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

Revision as of 20:31, 12 January 2006

Latest revision as of 23:19, 9 December 2008

(7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)

Line 86:

''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?''

:I'm not sure I can answer this. Your 150:50 figure (which seems an obvious reference to Kelly Martin) is not sufficient in that RFCs are made up of varying and overlapping statements, and are not really meat to be a dichotomy. Also, it is very possible, in my mind, for an arbitrator to be judged a poor administrator or editor in some regard which has no bearing on their arbitratorship. Of course, determingdetermining the community consensus ''would'' likely need to involve a poll of some sort (''after'' discussion), but as to the RFC format or the abuses involved, I can't do better than these generalities without a specific situation to assess.

::Although it clearly can refer to Kelly Martin, her case is somewhat moot in this regard, since her appointment is temporary and only lasts until these elections. However, the question was intended as a general one, the reference being made to demonstrate the non-hypothetical nature of the question. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

:::I would add that the kind of person I, and presumably the rest of the community, would support (and this includes myself) I expect to not ever be faced with a situation where the community supports their removal, but if so, to modify behavior accordingly or step down. This should describe all of our arbitrators. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 07:40, 8 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 substatialsubstantial edits to articles?''

:I'll need to think about this a bit more, will get to it back in a while (though I'll note right now that I don't often edit political or religious articles). [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

::This question concerns when you do edit such articles. Also note that articles about politicians, periods in history (e.g. wars of the roses, cromwell, american civil war, french revolution), art (e.g. ancient and modern), and other topics also frequently have more than one stance. The question is an important one as it helps us to guage whether you act and are likely to act neutrally or only to support your own biases. --[[User:-Ril-|Victim of signature fascism]] | [[User:-Ril-/Biblecruft|help remove biblecruft]] 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Line 149:

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]] 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

:I think when we talk about these templates, there are a few things at play here. There is, first and foremost, the good of the encyclopedia, and how having them directly benefits or harms it, and then also how to go about dealing with it in a way that's also good for the encyclopedia. As to the tempates specifically, I think there are certainly some that have gone too far. Like user pages, userboxes should be used for Wikipedia-related information, personal information and views, and even silliness, but all within reason. User pages, including their templates, while given wide latitude, are still the collective property of the community. Inappropriate or offensive material can be and has been removed from user pages and subpages without the direction of the Arbitration Committee. I also believe that ''some'' of these templates (and their categories in particular) have, intentionally and unintentionally, caused partisanship over both their content and their existence, and that has been harmful. As to the point of freedom of speech, I would agree with Improv there, and also point out that, for the good of the encyclopedia, (for those Americans) "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Nothing on Wikipedia should serve to be divisive amongst its own editors, especially if we can do something about it.

:It has also been true, though, that some of the partisanship and harm has been caused by deletion of the templates without warning, and even some wheel warring that went with it. The harm of wheel warring, regardless of the reason, needs no explication, and it has been grounds for desysopping before. An arbitrator should have all of these considerations in mind, and try to strike a solution with the long term goal of the project inmind. This would include finding the balance between user page autonomy and its boundaries, as well as administrative enforcement of the boundaries for the overall good (and administrative disagreements over the administrative enforcement) and the boundries of that enforcement (when it becomes harmful) that is the most sensible, considering the circumstances presented in whatever the potential case is. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

: You say: ''The harm of wheel warring, regardless of the reason, needs no explication, and it has been grounds for desysopping before.''

: Imagine that you are faced with someone (let's call him Tony) who does think that explication of ''the harm of wheel wharring'' is required. Please explicate.

: Which editor has been desysopped for wheel warring? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 11:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

::As for examples, off the top of my head, Stevertigo and 172 both wheel warred over their own 3RR blocks, 168 warred over the deletion of his own RFC, and Karmafist faced a motion to be desysopped after wheel warring, while Freestylefrappe is currently before Arbcom in part due to wheel warring. Of course the circumstances of each are different, and each likely involved much more evidence to encompass a pattern of abuse (and, thankfully, the sample size of desysopped admins is small).

::When I talk about a "wheel war", I define it as ''repeated'' reversal of another admin's action. There is nothing acceptable about wheel wars. They, by definition, involve administrators, editors who are generally respected and their judgment trusted, and are expected to act responsibly. It is for each of these reasons that administrators are usually given discretion with their judgment: because we trust it. Engaging in wheel wars violates that trust and shows a disrespect for the other admins you are reversing. It is also a demonstration that someone is ill-suited to the position of administrator, if they can't deal with their disagreements by discussion, asking for outside opinions, and finding consensus for controversial actions. Administrators ''will'' disagree with other administrators, it is a fact, but wheel warring is harmful demonstration of lack of judgment and not the way to deal with it. Not having the decency to engage another admin in discussion and wheel warring is most likely a failure to assume good faith, as well. Consensus is one of the most important concepts an admin is expected to understand, and disregard for it is not on. The occurence of a wheel war is also disruptive to its subject; whether it's a user repeatedly blocked and unblocked, an article deleted and undeleted or protected and unprotected, that part of the 'Pedia can't function normally. Needless to say, I think wheel wars are good grounds for desysopping, though I would stress again the need for a ''pattern'' of misbehavior in any case. [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

: I think that you will find that all of the above cases concerned, specifically, abuse of their sysop powers. The term "wheel war" is imprecise and has been used on Wikipedia to cover cases where a legitimate difference of opinion is expressed in successive opposite actions over a case where there is no settled opinion. A recent example that I hope we can both agree is not a wheel war, and was quite beneficial in resolving a case where there was quite a lot of disagreement and good arguments on both sides, is the pattern of blocks and unblocks in the case of [[User:Mistress Selina Kyle|Mistress Selina Kyle]] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page=User%3AMistress+Selina+Kyle block log]).

: But this is ''your'' candidacy, not mine, so I'll leave it there. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]]|[[User talk:Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)