Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Luigi30

I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned.

I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions and comments

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: 15, sophomore in high school.

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: To be a good arbitrator, you need to spend a lot of time arbitrating. However long it takes to make sure you've got all the facts, all the evidence, and all the truths sorted from the lies is how many hours one needs to do it effectively. And yes, I will take 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 got a knack for sorting out disputes, keeping everyone happy, spotting details buried under filler, etc. Experience in doing all of the above is important for arbitration. You have to keep both sides happy while doing what has to be done.

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

A: None.

Request from Dragons flight

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The internet's many scams and frauds? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist

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 18:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Whichever policy has stood up more in past cases would take precedence over a weaker policy. I wouldn't completely discount it, however. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

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 can't think of any strong opinions that I have, other than sunny side up. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I'll go against other administrators if I believe a decision to be wrong. I'd rather see a 6-1 than a 7-0 on a controversial decision. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Only in some cases. If there were new evidence that completely contradicted a finding of fact, of course it's with merit. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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 16:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I support this. If one party was provoked by another party into doing something really stupid, than of course the second party is partially to blame. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 21:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden

As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Huh? Are you saying that I'm an impressionable youth who would be influenced by the decisions of other Arbitrators? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 04:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 09:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question by Ted Wilkes about his Conduct Code proposal

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 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm neutral on it. I think it's got some of good ideas, good precedents, but there are a few things I disagree with, and I see no point in adding specific rules on recusals. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Sure. Why not? Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

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?

If someone's rude, I'll try to keep my civility, unless they are being compete idiots and refusing any sort of logic whatsoever. It's that simple. If someone's good in articlespace but bad in contact with others, that's their problem. They need to learn that they need to treat people with respect to get any back as an editor. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

Seeing as I'm not in a university, this question does not apply. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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.)

See my answer to this question above. I don't think it should be official, just suggested. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 07:46, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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

As much as is needed. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

RC patrol probably. If I'm in deliberations a lot, I won't have a chance to revert. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

I'd have less time to spend on doing RC patrol. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(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?

I disagree with that. Under no circumstances should an arbitrator be removed from office by the community. There is no reason to do that, they have no more power than normal users, they just have more responsibility to make decisions. Whether or not they are agreed with is a seperate issue. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

I have never introduced a strong opinion into an article. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

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?

See my answer to this question above. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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.

See my answer above. The recusal guidelines seem to be adding rules to something that is solely the arbitrator's decision. They should not exist at all. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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 think adding another Arbcom with an equal number of seats would help the backlog. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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 voted against making only admins eligible, for midyear elections, weak support on expanding to 24 seats, against a choice of term length, for removing sockpuppet votes, and did not vote on the other issues. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 22:03, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Form questions from Simetrical

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) 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates

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. [4]

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 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)