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

Revision as of 21:04, 12 January 2006

Latest revision as of 14:19, 20 April 2022

(One intermediate revision by one other user 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)