Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for QTJ

Questions from Brian New Zealand

I will be asking the same questions to every candidate thus they do not specifically target you

• Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam etc) If so, would you recluse yourself from cases centred on these?

• • Of course I hold strong opinions of all sorts and kinds, across many such areas. That said, I am an apolitical libertarian -- I do not vote in governmental elections and have not aligned myself to any party, but am a libertarian in so far as I believe there is too much government just about everywhere and that human societies tend to be locally self-correcting so as to not need so many intrusions as they receive. In the case of religion, I consider that a matter of personal belief, and as such, outside the scope of what can be considered on a particular case -- it is simply not tangible enough to hold into consideration. As a scientist (computing), I separate the two all the time as an autonomic function of the processes involved in science -- the separation of belief and observation is not something requiring an effort or force. That to say that I would not recuse myself in such cases because these things would not enter into application of community standards here at Wikipedia -- the community standards of Wikipedia are not built on the outside-of-Wikipedic notions of politics and religion and thus stand outside of the scope of what one must consider to be fair without a conflict arising. -- QTJ 20:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?

• • In much the same manner as seen in this recent diff, which I posted recently, but before realizing I could nominate myself here. -- QTJ 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

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

• • Are you asking if I would bend to a hypothetical Parliamentary Whip on a decision of arbitration I myself would make in the face of the evidence supplied in the case? If my own interpretation of case differed so widely from the consensus of the ArbCom that such a desire would stir inside me as to contest it, I would first be very sure to analyze my own reasons for standing against the normalized decision. Perhaps I have not subjugated my own belief to the actual spirit of the policies in place, for instance? Perhaps I have been hasty where others more thorough? Perhaps I have failed to see the bigger picture? That said, if in good conscience, after such introspection, I still felt a particular decision to be out of the mandate of the ArbCom, or misapplied, or whatever, I would not showboat or grandstand about it and remember what the function of any individual arbitrator truly is. Is it to change these things from within? How so? By public declarations of protestation? I think perhaps one would have to recuse oneself from such a public stance in order to avoid going against the spirit and purpose of the individual arbitrator, and raise those concerns within the system framework as it stands, and not invent something on the spot to try to attempt jury-nullification where it doesn't belong. That said: I'd put it to deep and sober consideration before jumping to a specific action. -- QTJ 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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?

• • Everything has a cost. One of the costs of becoming an arbitrator is that I would lose an ability to initiate changes of some things I feel need changing, to avoid possible conflicts. Another is that I would lose time to it. How many hours? Don't know. Can't assume. -- QTJ 21:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?

• • In my view, that's not for an arbitrator to decide until some outside force has brought the specific case up for possible arbitration. If some editor or editors in the community feel it is, then they can present their evidence for a possible case for arbitration. It would then be up to the ArbCom to decide if it merited arbitration on a case-by-case basis, rather than by some sweeping policy against or for such a notion. -- QTJ 20:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• 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?

• • I will provide diffs that I believe support the following list: -- QTJ 21:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Ability to avoid conflicts of interest while editing articles close to one's interests.
    • Ability to proactively avoid (potential) conflict.
      • While quite willing to clean up (mechanically) a bio of someone I know personally -- Diff to come.
      • When something like [diff to come] happens, then...
        • [diff to come] happens, to avoid opening up a whole 'nother can of worms.
    • Ability to compromise.
    • Ability to proactively invite criticism so as to avoid POV-pushing.
    • Ability to back-down when cost of insistence to the general athmosphere of the place is too high.
    • Ability to win-win negotiate a change to an initialially contested/reverted change.
      • Recognized within my area of expertise an unsourced wide statement and practiced deletionism -- Diff to come.
      • Change was reverted -- Diff to come.
      • Asked for clarification as to why the reversion was necessary and expressed my concerns -- Diff to come.
      • Discussed possible acceptable rewordings -- Diff to come.
      • Asked for similar clarification on other affected pages -- Diff to come.
      • Negotiated mutually acceptable wording and made change -- Diff to come.
      • Solicited consensus on change to avoid further reversion -- Diff to come.
    • Ability to employ a self-critical sense of humor to avoid overseriousiteness where not called for.
    • Ability to see both sides of an issue one has a solid stance on.
    • Ability to put any beans one might have inadvertently, due to initial, lack of appreciation for what might constitute beans, introduced in a discussion page back into the pantry.
    • Willingness to ask for help on basic issues before making a change that might blow up.
      • I felt a biography's discussion page ought to be archived, to avoid potential issues of beans:
        • Sought consensus before just archiving it -- Diff to come.
        • Sought help on how to archive in the main namespace without messing things up -- Diff to come.
        • Archived the discussion in the "standard" way -- Diff to come.
    • Ability to screw up!
      • Diff evidence exists for my screw ups. It's not false self-deprecation to say so. However (ahem!) in the interest of not filling this page with poorly chosen words, comma splices from heck, misspellings, and tired eye syndrome, please take it on good faith that I am quite ready and able to screw up in the main namespace and don't get my nose out of joint when the Watchlist jumps up with someone else's having fixed my blunders of form.
    • As of signing this line -- no warning templates to date. -- QTJ 23:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC) (Oh oh -- beans .... here it comes.... ;-)

• What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?

• • As I understand the backchannels of Wikipedia, they are permitted on a teleological basis: to allow for the reaching of a goal, in this case, the eventual creation of an all-encompassing body of human knowledge. As such, the backchannels that are transparent (user pages, user discussion pages, et cetera) exist to serve that goal, and for no other reason. (I will not supply all the policy and guideline statements that support my interpretation, due to space). That being the case, the use of email or lists outside of the scope of Wikipedia's public face (and those backchannels discussed so far are public), has its purpose. The purpose of arbitration, however, is not necessarily always going to be public if the final good is considered. It may sometimes be in the best interests of the stated goal to avoid embarrassing disputants, and to openly discuss some possible concerns (between arbitrators, not between disputants) in full view would be counterproductive to the goal. In this sense, some things are best not discussed in public so as to avoid overstepping the very human boundaries. This does not imply that what might be said behind the scenes should be counter to the spirit of the more public discussion, but that by being less accessible, one avoids hurting people's feelings. The project does not exist to make people feel miserable, even in the face of decisions made in arbitration about their participation on Wikipedia. -- QTJ 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
  • What's an administrator? Um... oh, yeah ... no. Cutting to the chase: I don't think they should. Case-by-case in all cases, just in case such stratification and double-standards became encased. -- QTJ 21:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Brian | (Talk) 19:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Question from User: Newyorkbrad

1. A question I'm posing to all the candidates: What can be done to reduce the delays in the arbitration process? Newyorkbrad 19:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
   • As stated in my candidate statement, I do not wish to be an arbitrator, and this wasn't meant as humor. Some delays of process can result from an overabundance of love for administratrivia. While due process requires not being hasty -- the amount of work one takes on, when provided such a goal based filter tends towards necessity rather than legalism. In other words, a desire to see an issue resolved when subjected to due process, and no other desire than to see the process maximally used only to solve the issues at hand, would tend, in my view, to reduce unnecessary delays, while allowing for those considered necessary to proper returns from arbitration's neccessary mechanics. -- QTJ 20:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from User:Fys

1. I will be asking the same three questions to every candidate. 'Arbitration' is a process of dispute resolution. If the parties to an arbitration, after it has gone to the committee, manage to resolve the dispute or any part of it themselves, would you continue the case or that part of it? If so, why, and if not, why not? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • One of the necessary lessons one learns in "real world" dispute resolution is that the best binding decision is the one you never have to make, or as Sun Tzu might say, (paraphrased): "The General best wins the battle who fights no battle at all." Granted, arbitration is not mediation, and is a court of last resort, but even then, if two parties somehow come to an understanding or bargain and present their mutual "plea bargain" pertaining to some aspect of a case that applies only to those concerned parties, I would tend towards allowing them that graceful saving of face and exit stage right. Those aspects of the issue that affected any party of the issue not willing to go that route, of course, would have to remain open if the prima facie case for arbitration was then evaluated to not have been settled in a manner likely to resolve the concerns. -- QTJ 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

1. What role do you believe private discussions between the parties and members of the committee should play in determining the outcome of Arbitration cases? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• • I believe this question is more or less fully answered above in another section. That said, to reiterate for emphasizication: it would seem that the purpose of arbitration is not to publicly pillory the disputants, but to allow decisions to be made such that Wikipedia is not brought to a functional standstill during a dispute that could not be resolved by other means. Any information that might lead to that goal but that would possibly cause undue embarassment or distress to the disputants, or any inter-abitrator communication that might have to brainstorm in a way that could be seen to be unduly hypothetical and possibly WP:BEANS ... these situations would be best dealt with on a case-by-case basis in less accessible channels, but always in the spirit of solving the problem as presented to arbitration, not just to provide a safe place to vent frustification.

1. Take a look at Wikipedia:Probation. Under what circumstances should users who have not had any restrictions on their editing imposed, be removed from probation? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 22:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)