I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.

My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.

My biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.

I notice a few voters making reference to my stated reluctance to stand, and I fear some may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. My reluctance is absolutely not to be understood as an unwillingness to serve, and I give a pledge to play an active part in ArbCom and devote to it all the time necessary. The reluctance comes only because every minute spent on ArbCom business is a minute not spent writing new articles, or improving existing ones. I hope this makes the situation clearer, at least. Perhaps it's just my good old-fashioned English modesty getting me in trouble again. David | Talk 22:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I have copied over all the form questions which were asked of all the candidates, so if editors see their name here and can't remember posting it, that's because you didn't. By all means ask me another question and I will try to give you a full answer.

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am 33. I am Senior Account Executive at Indigo Public Affairs, as well as Westminster City Councillor for Westbourne Ward.

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 do not feel I can honestly answer this question as I have not served on ArbCom. If elected I pledge to give all the time needed to be an effective arbitrator.

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: My user page shows the articles to which I have contributed, and the article history will show you what I have contributed to them. In particular I try to help out on some inevitably controversial articles, including Tony Blair: see Talk:Tony Blair for my efforts to keep this on topic and factually accurate. I hope it also shows my commitment to NPOV. Recently I brokered a compromise at Talk:Cornwall on whether Cornwall should be described as an English county.

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

A: There are none. I have a few non-logged in edits but they are de minimis.

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer

I would say that my political involvement, as an assistant to an MP, a councillor, and a political researcher, has certainly helped.

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

The arbitrator must use their judgment, to use a truism. As I say in my statement, when exercising my judgment I will always have at the front of my mind the goal of writing a high quality encyclopaedia.

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 do have a few strong opinions on particular topics, but many fewer than other editors sometimes assume I have. I am also skilled at knowing when I have a conflict of interest because in my work on Westminster council I am subject to the Standards Board for England which can throw me off the council should I fail to withdraw from something which it was inappropriate to judge.

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

Very. I have cast lone dissenting votes in political meetings, and in my experience one actually gets respected for them, so long as they are well-founded and properly explained.

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

No. If there has been a material change in circumstances then it is the duty of the ArbCom to reconsider the issues.

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. I believe this is a generally good thing, because it sometimes happens that those complaining about a problem user themselves overreact in ways which damage the project.

--Victim of signature fascism

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

I have endorsed WP:IAR and added my explanation on the the talk page. For your convenience, I will repeat it here: "The rules are there to help us build a high quality encyclopaedia. If we ever find that adhering to a rule would hinder this aim, then we ignore the rule."

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?

   I think that Civility is one of our most important rules, and one of the few that I would absolutely exempt from WP:IAR. Rude but productive editors are a problem which it is difficult to answer with a general rule, but in principle I would look at whether their actions had the effect of driving away other editors and thereby damaging article quality when considering how they should be handled.

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?

   I have a Master of Arts degree in Natural Sciences from the University of Cambridge, which I left more than a decade ago. However, I make most of my contributions in political and constitutional subjects, and although I have no formal qualifications there, it's reasonable to say that my approach is along academic lines. I think my editing history on Wikipedia shows that I don't respond to sharply worded critiques by being sharply worded to my critic. In fact, my normal response is to head straight to the reference books to dig up a reference in the back of my mind which backs up my view.

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

   Most of the Code of Conduct is not something I would have a problem with, and indeed most of it is common sense. For example, it's pointless to ban Arbitrators from making personal attacks, because they should not be doing so in any case. However I think it undesirable to set out a 'laundry list' of circumstances when an Arbitrator should recuse themselves, because it may not cover every circumstance in which recusal would be appropriate, and may lead to a wrongful recusal of an Arbitrator who would be a wise judge in a particular case.

   Full explanation of ArbCom decisions is a good idea, but I would be wary of prohibiting the Arbcom from making new policy or guidance in a case. This only encourages wikilawyering by problem editors. All Wikipedia's rules are somewhat fuzzy at the edges.

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco)

I think it an undesirable development, in that Wikipedians should for the most part have the stated rights anyway as they are part and parcel of fair play. It is undesirable to set them out in a 'Bill of Rights' because the implication of doing so is that without it, they would not have them.

How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business? 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? To what extent would those projects be affected? Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)}

(I've rolled these questions into one for ease of answering)

I can't say how much time I would have to spend on ArbCom business although I do note that existing members do not entirely cease their ordinary user and administrator functions, so I presume it would not need to be all of it. You can gain a rough idea of the articles to which I contribute by looking at the table on my user page.

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

   The workings of the ArbCom, with the evidence page and the proposed decision being entirely in public is admirable. Everything the ArbCom members do is discoverable through checking their contribution history. The only area which is not transparent is the ArbCom mailing list which is currently restricted to ArbCom members only. I think the ArbCom must have a private forum to discuss cases, but it would be better for transparency if there was a set time at which the mailing list was made available to outsiders - rather like the Thirty year rule for British government papers.

2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?

   No.

3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?

   No.

4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?

   I would recuse immediately and absolutely decline to influence my fellow arbitrators.

5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist

   Yes.

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

I believe that the Arbitration Committee as a whole must retain the confidence of Wikipedians. However, to refer to the 'community' is to beg the question of what form of community Wikipedians are. We are an extremely heterodox group of thousands of people, representing all opinions, which is why we take decisions by consensus. In my view it would be inappropriate to allow inquisitions on a single member of the ArbCom, but there should be a procedure to allow the whole committee collectively to be held to account. As with Jimbo's suggestion that he proposes to overrule ArbCom as often as the British monarch refuses Royal Assent, I would envisage the removal of the whole ArbCom happening about as often as the British House of Commons passes a vote of no confidence in the government. (For the benefit of those unfamiliar with the system, that has happened three times in the past 100 years)

As a corollary: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?

This question clearly refers to the original RFC against Kelly Martin, and I am answering it as such, although I am setting aside my own personal views on the RFC.

No, I do not, because the RFC in question referred to Kelly Martin's actions as an admin, and not on ArbCom. As stated above I would not support the individual rejection of Arbitrators.

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 substantial edits to articles? -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft

Yes, I have, and many times. I get a sense of satisfaction from 'hiding' my own POV by being scrupulously fair.

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

See above for my answers to PurplePlatypus on this topic.

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.

Again, see above. Should the principles of the proposed Code of Conduct be accepted by a consensus, then I would prefer it to be incorporated in the existing Arbitration policy page.

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 the principle of expanding the number of seats on the ArbCom, although I would prefer to see a worked-through scheme before supporting the detail of a policy.

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.

I did not vote because I was too busy writing articles.

Your revert war on the George Galloway page and subsequent discussion here are at odds with the even-handed, level-headed persona that you put foward in your candidate statement.

1) Was this out of character? Are you normally a more effective editor?

2) Is this the kind of conduct that you find acceptable on Wikipedia?

3) Have you broken the 3RR on any other pages?

Fergie 21:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I'll answer these questions together. Firstly, for full disclosure, Fergie was as much an active participant in the dispute as any. I'm not particularly proud of this episode, and George Galloway is one of the few personalities that I do have strong feelings about. However I do think it shows that when the editing got heated, I kept on topic and did not make personal attacks: my responses were on content, even when I was myself attacked. I also backed up my stance by reference to facts. While it seems I did make a 3RR violation, this was inadvertent because I thought one of my previous edits had been different. The subsequent block was applied in breach of Blocking policy on two grounds: firstly, it was made without warning (during the night), and secondly, it was made by an admin who happened to be an active participant in the content dispute. You're welcome to search the block log to confirm that I have never been blocked for 3RR over anything else; in fact this was the one and only occasion on which I have been blocked.

However, I continue to maintain that removing the fact that George Galloway had twice visited Saddam Hussein from the leading paragraph of the article would be entirely wrong. I note that when it was revealed that Galloway was to be a contestant on Celebrity Big Brother, the show identified him by his Saddam visits: Davina McCall said "George caused a tabloid scandal over his alleged friendship with Saddam Hussein" in the prepared package introducing him, and then in a live voiceover while he walked into the house, said "as a Labour MP, [he] twice met with Saddam Hussein in 1994 and 2002". I believe that removing this fact from the article would be an act of censorship of the most noteworthy aspect of George Galloway's career and therefore would damage the value of Wikipedia to those who wanted to know about him. David | Talk 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely this is again a question of POV. From my own point of view, the most noteworthy point of Galloway's career is his opposition to the invasion of Iraq. His track record of interest in this matter and opposition to accepted policy towards iraq has been used to blacken his character. While he may have embraced this to a degree, the fact of it being used by the producers of a TV program to attract attention does not make it encyclopedic. Sandpiper 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I think this response is of somewhat marginal relevance to the subject of the Arbitration Committee elections, and is rather more accurately directed to Talk:George Galloway. David | Talk 20:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

You are trying to argue that that the facts support your actions, wheras the issue of what should be included where is frequently highly POV. From your own POV, your actions were justified. It is no defense to accusations of bad behaviour in an edit war, that you believed your POV to be correct. Sandpiper 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I've already answered the questions about conduct (and I'm not sure I agree with your characterisation of my response - if that is what it is). The question you asked did not cover conduct, but the appropriateness of the edit - which is why I suggested it be taken to the talk page of the article. Any discussions of how the George Galloway article ought to be changed which take place here are unlikely to be noticed by those interested in the page. David | Talk 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page? Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I should say that I'm not going to be prescriptive about the dispute currently in mediation which has led to Anarchism being protected, because it might in the future become part of a Request for Arbitration. Just as it's considered wrong to ask potential judges before their appointment for a commitment to find particular defendants guilty (or not guilty), it would be wrong to ask ArbCom candidates for a specific response about a potential case. I should perhaps say that all the anarchists I have known have been anti-capitalist, but that may just signify the circles within which I have found myself moving.

In general, the dispute over the role of anarcho-capitalism derives from the fact that anarchism is a political philosophy which by its very nature has no single leadership to say what it encompasses and what it does not encompass. Therefore almost anyone is free to define their beliefs as a form of anarchism, even if to the majority of informed observers they are not. The key question to me in arbitrating this dispute would be this: are there sufficient legitimate and informed sources which show that acceptance and support of capitalism has been a strand of anarchism for a long period?

If the answer to this question were proved to my satisfaction to be "Yes", then the article should approach the subject by making reference to such beliefs at every stage where they tended to conflict with the views of anti-capitalist anarchism. These references should succinctly state the prominence of the disagreement.

If the answer to the question were proved to my satisfaction to be "No", then the article should make only a brief mention of anarcho-capitalism as a strand of belief asserted by its followers to be part of anarchism, and then allow a fork of an article describing anarcho-capitalism in detail (although it might be a separate section on the same article).

Whichever result is chosen, if the case reached the Arbitration committee then there would inevitably have had to be some user misconduct. Should the dispute be a matter upon which I was arbitrating, I would look carefully at the contribution history of those involved and use my judgment as to whether a tactful warning and possible probation or other steps short of banning would be likely to make users cooperate for the good of the article, or whether some users had got to the point where they were determined never to cooperate and instead had to be banned to prevent disruption.

I hope this answers your questions, but please leave me a note if you have any further queries. David | Talk 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.-- AndriyK 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know any sense in which James F. is a "colleague" although he is a fellow Wikipedian from the United Kingdom and I have met him at one of the London wikimeets. However, I do agree with him on the general principle that the ArbCom is absolutely not to punish users but to preserve the project from users which are disrupting it. David | Talk 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I ment he is also a candidate as you. If "colleague" is not apropriate then excuse me for my bad English. I'll support you.-- AndriyK 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see - that explains it. Yes, I hope all the candidates are 'colleagues' even if we find ourselves in competition with each other. Thanks for your support. David | Talk 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

One of the first times I came into contact with authority on wiki was in relation to some comments on the Tony Blair page. I entered into the discussion about some point which I now forget, and was pounced upon by yourself for making a personal attack. I was not making a personal attack, and was rather startled to find that what I wrote was interpreted as such. I am rather more experienced at the workings of wiki now, and it is plain to me that rules are frequently used constructively, to shut up editors holding a different opinion, rather than to maintain good order in proceedings. Rather than answer a point, it may be that an editor will argue it is a personal attack and therefore need not be addressed. What is your view on editors who use rules to their letter in furtherance of their own POV, rather than to their spirit?

The edit in question is here [1]. I will leave it to others to judge as to whether, when I gently referred you to WP:NPA, I was acting appropriately. However, in contributing to this debate I was not acting "with authority", in other words as an administrator, but as an ordinary editor.

As an administrator and as an ArbCom candidate, I have endorsed the (somewhat controversial and in my view misnamed) ' Ignore All Rules' which says that Wikipedia's rules have some flexibility to take account of circumstances. This means that I certainly do not approve of the using of any rule "to the letter" if doing so damages Wikipedia. However, excluded from that is civility which should be kept to in all circumstances. Using rules "to the letter" is referred to by some users as " wikilawyering" and deprecated.

I would say that if a point which is material to a debate is made with a clear personal attack, then the point should still be taken account of. To do otherwise would make for bad articles and damage the project. However, it calls for sensitive judgment as to what restrictions on editing should be put on a user who habitually makes personal attacks but yet makes good points (incidentally, I do not think you can remotely be accused of habitually making personal attacks). Such users can create a negative and hostile atmosphere which makes it very difficult to work together with people who have different views. There are occasions when users are oversensitive and take a comment which is critical of content as a personal attack, and I agree that this is unhelpful.

I hope this answers your question. David | Talk 21:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Hello, thanks for replying. As to difs, I would prefer [2], which covers more of our exchange. As you remind me now, the specific issue concerned your edits to a section talking about humorous portrayals of Blair, and I suggested you had no sense of humour. It was my intent to argue in a friendly manner. Your immediate reply was My general comment is that I hope you have read WP:NPA.. This was not a friendly response to a newcomer, explaining how business is conducted on wiki. It is couched as a veiled threat. Anyone quoting rules rather than entering into discussion is invoking authority against the other party, doesn't matter what their specific status is. My inference was that you were attempting to scare off someone arguing heavily against your own position on what should be included in the article. Reading the whole talk page again now, it strikes me once again that all your comments, to other points and other people included, all support the view that you were editing from a pro-Blair position, whatever specific arguments you were making. My point now though, is whether you were over sensitive in your reaction to a challenge, or whether you were attempting to use rules rather then argument to win the point, either of which might be considered relevant when considering an appointment to arbcom. Sandpiper 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

For anyone following this without knowing the background, in the diff supplied by Sandpiper, the exchange in question is the lower one about the section then titled 'Satirical caricature'. My main objection on the borderline personal attack was not to the statement "You have no sense of humour" (although it did seem to me in the context of the edit that it wasn't a playful comment, which I now accept it was - we cannot write with a tone of voice!) but to the implication that I was sent to the article to skew it to a pro-Blair POV and in fact paid to do so. As all Wikipedians should do I try to leave my personal POV at the door, and the assumption that as a Labour Party member I must therefore have a pro-Blair POV is one that those who know many Labour Party members would probably question. I don't believe that I have edited the article from a pro-Blair position. I have added to it many criticisms of Blair which were not there before. Nor do I see myself at any point trying to use the rules to win the argument - I see myself making my case based on the contents of the edit and their relevance. David | Talk 11:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I included the wider exchange deliberately, as the original you posted is just part of a wider exchange, in fact without others including much between our exchanges. I was never quite sure exactly what you were objecting to, including the possibility that you were simply disagreeing with my proposed alterations, in several points in the article. This particular point concerned humour, but also the general point which I still do not see as refutable, that anyone who is a member and supporter of the labour party can not have a public position significantly at odds with the leader of the party. As an example, consider George galloway, who eventually was chucked out of the party. But it is axiomatic that anyone wishing to progress in an organisation can not oppose it publicly, and this is obviously an issue when someone who is politically involved is writing articles about the leader of his party. Now, your particular sensitivity on this subject might suggest that you yourself saw the difficulty here. It is hard to see how you can argue that someone in this position is not 'patisan' (dictionary: 'relating to or excessively devoted to one party, faction etc'). Which brings us back to a very robust response to someone stating facts?

I do not agree that "anyone who is a member .. of the Labour Party cannot have a public position significantly at odds with the leader", and I will give you this news story as evidence. The reason George Galloway was expelled is given on Talk:George Galloway; he was not expelled, as is often stated, for opposing the war, for 139 MPs voted against the war and only one had any form of Labour Party disciplinary action taken. In the definition of "partisan" which you give, it is the "excessively devoted" definition which I do not think applies to me, and I still consider it an attack on my character (as well as manifestly false) to suggest that I have been sent here, and paid, to put the Labour Party's case. With another, I say "we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral."

However, surely this is irrelevant to the present discussion about ArbCom. Obviously if there were a case which involved issues directly connected to the Labour Party I would recuse. David | Talk 14:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't believe you were 'sent here' by the labour party, though of course such a thing is possible. In general, if the labour party believes that wiki has any influence on the UK public, then I would certainly expect it to have sent someone here to alter articles in a manner more favourable to its cause. (and the other parties too). I do not see any reason to believe your actions are motivated by anything more than your own general affiliations and outlook, as are everyone elses.

As for Galloway, this is not his article. Here it is quite permissable to state my opinion, which is plain common sense, that whatever the stated charges, the root cause of his expulsion and the reason for bringing charges, was that he publicly opposed Blair and his policy in Iraq. This is in any event the plain reason he carried out the specific acts with which he was charged. Anyone reading the wiki talk reference you post would, i think, conclude that he was exactly expelled for opposing party policy.(such would be a fair and accurate short summary of the datail listed there).If the labour party expelled 139 MPs then it would have dismissed itself from government, an absurd act. But to disciplin the single most vocal opponent? eminently sensible from a strategic point of view. That you do not see this also demonstrates a leaning towards the 'official' labour view. As to the news article on neil Kinnock, he is pretty much retired, with an irrevocable seat in the house of lords. Not much to lose there, if he speaks up.

Now, on the other hand, if one imagines a party member and local councillor, someone who has professional dealings with the labour party also, who might want to be adopted as an MP, that position would be a very delicate one in which to remotely criticise the party. It might, in fact, be one in which career advantage might be gained from having spread favourable reporting of the party. So, you see the potential conflict of interest between a wiki editor and a possible aspiring political candidate, when that person writes on political subjects? In this context the test of being 'excessively devoted' is quite a mild one: it would not require someone rabidly attached to their party, just someone favouring it slightly would be gently pushing POV in that direction. I do not see anything wrong in that, articles are written by a consensus of differing POV, it only becomes an issue if a particular person refuses to acknowledge that they have a POV. Which finally brings me back to my question, how you feel about editors who perhaps overreact when others suggest they have a clear potential conflict of interest? Such a thing is not a personal attack, it is the core business of wiki. Sandpiper

I don't accept your argument on George Galloway but it's not relevant here. I'm not seeking selection as a Parliamentary candidate (there are Wikipedian Parliamentary candidates though). There is never a conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia on subjects where one has a POV as long as one writes in NPOV. David | Talk 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Surely that is to misinterpret what a conflict of interest is. The conflict arises not because someone acts under an influence, but simply because the influence exists. The aims of the labour party are certainly not the aims of wiki. No political party is interested in unbridled truth, everyone has something to hide. The issue is not whether you have a POV, everyone does, but to what extent you are able to put it aside and cooperate with others, exactly as you say. Now, it was my judgent before that your editing was pro-Blair, and having now had a brief look at the Galloway article again, it would also appear to be pro-labour (or at least, offical labour). yet your own stated position is that you have a clear 'unbiased' POV. It would seem that a number of other editors also disagree with your outlook. Your actions on Gallow recently again seem to be very 'firm' that your POV is correct, rather than consensual to wider views. I must take it that you consider this appropriate behaviour. Sandpiper 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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. [3]

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 20:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the question. I am in general agreement with Improv on this issue. I think it is unfortunate that the dispute over the mass speedy deletion of userboxes has created an atmosphere among some users where they feel that any userbox proposed for deletion, however offensive, should have them rallying in its support in order to 'hold the line' during a longer-term battle. I would be prepared to allow neutrally-phrased templates which declare a user's affiliation to a particular organisation, but I do not see that there is a purpose for purely opinion-based templates, nor of templates specifically rejecting an organisation or belief. I do however believe that most of them are created without malign intent.

Specifically I am extremely concerned about the increasing appearance in Wikipedia of factions based on politics, religion, ethnicity or arbitrary non-Wikipedia based beliefs. I quote on my user page, and absolutely endorse, Jimbo's statement that "we don't act in Wikipedia as a Democrat, a Republican, a pro-Lifer, a pro-Choicer, or whatever. Here we are Wikipedians, which means: thoughtful, loving, neutral". I would make an absolute policy rule that no Category should take the form of being a category of Wikipedians by POV, and that no Template should include a user in such a category.

It seems to me that the Arbitration Committee at the moment has little leeway in resolving the immediate issue of whether templates apparently contravening policy should be deleted, as this is a matter for either Templates for Deletion, Deletion Review, or for policy-making either through community consensus or a rare decree by Jimbo. However, arbitration cases often call for a decision on whether a particular user or set of users are acting in the best interests of the project or are purely out to campaign for their POV. In such cases, the use of templates is of particular help in forming opinions. David | Talk 21:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I see you still have the user box listing yourself as a member of the labour party. Do i take it that you are arguing members of the labour party do not have a common point of view? Sandpiper 03:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It is a neutral statement of my affiliation (which was already easily known from my biography) which I added in fairness to anyone who might be involved in a disagreement over what is NPOV. However, merely from knowing my membership of the Labour Party, it is not possible to predict accurately what my POV is on any given subject. To take the issue you've mentioned above, I know of members of the Labour Party whose position was strongly supportive of George Galloway, and opposed to Oona King, in the 2005 general election. David | Talk 09:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

No, declaring yourself a member of a political party can never be a neutral statement. The whole point of parties is that they stand for something. It is generally possible to support a party without being a member of it: one must imagine that deciding to belong to it means you are rather more comitted to its principles than if you simply support it. I think it wholly right for people to declare their affiliations, and this is what normally happens in matters outside of wiki. Yet here it is being said that editors should not be able to express their fixed views. More, that this policy should be applied least to major established organisations, and most to minority interest groups. This seems very perverse. If you belong to an established power block, then it is permissable to extend that group into wiki, yet if you are simply creating a group of like minded people here, then it is not. It is surely the small group which needs protection from the established outside interloper, not the other way around. I find it an extraordinary idea that wiki seeks to run by consensus, yet it also seeks to stop users passing information to each other... which is the intent of theose seeking to ban user boxes.

As to labour supporters of George Galloway, I'm sure there are quite a few. But I feel they are under represented by some writers here. Sandpiper 15:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(I noticed Simetrical had asked this question of many candidates, although not me, but decided to answer it anyway)

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

I don't see ArbCom rulings restricting editing as a 'penalty' but as a means of protecting the encyclopaedia from those who are damaging it. It is of particular concern if an admin is damaging the project and using their extra abilities to do so, and in these circumstances I would absolutely say that ArbCom needs to have the ability to remove administrator status. I am also inclined to the view that up to now, the ArbCom has been perhaps more reluctant to do this in the case of admins misusing their power than it ought to have been. Admins should follow policy much more closely when acting as admins as opposed to as normal editors.

What I would not support is a desysopping for an admin who was the subject of an ArbCom case over their regular editing, and had not misused their admin powers during the dispute. David | Talk 21:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply