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

I'm quite interested in helping with Arbcom, but I have hesitated to put my name forward as I am reluctant to hand myself over to a selection process that doesn't yet seem to exist.

I've been a Wikipedians since December 2001 and have been an admin since December 2003 (which by extrapolation means that something good has to happen in December 2005). I currently have the distinction of being number one on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Sheer number of edits is a pretty meaningless statistic, but it does show that I have a fair amount of time to dedicate to the project.

I follow Arbcom fairly closely, but have only participated directly in only a couple of cases. I feel that in almost all cases the committee does its job admirably, though its speed is, as has often been noted, is sometimes far slower than ideal.

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 18:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flexibility is important to Wikipedia. We have one supreme goal: to create a neutral, accurate, and high quality encyclopedia. Our policies are created to advance this end, but there are occasional circumstances when they might conflict with these goals. In this case rules can safely be ignored. Of course all policies were created with much thought and good intentions so, ignoring them should be rare and only done with much consideration. The same goes for when policies conflict, keep the ultimate goals in mind and follow the path that best helps us create an encyclopedia. - SimonP 02:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you are repeatedly unwilling [1] [2] [3] to accept that a 66%-70% vote [4] constitutes a consensus against your position, how willing would you be to support the current rule that wikipedia works by consensus, not merely the opinion of the most vocal?

Yes, I admit that I am a horrible, horrible person. - SimonP 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what is your response to the question? Do you support the principle of consensus, or would you prefer to support whoever shouts the loudest? --Victim of signature fascism 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

The issue of shouting versus consensus is not a difficult one. I'm pretty sure WP:Shouting is explicit in stating that Arbitrators must only listen to those who make the most noise, with special deference given to those who are able to write in all capital letters. - SimonP 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are we to understand that your aversion to answering this question clearly is because you do not support consensus? --Victim of signature fascism 19:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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 hold strong views, but I strive for neutrality and am personally quite pleased that so many seem confused by what my views actually are. I've been called a Bible basher, but also been accused of using Wikipedia to preach Christianity. I've been accused of writing pro-American propaganda and of working for Canadian socialists. I've been called an omnipresent socialist and a Nazi who shouldn't be allowed to edit here. In reality I believe in NPOV and Wikipedia as strongly as any other cause I support, and if I'm on the committee the good of the encyclopedia would be my ultimate goal. - SimonP 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of those positions appear to contradict each other, a Bible Basher is someone who preaches Christianity (maybe that isn't clear to Americans - its a phrase originating as a joke (but not currently used as such) - compare the phrase bashing the bishop), nazis ("nationalist-socialists") claimed to be socialists, communism is viewed as a form of socialism even though stalin is viewed as fascist, socialism and fascism are not mutually exclusive. Regardless of what other people have accused you, and your support for NPOV, or otherwise, do you hold strong religious or political views, and if so, would you recuse yourself from cases involving them? --Victim of signature fascism 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't realize that basher in Britain is a synonym for thumper. Perhaps being called an atheist 'academic' would be a more appropriate example. - SimonP 19:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So, back to the question at hand, regardless of what other people have accused you, and your support for NPOV, or otherwise, do you hold strong religious or political views, and if so, would you recuse yourself from cases involving them? --Victim of signature fascism 19:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I feel the Arbcom generally does a good job, and I agree with most of their decisions. I thus don't think I would diverge from the group too often. Working toghether amicably is important, but as you pointed out in your first question I have never been afraid to challenge the prevailing wisdom. - SimonP 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

No, no class of complaints are "automatically without merit." Those who have been penalized are, hopefully, those who do have some problems working in a wiki environment, so it would not surprise me if a greater than average percentage of their cases were rejected. - SimonP 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:54, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour rarely occurs in isolation. We should never blame the victim, but sometimes even good users make incorrect decisions and end up escalating a situation. Also many of our worst problems occur when two users unable to properly work in a Wiki environment run into each other. The Arbcom should look into all the events surrounding a case, both to provide helpful advice for the future, and in rare cases handing out sanctions when another person involved clearly overstepped the bounds. - SimonP 18:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Would you therefore support the other members of the arbcom (obviously recusing yourself) if they decided to investigate you, concerning the matter of me? --Victim of signature fascism 18:56, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and I presume that they did look into my edits when you were before the Arbcom. - SimonP 19:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have a wealth of content edits, and much community and policy interaction. Do you feel that your work would suffer if you became an Arbitrator, and do you believe that such stress would affect your judgement as an Arbitrator?--Sean|Black 04:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One thing all arbitrators seem to agree on is that it takes a great deal of time, and as such I'm certain that if I were elected to ArbcomI would have less time to devote to editing. However, a considerable amount of my editing time is devoted to minor tweaking, such as categorization and moving templates. I would cut back these activities long before I reduced the amount of content I added or the amount I participated in policy debates. - SimonP 16:48, 6 December 2005 (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 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been here quite some time and in my view Wikipedia has long been growing less authoritarian as more and more power has moved from Jimbo to the community. It was not so long ago that only three people had the power to delete articles, that the mailing list decided admin appointments, and that permanent bans were meted out by Jimbo alone.

To return to the railway metaphor, I strongly feel that it is not the Arbcom's job to control the community, such as by scheduling trains and setting schedules; rather I feel that the duty of the committee is to limit and reduce the number of derailments and crashes. The goal of the Arbcom is to halt any activities that cause unmitigated harm to the community, not to impose order and regulations. Wikipedia is a community of volunteers, and telling people what to do is never going to work. The Arbcom's task is to enforce certain red lines that cannot be crossed, such as no personal attacks and the ban on persistent revert warring. The vast majority of Wikipedians never even come close to these lines, and should be safely able to ignore the Arbcom as it will have no effect on them. - SimonP 16:48, 6 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 don't really think these questions are relevant. If you wish to know my abilities please look at some of my contributions. Most of my Featured Articles are listed on my user page, and they will also give you some idea of what I have studied. If you want to know if my life gives me enough free time to spend on Arbcom, then considerably quantity of my contributions should give you some idea.

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 put a pretty vast amount of time into Wikipedia, I make an average of more than a hundred edits per day. Even if Arbcom took up four or five hours per day, I would still have plenty left over for editing.

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 here quite some time and have written quite a few articles. I have made some 80,000 edits, started 2000-3000 pages, and also have a number of featured articles. At one point or another I've been involved in almost every part of this project. I believe that I understand Wikipedia as well as anyone could. I know how it works, how editors behave, and I even know my way through our labyrinth of policy pages.

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

A: None other than SimonP.

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 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Having a set of such guidelines for arbitrators is useful, though I'm not sure if that specific set is what we need. These guidelines might also best be integrated into the general Arbitration policy. - SimonP 01:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input there? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have some fourteen times more edits than me. That's quite a large total. Several people have praised you for it. A cursory glance at your edit history shows that several edits are extremely minor fixes such as typos, etc. These sorts of edits are often used by less scrupulous individuals to artificially inflate their edit count. My question here is this: What percentage of your edits constitutes a substantial change to an article?

The vast majority of my edits are minor fixes, as are the vast majority of any of the users who manage to make several thousand edits per month on a consistent basis. Less then 10% of my edits are substantial changes. However, some 90% of my times is spent on creating content. Writing a featured article can be done in only a few edits, if one knows how to use the preview button, but takes many hours of work. Even smaller contributions such as my recent expansion of Marion Dewar, involved several hours of work. - SimonP 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A large number of your edits that I am aware of consist of moving certain editorial templates to talk pages. There is currently an ongoing poll into whether this is appropriate behaviour, yet you still continue to move templates that other people have placed into articles. Why? Do you believe your opinion on the matter counts more than other editors?

This poll has essentially ended, and it quite convincingly upheld the long standing policy that templates directed solely at editors belong on the talk page. - SimonP 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not concerning Template:Expansion, it didn't. Yet you continue to move it; why?

Above, you refuse to be drawn on whether you support the principle of consensus and the will of the Wikipedia community. This in itself is odd, but regardless of the principle of consensus, and the community, do you at least support upholding Wikipedia policies and guidelines (such as, for example, Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources)?

--Victim of signature fascism 19:59, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Wikipedia:Don't include copies of primary sources, and I voted for it when the policy was proposed. Few today remember that Wikipedia at one time had a complete copy of Macbeth and several other such works, and the creation of Wikisource to hold these works was a good idea that has worked well. However, those who read that policy as a blanket ban on all primary source material in Wikipedia articles, are deeply mistaken. - SimonP 23:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you continue on a course which would put the entire text of the bible into Wikipedia, chapter by chapter, or at least of the Gospel of Matthew and Gospel of John ? --Victim of signature fascism 16:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• What is your stance on making articles related to grizzly bears featured articles?
  • Seems reasonable as long as they meet FA criteria. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If faced with a conflict what terms are appropriate to let someone know that you think they are an idiot?
  • Well sourced additions to an article that clearly disprove what they are trying to include. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IAR is important, but it should only be used with great restraint. It should only be used when strict adherence to the rules would cause unquestionable damage the encyclopedia, and any usage should be justified on the Administrators Noticeboard or other page. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

No, it is far too heavy handed and doesn't seem to realize that Wikipedia is a community consisting almost solely of volunteers. No Admin must enforce anything if they don't feel like it, Wikipedia rules are fluid rather than concrete. - SimonP 14:22, 21 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?

   Civility is of great importance. Wikipedia is about building a high quality encyclopedia, and this project requires a functional community. People who stray out of the bounds of acceptable behaviour, even admins, need to be questioned. That said much that is perceived as incivility is accidental curtness or an occasional break down in restraint. Any sort of Arbcom action should only come after a long running pattern of incivility, and a clear failure of earlier attempts at reform. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

   In my experience professors were always respectful, they critiqued but never attacked my work. I don't think I ever complained about an assessment of my work. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 08:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

   It seems reasonable, but there are a couple bits that I find somewhat problematic. I think that rigid uniformity is a bad idea. The worst trolls have the ability to drag other users into the muck with them, and a certain leniency should be shown to users who were in good standing prior to a conflict. I also question the no ex post facto rules section. Community consensus and many standard procedures are no where written down, and Wikipedia runs far more on these unwritten conventions than on the actual policy pages. - SimonP 14:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

   I expect to contribute a considerable amount of time, but since I spend a huge amount of time on Wikipedia, Arbcom duties should still take up a minority of my time. - SimonP 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

   My goal is to mostly sacrifice the busy work of categorization, rearranging templates, wikification etc. My main content adding projects such as those on Canadian architecture, African history, and Biblical studies should be minimally affected. - SimonP 07:22, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. There isn't a great deal on Wikipedia that depends on my activities. I keep Wikipedia:Deadend pages, Wikipedia:Articles requested for more than a year and some other project pages up to date, but these tasks actually take relatively little time and should be able to continue. Some articles may have to wait a bit longer to be cleaned up or categorized, but I'm certain the encyclopedia will have little trouble adapting to my reduced participation. - SimonP 07:22, 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?

A rogue arbitrator is a potential matter for concern, but since the ArbCom works by majority voting and consensus a single problem person should not be able to do much damage. I'm certain that in the case of a grave problem Jimbo would step in. Polls for banning users or removing adminships always have ended in disaster, so I don't think long lists of irate users would be any more helpful in dealing with a problem arbitrator. - SimonP 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Routinely, I have fairly strong opinions on many issues, but a good article presents multiple arguments. Any of my featured articles present multiple viewpoints. I take pleasure in how often contributors are confused about my actual opinions, believing I must agree with an opinion that I have added to an article. - SimonP 14:37, 7 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?

Yes, though those rules are fairly vague. - SimonP 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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?

With the long list of excellent candidates I see no reason not to expand the ArbCom, but at this moment the backlog is not as severe as it has been and such a change isn't essential. Much of the workload of the ArbCom could be reduced by simply banning clear troublemakers

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. 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is Wikipedia?
2. What is Wikipedia now?
3. What needs to change?
4. Wikipedia's biggest problem is...?

Ta. Rob Church ^Talk 01:21, 10 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. [5]

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 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]