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

Revision as of 06:58, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 14:19, 20 April 2022

(2 intermediate revisions by 2 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 142:

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)