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

Revision as of 16:21, 5 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:17, 4 February 2023

(17 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 65:

Background: back in April, I submitted thousands of untagged and orphaned images to [[Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion]], and deleted them if there were no objections in the time period required. Over 99% of these deletions were uncontroversial, and were (I feel) a much-needed cleanup task. However, two of the images were uploaded by [[User:Anthere|Anthere]], a vice-chair of the Wikimedia Foundation at the time. Due to an oversight I failed to inform her on her talk page that the images had been listed for deletion, and she was upset to see them deleted. I apologized to her, and we worked it out.

Regarding that conflict, you left me the [[User_talk:Quadell/archive8Archive 8#Anthere|following note]] on my talk page:

:''There are a handful of users on Wikipedia where, should you find yourself in conflict with them, it is almost certain that you have done something wrong. Anthere is one of them. I say this because, from what I can tell, you have upset Anthere. Also, from what I can tell, this was avoidable. When deleting an image uploaded by a respected and longtime contributor, you don't delete without asking questions first. Had you asked Anthere, she could have explained. But you didn't. And you offended a good contributor with it.''

:''I hope you'll take this as a lesson in the future.''

Line 137:

:No. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 03:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nevertheless the underlying idea that wikipedia ia a powerful world influence that has the propensity to become a much more powerful one, i.e. one of the main de facto sources of truth in the world, what does this candidate think are the guiding principles the arbcom should follow as wikipedia progresses and in order to help make it progress? [[User:Matthew Stannard|Matt Stan]] 20:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Line 165 ⟶ 167:

==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)

:My reaction would be "Drat, that's going to be annoying," followed by a lot of being professional, assuming good faith, and working towards consensus - just like I would if one of them showed up to edit an article I was working on. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 02:55, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Line 175 ⟶ 177:

Why is Jimbo's view is so different from yours?

:Because Jimbo and I are not a hive mind, and sensible people periodically disagree. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 03:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

2. You were also recently involved in a block war with other adminstrators. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3ASnowspinner] Can you describe what happend there?

:That's an interesting choice of block wars, since I never unblocked myself once. If you mean the block war over karmafist? Simply put, I believed karmafist was acting under a good faith interpretation of the 3RR, and that a block was inappropriate. I made no effort anywhere in that to unblock myself, nor did I ask to be unblocked. I unblocked karmafist once, and when SCZenz subsequently wheel warred over a block about wheel warring, I blocked him because he had, frankly, added to the problem instead of fixing it. I made all of these actions once and only once.

:But that may not answer your question - what are you really looking for here? [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:33, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Line 185 ⟶ 193:

''As a corollory: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?''

Since you are asking explicitly about Kelly, I will say only that reading the RfC as a request for censure is an appalling way to read it, and that Wikipedia is not and never has been run by numbers alone. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

''[[WP:NPOV|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?''

--[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] 01:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Nothing actively comes to mind on this topic - if it is truly of interest to you, I advise looking through my history yourself. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion==

Line 195 ⟶ 207:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal]]?

:"But I say unto you, Swear not at all"

2. Are there any parts of [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct]] that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

:I oppose its existence. This seems rather hard to improve.

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?

:I don't see how extra seats are going to alleviate backlog, as it will just require more votes. I think the solution remains empowering administrators to deal with things themselves more often.

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.

:I have not, because polls are evil and I avoid them when possible. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;[[User:Nrcprm2026|<i>James S.</i>]] 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 207 ⟶ 227:

What does this edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cognition&diff=prev&oldid=20308540] say about your suitability for this job? --[[User:NathanDW|NathanDW]] 16:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:Very little. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 08:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

== Questions from Rob Church ==

# You've had your fair share of dealings with ArbCom. Do you feel that's given you a bit of an insight as to what needs changing?

#:I can't honestly say I think a lot needs canging. The arbcom is very, very good at what it does, and is consistently the part of the chain that gets it right, with only a handful of exceptions. (To my mind, they've flubbed three cases this term, two of which they reversed themselves on) There are things I would change about Wikipedia, but the arbcom isn't really one of them. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

# What do you feel about the effectiveness of our dispute resolution processes as a whole?

#:As a whole? Mixed. RfCs remain little more than dress rehearsals for RFArs, and mediation is a rarely-productive timesink. So of our formal dispute resolution process, only 1/3 of it works. That said, our informal dispute resolution process of several thousand users existing still works wonders on article content, even if it's completely broken on matters of policy. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

# If [[WP:IAR]] was to be revoked tomorrow, what would you have to say about it?

#:I'd probably ignore it. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 16:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Ta. [[User:Robchurch|Rob Church]] ^{''[[User_talk:Robchurch|Talk]]''} 13:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Question from Mistress Selina Kyle==

You're joking, right? --''[[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;text-decoration:underline">Mistress Selina Kyle</span>]] ^{'''<span style="color:#800080">(</span>'''[[User_talk:Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">Α⇔Ω</span>]] ¦ [[Special:Emailuser/Mistress Selina Kyle|<span style="color:#18186b;cursor:help;">⇒✉</span>]]'''<span style="color:#800080">)</span>'''}'' 20:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

:No - I really have stopped beating my wife. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 20:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

==Quick questions from Matt Yeager==

So, supposing you get elected, what happens if/when you get involved in another Arbcom case? Do you think that maybe if you've upset some fellow members (by questioning their votes, voting against them, etc.), you might be shot down? Wouldn't it destroy the integrity of the system if the other Arbcoms voted for a temporary ban on you? In addition, you've made your share of enemies, or so it seems. Since these "enemies" would likely be the sort of people to appear in Arbcom cases, wouldn't you have to recuse yourself from an awful lot of cases?

All this to say: don't you think that someone a little less controversial would be a better choice for an arbcom member? [[User:Matt Yeager|Matt Yeager]] 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:I can count on one hand the number of people that I think I would have to recuse if they were to come to the arbcom. Which is to say, I may have a number of enemies, but I am very few people's enemies. Nor do I see why you are fretting about the possibility of a temporary ban - no ban has ever been proposed as a remedy against me in an arbcom case. The only time I have ever gotten any negative mention in an arbcom case was when all parties were sanctioned regarding civility in the webcomics case. And as far as I know, I have cordial relationships with all current arbitrators. So I fail to see what grave controversy you're seeing here. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 09:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

== Your nickname ==

Being an Inuit, your nickname "Snowspinner", a racial slur for my people, is deeply offensive to me. [[User:Tapir|Tapir]] 20:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

:Oh. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 21:23, 12 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]] 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:I largely think the arbcom is somewhat ineffective in creating new policy, and is at its weakest when it is trying to force the Wikipedia community to adhere to something it's running away from. On the other hand, its job is in part to uphold Wikipedia's principles even when a bloc of users disagrees. I think the best bet here is for the arbcom to impose sanctions on those who edit war to attack other users - but I would be leery of a policy declaration. I think I would just be inclined to sanction those who edit war to attack, and to be sympathetic towards those who edit to maintain sense and civility. [[User:Snowspinner|Phil Sandifer]] 21:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)