Question
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
-- HK 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Both should be in place ages ago. The former is rather long though, I thought the Recusal section could be easily summarised with use common sense. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Empty Q&A, What's This?
The reason why there was only one question on Q&A, is because I joined the elections around the last few days. I apologise for my lateness in my candidacy. I'm not sure if questions may still be posted, but if it is I welcome any new questions to be posted to clarify your doubts.
After looking at the current votes, I suppose many would like me to elaborate on my statement and direction, so here it is. Personally, I believe that punishment should be handed out on the basis that it would hopefully reform users, and giving them a second chance of change. Don't be surprised to see me in favour for shorter bans and alternative action (such as mentorship, probation, article bans, etc). A good example would be Mike Garcia, reformed member currently on mentorship under Jimbo's instructions. If you simply hardban a user outright, he/she's probably only going to jump his/her ban and continually reset the date.
I believe an arbitrator should have three important aspects that they must uphold, which are part of my principles - Integrity, civility and sense of shame :
- Arbitrators are in a way seen by the community as role models and should show examplary conduct and integrity, for that they are assigned to handle the dirtiest of cases. I'm personally surprised by the length of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Code_of_Conduct, because I had previously believed that the community gives trust to the arbitrators' integrity to not to go down to almost every single scenario.
- Civility is paramount. In real life, I used to get mad before, but you'll quickly realise that you won't make many friends for that. The same thing goes in Wikipedia. I believe that I have tried my best in keeping my cool, and have a clean record in civility.
- For sense of shame, it is the ability to able to reflect one's actions when questioned or brought to attention, and if one does feel embarassment for his/her actions it should be corrected. It should be understood that as humans, everyone will have their shortcomings, but it depends whether one is willing to change for the better that really matters.
- Yours faithfully, Mailer Diablo 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding this Q&A section a bit. One question I would like to ask is your opinion on WP:IAR. What are your general thoughts on the appropriate use of it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- If strictly speaking, IAR isn't official policy. However, I think its should be treated as the same way that we treat WP:BOLD - ...but don't be reckless! pretty much sums up my views about IAR. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You've indicated above support for the Code of Conduct, while implying that it and the Bill of Rights could be rendered simply as "use common sense." I agree with that view. Taken with your views on Ignore All Rules and WP:BOLD, how do you feel about the following statement: administrators wear two hats; that of a sysop and that of an editor. An editor is bold, and may ignore all rules, but a sysop does so at his peril. A good administrator always remembers which hat he is wearing. -- Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- An administrator caught wearing both hats on in an editing dispute, gives people the feeling no different from being caught as a two-timer. I see the mop and bucket more as a janitoral tool, in which a good sysop indeed will always remember to set them aside when one goes editing as an editor. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name one
arbitration case which you disagreed with the final decision or opinion? How would your opinion differ in that case?
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir. It appears to be rushed; more time should have been spent on its investigation which may impact on final decision. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name one arbitration case which you thought worked spectacularly well? What let that case be so effective? --
maclean25 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2, although the user in question did somehow ended up in another case (over something else), giving him the second chance and the resulting improvement of his conduct on the article in question has led to the eventual discharge of his mentorship. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 13 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 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. [1]
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 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Question
What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?
-- HK 15:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Both should be in place ages ago. The former is rather long though, I thought the Recusal section could be easily summarised with use common sense. - Mailer Diablo 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Empty Q&A, What's This?
The reason why there was only one question on Q&A, is because I joined the elections around the last few days. I apologise for my lateness in my candidacy. I'm not sure if questions may still be posted, but if it is I welcome any new questions to be posted to clarify your doubts.
After looking at the current votes, I suppose many would like me to elaborate on my statement and direction, so here it is. Personally, I believe that punishment should be handed out on the basis that it would hopefully reform users, and giving them a second chance of change. Don't be surprised to see me in favour for shorter bans and alternative action (such as mentorship, probation, article bans, etc). A good example would be Mike Garcia, reformed member currently on mentorship under Jimbo's instructions. If you simply hardban a user outright, he/she's probably only going to jump his/her ban and continually reset the date.
I believe an arbitrator should have three important aspects that they must uphold, which are part of my principles - Integrity, civility and sense of shame :
- Arbitrators are in a way seen by the community as role models and should show examplary conduct and integrity, for that they are assigned to handle the dirtiest of cases. I'm personally surprised by the length of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Code_of_Conduct, because I had previously believed that the community gives trust to the arbitrators' integrity to not to go down to almost every single scenario.
- Civility is paramount. In real life, I used to get mad before, but you'll quickly realise that you won't make many friends for that. The same thing goes in Wikipedia. I believe that I have tried my best in keeping my cool, and have a clean record in civility.
- For sense of shame, it is the ability to able to reflect one's actions when questioned or brought to attention, and if one does feel embarassment for his/her actions it should be corrected. It should be understood that as humans, everyone will have their shortcomings, but it depends whether one is willing to change for the better that really matters.
- Yours faithfully, Mailer Diablo 02:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for expanding this Q&A section a bit. One question I would like to ask is your opinion on WP:IAR. What are your general thoughts on the appropriate use of it? Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- If strictly speaking, IAR isn't official policy. However, I think its should be treated as the same way that we treat WP:BOLD - ...but don't be reckless! pretty much sums up my views about IAR. - Mailer Diablo 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You've indicated above support for the Code of Conduct, while implying that it and the Bill of Rights could be rendered simply as "use common sense." I agree with that view. Taken with your views on Ignore All Rules and WP:BOLD, how do you feel about the following statement: administrators wear two hats; that of a sysop and that of an editor. An editor is bold, and may ignore all rules, but a sysop does so at his peril. A good administrator always remembers which hat he is wearing. -- Mackensen (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- An administrator caught wearing both hats on in an editing dispute, gives people the feeling no different from being caught as a two-timer. I see the mop and bucket more as a janitoral tool, in which a good sysop indeed will always remember to set them aside when one goes editing as an editor. - Mailer Diablo 13:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name one
arbitration case which you disagreed with the final decision or opinion? How would your opinion differ in that case?
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Snowspinner vs. Lir. It appears to be rushed; more time should have been spent on its investigation which may impact on final decision. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Can you name one arbitration case which you thought worked spectacularly well? What let that case be so effective? --
maclean25 05:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2, although the user in question did somehow ended up in another case (over something else), giving him the second chance and the resulting improvement of his conduct on the article in question has led to the eventual discharge of his mentorship. - Mailer Diablo 13:45, 13 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 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. [1]
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 20:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)