Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Sam Korn

Sam Korn

Like Kim Bruning, I am interested in aiding the functions of our hard-worked Arbitration Committee. Also like him, I am wary to fully enter this "race" until the process is clarified. I hate unnecessary and premature self-aggrandisement, so I shall delay writing any more until the appropriate juncture. [[Sam Korn]] 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Now could be the appropriate juncture. I don't intend to be long writing this. Points I believe would make me a good Arbitrator

1. Complete and obsessive dedication to Wikipedia
2. A belief in reconciliation before confrontation and rehabilitation before sanctions
3. I am fair in always looking at both sides' faults
4. My strongest belief is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this should be reflected in the Committee's decisions
5. I have been around well over a year now, and understand every policy – I have also served as a mediator recently; although I haven't done much work, I have acted as a mediator, and have learnt a lot from looking at others' cases and also from on-going arbitration cases
6. This is the key one: I consider myself absolutely approachable and always helpful in my dealings with others.

The Arbitration Committee is very important to Wikipedia. It isn't as important as articles, but keeping the community moving is important. As I feel capable of doing so, I consider it necessary that I should offer what I can to help.

[[Sam Korn]] 23:39, 1 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 am a very strong believer in breaking an egg on the blunt end. Other than that, I would consider myself highly prejudiced in matters to do with the Church of England, but otherwise consider myself completely able to judge behaviour fairly.

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

Putting my neck out has never been an issue for me. qv WP:CCW, cricket discussions, etc. I generally like to take advice first, but I would always act by my convictions.

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

Nothing is automatically without merit. Many of these cases would be, of course, and most should be appealed to Jimbo, but that's not to say exceptions cannot be made where appropriate.

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?

Entirely. It is a rare case where one party alone is at fault. (I am sure this is a leading question, but I have absolutely no idea where it is leading to, so I'll answer it normally.) Romans 3:23: For all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[[Sam Korn]] 12:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden

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 16:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe this entirely relevant to my running for ArbCom, but nonetheless I shall answer it. The ArbCom is not about getting the trains to run on time. That is the role of the community. The ArbCom's only role is to fix problems when users are making the trains late and the community cannot deal with them. I don't believe in an authoritarian system. Wikipedia has thus far thrived on allowing editors to have a great amount of say in how they write their articles, and I think restricting that would unnecessarily annoy users whom we ought not annoy. I don't see that prospect as likely in the near future, so I don't really see the need to answer that last question; nor could I without more time to think and more evidence. [[Sam Korn]] 16:46, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

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:16. Studying French, History, Latin and Classical Greek.

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 the first question, "a lot". No, I don't know how many. To the second, "yes".

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 don't really get kicks out of writing articles, so I have tended to concentrate on administrative and bureaucratic functions on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I have played a part in two featured articles, and spend a lot of time reading articles and looking at their revision histories.

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

A:User:Smoddy (all edits are credited to my current name). [[Sam Korn]] 20:02, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from 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 18:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

If anyone thinks any of these points are not already policy, they seriously misunderstand the role of Arbitrators and the inherent understandings of the actions they undertake in that role. This policy already exists. There is no reason to create it other than to satisfy rules-lawyers. I can see it being used to attack arbitrators and as a basis of appeals to Jimbo. Incidentally, some evidence can be provided in private through email to the ArbComm mailing list, so your point about presenting diffs etc. is fundamentally flawed.

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input there? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Followup to Ted's question from PurplePlatypus

Some will, of course, not be satisfied with your response to Ted. In particular, you say "some evidence can be provided in private through email to the ArbComm mailing list, so your point about presenting diffs etc. is fundamentally flawed." Someone might very well respond as follows: "This shows a flaw, not in the proposal, but in the manner in which ArbCom cases are currently handled. What you describe sounds like rather odious backroom dealing, and is precisely the sort of thing the proposal is designed to stop. Moreover, if you think people misunderstand the ArbCom, how can making the process transparent do anything but help that?". How would you respond to this line of reasoning? PurplePlatypus 21:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Allowing people to present evidence in private is not odious backroom dealing. Transparency comes after justice, and justice comes after the good of the wiki. The ArbComm doesn't exist for the community. It exists for the encyclopaedia. [[Sam Korn]] 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Question From User:Rowlan

• 1. Can Men Wear Pink?

Yes. It is possible for men to wear pink. Whether they should is a different matter, upon which I shall not at the present time comment. [[Sam Korn]] 15:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

• How very political of you.

Rowlan 22:36, 15 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 17:35, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think IAR is badly titled. I would call it UCS - Use common sense. This means we have to apply each application of policy with the common-sense approach of "what good would it do?" Normally, the policy itself can be applied. They were, after all, written to be appropriate on the majority of occasions. IAR applies when policy is clearly inappropriate for this instance. Applying policy for policy's sake is clearly wrong, and IAR spells this out clearly so that it can be understood by everyone. The rule doesn't say that all rules should be ignored, or that they must be ignored. All it says is that they can be ignored, where ignoring them is the better option. Thus all actions potentially fall under it. It is impossible to generalise. Specific cases require specific decisions, which is the same consideration that gives rise to the rule itself. [[Sam Korn]] 22:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

I don't quite see the need for a codified document, but then I'm British and it's in my nature. ;=) What rights should a Wikipedia user have? I am not sure that there are any "rights" they have. However, there are some areas where the term could usefully be expanded, so I shall consider it so. I emphasise that no user's "rights" are more important than the encyclopaedia. Within that statement, I consider the "Bill of Rights" to have some use, if only to explain to users how Wikipedia functions. As to the points themselves, I feel there are some notable omissions. The first is that common sense must prevail. If someone is behaving badly, but their behaviour is not covered by policy or ArbCom precedents, then they don't deserve to be working on the encyclopaedia, and they must not be allowed to "get off" by rules-lawyering. I am not opposed to the document, save that it needs an "encyclopaedia-first" caveat, the "overriding objective", to put it into UK legal terms. The second point is that I consider most of the document to be common sense that already applies. I feel the document could become a way for the ArbCom to be attacked when it is doing its job properly, which can result in users becoming aggrieved. [[Sam Korn]] 16:36, 21 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. (In your case, you partially adressed this above, for which I thank you. However, I will leave it in just in case you have anything further to say, partly because I must admit I find your previous response a little confusing.) 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 08:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

1. It is less important than the overriding objective of writing an encyclopaedia. It is impossible for me to answer your hypothetical situation precisely because it is hypothetical. The good and the bad that the user is contributing must be weighed up and balanced.
2. No. I am still a school student, as I mentioned to jguk above.
3. I do believe I would act generally in accordance with the proposed policy, basically because what it says is basically what already happens. I don't think it should be a policy as such, however, more a set of guidelines for disputants about what they can expect from the ArbCom and its processes. Per my "overriding objective" criterion, I don't think it constructive to limit the arbitrators' powers by policy, rather to trust them to cope with the situations as they arise. As it is, I think the document is overly legalistic and formal, not to mention long, as well as not allowing for when a common-sense decision goes beyond the laid down guidelines.

[[Sam Korn]] 16:57, 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?
2. 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?
3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:01, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

1. No more and no less than necessary.
2. I spend most of my time doing RC patrol and answering emails in the OTRS queue. I see no reason why I should stop doing these. Several current ArbCom members do both as well as ArbCom duties. My attempts to write articles don't normally get very far.
3. Per 2, not too greatly, I hope.

[[Sam Korn]] 13:09, 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?

Arbitrators are Jimbo's power devolved, so no.

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?

I hope Jimbo would have the sense to step in. If I were that Arbitrator, I undertake that I would immediately resign.

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 leave my real world opinions at the door. As much of my work has been on the meta side of the encyclopaedia, I doubt there is anything. I don't happen to be able to recall anything, though I may have written something critical on League of Nations (I am a strong internationalist). [[Sam Korn]] 23:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:12, 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?

This is my recusal guideline: if I believe that I cannot judge a case fairly, I shall recuse. You can decide whether that fits in with the suggested guidelines.

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.

Many parts. I oppose on principle anything that says what the ArbCom must do or may not do. The ArbCom has enough stress and strain without overly legalistic and bureaucratic rules. The Arbitration Committee is not answerable to the community, save in these elections. That said, I think that the document is a good general guide as to how the ArbCom behaves. However, I strongly oppose its being made policy,

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 do support that. However, I would not be happy to take inappropriate members on solely because of a backlog. There must be no more seats than suitable candidates.

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.

No, becuase I didn't know about it at the time, and it now seems rather outdated. [[Sam Korn]] 00:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:58, 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) 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

1. It's very clearly a valid and sometimes necessary one. I could not generalise on when it would be needed, as that would very clearly depend on the specifics of the case.
2. As far as common sense will support policy.

[[Sam Korn]] 00:11, 12 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. [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 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I am fully in accordance with Improv's views. It has come to the point, however, where I think trying to delete a large number of userboxes would be even more divisive and disruptive to our goal than keeping them would be. Nevertheless, any userboxes that contain personal attacks may be deleted, and I fully support their deletion. At the current time, I don't think any others should be deleted. That said, I would far rather people left their opinions at the door and came to Wikipedia as Wikipedians, focused on neutrality, accuracy and comprehensiveness, not bitter feuding. Userboxes can only heighten conflicts at the expense of the encyclopaedia. Making differences more obvious is not a good thing. [[Sam Korn]] 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)