As one of the original members of the Arbitration Committee, helping to formulate and pursue the Arbitration Policy, I would like to think that my actions and decisions over the past [two] year[s] speak for themselves, but I will try to distil my thoughts about it:

Naturally, the duty of serving on the Committee is a great one, both to Jimbo for the responsibility delegated to us, and to the Community, in representing its beliefs. Over the [three] years that I have held an account on Wikipedia, I have become very much attached to the community, and this focuses my mind when considering whether we can discard people like so much chaff.

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. Of course, 'damage' is in the eye of the beholder, and so I hope that my decisions have reflected well the overall opinion of our Community.

With this in mind, I would like to ask if you think me a suitable candidate to continue to represent us all in this most vital task of protecting the project from ourselves in our attempts to enlighten the world.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Addendum: Further to this, my statement of last year, I would like to note that the Committee's pace has slowed even more so towards the end of this year than that of the last, and I hope that, whether or not I am elected to remain on, that at least a good number of dedicated candidates are successful.]

[Updated: James F. (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC) reply

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

A: I am 22 years old; I have just finished studying an MEng in Computer Science, and may well take up futher educational study, in Computer Science but possibly also in Law.

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: Currently I spend perhaps 20-30 hours a month or so on Arbitration duties, and I think that this is sufficient. I am happy to continue putting in said time.

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'm not entirely sure that this is aimed at me; I think my actions speak for themselves. If my experience as an Arbitrator does not convince people that I am able to continue to do so, then I don't think they should in all conscience support me.

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

A: None, beyond a few that I have created to prevent inappropriate posing as me and have edited merely to say that they are mine.

James F. (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

As a current arbitrator, you're particularly well-suited to know the current problems with the arbcom. In your mind, what is the biggest problem with the arbcom, and what what will you do differently if reelected to help fix it? Snowspinner 19:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I think the biggest problem is finding people suitable for the role who are both able and willing to dedicate the required amount of time to helping out. There's not really much that can be done about that, though. :-(

James F. (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm a bit curious about this vote regarding a forced username change. I would like to again ask the question which followed your vote. Where is the community policy which you referred to? Also, did you think there was a consensus at that RFC to change the username away from "Trollderella"? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC) reply

I do not think that the RfC had "consensus" of those who turned up to change the name. But this is irrelevent. Whether or not the RfC had consensus, there was outstanding unwritten policy (which, it should be pointed out, has evidently been rescinded, because there is no longer consensus support for it) behind the name change.

I am puzzled that you wish to "ask again", given that you never asked me a question in the first place. :-) I hope, however, that I have answered sufficiently for you.

James F. (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Difficult one. I suppose I've muddled through so far, and would continue to do so were I re-appointed. I do rather love politics, though, so... :-)

James F. (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 18:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC) reply

That is a good question. Essentially, I have used my common sense combined with historical perspective of how and why our policies have come about, and so what purpose they are actually intended to serve in our community. I hope that that suffices.

James F. (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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?

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

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

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?

--Victim of signature fascism 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

In order:

Political and religious opinions

Yes, quite a few, but this is irrelvent to the work of an Arbitrator. Our job is to examine behaviour, not content, so personal opinions are not important. Of course, if someone ever managed to be so detestable to me that I would be unable to judge impartially (or, of course, if I were unable to be seen to be judging impartially), then I would recuse; I have not yet, in two years of serving on the Committee, had cause to do so, however.

What if the case involved behaviour by an editor which indicated they were (whether justifiably or not) acting in a manner strongly opposed to your political and religious opinions? Would you still refuse to recuse yourself, or would you do so?-- Victim of signature fascism 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Contesting other Arbitrators' thoughts

As can be seen publically, and to much the same extent privately (on the private mailing list and IRC channel), I probably object and/or discuss possible changes to more items than the other Arbitrators (though this is likely an artefact of working on more cases than many). I would continue this if re-appointed.

Requests for re-opening being without merit

Certainly not. We Arbitrators are human, and busy ones at that - it is absolutely imperative that we take the time to consider whether decisions we have made were in the project's best interests, and correct them if so.

Duty to investigate all users

Yes, I do stand by our decision, and again, yes, I feel that my actions in subsequent cases has reflected this (though see my above comment about flawed individuals).

James F. (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Could you therefore explain why you considered the case against me to be closed with all matters dealt with, when only a few days previously this very question had been raised and you failed to answer it, or indeed question in any way the editors opposing me that I had highlighted as having dubious behaviour leading to the conflict? -- Victim of signature fascism 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, what? I agreed with your leading sub-text question that not "all requests to re-address cases [...] are [...] without merit". I didn't agree that all requests to re-address cases are not without merit, however. They are rather different propositions.

James F. (talk) 23:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

The point I am referring to is "duty to investigate all users" where you reply that you agree that there is one, and that your actions in subsequent cases reflect this. Therefore, if your actions reflect this in subsequent cases, could you explain why you closed the case against me without (a) responding to the very same point that I made in the workshop (b) appearing to have investigated any user other than me. -- Victim of signature fascism 01:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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 15:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

In order:

Does the Wikipedia community need to become more orderly?

Not particularly.

Can the Wikipedia community become more orderly without a central system?

Probably not, indeed, but... see above.

Would Wikipedia's spirit survive such a change?

Possibly. No, actually, almost certainly. The "spirit" is about working together to make something better for the world. If people can't do that because the feel the need to "stick it to the man" or whatever other clap-trap and nonsense, it may not necessarily be in Wikipedia's best interests (if it is felt that such "ordering" is required) for them to remain therewithin. But, again, I'm not entirely convinced, shall we say, that this is in fact the case.

I hope this helps you.

James F. (talk) 23:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 18:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC) reply

As I said on my talk page to you when you asked this question of me, I consider it unnecessary instruction creep, and feel that it goes nothing like far enough in what I hold as expectations of the behaviour of members of the Committee.

James F. (talk) 23:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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 09:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Civility is absolutely vital to the creation of community - it is the basis by which we can collaborate rather than merely argue, to create instead of destroy. It underpins every element of communication on Wikipedia. It cannot be overstated. And yes, this does ultimately mean that we will value the well-mannered over the 'expert'. Rudeness must be strongly discouraged at all times (though there are levels of it; mild curtness is not brilliant behaviour, but certainly isn't grounds for permanent banning :-)).

Academically, I have just finished an undergraduate degree (MEng) in Computer Science. I am considering doing another degree, perhaps more. My parents are heavily involved in national and international education policy, and my uncle is an Oxbridge don. I suppose that that doesn't exactly count as an "academic background", but... Criticism, when constructive and not merely divisve, is of course always welcome to me - the lengthy road to perfection, which perhaps we can all say we seek to travel, is a narrow one, and any help towards that is absolutely great and, I would like to think, well-received. As to whether my betters would say the same of me, that's not really something I could judge; sorry.

As I have said before, at length, the proposed "code of conduct" is inappropriate, as it both sets the bar far too lowly in places, and also removes the ability of the system to react flexibly, as well as being inappropriate or just plain daft in others. In particular, it is written in a highly wannabe-legalistic manner, and is apt only for those who wish to "wiki-lawyer" their way out of the disrepute they so often manage to find themselves in. Certainly, yes, I do not think that it should be formally expressed as a written policy document. In terms of particular issues with the document, suggesting that Arbitrator may not "present evidence to the case themselves" - where, exactly, are CheckUser findings meant to come from, then? - nor point out to interested parties that a case is going on are notable issues that I managed to find with just a cursory glance at the current version of one section alone.

James F. (talk) 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

In it's current form (22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)) there's nothing to "support"; they are statements of fact. In its earlier forms it was yet another pointless attempt to try to codify the uncodifiable.

James F. (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• 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)} 06:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I currently spend pretty much all of my Wikipedia (as opposed to Wikimedia) time on Arbitration business, though I include in that keeping up with policy changes and current events inside the bubble. I would envisage this continuing were I to be re-appointed by Jimbo following this election proceedure.

As to projects, well, it's been over two years since I've not been an Arbitrator; I don't think there are any projects left (;-)) that need my attention over anyone else's; I am, after all, merely a small cog in a very great machine.

James F. (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC) reply

(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 01:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

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

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

De-sysoping is a preventative measure that the Committee can and does use as it sees fit. My personal opinion of de-sysoping is perhaps a little complicated: that being a sysop is "no big thing" creates an asymetric relation with its removal - if it's no major point to be sufficiently trusted to have the delete and block privs, then to be actively disbarred from having them is a major wrist-slapping exercise on the soon-to-be-former sysop. As such, I consider it a significant move, but certainly not an unimaginable one - as seen by my voting in favour of such application before.

I do not agree with some of my colleagues on the Committee who suggest that sysop and editor actions are wholly distinct, and specific abuse of the former, regardless of the actions within the scope of the later, is necessary before de-sysoping can be justified. For example, were a sysop to go around violting NPA and AGF all the time, and genereally being a nuisance, and doing so despite repeated requests for them to cease such behaviour, then de-sysoping could well be appropriate (having lost the support and trust of the community to continue to carry out one's functions as a syop), despite (quite possibly) never having actually used the particular powers thereso entrusted.

James F. (talk) 11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I liked very much your statement. Especially 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."

On the other hand, you voted for banning me for one month "for creating irreversible page moves". Putting aside the question whether and how much the "irreversible page moves" disrupt Wikipedia, I promiced do not do it anymore. How and in which way the one-month-ban would "prevent further damage to the project"? Would not just saying "Do not do it any more!" do the same job? Is there no contradiction between your statement and your vote?-- AndriyK 17:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

It would be inappropriate for me as an Arbitrator to publically comment on on-going cases, and I won't insult you by commenting in generis when you have asked me a specific question.

James F. (talk) 11:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Commenting in generis is OK with me. It will not insult me.

I wonder, how much your vote in a specific case can be far from your general statements.;)-- AndriyK 12:09, 11 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. [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 20:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply