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

Revision as of 06:29, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 16:10, 19 March 2023

(5 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown)

Line 4:

I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:

*'''Equality of respect''': the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.

*'''[[Wikipedia:WikiLove|Wikilove]]''': enough said.

*'''[[Wikipedia:Assume good faith|Assume good faith]]''': ditto.

*'''Talking is better than blocking''', discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.

*'''We're here to build an [[encyclopaedia]], not a playground'''.

Line 129:

#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?

::I think that [[WP:Civility]] is a basic plank of Wikipedia, uo there with [[WP:NPOV]], [[WP:AFG]], [[Wikipedia:WikiLove|Wikilove]], [[Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers]], [[WP:NOT]], etc. Regardless of the standing of an editor, it is vital that all debate here be conducted with respect for each other and in a rational fashion, and I have generally tried to model this behaviour in my interactions with others. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

#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?

:: To quote an answer to a question further up the page "I'm 51 and I work in scientific publishing, as well as being a widely published poet. I also occasionally teach and give talks on literary subjects." I'm not an academic, and it's been a long time since I was a student. Nowadays, most of my interaction with the academic community is at seminars I get invited to as a practicing poet to discuss my own writing or that of other poets I know a bit about. I can see where you're going with this question, but I do not see that it is relevant to my own situation. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 09:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Line 143:

:No. As I see it, there are no "rights" here, only responsibilities. We are supposed to be building an encyclopaedia, not playing lawyer-games. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that with increased power should come increased responsibilities, and it is my view that the current ArbCom has made corrupt decisions, showing favoritism and issuing inequitable penalties. Consequently, I would like to know your view of the the proposed [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]]. --<font colorspan style="color: darkred;"><font facespan style="font-family: georgia;">[[User:Herschelkrustofsky|<span style="color: darkred;">HK</span>]]</fontspan></fontspan> 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

== Questions being asked by [[User:Titoxd|Titoxd]] to all candidates ==

Line 175:

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?

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.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:29, 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]] 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)