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]

As the beginning of the vote draws near, I want to make one more point: in this election, the most important choice you make may be whether to choose candidates with an authoritarian or democratic mindset, with exclusive or inclusive views regarding ArbCom matters. I can promise you that I stand firmly behind the goal of openness and fairness in ArbCom procedure, and I would represent a democratic and inclusive mindset to the very best of my ability. A vote for me is a rejection of ArbCom authoritarian tendencies and secrecy, and an endorsement of the idea that the ArbCom should move closer to the community, and work in harmony with it. Everyking 23:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You have often been critical of bans at all. In what cases do you think bans are appropriate?
2. You yourself have been subject to sanctions by the Arbitration Comitee. Do you think that might be a problem for your candidacy?
3. What is your position now on the 3RR?
4. 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?

1. 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.
2. Unless they make up a new rule, no.
3. 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.
4. 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]

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...

1. 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.

1. 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

Yes (left-wing, secular and nonreligious); only if I had personally been involved in the matter (because arbitration decisions at present regard behavior and not content. If the ArbCom expands its role to handle content in the future, I would consider recusing in these cases, but only if having arbitrators recusing for content reasons wasn't seriously depleting the number available to hear a case).

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

Pretty willing. Given my history of opposing some of their more controversial rulings, I think the ArbCom can already say I'm not one to "go with the flow", and I'm not even an arbitrator yet.

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

Not at all. But there should be some reason that I consider legitimate.

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?

No, I don't think that is necessary; I think it depends on the situation (although this not something that's ever occurred to me before, so that's not a particularly well-considered view).

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

Everyking 05:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Well, 22 doesn't seem terribly young to me (had a birthday since I answered the question originally) when we've got plenty of teenage administrators, and I think a few that aren't even teenagers yet (don't hold me to that—maybe early teens), and also I'm pretty sure there've been arbs who are younger than me—I know Ambi is younger. I think Grunt too? And maybe others. But, while I personally tend to hold little bias against Wikipedians on the grounds of age, it doesn't bother me if somebody wants arbitrators older than me. Everyking 04:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

At your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) of Zulu culture. You probably also have little grounding in Eskimo law, or Micronesian coming of age ritual. Do you feel that would be a problem? --Victim of signature fascism 08:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very surprised you're so young. I find your work all the more impressive knowing this, as is the case with Ambi. Anyway, I have a question. The only other candidate whose work rivals your own as a content editor is SimonP. You are uniquely qualified for the job; and I want to vote for you. However, I worry that you may be too lenient. Would you be able to give me an idea of when you'd apply santions? Thanks. 172 10:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I can't really say I wouldn't be more lenient than the current arbitrators, because I probably would be. But my hope for the ArbCom is that it could facilitate practical resolution without necessarily requiring punitive measures—having watched the ArbCom throughout its existence, and especially closely for the last year, my perception is that a large minority, if not a majority of cases could be adequately resolved with a reasonable compromise between the involved parties. A lot of the time, it just takes the ArbCom to step in, set boundaries and require that a compromise is accepted by everyone involved. I often go back to using my own Arb cases as examples—they may not be fully representative of the average case, but you can see something of the problematic thinking at work when you look at them—in all three cases, I was completely willing to compromise on anything, to accept any kind of reasonable deal that would end the dispute without sanctions, and moreover to acknowledge the flaws in my own conduct. In all three cases, no matter how much I maintained this, and no matter how often I made proposals, I was basically ignored. Punitive remedies were pushed through regardless.

When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. There are certainly cases where there's no choice but to apply sanctions—a per article ban, a per topic ban, a personal attack parole, a revert limitation, and in extreme cases total bans from the project for a given period. When a contributor is doing more good, I think it's a better idea to force people into the process—to mandate solutions and apply penalties only when those solutions are rejected. For example, if you've got a revert warrior, require that every revert is accompanied by an explanation of adequate length on the talk page. That way you're forcing people to talk to each other: if you want to revert, fine, but you're going to have to talk in proportion to the reverting you're doing. If the discussion is uncivil and not bearing fruit? Have things watched by a neutral party to apply short-term blocks for incivility, which can be interpreted variously depending on the degree of the incivility—a severe problem with incivility will mean that no hint of personal hostility will be tolerated. I also like the idea of making liberal use of mentors and mentor teams—empower volunteers, and I think there are plenty out there, who are neutral and can be trusted, to monitor conduct and apply penalties if needed. It's better not to close the gate to someone who is, in general, doing us good; what we need is to force them to work more constructively, to narrow the path available to them while leaving ways for them to help out. Everyking 15:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for such a thoughtful reply! My concerns now have been totally addressed. You're quite right that the Arbcom runs the risk of being too putative with good editors who have made an honest mistake (e.g., IMO such was the case with Stevertigo) or who naturally attract controversy given the nature of the topics in which they are interested (e.g., IMO such was the case with IZAK and RK). You do an especially good job describing the need to work on a case-by-case basis: When would I apply sanctions? I look at it in terms of an editor's good and bad contributions. To what extent does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? When a contributor is doing more bad than good, then it's definitely time to consider some penalties. Given the great quantity and quality, along with the regularity, of your contributions on Wikipedia, you probably are particularly well-positioned to make such judgments. I look forward to voting for you again, as I did last time. 172 01:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James, I think the arbitration committee is largely a power trip for wannabe lawyers and jackboot-worshipping types, some of whom the encyclopaedia would possibly even be better off without, let alone empowering, and its proceedings waste an enormous amount of time, which could generally be saved by telling half the people involved to stop being pricks and just get on with creating content. Still, most involved seem to enjoy it, so it's only really a bad thing when users who want nothing to do with it get dragged into the whole nonsense. There's never much justice involved though, and clearly the system is sufficiently entrenched that you'd have little chance of affecting that. So lord knows why you want any part of it.

That's not my question though, because you've explained why you want in. What I want to know is, in the rather unlikely event that you get sufficient support, do you think Jimbo will favour you? Do you have any views on whether Jimbo's exercise of his discretion taints the whole "election"? -- Grace Note.

No, I would not expect him to favor me. In fact I suspect I am one of the people, if not the main person, he has in mind when insisting on having a personal veto over candidates. I find it obnoxious that there's this idea that having me on the ArbCom would just be a negative factor, that I'd be a pest the other arbs would just have to work around. In the short to medium term (i.e., what I think could possibly be accomplished in the course of a year) I'd want to push for A) greater openness, which would first and foremost mean eliminating or reducing the role of the ArbCom mailing list (and I would personally commit to not posting on it, and doing all my discussion and deliberation out in the open) and IRC, and concentrating on public decision-making. Right now, I feel what is put out on the wiki are mere formalities, and everything that really matters is done in secret. B) A bigger focus on getting the participants in a case to resolve matters with their own suggestions, ideas, and commitments, as non-punitively as possible, with the ArbCom serving more as facilitators than judges, but with the authority to lay the law down if necessary. One thing I also believe pretty strongly is that we have an anarchistic admin environment which favors the more aggressive admins over the more passive ones; therefore another reform I have in mind is setting up small mentor committees to judge and enforce matters pertaining to individual cases once they have been decided, instead of allowing it to be an admin free-for-all. As it stands now, the harshest possible interpretation of a ruling will usually prevail: Snowspinner, or someone similar, will make that harsh interpretation, block accordingly, and if anybody unblocks he will block again. Since he is more aggressive and assertive, he will always win. If you really challenge him about it, you'll face the ArbCom yourself. That business has got to stop. There needs to be organization and fairness about enforcement. Everyking 05:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?

1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?

1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 06:39, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:30, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? SqueakBox 16:54, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)? Radiant_>|< 02:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

Yes; any circumstances it wants

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?

Yes

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?

Yes; in cases where I see both sides are poorly represented I will try to add content for both sides. Everyking 02:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

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

Yes

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.

Yes

Sorry, which parts?

Sorry. That was supposed to be "no".

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?

Yes. Everyking 06:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(One more question I'm asking everyone:)

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. —James S. 07:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No; haven't gotten around to it (would get involved in it if I thought it had potential to go anywhere) Everyking 08:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a little forward but I'll ask anyway. Do you prefer carrots or potatoes? Think carefully now... --Celestianpower ^háblame 11:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about radishes? Matt Yeager 07:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In favor, in cases of sysop abuse, although it should go to RfA for the final decision. Everyking 05:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would you view as sysop abuse? (Going to RFA for the final decision is generally enforced by allowing the desysopee to reapply for privileges at any time, I understand.) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using administrative tools in violation of policy or in opposition to something that has been decided through community process. Everyking 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with 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 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. [4]

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? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A) I think templates are something that are just a feature of the community now, and we should be liberal about them, although I suppose we do need certain limits—that's something to be dealt with by community vote, though, and if something I think is over the line is judged to be inside the line by the community, then it should stay.

B) I don't see any particular need for the ArbCom to get involved in a situation like this; as a last resort it could, but any judgment should be made only in concord with the community. Strong community involvement in all aspects of such a case would be essential. Everyking 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]