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

Revision as of 16:34, 8 January 2006

Latest revision as of 16:03, 19 March 2023

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 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 79:

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)