Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Silverback: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Silverback (talk | contribs) |
Silverback (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 18:
Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then [[WP:IAR]] makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? [[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
:It is quite possible that the goal of an encyclopedia may itself conflict with the open, freewheeling culture of wiki, yet despite this wikipedia has been remarkably productive, although growing pains and cracks and perhaps even chasms are beginning to show. Of course, IAR is by its nature in conflit with all the policies and rules. IAR is popular because it is cute and irreverent and panders to the human tendency to want to take shortcuts, brush all process aside and get to the result that your hubris tells you is right. It also saves the violator a lot of time and scrutiny, because citing IAR eliminates the need to provide any explanation, no matter how presumptuous or unfair your action may seem to others. I will interpret IAR to be an argument from necessity in order to achieve a "higher" wikipedia purpose. A case brought before that invokes IAR will have to argue how their action supports that higher purpose, and how that higher purpose could not have been achieved by legitimate procedural means. Even then, the claimed "necessity" had better be so great, that it is worth the martyrdom of what ever sanctions may still have to be imposed to preserve both the reality and perception of equal justice. If it isn't that necessary, then you should follow the procedures and policies rather IAR. I myself have committed "civil disobedience" of a sort, in order to draw attention to unfair procedures and abuses, and the consequences are what they are.
:Wikipedia is a large organization now. I think it needs to find a minimal set of fair rules that it thinks works and that it is willing to enforce. Unfortunately, there is an admin culture, fed by the cute and irreverent, IAR and "The wrong version", that has resulted in lax and uneven enforcement and a perception of unfairness. A big part of the reason the Arbcom is overloaded is the perception of uneven and unfair enforcement. An overloaded Arbcom feeds the admin culture of hubris, because the admins know the current processes cannot handle the load, and thus they need to act unilaterally. The violations are more numerous because the violators know the arbcom is overloaded, the process is unfair anyway, and the disaffection results in more vandalism and less civility.
| |||