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

Revision as of 06:38, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:15, 4 February 2023

(15 intermediate revisions by 7 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 153 ⟶ 156:

==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|_<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">&gt;|&lt;</fontspan>]] 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

==Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-==

Line 183 ⟶ 186:

: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?

Line 189 ⟶ 196:

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)