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

Revision as of 05:04, 4 December 2005

Latest revision as of 23:15, 4 February 2023

(38 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)

Line 1:

I've been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. As many know, I've at times been vocal in opposition to various things the ArbCom has done. Certainly I am a candidate who sees some problems, who feels strongly about them, and wants to change things a bit. My views on the ArbCom are, in fact, mixed: on the one hand, I see it as a useful and positive means of final dispute resolution in the community, and probably the best form of that; in general I favor ''increased'' ArbCom involvement in resolving matters, an expanded scope for the committee and ideally an expanded size to go along with that. On the other hand, of course, I have frequently had very strong disagreements with the ArbCom over matters of individual rulings against users. As regards banning, or any kind of strong penalty, my core philosophy, which I stated last year when I ran, is that the ArbCom needs to first and foremost consider a user's positive or negative impact on the encyclopedia, and not harshly penalize (or drive away or alienate) a user who is helping us out. Therefore I tend to take more liberal positions than the existing members of the ArbCom on these kinds of issues, because many or perhaps most of the people we have punished are good users in general. Furthermore, the ArbCom has to consider that its rulings and practices have a large impact on the Wikipedia culture in general. The community comes to reflect the attitudes and approaches of the ArbCom. Therefore the ArbCom needs to be a lot like what we want the community to be: open (favor public discussion over private mailing lists and IRC rooms, and invite community input), sympathetic, and concerned with erring on the side of caution. In looking at cases, it needs to prioritize encyclopedia work over personality feuds, and think of how a case can end beneficially, or at least with no loss, for everybody involved, if possible—how can a case be treated in a positive way, with an eye to reconciliation and harmony between users and productive editing, as opposed to a purely punitive approach? Even if you can't achieve this, you can usually get something close to it. There also has to be a concern with simple pragmatism, with what is actually going to ''work'' in fixing a specific problem. Wikipedia doesn't have a jail; we frequently go through hell trying to enforce rulings that are highly questionable to begin with, and leave bitter feelings all around. I'd like to move towards a change in attitude and approach, something more inclusive in process and open in outlook. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

==A last appeal to voters==

As the beginning of the vote draws near, I want to make one more point: in this election, the most important choice you make may be whether to choose candidates with an authoritarian or democratic mindset, with exclusive or inclusive views regarding ArbCom matters. I can promise you that I stand firmly behind the goal of openness and fairness in ArbCom procedure, and I would represent a democratic and inclusive mindset to the very best of my ability. A vote for me is a rejection of ArbCom authoritarian tendencies and secrecy, and an endorsement of the idea that the ArbCom should move closer to the community, and work in harmony with it. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

==Questions==

Line 100 ⟶ 103:

[[User:Marsden|Marsden]] 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:Well, 22 doesn't seem terribly young to me (had a birthday since I answered the question originally) when we've got plenty of teenage administrators, and I think a few that aren't even teenagers yet (don't hold me to that—maybe early teens), and also I'm pretty sure there've been arbs who are younger than me—I know Ambi is younger. I think Grunt too? And maybe others. But, while I personally tend to hold little bias against Wikipedians on the grounds of age, it doesn't bother me if somebody wants arbitrators older than me. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm very surprised you're so young. I find your work all the more impressive knowing this, as is the case with Ambi. Anyway, I have a question. The only other candidate whose work rivals your own as a content editor is SimonP. You are uniquely qualified for the job; and I want to vote for you. However, I worry that you may be too lenient. Would you be able to give me an idea of when you'd apply santions? Thanks. [[User:172|172]] 10:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

:Well, I guess I can't really say I wouldn't be more lenient than the current arbitrators, because I probably would be. But my hope for the ArbCom is that it could facilitate practical resolution without necessarily requiring punitive measures—having watched the ArbCom throughout its existence, and especially closely for the last year, my perception is that a large minority, if not a majority of cases could be adequately resolved with a reasonable compromise between the involved parties. A lot of the time, it just takes the ArbCom to step in, set boundaries and require that a compromise is accepted by everyone involved. I often go back to using my own Arb cases as examples—they may not be fully representative of the average case, but you can see something of the problematic thinking at work when you look at them—in all three cases, I was completely willing to compromise on ''anything'', to accept any kind of reasonable deal that would end the dispute without sanctions, and moreover to acknowledge the flaws in my own conduct. In all three cases, no matter how much I maintained this, and no matter how often I made proposals, I was basically ignored. Punitive remedies were pushed through regardless.

:When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. There are certainly cases where there's no choice but to apply sanctions—a per article ban, a per topic ban, a personal attack parole, a revert limitation, and in extreme cases total bans from the project for a given period. When a contributor is doing more good, I think it's a better idea to force people into the process—to mandate solutions and apply penalties only when those solutions are rejected. For example, if you've got a revert warrior, require that every revert is accompanied by an explanation of adequate length on the talk page. That way you're forcing people to talk to each other: if you want to revert, fine, but you're going to have to talk in proportion to the reverting you're doing. If the discussion is uncivil and not bearing fruit? Have things watched by a neutral party to apply short-term blocks for incivility, which can be interpreted variously depending on the degree of the incivility—a severe problem with incivility will mean that no hint of personal hostility will be tolerated. I also like the idea of making liberal use of mentors and mentor teams—empower volunteers, and I think there are plenty out there, who are neutral and can be trusted, to monitor conduct and apply penalties if needed. It's better not to close the gate to someone who is, in general, doing us good; what we need is to force them to work more constructively, to narrow the path available to them while leaving ways for them to help out. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

::Thanks so much for such a thoughtful reply! My concerns now have been totally addressed. You're quite right that the Arbcom runs the risk of being too putative with good editors who have made an honest mistake (e.g., IMO such was the case with Stevertigo) or who naturally attract controversy given the nature of the topics in which they are interested (e.g., IMO such was the case with IZAK and RK). You do an especially good job describing the need to work on a case-by-case basis: ''When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties.'' Given the great quantity and quality, along with the regularity, of your contributions on Wikipedia, you probably are particularly well-positioned to make such judgments. I look forward to voting for you again, as I did last time. [[User:172|172]] 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

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]] 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

==Question from Grace Note==

James, I think the arbitration committee is largely a power trip for wannabe lawyers and jackboot-worshipping types, some of whom the encyclopaedia would possibly even be better off without, let alone empowering, and its proceedings waste an enormous amount of time, which could generally be saved by telling half the people involved to stop being pricks and just get on with creating content. Still, most involved seem to enjoy it, so it's only really a bad thing when users who want nothing to do with it get dragged into the whole nonsense. There's never much justice involved though, and clearly the system is sufficiently entrenched that you'd have little chance of affecting that. So lord knows why you want any part of it.

That's not my question though, because you've explained why you want in. What I want to know is, in the rather unlikely event that you get sufficient support, do you think Jimbo will favour you? Do you have any views on whether Jimbo's exercise of his discretion taints the whole "election"? -- Grace Note.

:No, I would not expect him to favor me. In fact I suspect I am one of the people, if not the main person, he has in mind when insisting on having a personal veto over candidates. I find it obnoxious that there's this idea that having me on the ArbCom would just be a negative factor, that I'd be a pest the other arbs would just have to work around. In the short to medium term (i.e., what I think could possibly be accomplished in the course of a year) I'd want to push for A) greater openness, which would first and foremost mean eliminating or reducing the role of the ArbCom mailing list (and I would personally commit to not posting on it, and doing all my discussion and deliberation out in the open) and IRC, and concentrating on public decision-making. Right now, I feel what is put out on the wiki are mere formalities, and everything that really matters is done in secret. B) A bigger focus on getting the participants in a case to resolve matters with their own suggestions, ideas, and commitments, as non-punitively as possible, with the ArbCom serving more as facilitators than judges, but with the authority to lay the law down if necessary. One thing I also believe pretty strongly is that we have an anarchistic admin environment which favors the more aggressive admins over the more passive ones; therefore another reform I have in mind is setting up small mentor committees to judge and enforce matters pertaining to individual cases once they have been decided, instead of allowing it to be an admin free-for-all. As it stands now, the harshest possible interpretation of a ruling will usually prevail: Snowspinner, or someone similar, will make that harsh interpretation, block accordingly, and if anybody unblocks he will block again. Since he is more aggressive and assertive, he will always win. If you really challenge him about it, you'll face the ArbCom yourself. That business has got to stop. There needs to be organization and fairness about enforcement. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 05:12, 18 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]] 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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

Do you support [[Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights]]? ([[User:SEWilco|SEWilco]] 05:33, 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]])} 06:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

== Questions from [[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] ==

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

# Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?

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

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

# Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

[[User:Zordrac|Zordrac]] [[User_talk:Zordrac|(talk)]] <small>[[M:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD|Wishy Washy]] [[M:Darwikinism|Darwikinian]] [[M:Eventualism|Eventualist]]</small> 16:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

==Question from [[User:SqueakBox]]==

What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? [[User:SqueakBox|SqueakBox]] 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

==Question from Radiant==

One or two of the other candidates appear to be people that you really don't get along with. What would your reaction be if both you and one of them are requested to join the ArbCom (by Jimbo or by the community)? [[User:Radiant!|R]][[User_talk:Radiant!|adiant]][[meta:mergist|_<span style="color:orange;">&gt;|&lt;</span>]] 02:38, 28 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?''

:Yes; any circumstances it wants

''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?''

:Yes

''[[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?''

:Yes; in cases where I see both sides are poorly represented I will try to add content for both sides. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:08, 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]]?

:Yes

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.

:Yes

::Sorry, which parts?

:::Sorry. That was supposed to be "no".

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?

:Yes. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

''(One more question I'm asking everyone:)''

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. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:No; haven't gotten around to it (would get involved in it if I thought it had potential to go anywhere) [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 08:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

== Question from [[User:Celestianpower|Celestianpower]] ==

Perhaps this is a little forward but I'll ask anyway. Do you prefer carrots or potatoes? Think carefully now... --[[user:Celestianpower|Cel]][[WP:ESP|<span style="color:green;">e</span>]][[User:celestianpower|stianpower]] ^{[[user talk:Celestianpower|háblame]]} 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

:What about radishes? [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Form question from [[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ==

What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

:In favor, in cases of sysop abuse, although it should go to RfA for the final decision. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

What would you view as sysop abuse? (Going to RFA for the final decision is generally enforced by allowing the desysopee to reapply for privileges at any time, I understand.) &mdash;[[User:Simetrical|Simetrical]] ([[User talk:Simetrical|talk]]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Simetrical|contribs]]) 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

:Using administrative tools in violation of policy or in opposition to something that has been decided through community process. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 04:44, 11 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]] 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:A) I think templates are something that are just a feature of the community now, and we should be liberal about them, although I suppose we do need certain limits&mdash;that's something to be dealt with by community vote, though, and if something I think is over the line is judged to be inside the line by the community, then it should stay.

:B) I don't see any particular need for the ArbCom to get involved in a situation like this; as a last resort it could, but any judgment should be made only in concord with the community. Strong community involvement in all aspects of such a case would be essential. [[User:Everyking|Everyking]] 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)