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

Revision as of 01:10, 6 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:14, 9 December 2008

(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 1:

If I am voted to Arbcom, i'll do everything in my power to speed things along. I am against banning users unless they are a repeat offender or have defaced a page. I belive that has a general rule of thumb we should not ban someone for a first offense unless its an extreme situation.

===The Way the Arbitration Committee should work by Kyle Hamilton===

There should be a body of 48 people when arbitration is requested a group of 3/5/7/9 arbitrators should go and preside over the case. --[[User:Kylehamilton|Kylehamilton]] 05:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Line 46:

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 02:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

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

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?

:''' in the spirt of the wiki I belive that there should be some sort of check on Admin and members of the ArbCom I dont know how it would work or how to do it thats something for the people of this wiki to deside not myself ideas like this of made by people much smarter then I :-) '''

As a corollary: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?

: '''I belive that if a large number of active members are unhappy *aka no puppets* with a member of the ArbCom then there should be some sort of action taken this is something that we should sit down and figure out as I said above I dont know how this would be done but there should be checks on admins and members of the ArbCom

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?

: '''For the most part im a fairly Nutral person, I have never edited a article that has forced me to change something that I feel strongly for most noteable because when I edit things I try to edit only what ive been trained to do *aka only subjects im well versed in* and that happens to be Cinema, I just added the Director [[Jenni Olson]] I dont liker her movies I saw one at sundance and thought she was a brainless hippie who talks about how her friend commited suicide off the golden gatge for 30mins * I still want my money back*, but she wasnt on the wiki and I added her and kept a NPOV juse because I didnt like her movie doesnt mean that she shouldnt be here.'''

--[[User:Kylehamilton|Kylehamilton]] 06:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==

Line 88 ⟶ 101:

#Proposal 12: Stay with 12 seats, with optional panels of 3 '''Strong Oppose there should be around 48 members of the committee and only 3/5/7/9 should view cases, if it has to go to the full committee for some reson it better be good --Kylehamilton 01:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)'''

#Proposal 13: Votes to accept include panel size 5/7/9 '''# Support I would like to see it as a 3/5/7/9 but this works --Kylehamilton 00:35, 6 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]] 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)