Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Everyking

I've been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. As many know, I've at times been vocal in opposition to various things the ArbCom has done. Certainly I am a candidate who sees some problems, who feels strongly about them, and wants to change things a bit. My views on the ArbCom are, in fact, mixed: on the one hand, I see it as a useful and positive means of final dispute resolution in the community, and probably the best form of that; in general I favor increased ArbCom involvement in resolving matters, an expanded scope for the committee and ideally an expanded size to go along with that. On the other hand, of course, I have frequently had very strong disagreements with the ArbCom over matters of individual rulings against users. As regards banning, or any kind of strong penalty, my core philosophy, which I stated last year when I ran, is that the ArbCom needs to first and foremost consider a user's positive or negative impact on the encyclopedia, and not harshly penalize (or drive away or alienate) a user who is helping us out. Therefore I tend to take more liberal positions than the existing members of the ArbCom on these kinds of issues, because many or perhaps most of the people we have punished are good users in general. Furthermore, the ArbCom has to consider that its rulings and practices have a large impact on the Wikipedia culture in general. The community comes to reflect the attitudes and approaches of the ArbCom. Therefore the ArbCom needs to be a lot like what we want the community to be: open (favor public discussion over private mailing lists and IRC rooms, and invite community input), sympathetic, and concerned with erring on the side of caution. In looking at cases, it needs to prioritize encyclopedia work over personality feuds, and think of how a case can end beneficially, or at least with no loss, for everybody involved, if possible—how can a case be treated in a positive way, with an eye to reconciliation and harmony between users and productive editing, as opposed to a purely punitive approach? Even if you can't achieve this, you can usually get something close to it. There also has to be a concern with simple pragmatism, with what is actually going to work in fixing a specific problem. Wikipedia doesn't have a jail; we frequently go through hell trying to enforce rulings that are highly questionable to begin with, and leave bitter feelings all around. I'd like to move towards a change in attitude and approach, something more inclusive in process and open in outlook. Everyking 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Some questions from Sjakkalle

You have often been critical of bans at all. In what cases do you think bans are appropriate?
You yourself have been subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Comitee. Do you think that might be a problem for your candidacy?
What is your position now on the 3RR?
Your userpage used to have a subpage, User:Everyking/The six principles and the four points which is still there, but which no longer has a link on the main userpage. Do you still endorse what you wrote there, parts of it (and in this case, which parts?), or none of it?

Outright bans I think are appropriate only in fairly limited cases. A user needs to be convincingly shown to be destructive to the project, without any intention to change.
Unless they make up a new rule, no.
I am in favor of the 3RR. At one time I had more reservations about it than I do now. In some cases I do tend to be more sympathetic about violations of the rule than some other admins, because I know from experience the kinds of situations that can arise that aren't always properly addressed by the rule. Nevertheless, I think it has been useful in keeping revert wars from boiling out of control, and putting more focus on talk. For the record I am pretty sure I've never blocked anyone for a 3RR violation, although that doesn't mean I disagree with any particular blockings. It does mean that I am hesitant about it and don't feel comfortable doing it personally.
The link was removed because my views have evolved somewhat and I'd like to rewrite the page accordingly, but have so far been too lazy to do so. In general I endorse what I wrote there, but there are several things where I'd like to change the details or the emphasis. Everyking 08:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Followup from Linuxbeak

Everyking, your contributions and your activity on Wikipedia have been nothing short of controversial. However, I believe that your edits in terms of contributing down-right encyclopedic material has been outstandingly superb, and I believe that you are one of the best contributors to the project.

That being said... I want to ask you a single followup question based upon your response to Sjakkalle's question #1. Here we go...

Knowing your position in regards to banning, let us take a case from real life in which a user has indeed been banned permenantly: JarlaxleArtemis. His "contributions" were destructive (especially as he approached his final banning), and he successfully wasted several tens of hours of administrator time. He continues to harass users that were key in banning him. This is obviously unacceptable. According to your response above, the case of JarlaxleArtemis seems to be a clear-cut case in which you would endorse a ban. I am, however, uncertain of your position. Please understand that this is not hustling or intimidation; I just want your response. What is your opinion on the matter? Assume that you are an arbitrator. Was a ban necessary or unnecessary? Please give a reason to your response.

I haven't seen enough of his edits to really judge. The closest thing to destruction I ever saw him do was adding images that seemed plainly to be copyvios. If I were an arbitrator I would have to review the evidence much more. Everyking 22:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am 21 years old and work for a supermarket.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I couldn't put a number on it, but I am definitely willing to put in substantial amounts of time.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I have one featured article to date of which I was the primary author (Penda of Mercia). Otherwise, I've written a lot of other content on Anglo-Saxon England, contemporary African politics, and some topics pertaining to current music and artists. Also there's tons of other stuff scattered around, I've got 50-60,000 main namespace edits, but as far as writing substantial original content those have been the areas I've worked in most.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: None.

Why does your candidate statement not mention that you've been sanctioned by this very body on three occasions? It sounds a bit like you're trying to hide something. Ambi 08:57, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned my past disagreements with the ArbCom. I was being concise and I figured that covered it. I was more interested in talking about my ideas about what's wrong with the ArbCom and how things could be done better. Everyking 09:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd had a myriad of disagreements with the ArbCom before I ran, and yet I'd never even been close to being involved in an actual case, so I see that as a bit misleading. It's nice to know your ideas, but it's a fairly fundamental thing to refuse to disclose. Ambi 16:10, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In light of your strong disagreement with much of the arbcom, do you think you could serve productively alongside all of them? Snowspinner 00:34, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The question is just as good if you turn it around: could they work productively alongside me, despite their disagreements with me? There are a number of arbitrators who I would find it difficult to get along with, I suppose, since we don't get along now. I don't know what the composition of the ArbCom will look like after this election, though. In any case I'd try my best to get along. Wikipedia is all about people who disagree finding common ground and working cooperatively. And there's no sense in having a group of people who all get along swell and agree on everything if they're always making bad decisions. Besides, as I mentioned in my candidate statement, one thing I'd like to see change would be to open up the ArbCom, with more seats in the future and also more dialogue with the community and the affected parties regarding cases. I am not very interested in the behind-the-scenes discussions that go on without the community knowing anything until they see the arbitrators' votes. Everyking 01:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's all well and good - and I don't necessarily disagree with the idea of more arbitrators. But election to the arbcom and opening up the arbcom are unrelated concerns. You've all but accused existing members of the arbcom of cronyism, corruption, and incompetence. If the composition of the arbcom mostly remains unchanged, do you think you can have a civil and productive working relationship? Or are your votes going to be wasted oppose votes that serve to do nothing but produce a symbolic dissent on cases? Snowspinner 02:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you, there's no sense in having a committee that gets along fine but makes bad decisions. I would rather be elected and have a bad relationship with the other arbitrators than not be elected and see it go along in the same old awful way. But—as I also already said—I have every intention of trying to get along if I am elected ("Wikipedia is all about people who disagree finding common ground and working cooperatively"). Everyking 05:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Dragons flight

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most recently, dealing with you.

Well, I couldn't resist that one. Everyking 03:06, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about it, this question does raise something interesting. Is having a finely tuned bullshit detector a necessity for an arbitrator—does it really help at all? Well, I don't know. Maybe it does. But I think this reflects a perception of the ArbCom as a court. I don't doubt that it is a court—I just don't think it really should be a court primarily. You need bullshit detectors if you're out looking for lies, for the guilty and the innocent, etc. I'd rather have an ArbCom which focuses less on finding people guilty and sentencing them, and looks more like a form of mediation, but with some finality, more structure and teeth to make sure things get done, and also makes some decisions on the theoretical level—applying the generalities of Wikipedia policy to specific cases, setting precedents. Obviously the application varies widely, but the idea is to have less of the "court" mentality, the "bullshit detector" mentality.

Phil posted this to every candidate statement page, apparently, including his own. He answered himself with a little comment about how he teaches freshman composition, so his detector is naturally fine-tuned. (He's teaching students 5 years younger than himself, something like that? Irrelevant, I guess) What kind of attitude is that? It's very cynical. The feeling I always get from him is one of total contempt for virtually everyone else—I don't mean that as an insult, just an observation, and maybe an idiosyncratic one. (And you can start proving me wrong any time you want, Phil.) Well, on WP we have Assume good faith—how well does the bullshit detector requirement mesh with AGF? I'm not saying there aren't times where there's bullshit out there and it's good to be able to detect it—the problem is in the attitude. Someone who considers a bullshit detector to be an important thing is not really the kind of person I think makes a good arbitrator. You've got to be kind, you've got to be generous, you've got to be trusting to a large extent: it's not naive, it's what works. You've got a project where everybody on earth with a net connection can edit, where banned users can manage to evade their bans half the time—turning on your bullshit detector and kicking ass is the wrong attitude, whether you're looking at it morally or just pragmatically. Inclusiveness and reconciliation is the right attitude—that's the democratic spirit that Wikipedia is based on, and we'll benefit roughly to the extent that we apply it, and suffer roughly to the extent that we deny it. Everyking 10:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Form Question from karmafist

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? karmafist 18:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not much of a believer in IAR. I think it needs to be modified greatly or eliminated entirely. Aside from that I think policy is relatively consistent, but I'm a big believer in turning to the community to work out policy issues when they arise. Everyking 19:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from User:-Ril-

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?

--Victim of signature fascism 16:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from Marsden

As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]