Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Kim Bruning

I'm sure folks will have many questions, because I've occaisionally done some interesting things. Some worked, some didn't. I hope that on balance more worked than didn't. :-) Kim Bruning 21:02, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Note for voters, Just Ask!

Some people have commented that they found answers to some of questions too terse. Let's fix that.

I'd deliberately answered tersely to form questions, fully expecting people to ask a follow-on question if they needed elucidation on anything.

So before you vote, if you're unsure about an answer to any of the questions, go ahead and ask, it's a wiki!

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 think people who break eggs with the pointy end down are silly, and should be sentenced to life inprisonment and/or be forced to eat the egg, only to be released if the egg is fully eaten.

Would you start a war to enforce that? More seriously, do you hold any other strong political or religious opinions, and if so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these? --Victim of signature fascism 08:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Nerf vs Supersoaker! Sounds like a plan! Other than that, hmm, I don't hold any particularly strong convictions outside wikipedia. Kim Bruning 22:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Do you hold particularly strong convictions inside wikipedia? --Victim of signature fascism 23:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed: m:Foundation issues Kim Bruning 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Is that the only one? --Victim of signature fascism 16:14, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm particularly fond of The policy trifecta, which is the most succinct summary of policy that people have managed to come up with. (Though admittedly, the 5 pillars are easier to understand. Sometimes more detail is useful ). Is that what you mean? Kim Bruning 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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

This assumes that one could only formulate descisions that are a function of descisions by others.

I prefer to take the time to come up with my own conclusions.

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

This assumes that it's ok to make descisions automatically on wikipedia. If we were to make automatic descisions, we could easily be replaced by bots.

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.

Kim Bruning 01:37, 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 15:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Mussolinis government merely claimed that the trains ran on time, I believe they actually didn't. It's not the arbitration committees job to make sure the trains run on time. They're there to allow you to complain if the folks who make the trains run come in late.

I think that wikipedia has always been ordered, that people who are trying to "move towards more orderliness" simply fail to understand the current system, and the maths predicts that some arbitrary new centrally controlled system for wikipedia would likely fail due to scaling issues. Kim Bruning 16:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. (My understanding is that Mussolini did get the trains to run on time, but mainly by adjusting the time schedules to match when the trains actually ran.) Marsden 17:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

"All authoritarian political systems offer 'leadership,' and those who support them argue that they are at least efficient.... The myth of fascist efficiency is fossilized in the endlessly repeated assurance that Mussolini 'made the trains run on time.' ...[His regime] brought disaster... and the trains did not run on time! The author was employed as a courier by the Franco-Belgique Tours Company in the summer of 1930, the height of Mussolini's heyday, when a fascist guard rode on every train, and is willing to make an affidavit to the effect that most Italian trains on which he traveled were not on schedule—or near it. There must be thousands who can support this attestation. It's a trifle, but it's worth nailing down."

—Bergen Evans (1954), The Spoor of Spooks and other Nonsense, Alfred A. Knopf, New York; Library of Congress catalog card number 53-9461.

Dpbsmith (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2006 (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: 28, studying biology, professionally programming

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 can put in 31 hours. (Famous last words)

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: Somehow no one lets me work directly on articles anymore (they keep asking me to do other stuff, like run for the arbitration committee and so :-P ) . These days I usually mediate to make sure an article can go forward. Other folks end up taking credit, and I'm fine with that.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under. A: I used to be an anon editor, 1-2 years ago. I'd edited under several IPs, but the edit histories have mostly been merged, years ago. Kim Bruning 21:41, 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 18:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I support the creation of almost anything. As to its actual use, that's another matter. Let's see where it goes! :-) Kim Bruning 22:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:13, 11 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 02:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Ignore all rules is part of the policy trifecta. If you use it wisely in combination with the other two elements, you can basically derive all of wikipedia policy.

So in my opinion, it is one of the fundamental cornerstones of policy, something which a lot of people who try to grasp it at first don't. This is unfortunate, because ignore all rules can make a big difference when used correctly.

As a random trivia note, (as far as I'm aware) I'm the only person to have ever validly blocked a person for a direct violation of Ignore All Rules. <innocent look>

The current most closely related policy to Ignore All Rules is Wikipedia Is An Encyclopedia

Hmm, on rereading your question. I think all wikipedians should start out with ignore all rules (as a blank slate), and then research policy and consensus to find the closest match between policy and what needs doing. A good application of ignore all rules would end up either looking so much like the rules that people wouldn't notice anyway, or actually end up *becoming* the rules. So yes, users (administrators are also users) should apply Ignore All Rules all the time. But gently! If you actually notice that someone has ignored all rules too clearly, they're probably trying their best, but not getting it quite right. Kim Bruning 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

• 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?

Erm, that's a good one. I'd like to say that civility is important to me, and that I enforce it strongly, but that would not be entirely correct.

In reality, I've been on usenet for a long time, and have a strong stomach for all kinds of flames and offensive behaviour, so more often than not, I don't really notice incivility much.

I typically try to apply the current rule 11 of the now not-so-simplified ruleset. (it's up to 15 rules, gosh!). See also RFC 1855 , section 2.1.1 (6th paragraph).

Generally when people are noticably agitated with each other, I'll act as a filter or buffer between them. I ended up doing this so often, that I started getting help, and ended up semi-formalising the process as "the mediation cabal".

• 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?

I know one professor who could be a bit more polite to me, but at least he's always been honest. In some ways honesty is more important than civility, though you'd prefer to have both, of course. :-)

If you ask him, he'll tell you "I thought I told Kim to stop wasting his time with this silly wikipedia thing!"

• 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.)

They're trying to make the arbitration committee into the supreme court of the united states, as opposed to a bunch of people trying to fix stuff on wikipedia.

Wikis work differently from nation states. (for instance, you can't revert a declaration of war). This means we have different requirements, but also different possibilities for what the rules can be.

Last one for tonight, yay! I'll hit up the remaining candidates tomorrow. PurplePlatypus 09:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

• Hmm, it's been redirected. I'll wait for that to stabilize before I comment. Kim Bruning 02:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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

Most. I won't have much time left for other stuff.

• 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?

None. I've delegated them to other people.

• To what extent would those projects be affected?

Not.

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?

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 01:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that sounds like a very particular person. I wonder who it could be? Kim Bruning 02:46, 7 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?

No.

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.

All.

I would follow the guidelines for the arbitration committee, as devised by J.D. Forrester, when the arbitration committee was founded.

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 cannot, I do not have that power.

My contribution to alleviating the arbitration backlog up to date has been to promote and assist in formal and informal mediation. I have handed off this task to others , and they're proceeding competently. This means that hopefully I won't have to deal with as much backlog. (And if I do, I'll know who to yell at ;-) )

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. I accept the judgement of the community here. Note that some of the proposals are actually jimbos prerogative, so I'm not sure how effective they would be.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:41, 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) 02:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...

1. Due to historical reasons, the arbitration committee is the only group that can officially have people desysopped. If someone has clearly been abusing their editing abilities, at whatever level, to do harm to the encyclopedia, those abilities should be removed.
2. All users have the duty to create and maintain the encyclopedia. That's what wikipedia is here for. People should follow guidelines only insofar as guidelines lead to the writing of an encyclopedia. Since the 1940's, the principle of befehl ist befehl has been curiously out of fashion. ;-) Having said that: If there are guidelines available, you should follow them as closely as possible, unless there's flaw to them for your situation. Kim Bruning 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation vs Arbitration

Consider the following situation: You are an arbitrator and the arbcom has a serious backlog due to the (almost) complete collapse of the mediation system. Would you scale back your arbcom activity to try and help restart mediation? Or would you use the time not spent on mediation activities to help clear the arbitration backlog? Thryduulf 00:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

First up, I've helped work on ways to prevent the mediation collapse situation from occurring again. We now have two different mediation paths available. Should the one fail, the other will take over.

In the unlikely event that both mediation pathways fail simultaniously, conflict resolution would once again be in trouble, and the options provided in your question would likely prove to be insufficient. Seeing that such a failure would be a fairly extreme situation, it's not possible to come up with a specific one-size-fits all answer ahead of time. You'd need to improvise: think really hard on the exact circumstances causing the problem on the ground then and there, and work on fixing them systematically. Kim Bruning 00:30, 13 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 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I was going to get all smart and write a smarmy (but rules-legal) userbox. Here it is, if you're curious:

This user thinks that all userboxes should be speedy deleted.

It looks so innocent, until you read the text. I imagined how people would spend hour after amusing hour bickering and fighting over it. People who hated userboxes would be tempted to put it on their pages, only to realize at the last minute what horror they were committing. People who loved userboxes would clamour for its deletion, only to pull back at the last moment. My talk page and arbcom election page would be filled with inciteful comments! And all would know the evil that is ME! BWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA.

But then I stopped and thought.

How would doing that actually improve the encyclopedia?

(Ignore all rules doesn't say you can do anything, it says you can do anything to improve the encyclopedia. As a corollary: if something is technically allowed by the rules, but is harmful to the encyclopedia, then you shouldn't do it. The above box turns out to be rare example of an actual ignore all rules violation, or would be, if I made it ;-) )

Kim Bruning 17:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)