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

Revision as of 07:56, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 16:03, 19 March 2023

(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)

Line 13:

What are your views of the proposed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:User_Bill_of_Rights&oldid=33628435 User Bill of Rights]?

--<font colorspan style="color: darkred;"><font facespan style="font-family: georgia;">[[User:Herschelkrustofsky|<span style="color: darkred;">HK</span>]]</fontspan></fontspan> 16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

:My first response, without even looking, is it sound suspiciously like mainstream politics, and thus should be killed with fire, because Politics is Bad and Wikipolitics is Worse. Glancing through the Code of Conduct it looks like a bunch of suggestions that are easy to follow (when to recuse), a few redundancies (Follow [[WP:NPA]], no really?), and a misunderstanding.

:::" Those elected by the will of the Wikipedia community to serve on the Arbitration Committee are bound by the principles of impartiality and fairness in their decisions."

Line 26:

::Now, any moment here, people are going to ask why I'm so deferential to Jimbo.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

----

Let me summarize what I said puup there into something simple: ArbCom, Adminstrators, and Policy are all tools to protect the project.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]]

==Questions from [[User:-Ril-]]==

Line 53:

*Yes. You're not going to get a complete picture just by focusing on the problems comitted by a single involved party. I admit to the enjoyment of the idea that parties that bring forward cases when they have also contributed to the problem, will suffer the consequences for that problem.

*Jimbo Wales hold reserve power for a good reason. Wikipedia is largley his baby, and (slightly joking here) we serve at the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, if for no other reason that they pay for the server bills. So no, barring some twisted situation of a conspiracy of Arbitrators protecting a single arbitrator who has commited serious crimes and/or has brought disaster to the project, and somehow Jimmy Wales is involved/hoodwinked, I can't think of a decent reason not to trust the man.

**Consider, as an example, the twisted situation concerning Kelly Martin, who was appointed directly by Jimbo Wales without regarding the community's viewpoint, and who is now the subject of extreme scorn by much of the community. I raise this only as an example, as here appointment ceases as soon as the elections are made, and hence is somewhat moot here. In such like situations [in general] do you refuse to concede to the community and side with Jimbo, or would you side with the community against his support for the arbitrator? --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

***I think we're begging the question here, so I'm going to give a two part answer, and I apologize in advance if it seems smarmy somehow. Under my understanding there is not a clear sign from the community that what Kelly did was Wrong, or even Abusive. I think the only thing resmembling consensus from the community is that it was definatly unpopular, which is not the same thing at all. I think the next closest thing to a definate message from the community is that it was considered unwise, and that it'd be nice if she would acknowledge that maybe the people who disagree with her aren't idiots, and have brains themselves. Neither of these, in my opinion, are sufficient grounds for thinking about overriding Jimbo. So in the specific situation mentioned, I defer to Jimbo and trust his judgement, because there isn't an obvious community consensus that KM has violated the standards of conduct expected of an Arbitrator, ((I personally see these as unwritten, similar to a US Judgeship is) at best there is a significant population that wants Kelly to think a little more longer, ask a little more before deleting templates, and thinks not doing so is rude, abrasive, and slightly silly. There is no sign that this was an abuse of the position of Arbitrator (not directly involved in a case, and she did recuse), no clear consensus or even majority opinion that Kelly is likley to cause trouble relating to Arbitratorship that is going to be problematic. I will admit that the backlash it's caused is concerning (because we should all be concerned when people are complaining, why are they complaining), but I disagree there is a clear message from the community that Kelly is not trusted as an Arbitrator.

***Part two of the answer is addressing what you're getting at more directly. Let us say, hypothetically, there was a clear, community consensus, or even a comunity super majority with 80 concuring, 15 dissenting, and 5 abstaining, that Arbitrator A has done Act B. Act B would have to in violation of the standards expected of an Arbitrator (roughly speaking, to be trustworthy and sensible enough, generally speaking, especially in matters of dispute resolution) and/or indicitive of Arbitrator A being a significant threat to the goal of ArbCom, and thus a threat to the project. So assuming that Act B was not merley unpopular, but a violation of the above, I would likley resign from the commitee, and speak as a community member. Why? Because the abuse of power to inflict my opinion of right just because I happen to have the power to do so is a violation of the standards stated above. If however, Act B does not violate the standards exepected of an Arbitrator, it is within the privledge and it is the duty of another Arbitrator to abide by their own understanding of the situation, taking into account the community message.

***In summary, I think the question you wanted me to get at was this: "are you willing to side with the community or with Jimbo?" The answer is, it depends on what is right in the situation. ArbCom is not by the people, for the people. Its a collection of individuals who have been chosen, hopefully rightly, to protect the project and provide one of the channels of last resort to deal with dispute resolution. The follow up question then, is "If you find yourself in disagreement with Jimbo, and in agreement with the community, will you use your influence/position as Arbirtator to do something about it?" and the answer is: "Barring extraordinary circumstance, no." In this I am willing to take a clue from politics. When you disagree with the people that got you where you are to the point where you can't work together, you pack up your bags, write a nice little letter of protest, and take it outside. TINC, and lets keep it that way. I am not going willing to be the inside man for the masses, nor am I the Man keeping them down. I'm putting forward my name for consideration because I believe I am a legitimate option in being willing to arbitrate disputes '''fairly''' with the goal of ''protecting the project''. ArbCom is a tool to protect the project, NOT some form of government.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

*Not really. Wikipedia is a not a democracy, and we don't really have a govermental structure per se. Its erronious to see ArbCom as an office, as this is a useful, but equally perilous analogy. However, anyone so served would do well to take it seriously, as it is sign of *something* wrong. If subjected to one myself, I would likely resign, but I am loathe to force anyone else to. ArbCom serves to protect the community and the encylopedia, and not in that order! Its not a post per se, or a position of Honor and Peerage. Its a job that pays horrible, and so long as it is clear that the Arbitrator continues to serve the purpose of an Arbitrator, even a supermajority does not change that. However, I stress again, that if someone is censured, it bears investigating because clearly *something* is wrong, whether its a job for ArbCom or the community at large is a diffrent story all together. (I myself am a large fan of mediation)

*Uh. Dunno about strong opposition, but I have written a number of things I disagree with on [[abortion]]. I try to avoid opinion writing as much as possible, and organize, describe, and cite. That takes my own personal point of view out of the article quickly.

Line 71 ⟶ 75:

:I don't "pledge" anything, as that sounds suspiciously like campaigning. However:

1. I think these seem pretty sensible thus far. Recusal is done when there is poentail for conflict of intrest, or just not being able to fully grip the situation. I don't think this needs to be written down, it should be obvious.

2. I find the idea of Arbitrators being held to a higher standard a laudible one, but this isn't it. The current system, (read:Jimbo) in my opinion, is not broken enough to force systemization. Furthermore the ACCC treats ArbCom like a criminal court, instead of a commitee which is there to protect the project, especially (and possibly exclusivly) via dispute resolution. Ex Post Facto I covered in a previous question, but, ignoring tone, the idea that ArbCommers must be held to an even higher standard of sensibilty and respect is sensible.

3. No. I refuse to pledge to anything, as I despise even the appearance of campaigning. I'd like to reduce the back log, and Ideally, find a way to shuffle off as much to previous dispute resolution proccesses (saaaay mediation) as humanly possible. More people isn't a bad idea, should there be enough potential Arbitrators available.--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 07:56, 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]] 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well. This is going to be a wonderfully complicated answer and I'll try to cut down on rambling.

First off, Improv is right on one very important point. There Is No Right To Free Speech On Wikipedia. There is however, an expectation that so long as you abide by policy, work on the encylopedia, and play nice (a nice redundant statement right there) you can say what you want. We have every right to demand that users remain civil, polite, and if not constructive, avoid being destructive. To apply policy, lets pull out some applicable policies thenL [[WP:CIV]] [[WP:NOT]] [[WP:NPA]]. The third is very much redundant with the previous two, but these are pretty much my three of my favorite four, with the last being [[WP:NOR]]/[[WP:CITE]]. Anyway whatever the letters of CIV, NOT, and NPA, it is very clear the intent of the above policies is to protect the enyclopedia from the one thing that will kill it the fastest: editors. Editors are the lifeblood of our project, but also the primary force pulling it apart. Editors have a nasty tendancy to not get along, and when they don't get along they tend to get nasty. Excessive nastiness leads to a collapse in the project.

So we have a couple things to address here. Do these userboxes/personal opinion templates (POTs) present a significant threat to the project, and what should ArbCom do about it? The short answers are probably, and hopefully nothing. The long answers follow

POTs are harmful because displaying a Point of View, especially one that is political or religious in nature quickly hobbles [[WP:AGF]] and leads to quick debates about whos POV is infecting the article more. POTs are not a problem in them selves per se, but quickly lead to violations of CIV, NOT, and NPA, because of the loss of good faith and the tendancy for Person A and Person B to find something to disagree about. That or have sex, but as the second is difficult via wiki, the first happens. So, are they cause for concern? Yes, as they will ineveriably lead (because of the nature of people) to conflict that would'nt have occured in the first place.

What should ArbCom do about it? Ideally, nothing. I'd like to think that editors, and editors and adminstrators together can talk together calmly and sort it out. When that fails, I think discussions on the Village pump, TFD, etc. should be able to take it over. When ArbCom is likley to have to step in is if/when arbitrators begin to wheel war (always bad) there is a massive failure of the community to reach consensus, and/or two uesrs have massive conflicts using POTs to get their point accross. Remeber, on wikipedia there is no right to free speech. Which is not to say that we should go around controlling speech, but we expect people to be nice to other people. Although you can still make fun of the wiki as I recall. Anyway. ArbCom is the last line of defence. If POTs erupt to the point when ArbCom needs to stand in, then by their nature, some new rules need to be laid down. ArbCom isn't a maker of policy or bound by it per se, its another tool to protect the project. If POTs reach the point where ArbCom needs to step in, the project is likley in need of protection, and ArbCom can make a ruling to protect it while the community catches up with some applicable policy. Hopefully, it doesn't reach that point.

That answer everything?--[[User:Tznkai|Tznkai]] 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

: Of course not, but it shows that you've thought fairly deeply about the issue. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)