I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.

I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.

I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.

I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.

Hi Jp, this is a question about trolls and other kinds of bad-faith editors. We have all dealt with certain types of editors, where going through the full process of an arbcom case feels like a terrible waste of time and energy, because even a glance at their edits shows they're not making good contributions to the encyclopedia and are causing trouble. However, they may not be bad enough for an admin to give them a long or indefinite block for disruption. They inhabit the twilight zone of what Carbonite has called the semi-troll.

What's your view on how the arbcom should position itself with regard to these users? On the one hand, we all want to see some form of due process. On the other, the arbcom isn't about giving every dog its day, but about getting the trains to run on time, as someone on the mailing list said. My own position is that the arbcom should have zero tolerance of trolls and semi-trolls, and I feel we all know them when we see them, but I can see that some people would find this too harsh a view. What's your position? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Good question. I don't think arbcom is the right place for a zero-tolerance approach; administrators and other editors should, however, be supported in their lack of tolerance for trollery. Arbcom has to be flexible; certainly, keeping the trains running on time is the top priority, but keeping the trains running on time means having a good respect for the train crews. Wikipedia is not therapy; we don't have any particular responsibility here to provide emotional support for troubled adolescents who wish to express their disdain for authority by wasting the time and energy of the huge mass of encyclopedists here. What Arbcom should be for primarily is to arbitrate disputes between well-intentioned editors who are having trouble reconciling their differences with each other. Assuming good faith requires us to assume that each editor, until proven otherwise, is working to better Wikipedia. But as one particularly annoying well-intentioned but utterly wrongheaded user wrote recently, WP:AGF is a rebuttable assumption. It's also the case that good faith isn't sufficient; an editor might be editing in good faith but be blinded by political views or have emotional problems that make their good faith work to the detriment of Wikipedia. It's these subtleties that Arbcom has to be most careful about. I'm far less likely to label people "trolls" than some other editors; I think, for example, that both Rex-with-all-the-numbers and Zephram Stark truly believed they were fighting the good fight; they just could not understand that their methods and their rhetoric was totally discrediting and drowning out any positive contributions they might otherwise be making.

So, to make a long story endless, I think "trollery" shouldn't be an issue for Arbcom; I'd just as soon see the term kept out of Arbcom discussions at all. It's not a helpful label. "Disruptive asshole" should suffice. (Oh, I think I'm not supposed to say that.) -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 18:40, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Good answer. Thank you. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

You seem to have thrown your hat into the ring a week after the discussion page warned that anyone who wished to be considered for ArbCom should list himself "immediately." Were you aware that the "race" had essentially been declared closed before you entered yourself into it? Has the "race" been re-openned without an announcement? Has some special consideration been made for your candidacy, and if this is the case, do you know why it was made? Marsden 23:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Fair question. I didn't see anything that said that it was closed. I saw suggestions that it might be closed "soon". If I was incorrect -- if it was, indeed, closed -- I will of course withdraw my candidacy. In fact, I only put my hat into the ring after I noticed that someone else had done the same thing the same day. So, to my knowledge, the "race" has not been re-opened (since, to my knowledge, it was not closed); to my knowledge, no special consideration was made for my candidacy. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response, JP. Do you think that your comment at the administrator's incidents noticeboard about suggesting "that other editors do anatomically impossible acts" the day before you announced your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee demonstrated a level of good judgement and objectivity suitable for membership on the Committee? Marsden 04:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• In that particular case, very much so. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 05:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thank you for answering the question directly, JP. Another candidate might not have been so willing to be accountable for his past behavior. Marsden 05:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Could you provide an example of someone "editing in good faith but blinded by political views" such that he or she should be indefinitely blocked? Would somone who is known to be associated with an organization like stormfront.org be an example? How about someone associated with the Muslim Brotherhood or, alternatively, a contemporary equivalent of the Stern gang? Would you revert an edit that sources a publication by a controversial organization like ihr.org even if it could be proven that the document cited was 100% accurate and/or endorsed as fully accurate by another, uncontroversial organization? If so, which other organizations would you consider to be in need of the same treatment? Would you deny, without further inquiry into the document's claims, arguments, or methodology, the possibility that any document or publication by such an organization could be possibly be accurate? Bdell555 07:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• No, I won't provide such an example; that would imply pre-judgement should I become an arbitrator and should any such person be brought before the panel. At any rate, people shouldn't get blocked because of their views; actions are what matters. The obvious example is User:Amalekite, whose associations were irrelevant -- but posting a list of Wikipedia Jews on a Nazi website could not be construed as anything less than intimidation. As far as ihr.org is concerned, that's easy; ihr.org is dedicated to the propagation and perpetuation of falsehood, and thus is not a valid encyclopedic source except as an example of such falsehood. Any organization dedicated solely to holocaust denial would be handicapped by the same antagonism toward reality, and would be similarly useless as a source. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC) reply

If I posted "JayJG, Jpgordan, and Fred Bauder are members of Wikipedia's leftist cabal" to a right-wing website would that be "anything less than intimidation"? Would I be indefinitely banned if I claimed that User:Amalekite was a Nazi and there had been several documented incidents of people being incited to commit violence against persons who were accused of being Nazis? Or would I be banned if, in the context of some sort of dispute, I posted the name, profession, location, and phone number of some third party, in the manner of Fred Bauder on his candidate Q&A page?

Would you extend the principle you apply to ihr.org to an organization like the Soviet Union and its sympathizers which have denied verified atrocities like the Katyn massacre or, alternatively, various contemporary Turkish organizations which deny the Armenian Genocide, or are some atrocity deniers to be held to a different standard than others? Bdell555 01:02, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I'd judge each case according to its merits should such cases arise. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC) reply

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

A: I'm 51 and retired; my last employment was at eBay where I was Chief Engineer; before that I was at Autodesk for about a decade.

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: No idea, really, how many I'll need. It depends entirely on the number of other arbitrators and the caseload. Since I'm retired, I have the 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've been more of a janitor than a creator of articles. However, my experience in the real world is sufficiently broad to make up for my shortage in actual article creation.

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

A: None. It's possible I made one or two edits before I registered, but I'm not sure. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:50, 7 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

• Sure. Fred's revision is pretty good and workable. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. 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?
2. How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
3. Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
4. 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 16:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• 1. I'm as opinionated as the next person; certainly I hold strong political opinions. Since ArbCom is primarily about disputes between editors, I don't see it as much of an issue; I'd deal with content-related cases on a case-by-case basis. Naturally, I'd recuse myself from disputes that I was involved with; however, my interpretation of "involved with" is not as expansive as some disputants in RfAr cases have suggested it should be. A hypothetical might be an arbitration case involving one of the other editors who, like me, keeps a watchful eye on Jewish-related articles. User:Jayjg, for example. I would not automatically recuse myself simply because we work together on some of the same articles; there would have to be a stronger taint of impartiality than mere congruence of interest.
  2. If I wanted to just "go with the flow", I wouldn't waste my time or anyone else's by putting my name forward for ArbCom. Anyone can say "ditto"; I'd rather help make intelligent, informed, reasoned decisions.
  3. No.
  4. Yes, I support this decision. Unilateral bad behaviour is usually pretty easy to fathom; but in some cases, both parties are acting poorly, and in some cases, it's the editor bringing the case before committee that's the primary bad actor. The duty to rule on all relevant behaviour also should have the salutary effect of reducing frivolous ArbCom complaints. If you're acting badly, don't expect to be treated with deference if you complain about other editors' reactions to you. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆

Could you explain your rationale behind supporting User:deeceevoice, a user who has broken wikipedia policies on numerous occassions? Many of her violations are documented at her RfC[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Deeceevoice] and RfAr[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Deeceevoice], and include use of the term "crakkka". Some of her language is targeted towards vandals, but much of is directed towards editors in good standing. Is it your belief that some editors should be permitted to ignore wikipedia policies?

• See Wikipedia talk:Civility#User talk: for my feelings on this. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:23, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the response. Three follow-up questions, these will be my last.

1) The link your provide covers how to deal with editors coming to a another user talk page behaving with a lack of civility, but what rationale do you give for supporting deeceevoice beyond those instances, such as on article talk pages?

2) Your example of telling off a nazi antagonist sounds reasonable on the surface of things. It would be the sort of violation that I would hope an arbitrator would not punish greivously. However, as you know, deeceevoice has attacked editors asking her politely to behave with civility. In light of current wikipedia policies and under your proposed modifications, do you believe this behavior is acceptable?

3) Finally, do you believe that behavior that violates current policies (such as civility violations on your own talk page) should be overlooked, as long as you personally disagree with those policies, as either an editor or as an arbitrator?

- Justforasecond 00:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• Most of the stuff cited in your persecution of her was from her talk page, and even most of that was so trivial and barely even approaching my own definition of incivility, that I haven't even bothered analyzing anything else that you might have complained about. And I'm currently unable to give a reasoned response to you, as I think you are continuing your damaging behaviour, and I feel that saying anything other than "shut up" to you would be counterproductive; I've no longer any reason to assume good faith on your part. I don't expect your support in these elections. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 02:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC) reply

I filed the RfA against deeceevoice. As far as I can tell, this is the proposed solution when a user violates wiki policy and refuses to address an RfC. Can you tell me, then, why you've posted comments on my talk page saying that I make you "sick to your stomach" for filing the RfAr? What do you believe is the appropriate action when a user has violated policy repeatedly and refuses to respond to an RfC? Do you support attacks on users who have followed protocol and filed RfArs to address wikipedia issues? Lastly, why have you chosen to support a user who has a well-documented history of violating policy, while attacking me?

Thanks for your time Justforasecond 23:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC) reply

• It wasn't that you filed an RfAr. Your obsession with persecuting another user -- quite effectively and successfully, as we've seen -- is damaging to the polity of Wikipedia. If I am chosen to become an arbitrator, I will certainly recuse myself from any action involving you (and, for that matter, any action involving Deeceevoice, should we be lucky enough for her to return after the damage you've caused settles down.) Until then, I'm a plain ordinary user-janitor disgusted with your behavior and angered by the result, and as a result I made an intemperate posting, for which I was properly briefly blocked (as befitting a first offense). The appropriate action when an RfC fails and is withdrawn is to consider whether the RfC was appropriate in the first place. WP:DICK is a very important principle here. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 23:21, 18 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 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. Talk pages are part of the process, and civility is crucial there. It's possible, however, that my definition is not the same as others. Using two dozen words when two more direct words would say the same thing isn't civility, it's being mealy-mouthed (and is perhaps more harmful to Wikipedia than the Anglo-Saxon equivalent.) Context has to considered when evaluating any statement, here and elsewhere.
2. I've an MA in Computer Science and a BS in Math. Critiques, strongly worded or otherwise, didn't come up much at that level. Last time I was a student was 30 years ago, though, so the question isn't particularly relevant.
3. A Code of Conduct is a good idea, but I think it needs to be a lot more general. Arbitrators should recuse themselves from cases that they feel they cannot be impartial in, and other arbitrators should ask them to recuse if they don't figure it out themselves. There's no need to draw up a bunch of specific conditions; this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to pretend to be a legal system. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

• Not particularly. We're trying to write an encyclopedia here, not build a model of democracy. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 06:58, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that I was answering on the basis of the revision of December 17th. The current one seems just weird and mostly unnecessary. Wikipedia policy does not condone discrimination on the basis of race, gender, nationality or sexual preference. Well, no. It doesn't. Has anyone suggested it does? You may copy and/or distribute any content on Wikipedia, subject to our licensing terms. Well, yeah. Anyone can. That's what the licensing terms say. Likewise, You may fork, that is, to copy any or all of Wikipedia's content and use it to start your own Wiki. And You may go through dispute resolution when you are in a dispute with any other user. -- well, yeah, that's what dispute resolution is for. I'm kinda scratching my head about what it's supposed to be for now. However: I do stand by my original statement: Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 04:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Tito xd^{( ?!? - help us)} 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC) reply

1. I haven't thought about it in those terms. Some but not all of it, I guess.
2. Vandal fighting.
3. I'm just one of many vandal fighters; the battle would not suffer overmuch from my priorities changing. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:03, 24 December 2005 (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 01:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• I can't see any method whereby such "stripping" might occur, and certainly not by the "community"; the Board would be the logical body to make such decisions. Wikipedia is not a democracy. By the way, every time I see your signature my gut reaction is to ignore everything it is appended to, as it reflects either ignorance or hyperbole or both.
• No.
• Mu.

-- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

What are we to interpret by "Mu"? Are you stating that, excepting edits which are inherently neutral (e.g. fixing obvious typos, lists of names etc.), or cover fairly neutral topics (e.g. Dress size), you only ever add content that supports your own POV? -- Victim of signature fascism 18:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Interpret it however you want. Look at my edits. Most of them deal with vandalism, and I'm not particularly selective about where I remove vandalism, including vandalism I happen to agree with (for example, I'm one of many editors who both loathe George W Bush and remove vandalism, whether anti- or pro- Bush, from his page. Likewise Rick Santorum, Jesus Christ, and Kwanzaa.) I'm not going to give any absolutes. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

As an additional question, arising from your responses. Are we to take it, from your comment about my signature, that you are unwilling to assume good faith / that you ignore Wikipedia:No personal attacks? Victim of signature fascism 18:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Take it any way you want; I'm not responsible for your interpretations of my words. However, my gut reaction is not the same as my measured reaction; what I said is that your signature makes assuming good faith a lot harder than it needs to be, since either you have no idea what fascism is, or you somehow believe that being asked to use a reasonable signature can be equated with the politics of Mussolini, Franco, or Hitler. Actions have consequences; words sometimes do too -- and the consequences of your signature include rendering anything you say less credible. If that's how you want it, it's your problem, not mine. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 19:13, 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. 06:35, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. As of which edit? The sentence, Any activity relating to an open or newly submitted ArbCom case which violates the spirit or letter of this guideline constitutes a conflict of interest is too widely open to intepretation. I do think the entire thing is instruction creep. WP:DICK should suffice. If the policy is put in place, of course I'll abide by them; to do otherwise would violate WP:DICK (the only rule that matters.)
2. I disagree with "no ex post facto rules". Again, WP:DICK applies. Just because someone has found a new way to be a dick doesn't mean they should get away with being a dick. Our goal here is to write an encyclopedia, not to provide a training ground for legalistically minded annoyances.
3. I've been promoting expanding the size of the committee from the start. I've even proposed a possibly workable structure for it.
4. You can look at the votes themselves; it's much easier than my summarizing. My signature remains -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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) 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. It should be in ArbCom's purview; perhaps I've missed a debate about it, but I always assumed it was in ArbCom's purview.
2. Rather closely, but not obsessively. I'm not a literalist except when programming; this would inform my interpretation of Wikipedia policy. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Obviously, but how liberally do you think it should be applied? — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 00:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Not very liberally -- like any penalty. But swiftly when necessary. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 08:25, 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. [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 20:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• I'm really torn on this one. I think POV-based granfalloons on Wikipedia are both harmful and inevitable, as long as we have user pages and talk pages. I am not convinced they are harmful enough to do anything about, though; their harm is mitigated by their self-identification and the public nature of editing. Things like "User against Scientology" could fairly be construed as a personal attack on any editor who happens to be a Scientologist and dealt with accordingly. -- jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 08:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply