Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ral315

I'm Ral315; I've been a user since November 2004, began editing in December 2004, and became an administrator in September 2005. I'm running for Arbitration Committee for one simple reason: Because I want to help.

The proceedings of the Arbitration Committee have always interested me, since I first joined Wikipedia. Lately, the Committee has been having a very tough time handling its caseloads. I applaud all remaining Committee members for being able to stick through all the burnout that inevitably happens when dealing with so many disputes. I also applaud all members running for Arbitration Committee this year; anyone willing to run for such a time-consuming position must either be extraordinarily dedicated, or insane. From what I've been told, I belong to the latter group.

In all seriousness, the Arbitration Committee serves an important purpose on Wikipedia: Settling disputes between users, and more often, doling out punishments to unruly users. Such a position needs a strong, unbiased user. I feel that I can fulfill these requirements. I do not plan to decide cases based on my personal beliefs, nor on any other user's personal beliefs. Cases should be decided on the merits of the case alone. Too often, both inside Wikipedia and in the real world, problems are decided on personal beliefs and biases. I will keep bias out of my decisions if I am elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Another part of being an Arbitration Committee member is being available to the community. I am regularly available on Wikimedia IRC channels, and I always try to respond to messages left at my e-mail address and on my talk page.

Finally, I think that to be an effective Arbitration Committee member, one mustn't take arbitration too seriously. The main goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The only reason that the Arbitration Committee should ever punish a user is if the user is so disruptive that corrective action is needed.

If you have any questions that I might help answer, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I will try to answer it as soon as I can. Ral315 W_S 03:53, 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: I'm fifteen years old, and I'm a college sophomore. My current classes are as follows:

• Humanities
• Introduction to Computing
• Linear algebra
• Mathematics in Technology (a math programming course)
• Principles of Marketing
• State government and politics
• Structure and logic

I'm also active on my school's Student Senate.

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 think that setting a specific number of hours per month is problematic, especially considering how the number of cases has grown significantly since the ArbCom was first created, and would continue to do so over my term. However, I would think that a minimum of 15-20 hours a month is necessary- at the very least, an arbitrator should check all open cases at least 3 times a week, responding as necessary and taking in the specifics of the case. I am definitely willing to do this- I'd wager that I spend, on average, at least an hour a day on Wikipedia right now- perhaps more.

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: To be perfectly frank, I haven't created that many articles- simply because many subjects that I am familiar enough to write an article about already have articles. I do have experience revising articles; for example, I rewrote Jonathan Levin from an easily deletable article that was facing VFD to a decent stub. I think what's more important than having edited thousands of articles is to have good people-reading skills, which is particularly hard over the internet. One of an arbitrator's toughest jobs, in my opinion, is to attempt to figure out whether a user facing arbitration is trolling, or is simply a user who needs a little help getting adjusted to the rules. I feel I'm particularly good at this, which is one of the reasons why I think I'd be a good arbitrator.

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.

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 08:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Interesting question. I would say the following:

• More usage of temporary injunctions. In the case of an editing dispute, I don't see the problem with limiting each party involved to 1 revert a day, or in some cases, completely blocking involved editors from editing the page(s) in question. This also would give the arbitrators some insight into what their final decision might do- if users break the injunction, it gives ArbCom the knowledge that the user will likely continue to be disruptive. If the users instead take it to the Talk page, I think you might see, in some cases, the situation resolving itself.

• Unaccepted arbitration requests brought against users that are more than 30 days old should be removed. Right now, there are 4 cases that were originally filed in late August that have not really been edited in over a week or two, and have not been voted on by ANY ArbCom member in nearly a month. Requests deleted in this way will be preserved in page history, or in an archive, should a new request be filed, so that old requests can be referred to.

• ArbCom appreciation day, in which all users send money to ArbCom members. This point shall only be enacted should I be elected to ArbCom :)

• More use of mediation. Mediation too often gets forgotten in the rush to ArbCom someone. There's a reason that three steps of dispute resolution were created.

• The reaffirmation that an RFAr is not used to try and punish someone for misdeeds. While in most cases, there are punishments, minor or major, involved, many requests for arbitration should be little more than a second Request for Comment, except that the arbitrator's findings are mandatory, rather than advised.

Tell me if you have any more questions. Ral315 W_S 05:05, 12 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 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Good question. On weekends I help my dad out at a bowling center he owns, and have had the opportunity to talk to many drunks who would try to BS their way out of a paper bag. I can't say that I've had many specific opportunities where I've had to judge BS or not, but in most cases I've seen on Wikipedia, it's usually black or white. Should there be a gray area, I would use my best judgment, assuming good faith in the process. Ral315 (talk) 02:53, 28 November 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 18:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

It's necessary to judge the intent of the policies, rather than just the words. WP:IAR is not a way to justify anything you do, it's a policy mainly designed to eliminate red tape when dealing with malefactors. That's not to say that it doesn't have its uses outside the "red tape" realm, but people need to be wary about using IAR to defend every controversial action they take.

When two policies overlap and conflict, my belief is to look at the action, ignoring all policies for a moment, and try to judge what action was taken, why it was taken, and if there were any alterior motives. Then, it's a lot easier to decide which policy takes precedent in such a case. Take, for example, the current case regarding Chip Berlet. Involving numerous parties, it appears to be one of the tougher cases they've handled recently. And it seems like one of the biggest things involved in their proposed decision has been what the parties have done, and why. Ral315 (talk)

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 wouldn't say I have too strong of opinions...while I do hold opinions in many cases, I prefer to rely on facts rather than emotion when viewing arguments. If I felt that my opinions would impede my judgment, I would without question recuse myself.

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

I think I'm very willing to contest decisions of arbitrators. At this point, I think that the AC has generally made good decisions, but I would certainly make sure to bring up my opinions. I don't think it's appropriate to do so publicly, except in rare cases, so I'd probably do so through the private mailing lists if necessary.

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

No, I don't. There are certainly many cases where it's necessary to re-address the situation, either due to positive or negative behavior of parties involved. AC rulings are reversible, and if their remedies no longer serve a necessary purpose, or are inadequate, I would make suggestions of that sort. Even so-called "problem users" deserve to have their cases reviewed when they feel it necessary.

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?

It depends. In many cases, the behavior of other parties is good. But I worry about the cases when all parties are at fault. If we allow parties to bring arbitration in order to avoid punishments against themselves, we're leaving a serious problem open for malefactors to exploit. In general, I support this decision, but I think we need to be careful about it, certainly.

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

Questions answered above; thanks. Ral315 (talk) 02:23, 4 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 00:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

This is a very good question, and one that I can't address right now, as I'm on my way to work. Let me get back to you, and thanks again for asking. Ral315 (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Good question. In certain areas, I admit, I am lacking. But I don't worry about this, because I think to some extent, every arbitrator is going to face topics that they're not familiar with. In fact, to some extent I feel that having some younger arbitrators might be to an advantage, given our wide technology and pop culture coverage, which I do have background in. And, I will certainly research topics if I need to, to try and gain insight into the disputes. Thanks for your question, and sorry I couldn't answer earlier. Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of 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 08:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, I doubt most people running for ArbCom know much about these things. It's also important to remember that an older person might not know much about something like the GNU/Linux naming debates. But if a case were to come up regarding something like this where first-hand knowledge is required, I will do the necessary research to learn about Zulu culture, or Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Thanks again for your questions. Ral315 (talk) 17:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Code of conduct (Ted Wilkes)

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)

I think it's inherently implied that an ArbCom member must adhere to those standards. I wonder if this is a case of instruction creep, as ArbCom members have on occasion been involved in arbitration cases (Jayjg was admonished in one case, if I remember correctly, for revert-warring). I think it's important that we hold all members to the same standards, but in its current state, I don't think that code of conduct will do anything but be another page emphasizing the same principles. Thanks for your question. Ral315 (talk) 00:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input there? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Mediator Experience

As a mediator, what specific steps, actions or ideas of your own did you find most effective in furthering the goals of Wikipedia? Benjamin Gatti 01:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, I don't think I furthered any goals. I think in mediation, the goal of a mediator should be to start with a hands-off approach, trying to encourage parties to work to a common goal without doing a significant amount of work. When a mediator is too involved, accusations of POV are more likely, and it can seem like less of an agreement than when the parties work together. More generally, I think that I've tried to further the goals of Wikipedia by trying to create a non-confrontational environment where I mediate. Ral315 (talk) 00:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Question

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 17:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a tough call, certainly. There's a fine line between IAR and making unilateral decisions. I think whenever an administrator does use IAR to block someone for a long period of time, they have to make sure in their own mind that it's a blockable offense. By 'blockable offense', I mean something that common sense would rule blockable, not just the limited things that Wikipolicy provides for. The key thing to remember about IAR is that it's a common sense rule, pure and simple.

I believe in any of these cases, a post on WP:AN is necessary- other admins' and users' reactions to the block can be key in showing that a particular block is in line with IAR (or not, in which case the blocking admin should unblock) Generally, I think that of the hundreds of administrators, there's always one who will stand up and protest an unfair block. Thanks for the question; let me know if there's anything else I can clear up on this point. Ral315 (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

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

No, I think they're instruction creep. Ral315 (talk) 02:47, 22 December 2005 (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?
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?
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.)

PurplePlatypus 07:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I view the role of civility as very important. Sure, we're an encyclopedia first and a community second, but a lot of the encyclopedia rules (WP:NPOV, etc.) can't work without civility. Correctness means nothing if the user cannot act reasonably. I'm human too, so I try to assume good faith, and realize that outbursts will happen, but a person with a significantly uncivil personality is a problem- they can drive off other willing contributors with their words and actions.
2. I'm in college right now, going for a dual major in Math and Computer Information Systems. I take critiques seriously, even if sharply worded or uncivil. Perhaps I take the words more seriously if done in a kinder tone, but I do try to figure out the root of disputes and fix them. I think my professors would say the same thing about me; I always try to listen when someone tries to help me.
3. I think the policy is a combination of instruction creep and misguided beliefs. I would abide by most of it as an unofficial policy, but there are some things I disagree with. For example, I disagree with the "No Lese magesty" section (it encourages vandals to violate WP:Civility with no repercussions), and the "No Damnatio memoriae sanctions" (I believe it contradicts itself, and I believe that some content can be offensive or otherwise inappropriate without violating policy.)

Thanks for your questions. Ral315 (talk) 03:00, 22 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?

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?

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1. I plan to spend about an hour a day on ArbCom business, give or take. It depends on what's necessary.

1. I don't really have any projects. I do mostly janitorial work, but semi-randomly.

1. I don't think anything would be affected that negatively. The work I do would be instead picked up by other users and administrators.

Thanks for the questions. Ral315 (talk) 09:31, 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?

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 02:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that stripping an arbitrator of their duties is a dangerous precedent to set. While I do believe that circumstances might occur where an arbitrator is seen to be acting in bad faith, I believe that between Jimbo, the community, and the Arbitration Committee themselves, action can be taken. If you're referring to the Kelly Martin RFC fiasco, I have to say that I don't believe most of the people voting there believed that she should have been stripped of her post, regardless of their beliefs on her actions. Censure can take many forms, but stripping someone's post isn't the most likely one to occur.

To be perfectly honest, I rarely edit controversial issues, for the sole purpose that I like stopping arguments, not being a party in them. While some might believe that makes me unable to be an arbitrator, I believe it instead allows me to judge the actions from a different view than other arbitrators.

Thanks for your questions...let me know if you have any more. Ral315 (talk) 02:20, 6 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?

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. 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

1. I don't pledge by them as a rule, though I promise to recuse myself if I feel any impropriety in taking the case.

2. I don't agree with the code of conduct in general, because I feel that most of it is instruction creep. I haven't seen a single arbitrator whom I'd worry about their conduct.

3. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to pledge anything of the sort while running, since it would certainly affect the likelihood of me being elected/appointed to the committee. Some of my arbitration proposals can be found above. I do think that the "backlog" is better than it was earlier this year; many of the open cases have stalled due to lack of involvement by the parties in the cases.

4. I may have made some comments, though I don't remember them off-hand. I mainly didn't vote since it seems none of the proposals had any real chance of taking effect at this point, and because many of them, while well-meaning, would not help the problems facing the ArbCom at this time (i.e. forcing 2 or 3-year terms, etc.)

Thanks for your questions. Ral315 (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Direction for the Arbcomm

If elected, would the Arbcomm be more interested in personal disputes - such as compaints of failing to assume good faith - or in efforts to ensure that the content of the wikipedia is as factually accurate as its paper peers? In short would you continue the current trend which some might view as placing style over substance? Benjamin Gatti 02:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What about the Signpost?

Seeing you signing up to burn yourself up in the ArbCom(semi-kidding) makes me worry bout the future of our beloved Signpost - any ideas of people who can take over your work there if you are elected to the ArbCom? JesseW, the juggling janitor 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I understand this is of concern to a few people. If I were elected, I would continue my work at the Signpost. One of the nice things about the Signpost is that it's only a hassle on Sundays and Mondays. I have a lot of time during the rest of the week, of which a small minority is spent on Signpost-related tasks. If for some reason I couldn't keep up with the duties of both jobs, I'd trust Michael Snow, the previous editor, to help me should he be willing to. Ral315 (talk) 09:55, 9 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 20:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

It's certainly a bit troubling. I have no trouble at all with templates that say "This user is a Democrat", or "This user drinks Pepsi". Affiliation is one thing. Ones like "This user supports George W. Bush" are a little questionable, because those open the door for the opposite view; i.e. "This user hates George W. Bush". Ones that serve no purpose other than to mock, libel, or anger people violate WP:CIV - even if the policy itself was meant for on-wiki people, off-wiki people are similarly applicable.

I'm not sure, however, that the ArbCom is the right place to handle this. The ArbCom policy has always been not to deal with content disputes, which one could argue this primarily is. I would like to see the community, and Jimbo Wales, take a stand against divisive templates. The easiest way to control this situation is to create new policy, or reaffirm existing policy, to deal with this. Ral315 (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Perhaps it would help to clarify matters if you could pretend you've been elected as an arbitrator and, in a workshop in an actual case involving community-building and use of template space, you see the following proposed principle. What would be your comment as an arbitrator on this proposal? Would you adopt it? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia

1) "Our fundamental goal here is to write a comprehensive high quality encyclopedia, and our social rules are in service to this mission." [5] The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information to its readers. Although Wikipedia has a strong community of editors, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is primarily for its readers, and that the activities of the community must be dedicated to that purpose.

Comment by (prospective) Arbitrator:

1. I would adopt this principle. While I believe that the community aspect is important, as always, the important thing to remember is that when the two conflict, the encyclopedia must take precedent. Ral315 (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by parties:

1. As per unanimous decision (8-0) in the recent webcomics case. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment by others: