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

Statement

I see the job of the Committee as to sort out problems that have gotten so bad that no one else can deal with them, and that are wasting the time of editors who are here to write, and to seek the ideal solution: the one that ends up with the least damage and lets the people who are here to work cooperatively and productively on articles do just that.

I believe strongly in keeping a civil and productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, and not being overly bound by precedent in search of a proper outcome. I also believe in using no firmer a touch than is necessary to remedy a problem.

There are certain issues I am firm on, including civility and respect as well as the proper use of admin powers. I also am a strong supporter of ignoring all rules, which makes me all the more disturbed when that guideline is abused for ends it wasn't meant for.

As a temporary appointee I believe most of my time on the AC so far has been spent "learning the ropes", and have found I would rather write articles than serve on the AC; what sane person wouldn't? But it hasn't made me want to snap yet, either, so I will fill the post if I am wanted back. Questions welcomed.

Questions

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)[reply]

I've lived with my significant other for two years; does that count for anything? :-) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 18:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The right thing. Perhaps I don't always succeed, but that is certainly the aim. Our policies are sometimes vague and cannot specify everything, and they will never be otherwise. The only thing to do is to take the specific situation into account and judge what's right, which guidelines are more important to follow, which course of action best furthers the goals of the project. Certain things are fundamental: be civil and respectful to your fellow editors, follow NPOV, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Others can slide without lasting harm. In general I like to err on the conservative side if I am unsure: the one that has the fewest negative side-effects and is easiest to recover from. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 19:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:-Ril-

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

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

I don't believe I hold any opinions that affect my judgment to the degree that it would be necessary to recuse myself from a case over them. I list some of my political and religious positions on my user page; however, I do not edit articles in these areas, as it's not where my primary areas of interest or knowledge lie. I would recuse on any case where I did believe myself to be unable to hear it fairly. (Also, I don't care how you break a boiled egg, so long as it's hard-boiled enough that I can take out the yolk...)

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

I am willing and have done so, though much of the associated discussion is not public. I won't sign blindly, and do not support measures without reading thoroughly through the case, even if I have nothing to add to what has already been done afterward, as often happens.

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

Of course not. Some of them are without merit, but I would not reject without consideration.

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 support this. It's a rare conflict where some party is the only one causing the problem, and it seems irresponsible not to address the problems wherever they might lie when a case has been brought to our attention. I believe my current behavior reflects this, yes.

--Victim of signature fascism 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Mindspillage (spill yours?) 18:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Marsden

Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 15:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]