones ("this user drinks Pepsi", "this user loves pickles") I see as, indeed, silly, but nothing more harmful than that.

Userpages belong to the project, ultimately, and not the user, though it's been in the best interests of community-building to let people have a good deal of leeway with them and to, within reason, say whatever we want. Disclosing one's biases and personal positions is fine, it tells people who you are, and helps people identify where you're coming from. Ideally, you should by recognizing them edit so no one would be able to tell. However, I am worried that so many people now think it's OK to make aggressively divisive statements on them, and I think we need to discourage that, and we certainly shouldn't appear to endorse it.

As an arbitrator I would uphold our userpage policies to the interpretation that makes the most sense in any particular case; I don't think I can be more specific than that. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply