Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.
Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.
Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].
An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it. [4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.
If you were arbitrating the case against yourself, how would you have handled the case? What penalties, if any, would you have dealt to yourself and other involved parties? Ral315 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You recently filed an WP:RfC on the "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse", which was moved into your userspace following a debate at WP:MFD. I filed an outside view which referred to you as a " troll" (for which I apologize; I disagreed with your point and presentation, but it was still valid); do you still feel strongly about the nature of the "admin culture", and do you feel that you could work well with your fellow arbitrators, most of whom are administrators? Additionally, do you feel administrators who abuse their powers are very common, and, if so, how do you feel they should be dealt with? Thank you in advance for you answers, Silverback.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Given your response at Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2, why do you feel that you would be level headed enough for the ArbCom? I realise I'm going back quite some way, but I haven't seen any evidence you've changed your ways since then. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: 52 -- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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 can be good arbitrator in terms of quality in just a couple hours a month depending on the complexity of the case, I won't sign off on decisions I haven't researched. However, I assume you are using "good" somehow in the sense of quantity of work, rather than quality. I expect that I will be able to average about 30 to 50 hours a month, but on occasions due to job deadlines may have to miss a week or two.-- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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've been called a POV edit warrior, and I certainly have not shied away from the controversial articles, but a lot of my contributions make it into the articles, based on arguments on the merits, so perhaps I was just upholding encyclopedic standards rather than just being a POV edit warrior. I find that controversial articles are often more in need of balance and new arguments that make both sides see that the opposing side is more reasonable, defensible and evidence based than they originally thought. Frankly, I've seen cliques acting as if they were absolutely sure they were right and that they just had an obstinate person opposing them, then I've analyzed the situation and found out that the clique was quite wrong, and was actually violating NOR and were reflexively rejecting peer reviewed sources by the other side, just because they disagreed with the result. Sorry but NPOV and NOR trumps "consensus".-- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: None. -- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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
18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
PurplePlatypus 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(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?
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?
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?
-- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
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?
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.
Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.
Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].
An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it. [4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.
If you were arbitrating the case against yourself, how would you have handled the case? What penalties, if any, would you have dealt to yourself and other involved parties? Ral315 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
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 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You recently filed an WP:RfC on the "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse", which was moved into your userspace following a debate at WP:MFD. I filed an outside view which referred to you as a " troll" (for which I apologize; I disagreed with your point and presentation, but it was still valid); do you still feel strongly about the nature of the "admin culture", and do you feel that you could work well with your fellow arbitrators, most of whom are administrators? Additionally, do you feel administrators who abuse their powers are very common, and, if so, how do you feel they should be dealt with? Thank you in advance for you answers, Silverback.-- Sean| Bla ck 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Given your response at Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2, why do you feel that you would be level headed enough for the ArbCom? I realise I'm going back quite some way, but I haven't seen any evidence you've changed your ways since then. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Many people have noted that Wikipedia's original communitarian structure is no longer functioning very well. One editor has suggested that ArbCom is "about getting the trains to run on time," which is a reference to a fulfulled promise of Mussolini's fascist government. Do you agree that Wikipedia needs to become more orderly, and if so, do you think there are any options other than a move toward a more centrally controlled authoritarian system? Do you think that the spirit of cooperation in Wikipedia would survive such a change? Marsden 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: 52 -- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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 can be good arbitrator in terms of quality in just a couple hours a month depending on the complexity of the case, I won't sign off on decisions I haven't researched. However, I assume you are using "good" somehow in the sense of quantity of work, rather than quality. I expect that I will be able to average about 30 to 50 hours a month, but on occasions due to job deadlines may have to miss a week or two.-- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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've been called a POV edit warrior, and I certainly have not shied away from the controversial articles, but a lot of my contributions make it into the articles, based on arguments on the merits, so perhaps I was just upholding encyclopedic standards rather than just being a POV edit warrior. I find that controversial articles are often more in need of balance and new arguments that make both sides see that the opposing side is more reasonable, defensible and evidence based than they originally thought. Frankly, I've seen cliques acting as if they were absolutely sure they were right and that they just had an obstinate person opposing them, then I've analyzed the situation and found out that the clique was quite wrong, and was actually violating NOR and were reflexively rejecting peer reviewed sources by the other side, just because they disagreed with the result. Sorry but NPOV and NOR trumps "consensus".-- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: None. -- Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
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
18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? ( SEWilco 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
PurplePlatypus 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Tito xd( ?!? - help us) 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
(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?
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?
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?
-- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
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?
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.
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?
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. — James S. 06:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):
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 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)