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

I do not pretend to be high enough for every honour, for every place within Wiki, or for every role needed to ensure the project runs smoothly. I feel my short time here has already taught me how necessary it is to have time, effort and determination; but also a sense of fairness and understanding. Wiki is an ambitious - quite frankly over ambitious and complex in some regard - project, but one of great strength and repute. To keep the wheels turning and all users happy is a task worthy of the strongest person in both mind and spirit. Whether I am able to help and assist is not, as I place myself as a candidate in this election, a question I may be able to answer.

On-line all bets are off. Every trouble maker can cause havoc with edit wars, spamming and inaccurate information. I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals. I am a political person, having stood for election in the 'real world' before, so hearing both sides of an argument is second nature. Within this context, the challenge becomes harder but ultimately a challenge worthy of such an all-round project. We must work together to build this from the bottom-up; to be fair, free and focused, and not split into tiny groups of self-interested keyboard juries.

I am willing to give this experience a real shot. If I fail, and I think that is likely, I will continue to work as hard as possible to make all the articles here of the best possible standard. It is the least any determined Wiki user can do.

doktorb 21:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions

What office did you run for, and would you like to join me in [[Category:Wikipedians who have ran for a public office]]? karmafist 03:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

This is the first office I have put forward my prospective candidature. doktorb 07:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Then you should change your statement above where it says...
having stood for election in the 'real world' before, karmafist 18:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the first Wikipedeia office for which I have put forward my prospective candidature. I mus-understood your question - I have been a Liberal Democrats candidate for Preston city council. Apologies doktorb 08:00, 2 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 18:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that many policies in this field are complex, and the processes of arbitration are significantly slowed by the understanding and processing of these rules. I would strip down the initial process to a main core - bringing together parties and panel - before moving forward. We cannot move through these serious processes with a time consuming process which often benefits no-one; both parties are bogged down and no firm decisions are quickly forthcoming. To counter this, the whole process must focus on the main issues and swift conclusion. Contradictions solve nothing. doktorb 07:58, 2 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 member of the UK Liberal Democrats, so I have opinions and views of a political nature, but keep these to political contexts and situations where necessary. I do not think overt political views should be allowed to put weight on a decision in an arbitration situation. For example there may be cases where users are in serious disagreement over the future of an article on a religious or moral issue; I could not allow myself to cloud the issue with my own views on the subject matter, only the users involved.

On the wider issue of prejudice, obviously in cases where there is an obvious extreme view being taken, I may find it difficult to separate myself completely from personal views. This is, in my opinion, a situation few people could say they'd not go through themselves. Each case would, in some respects, be taken on individual basis

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

It depends on the context, for me. If the evidence suggests a decision could only be made in which fair penalties are placed on both parties, and the consesus is itself unclear, I would put forward my personal view and allow the decision to be put 'in the mix'. I would not disagree with a decision just to be the "awkward man".

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

The process is not, as it stands, short or sweet. It takes time, it takes a lot of evidence and discussion. At the end of the debate a decision would have been made following difficult and problematic analysis. Obviously any appeal would have to be placed in the context of the history of the case. If it is fairly clear-cut, the re-address request would be looked at but I would underline the points raised in the decision to point out how the evidence stacked up. It becomes difficult the closer it was to call the original point

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?

I would not be happy if only one party was penalised in a situation where it was clear all parties had roles to play in the original complaint or situation. I would rule on the behaviour of all parties unless there existed pretty good evidence that only one party was absolutely in the right

All answers doktorb 17:10, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:44, 3 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 15:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

What I would like to see is an approach which maintains an ordered and yet simplistic structure. There are complications - deletion nominations for example - which need to change to allow more new members to feel a part of the system. Arbitration is a complex structure but I think can be strengthened without losing its fairness. doktorb 16:20, 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: 25 and an office worker (desk monkey =))

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: It will take a long time but I know a sizable chunk of the day can be taken with looking at cases.

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: We all know how Wiki works, and how editing and its ease allows everyone to "be bold" and put forward their own ideas and content. I have had experience of people making edits with which I don't agree, and as yet have managed to get through by discussion with those involved. It is very easy to talk to someone who makes a reasonable edit, and to discuss the merits of future editing. It gets harder when up against tougher/stubborn characters, but it is possible - as i have shown in the movement of Constituencies in United Kingdom General Election by another user - to talk through the issues calmly and reasonably.

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

A: IP address I cannot recall, but almost always Doktorbuk (signed as doktorb) doktorb 08:56, 7 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 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The short answer is, yes. I support any system which enhances the arbitration process. doktorb 16:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:08, 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 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the "IAR" advice should be taken as that; a guideline, an idea to use as a tool whilst working through the articles. "Being bold" is what I have found myself doing when it is clear a decision needs to be made; a good editor, and an admin of repute, needs to know when "being bold" crosses into "being reckless". I hope I can learn when never to cross that line. doktorb | words 13:07, 17 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 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The arbitration process is not pretty, not necessarily that well thought out, and can provoke quite emotional responses from those parties inovolved. I don't think there is an issue, to be honest, with editors being perceived as rude in certain quarters and not so in others; after all, how hard is it to ensure any sentence is understood as it was intended when typed? Context is all, and often editors are only trying only to deal with serious issues in as quick a way as possible. I cannot stand coarse language, insults and rude phrases and will never use them in abritration processes. Obviously we all know there are some users to provoke such language but I'm sure I can bite my tongue!

On the issue of the code of conduct, I understand the principle and accept any move to improve the framework of this site and its processes.

The wonderful think about Wiki is how novices and professors are one and the same in the editing processes. I am educated to A-Level standard and will hold my own against anyone who thinks they know more than me in those fields - acadmemic or otherwise - where I have confidence in my knowledge. If anyone crosses the line of civility, I will attempt to deal with it.

All answers doktorb | words 09:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

I note the Bill of Rights appears to set a firm framework for the future work here. I don't want regulations to put too strong a tight brace on creativity and editing, but I do support any basis by which an understanding is created.

Your answer seems a bit vague. The Bill of Rights is highly controversial, because it assumes that there have been abuses by the ArbCom. Do you agree? Also, what is your view of the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? --HK 16:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I support any system which ensures the future framework of a suitable ArbCom procedure. The abuse of this system stems from the amount of power assumed to have been given to Arbitrators, so any system in place to ensure suitable, responsible boundaries gets my support doktorb | words 16:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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

This will depend greatly on the issues at hand. I certainly would like to ensure a resolution was made which was suitable for all parties as quickly as possible. It would do no-one anygood, Wikipedia or the affected parties, if single decisions went on for too long. I would spend as long as it was necessary on each case in which I was involved but would attempt to achieve as quick a resolution as possible.

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?

I am involved on an informal basis on the on-going (and seemingly never ending!!) UK Politics projects; past elections, boundary changes and so on. This can take a lot of time to work on and if I was invlolved in ArbCom, this would obviously take a back seat.

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

I am one of a large number of editors in the UK Politics "pool", so I don't think there would be a serious problem at all if one member was not around all the time.

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:37, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

All answers doktorb | words 12:08, 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 02:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Answer Obviously if an arbitrator has acted beyond all reasonable levels of conduct, and has been seen to act against the grain of good work and intention, I would have no hesitation to suggest that person is investigated and, if required, taken off the panel for a time relevant to their actions. I do not know if an arbitary number of signatures is what we require, but a good number of accusations backed up by absolute evidence and fact should be enough to start any investigation into misbehaviour.

I have edited a large number of articles but I don't know of many, if any, overtly political content. doktorb | words 07:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Many subjects, even those of science, mathematics, art, and secular history, contain more than one view. Are you stating you have made no edits which support your own biases? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

You may have to trawl through my contributions list, but I can't think off-hand of any edits I have made where I have put forward a political view from any part on the spectrum. I have edited articles for the UK Elections (such as constituencies and boundary information), which is the trivial/factual side of politics, not the analytical side. doktorb | words 16:44, 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?

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?

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:27, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Answers

I will endeavour to accept and abide by all reasonable rules and regulations in the arbitration process. The Code of Conduct is a good framework for further action, and again I believe following the regulations is the only way this process can move fotward. doktorb | words 07:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. How about expansion? I've got one more for all the 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. —James S. 07:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Expanding the number of seats may not automatically speed up the backlog, just as building more roads doesn't necessarily solve the problem of congestion! I would have to look into the proposals before making a definate answer on this issue. doktorb | words 14:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Rob Church

I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals.

What does simple vandalism have to do with arbitration? Rob Church ^Talk 13:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Because arbitration deals with everything from minor vandalism to large arguments of prinicple and policy. doktorb | words 14:45, 5 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 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)