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

Statement

Arbitration, in the context of law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution — specifically, a legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the arbitrator(s) or arbiter(s)) for resolution.

Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.

• I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors will end.

• I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.

• I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally resolving conflicts, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.

This last platform item is probably the most controversial, so I'll expand on it and show how it works with the others. If someone feels they are unduly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process. If they do so, they and the administrator (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. In this way, a troublesome user can be handled by administrator consensus alone -- so many of the past and present cases could have been handled this way and gave us better results. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. A troublesome user can either accept that adminstrator's ruling, or appeal and possibly face more stern restrictions. On the other hand, if someone is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while protect against the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions/Comments

I welcome your questions and comments. If you're asking multiple questions, please number them so I can reply more easily. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Snowspinner

In regards to the first part of your platform, if one must be party to a dispute to submit an arbitration case, how do you propose to deal with cases such as Anthony, Xed, and Netoholic where the dispute spanned multiple pages and multiple people? There would be no single user with the standing to raise these cases, leading the problems to go unresolved. Phil Sandifer 00:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

If these disputes were so wide-spread as you imply, then a suitable requestor should be available. Also, I would have rejected these cases unless the subject and the requestor both agreed to the arbitration. If all parties agreed, then the arbitration team would review the arguments and decide a firm course of action. Under my platform, individual disputes are handled as they arise. The present process seems to encourage blanket witchhunts where all disputes involving a user are laid out. It's my feeling that if users A, B, and C have a problem with a user, then three separate and narrowly focused arbitrations are more fair and can be handled very quickly. There is no reason an average arbitration can't be resolved in a few days if both sides are motivated.

I think your stance on these users is that they were so troublesome that it took a special prosecutor to handle them. This just isn't the case. Users who are simply troublesome should be warned, restricted, and then ultimately blocked by some neutral administrator(s). If that user feels that treatment is unfair, they themselves can request arbitration to resolve the dispute. This information should be communicated clearly to the user, but I trust the admin community to establish appropriate protocols. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (edited)

It's more an issue of nobody being involved in the case to the point where they were party to the bulk of it - anyone who filed the case would necessarily be filing it regarding a large amount of behavior they weren't involved with one way or another. Phil Sandifer 04:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point entirely, though I can't tell if that is deliberate. There should not be a "case" -- this isn't some pseudo-courtroom. Arbitration, true arbitration, needs to be returned to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

So what would you propose to leave open to deal with users such as those? I mean, if you're returning "true" arbitration to Wikipedia, what is going to replace the existing systems of handling problem users with widespread effects? Phil Sandifer 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop things from getting so "bad" in the first place. By employing a true arbitration process, we can hopefully provide a means to deal with disputes before they get very large. A user who wants to act in good faith will recognize that they had their say in the arbitration and abide by the decision. "Problem users" are presumably those who act in bad faith or perhaps just cannot consistently work well with others. The really obvious ones are already handled by the admin community. What I say is that the admin community should also be able to handle the somewhat ambigious ones also, perhaps with something as simple as a WP:AN notice or an RFC. Recent cases brought against Rainbowwarrior1977, DotSix, Plautus satire, LevelCheck, and a few others were "no-brainers". The obvious bad-faith nature of these users means that any delay due to the back-logged arbitration process was detrimental to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Question 2: Seeing as you are fully banned from the Wikipedia namespace until May, how do you expect to be an active arbitrator for the first four months of the year when you are prohibited from making edits to any arbitration pages? Phil Sandifer 04:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think what you should ask is why that is of any relevance? I think if I were to be elected, that implicitely would show the community consensus for me to fulfill the roll of Arbitrator. I'm also confident that Jimbo would formally suspend that ban, at least on the ArbCom pages, if that sort of acknowledgement is needed. What I want to ask you is - are you going to continue to poison the well by ad hominem comments like that, or can we actually discuss my platform like rational, educated adults? -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Questions like this. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Haha. I love that answer. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 19:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't. I think it's rather immature. Alex Schenck (that's Linuxbeak to you) 19:56, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Form Question from karmafist

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a fan of WP:IAR because it is a paradox -- anyone who justifies an action by pointing to it is expressly failing to follow its original advice.

As for conflicting policies, I can't think of any specific areas where I see them overlapping to the point of being problematic. In my view, if something like that comes up, the most well-established and widely-accepted policy should trump the other. Perhaps you have some specific examples in mind that I could comment on? -- Netoholic @ 20:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from User:-Ril-

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

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 16:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I won't answer questions that so obviously show that you've not read my statement. -- Netoholic @ 16:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you always so abrupt and presumptive? --Victim of signature fascism 18:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia requires a central "authoritarian" body like ArbCom in order to show you the door if you're causing trouble. Dealing with problem users is much more efficiently done by the community and administrators. ArbCom should be an appellate solution only. -- Netoholic @ 16:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Interesting response. Do you think that being blocked by four different administrators necessarily indicates a "problem user?" Marsden 17:11, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but then I'd happily invite you to open an Arbitration if you're dissatisfied with that admin response. -- Netoholic @ 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

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

A:

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:

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:

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

A:

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 18:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

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

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:55, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply

1. Since I advocate a totally different way that ArbCom should be handling cases, and I'm not sure how much of that will be adopted, I can't answer. I think the present cases need to be expedited, so I assume a great deal of time will be
2. I am mostly involved in Template namespace maintenance, so I suppose that work may be affected.
3. Well, I'm hoping to wrap up the current major push away from meta-templates by the end of the month. Basically, I just won't be taking on any more large-scale projects anytime soon, if elected.

Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 08:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:SqueakBox

What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? SqueakBox 16:56, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe my view is clear in my statement. I support the "no big deal" approach to adminship, so long as a suitable admin review process is available for the mistakes that get through. As a non-admin, I have no doubt that I'll treat all persons involved in a dispute the same. -- Netoholic @ 08:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(Being asked of all candidates)

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

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

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

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

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

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. 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Reply

1. I will not swear to it, but I do like the idea of having a community-driven set of guidelines for Arbitrators to follow. If it's got solid consensus, then my conduct will match it's intent as best as I can.
2. I think it's a lot longer and more verbose than is necessary.
3. I am not sure about the number of seats-- for now, it seems OK. The rest of the question is covered in my statement.
4. No, I was not very active during that page's active phase. I think my views align with the present consensus on all the items.

-- Netoholic @ 08:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom elections

I would like to see you on ArbCom, but I have voted neutral because I find your second plank ambiguous. If a problem user (in ArbCom's best judgment, on the evidence) simply ignores an arbitration, should ArbCom sanction them, or not? Septentrionalis

If a problem user ignores the arbitration, either by avoiding participation or by failing to adhere to any restrictions, they should be at the full mercy of administrator consensus. Even today, the ArbCom rarely/shouldn't actually enforce it's decisions. -- Netoholic @ 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

But should there be an ArbCom finding to guide this consensus? A finding gives admins a lot more leeway? For example, imposing a 1RR; admins may enforce this against a problem user anyway, but without a finding the admins are less likely to be reversed or even sanctioned for doing so. Septentrionalis 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh yeah, much like today, when an arbitration commences, there will likely be specific findings that all parties have to abide. My proposal is based on the fact that the we do not use a true arbitration here on Wikipedia. Rather than be a mutual endeavor, it's run too much like a criminal court. Under my proposal, problem users (or those just presumed to be problems) must be the ones to initiate the arbitration in order to gain relief from what restrictions admins have placed on them. The same holds true to any users who are just in a disagreement and need a neutral outside decision-making body. Everyone comes into it with the desire to be bound by the decision. -- Netoholic @ 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [1]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I expressly dislike that any editors would choose to express advocacy (or dis-advocacy) on any issue. This is a place of verifiable knowledge, not a platform for making Wikipedia's content match one's personal convictions. On the other hand, I encourage editors to express areas of knowledge in which they are willing to contribute.

The role of the ArbCom should be first to investigate occasions where administrators have endorsed the use of advocacy templates, and remove their ability to interfere (restoring deletion of such templates is grounds for de-adminship). The administrators that are left, I feel, will represent the proper focus of this project and can then pass that focus onto the misguided editors that choose to create such templates, through deletions, blocks, etc. -- Netoholic @ 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)