Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Silverback: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:44, 10 December 2005

Latest revision as of 14:19, 20 April 2022

(10 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown)

Line 53:

==Question from [[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]]==

You recently filed an [[WP:RfC]] on the "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse", which was moved into your userspace following a debate at [[WP:MFD]]. I filed an outside view which referred to you as a "[[internet troll|troll]]" (for which I apologize; I disagreed with your point and presentation, but it was still valid); do you still feel strongly about the nature of the "admin culture", and do you feel that you could work well with your fellow arbitrators, most of whom are administrators? Additionally, do you feel administrators who abuse their powers are very common, and, if so, how do you feel they should be dealt with? Thank you in advance for you answers, Silverback.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green;">[[Wikipedia:Esperanza|ck]]</fontspan>]] 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:Yes, I still feel strongly about the nature of admin culture, and no, I don't think those who abuse their powers are very common. There is a lot of thankless work that gets done, even by those who do abuse their power, and I am appreciative of that however, even a small minority of admins who abuse, can effect the perception (or look and feel) of the community, just as a few small percentage of rogue cops color the reputation of the Los Angeles PD, or a few abuses of international standards in the treatment of prisoners impact the reputation of the United States. Also, the small minority of admins who abuse reveal a more pervasive part of the culture, the larger percentage of admins that know about and tolerate or defer to that abuse. This deference to the rogue decisions of other admins is widespread. Here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticisms_of_communism%2Fnew_discussion&diff=27755952&oldid=27750283][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=27793895&oldid=27780270], even in the glare of attention brought by my RfC which you responded to, Sidaway was admonished for unprotecting an article that was the territory of that rogue admin, who then proceded to revert to what he thought was the "right version" again. We don't need admins who can't admit they were wrong, and insist on maintaining their blatent violation of policy. The other admins and the arbcom need to step in, in such situations to let rogue admins know that they don't own articles and don't have a right to violate the rules or abuse their powers. Frankly, these cases of obvious territorialism and abuse will be the easiest behaviors to eliminate, if a couple members who publicly intend to take a stand against the double standard for such behavior. IAR will be restricted. These cases are easy because the evidence is so clear. A couple arbcom precedents will have the admins enforcing the rule in such cases on their own. More difficult to eliminate will be surrupticious communications resulting in an admin conveniently protecting the version he or his clique prefer. We need to promote a culture of service among admins, not one of status, privilege and irreverence.

Line 60:

==Question from [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]]==

Given your response at [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2]], why do you feel that you would be level headed enough for the ArbCom? I realise I'm going back quite some way, but I haven't seen any evidence you've changed your ways since then. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think someone can legitimately disagree with a decision to request peer review. Inviting more people to a controversial page, where both sides seem to have achieved a compromise, even if it reads like a debate, is like throwing fuel on fire. Some issues are just controversial, and society's best minds have not been able to convince the other side. When POV warriors have achieved a delicate compromise, well intentioned peer reviewers are more likely to upset the applecart and the disturbance is likely to attract an even larger and less managable number POV warriors. I think our discussion was civil with points made on both sides, but the subsequent history of the article has realized my worst fears. I do sometimes object to presumptious actions by others, that are routinely ignored by most of the community, so what you suggest is a lack of level headedness, is probably a reaction you had due being surprised by my objections. Unusual or rare objections can still be level headed.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Line 90:

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]]? - [[User:Ted Wilkes|Ted Wilkes]] 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

:The code seems reasonable. I personally have been more concerned about admin behavior than arbcom, although, I think there have been istances where recusal was called for. I am concerned about this statement: ''"It is not acceptable to link to a specific user's evidence file against another user to fulfill the third requirement. "'' I don't quite see what its purpose is. It would seem wasteful to repeat evidence that has already been compiled. If the evidence compilation covers multiple types of violations or if many of the alleged violations are found not to be convincing, but a couple were, it would only be fair to point out which ones were seen as valid.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

== Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ==

Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

==Questions to many candidates by [[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]]==

#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?

#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?

#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.)

[[User:PurplePlatypus|PurplePlatypus]] 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

:I think civility is important to the productivity of the wikipedia community, because some people are bothered and distracted by incivility. I am not particularly bothered by incivility, but I consider it a waste of time. As to editors that are correct in the name space but perceived as rude, I think that would depend on why they are perceived as rude, whether it is due to wasteful attacks or just bruskness. I've seen editors who just isssue commands, such as "don't do this" or "that is not allowed", without a please or an explanation. Since this probably causes resentment, it is counter productive, but does not seem to be an arbcom worthy issue.

:Yes, I have an academic background, but am in industry now. I evaluate critiques on their merits. If they are uncivil and raise their voices, I usually shout back ''"DOES THE LOUDEST ONE WIN?!"''. I can be quite loud, although I almost never get angry, so I generally never get to demonstrate my voice except at sporting events, where I am also extremely civil, I just cheer for my team, and try to generate enough noise to mess up the opposing teams communications.

:I intend to generally act in accordance with the proposed policy, but am disappointed that it is apparently needed. I generally think formal policies should be kept to a minimum, and that our real problem is the Ignore All Rules policy and they type of culture it encourages. We should have few rules and they should be openly and uniformly enforced, and those charged with enforcing them should be held to the highest standards. I made a comment on the proposal, I don't know if it has changed since then.--[[User:Silverback|Silverback]] 10:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

== Questions being asked by [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] to all candidates ==

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

# 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?

# To what extent would those projects be affected?

[[User:Titoxd|Tito]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]^{([[User_talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[User:Titoxd/Flcelloguy's Tool|help us]])} 07:02, 24 December 2005 (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?''

''[[WP:NPOV|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?''

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:13, 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?

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:58, 5 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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion&curid=895730&diff=34790720&oldid=34790144#Template:User_against_scientology|recent templates] surviving AfD that appear to contrast with [[WP:NPA|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 [[WP:NPOV|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.'' [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AVillage_pump_%28policy%29&diff=34797833&oldid=34788153]

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? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)