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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, or should not, legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.

The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspilage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. I've been a Wikipedian since December 2004 and an administrator since July. Dmcdevit·t 23:04, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Question from Marsden

You seem to have thrown your hat into the ring a week after the discussion page warned that anyone who wished to be considered for ArbCom should list himself "immediately." Were you aware that the "race" had essentially been declared closed before you entered yourself into it? Has the "race" been re-openned without an announcement? Has some special consideration been made for your candidacy, and if this is the case, do you know why it was made? Marsden 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I was approached a while ago by Kelly Martin befoe the newest round of clarifications by Jimbo. At the time, it appeared that the candidate statements would be irrelevant. Since I felt I did not really want to seek the position, but would not refuse if Jimbo or the other arbitrators felt I was reasonable enough to offer, I decided not to list a candidacy, but just wait and see. This was about the same time some other candidates were withdrawing because they didn't think the statements had any clear purpose. As the mood changed and the announcement to list immediately was made, I was still wary of seeking the position, so I decided to hold off. I decided to list myself only yesterday after I had a talk with Mindspillage, and became convinced that I might as well make a statement, especially as I think I may not be all that well-known (at least as much as some other candidates), so the community should have a chance to get to know me. I guess since I'm listed anyway, it would have been better to have done so earlier, but I can't change that. I don't expect any special treatment; if it's too late, then it's too late. :) Dmcdevit·t 01:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. You seem to have made a real fan in 129.82.30.53. ;) Marsden 02:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I appreciated the effort on his part, so I've remembered that particular vandalism all these months. :) Dmcdevit·t 02:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 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: Since this is already on my user page: I am 18 and a student at Reed College. However, I don't think this has any relevance to the position. If you are looking for some kind of measure of maturity or experience, I suggest you look at my actual contributions. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 8 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: Having spoken to arbitrators, I'm convinced that 1-3 hours a day, with extra time on weekends, is sufficient. Of course this will vary with the case load, but I'm up to the task. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 8 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 appreciate your opinion, but I must disagree with your premise. I don't believe that article namespace contributions are "very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants" other than insofar as they make me a knowledgeable participant in the Wikipedia community. I could point to a few articles I've worked on (I have, I think, two FLs, and have made significant contributions to Black Death, for instance), but I recognize that I have been otherwise preoccupied in the Talk and Wikipedia namespaces recently. Rather, I think that my experience to make a good arbitrator, and my "understanding the mindset of disputants" in particular, comes from the many mediations and discussions, whether formal and high-profile or casual and low-key, with a range of personalities and situations. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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

A: None. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 8 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 18:32, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I appear to have missed this question earlier, but I have answered a similar question below. Ask me if this doesn't clarify your question. Dmcdevit·t 07:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from -Ril-

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?

I suppose some people would say I have strong political views, (though it's more of a general cynicism), though I never edit those kind of articles. I see arbitration as dealing with problem users not content. People can be problem users regardless of their views, and that's what needs to be adresed. I'm sure I can deal with an edit warrior or an uncivil editor, or whatever the problem is, who is very pro- or anti-Bush or pro- or anti-Islam without recusing myself for only that reason. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I believe that part of coming to a decision is approaching discussions (especially with people I respect) with an open mind and a willingness to incorporate the good ideas of others. Having said that, my opinions are my own, whatever ideas of others I incorporate into my own, are because I myself legitimately agree with them. The flip side of this is that I am more than willing to express any dissent to others, and I expect them to consider my points. Whether I do disagree or not, it will never be because I am simply "going with the flow". Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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

I don't see that "automatic decisions" have any place in ArbCom. There are plenty of premature such requests, but there are reasons to re-address cases, either because the behavior is unchanged (eg Zen-master's probation extension, Rex071404's last case), because the user is changed, and restrictions are not in WP's best interest (removal of Everyking's revert parole, probably others I can't think of now), or some other reason. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

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?

Absolutely. If something neds doing because it will make Wikipedia better, it should be done. An arbitration case is not litigation. Often the best way to resolve a conflict is to address all parties involved. Dmcdevit·t 21:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Hm. It is honestly a very tough question to address. I guess my original statement "I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies" is how I would characterize it. I think the idea of IAR is essentially good. Especially applied editorially, it makes article editing easier. The principle is that we shouldn't let the rules get in the way of encyclopedia-writing, and if they ever do, they don't need to be followed. Policies are useful tools for us, and represent simply generalities that have wide enough consensus that they can be written down and agreed upon (of course it's important that most policies are always changing, even slightly). They just can't reasonably apply to every situation and give the best outcome if blindly applied. I think "IAR" is a good principle, but there are problems with WP:IAR.
If anyone ever "invokes the rule" of ignoring all rules (which I've seen) then they've really missed the point. Often, IAR is used (speaking about administrative action primarily here) to justify actions that can't be reasonably defended otherwise. If I'm in an edit confict with another editor, and I block them citing IAR, that just doesn't cut it for a number of reasons. Basically, any correct "application" of IAR is indeed an application of policy, insofar as policy, written or not, is simply good practice for the encyclopedia with community support. If the application is good practice for the encyclopedia with community support, and can be defended in those terms (without even needing to cite IAR) then it passes. It is absolutely not (intentionally or not) an excuse for administrative abuse, and a pattern of such demands action. I hope this gives a good idea of how I think, but it is a complex issue, and one that is much harder to address in general terms than in responding to specific instances. Feel free to ask for further clarification. Dmcdevit·t 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

  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?
    Civility is integral. In fact, I'm not sure that a persistently, strongly uncivil can be an exemplary article editor. Incivility is a hindrance to collaboration, our lifeblood. Incivility prevents true consensus-building discussion; it puts off other good editors to working on articles with the editor, and even puts good editors off to working on Wikipedia. Overall, incivilty, in all its forms is bad, for the encyclopedia. The rare transgression in a heated moment by an otherwise good editor should be viewed in the context of their past. But anyone who makes a pattern of it is doing Wikipedia harm, and I would not back away from shaping a remedy for it. And as to an editor's popularity or adminship, it is immaterial; civility is not negotiable.
  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?
    I'm currently an undergraduate student, I'll leave it up to you whether that makes me an academic :) I could tell you that of course I always respond amenably to a constructive critique (and I do think I do that, and I think they would confirm it), but I think you are trying to get at how I respond to criticism directed at me in general. I think my actions are always up for review by the community, and I honestly appreciate any good critique offered. I'll probably even engage in a philosophical (wiki-philosophy) discussion for the excercise. Shockingly, I have made mistakes, and I admit it. And want to fix any brought to my attention, and want them brought to my attention. As for civility, I think the merit of the criticism is what should be responded to, as that's what would accomplish the self-improvement. I find the best way to respond to incivility is to be nice (incidentally, it's the best way to respond to niceness, too). Of course these are my ideals, I suppose I've probably transgressed it before, most likely with an ill-considered sarcasm, but that goes under the "mistake deserving of criticism" category I discussed earlier, and not acceptable. :)
  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.)
Er, see below. Tell me if that doesn't answer the question. Dmcdevit·t 07:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

PurplePlatypus 08:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

  1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
    Honestly, all these time questions are hard to answer, considering I have never been been an arbitrator. Of course I'm hoping that everyone I've talked to or seen mention the time the spend on it is either exaggerating or really slow, but I do expect it'll be a lot of time. Possibly it'll even become the majority of my time on Wikipedia. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  2. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom deliberations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
    Outside of the article space, I currently spend a lot of time patrolling WP:RFPP, and keeping track of protected pages in general. I also occasionally take a try (or am drawn in unwillingly :) at helping out with the disputes I find there and elsewhere. Also take care of any things I find on AN that I can (along with many others, of course), and am increasingly spending time volunteering on info-en. And I always have article space aspirations, as well as plans to attack the WP:TL. I also maintain this question page, but only recently. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
  3. To what extent would those projects be affected?
    Well, I guess if it really did take up the majority of my time, that's how much time would be taken away from those tasks... Or it might end up being really easy like I asked. And my maintenance of this page would really suffer. Dmcdevit·t 07:54, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:36, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(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?

I don't know Jimbo's view, though I suspect (based on your "regardless") that it puts Jimbo as the sole arbiter (haha) of that decision. Though I do, of course, trust him to take the community's views into consideration, hypothetically it is sound to suggest that a strong consensus within the community (read near-unanimity) could affect the same result. I fail to believe that we would ever be faced with such a situation, however.

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?

I'm not sure I can answer this. Your 150:50 figure (which seems an obvious reference to Kelly Martin) is not sufficient in that RFCs are made up of varying and overlapping statements, and are not really meat to be a dichotomy. Also, it is very possible, in my mind, for an arbitrator to be judged a poor administrator or editor in some regard which has no bearing on their arbitratorship. Of course, determing the community consensus would likely need to involve a poll of some sort (after discussion), but as to the RFC format or the abuses involved, I can't do better than these generalities without a specific situation to assess.
Although it clearly can refer to Kelly Martin, her case is somewhat moot in this regard, since her appointment is temporary and only lasts until these elections. However, the question was intended as a general one, the reference being made to demonstrate the non-hypothetical nature of the question. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I would add that the kind of person I, and presumably the rest of the community, would support (and this includes myself) I expect to not ever be faced with a situation where the community supports their removal, but if so, to modify behavior accordingly or step down. This should describe all of our arbitrators. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

I'll need to think about this a bit more, will get to it back in a while (though I'll note right now that I don't often edit political or religious articles). Dmcdevit·t 06:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
This question concerns when you do edit such articles. Also note that articles about politicians, periods in history (e.g. wars of the roses, cromwell, american civil war, french revolution), art (e.g. ancient and modern), and other topics also frequently have more than one stance. The question is an important one as it helps us to guage whether you act and are likely to act neutrally or only to support your own biases. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Hm. Most of my recent arcicle space contributions have been either translations (e.g. Biblioteca Nacional de Colombia) or lists (list of national libraries, list of UN peacekeeping missions, etc.), as well as the typical cleanup. Of course, I did write a large chunk of Black Death way back when, which I suppose had some stuff I'd disagree with in the "alternate explanations" section. I'm sure I've wikified/cleaned up dome political articles of subjects I disagree with... But I'm finding it hard to find some edit to point at. On the flip side, I don't think I've ever seriously been accused of introducing POV into an article. Dmcdevit·t 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 01:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

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?

I absolutely pledge to recuse myself whenever my impartiality would be compromised. That's true regardless of the wording of this code. Frankly, writing it down doesn't make it any more of a rule, and if there's anyone who we couldn't trust to recuse themselves when appropriate, they shouldn't be an arbitrator.

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.

In general, I object to the idea of needing a code of conduct, and see it as an invitation to Wikilawyering and instruction creep. Following the same principle as my previous answer, any arbitrator that needs this code of conduct to act properly shouldn't be an arbitrator in the first place. After a cursory look at that page, I find I agree with some of it, but still find the page unnecessary. If you'd like to ask me a question on a specific philosophic point contained there (or not), go ahead.

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?

If we need more arbitrators, I'm not opposed to it in principle, but I think that's as much up to the community as to the arbitrators. Currently though, I don't think it's clear that that's necessary; we have quite a few resigned or inactive arbitrators, and with as many as eight new arbitrators joining, any backlog will have to be reassessed then.

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.

I haven't. First, let me stress that m:voting is evil. I firmly believe that polls hinder discussion and consensus-building. Having said that (and I see that I made one comment there in August) I honestly wasn't that concerned with what form this selection process was decided to take. I figure Jimbo, straight election, or in between will get us a mostly reasonable ArbCom (even if I'm not there). Having spent a lot of time working on a more than a few cases now, I can tell you most of it's just drudgery and patience. :-) Dmcdevit·t 07:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:26, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Administrator

How would you deal with irrational administrators? Especially when a bunch of them gang up on ordinary mortals. Shivraj Singh 09:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no qualms about dealing with administrators who misuse their position. That is, of course, totally different from those who are only involved in a dispute editorially. I strongly believe the principle that administrative status gives one no more weight editorially, and so your question is a bit ambiguous in that regard. There is no "ganging up" in a proper admin action; if an action is proper, then the agreement and enforcement by other admins is also proper, or if it is improper, then the agreement and enforcement by other admins is also improper. But the fact is that many fall somewhere in between, and while I believe in giving admins lattitude in using their own discretion in such circumstances, I have also been critical of admins who do so against consensus or are unresponsive to criticism. Hope this helps answer your question. Dmcdevit·t 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism page

How would you resolve the situation on the anarchism page?Harrypotter 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? I presume you are asking what I would do in an Anarchism arbitration case. This is hard for me to answer, not the least of which because I have had no statements made or evidence presented. Also, considering that one of the parties there is already before ArbCom, I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment right now. If, however, you would like to get a feel for how I would decide particular cases, I can tell you that I've been involved in, or have significant knowledge of, Instantnood 2, Lightbringer, Gibraltarian, Freestylefrappe, and Benjamin Gatti (and I will of course be recusing myself if any of the last three are still open at the beginning of the term). For instance, if I remember correctly, four of the five findings of fact in the proposed decision page in the Benjamin Gatti case were proposed by me on the workshop. I encourage you to take a look at these case and ask me about them if you care to. Dmcdevit·t 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Naturally it would wrong to ask on whose side you would come down on, but I am more interested in how you might try and resolve what is perhaps a paradox. However, I feel that the concept of creating two POV pages as if they some how balance out, is a very bad idea. Perhaps there should be another facility (wikimania?) where people can pretend that abstract nouns and private property. You certainly are prepared to put Lightbringer on manners, but seem prepared to tolerate just as abusive behaviour on the anarchism page. Harrypotter 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, what? I'm not prepared to tolerate any "abusive behavior", but I'm not able to reach that conclusion, having no background of the case. Of course, in general, POV forks are a bad idea. People who are disruptive in one article may be banned from it for a period of time, or put on probation with respect to it, or put on revert parole, whatever the case may be. As well, if the situation is dire enough that the article is currently protected (as it is), than an injunction could be used to end the edit warring and get it unprotected. However, I can't do more than this right now, and I hope the mediation is successful. Dmcdevit·t 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Problem users" and "productive editors"

(I decided to ask this question based on something I wrote on the talk page of your voting page.)

Several voters have taken exception to your use of the terms "problem users" and "productive editors" in your opening statement. I suspect some people are interpreting your comments to mean something you did not mean to imply, so I wonder if you could clarify by answering the following questions. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the question, I am a little concerned by that impression by some of the voters. The sentence in question "The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users" may be ambiguous, but when I said "dealing with" it was in the meaning of "placing sanctions on" or something to that effect. This is not meant to say that I have any inclination to see someone as a problem, but that arbcom only puts sanctions on probem users. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Would it be appropriate, in your mind, for an arbcom member to publicly refer to a specific user as a "problem user"?
    • I have worked on and spoken openly of arbitration cases in the past, but I recognize the responsibility for discretion that an arbitrator has in such matters. Without being able to predict the future, I won't make a pledge how I will refer to users, but I don't find the characterization "problem user" a helpful one when applied to individuals, since it is not descriptive, merely provocative. It is sensible, when making descriptive comments to use language that can be backed up with evidence, like X pushes a POV, or edit wars. "Problem user" is not some catch phrase I'm fond of, just two words I stuck together that seemed to fit my purposes for the statement. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Are you inclined to think of a user as a "problem user" because they appear before the arbcom?
    • I said earlier up on this page "I don't see that "automatic decisions" have any place in ArbCom" and that is true here, too. There is an evidence subpage for a reason, and I have provided evidence in the past. Cases withut evidence flounder, it is essential. In fact, if I ever had such a prejudice against a given user, then I would recuse myself as is proper. It hardly needs to be pointed out, but arbitrators are the last people we want violating WP:AGF, and I believe strongly in that principle. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  • What proportion of Wikipedia editors do you think are "problem users", what proportion are "productive editors", and what proportion are in the gray area inbetween?
    • I have no idea. Vandals are definitively problem users. I am inclined to believe that nearly everyone here is a well-intentioned and productive editor. There's no set of editors I can classify as a problem, and that kind of judgment requires individual analysis of a case. Which is what arbcom does. Dmcdevit·t 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punishment (a question from AndriyK)

James F. have written in his statement the following:

"I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project."

Are you agree with your colleague? If not, please explain you view on the purpose of the Arbitration Committee and the role of punishment.--AndriyK 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is correct. Banning should only be considered when there is no hope for a behavior change. Retribution for past wrongs has no place in arbitration, since the goal is to find the best solution for the encyclopedia that's possible. In that spirit, it is imperative that we explore other options short of banning to achieve that goal. If no solution short of banning will bring a benefit to our encyclopedia, then it is appropriate. That's not punishment at all (in the sense of a penalty for wrongdoing) but rather repairing a pattern of wrongdoing by the most beneficial means possible. Dmcdevit·t 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll support you.--AndriyK 06:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns over personal attack templates

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 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I think when we talk about these templates, there are a few things at play here. There is, first and foremost, the good of the encyclopedia, and how having them directly benefits or harms it, and then also how to go about dealing with it in a way that's also good for the encyclopedia. As to the tempates specifically, I think there are certainly some that have gone too far. Like user pages, userboxes should be used for Wikipedia-related information, personal information and views, and even silliness, but all within reason. User pages, including their templates, while given wide latitude, are still the collective property of the community. Inappropriate or offensive material can be and has been removed from user pages and subpages without the direction of the Arbitration Committee. I also believe that some of these templates (and their categories in particular) have, intentionally and unintentionally, caused partisanship over both their content and their existence, and that has been harmful. As to the point of freedom of speech, I would agree with Improv there, and also point out that, for the good of the encyclopedia, (for those Americans) "the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it." Nothing on Wikipedia should serve to be divisive amongst its own editors, especially if we can do something about it.
It has also been true, though, that some of the partisanship and harm has been caused by deletion of the templates without warning, and even some wheel warring that went with it. The harm of wheel warring, regardless of the reason, needs no explication, and it has been grounds for desysopping before. An arbitrator should have all of these considerations in mind, and try to strike a solution with the long term goal of the project inmind. This would include finding the balance between user page autonomy and its boundaries, as well as administrative enforcement of the boundaries for the overall good (and administrative disagreements over the administrative enforcement) and the boundries of that enforcement (when it becomes harmful) that is the most sensible, considering the circumstances presented in whatever the potential case is. Dmcdevit·t 05:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
You say: The harm of wheel warring, regardless of the reason, needs no explication, and it has been grounds for desysopping before.
Imagine that you are faced with someone (let's call him Tony) who does think that explication of the harm of wheel wharring is required. Please explicate.
Which editor has been desysopped for wheel warring? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
As for examples, off the top of my head, Stevertigo and 172 both wheel warred over their own 3RR blocks, 168 warred over the deletion of his own RFC, and Karmafist faced a motion to be desysopped after wheel warring, while Freestylefrappe is currently before Arbcom in part due to wheel warring. Of course the circumstances of each are different, and each likely involved much more evidence to encompass a pattern of abuse (and, thankfully, the sample size of desysopped admins is small).
When I talk about a "wheel war", I define it as repeated reversal of another admin's action. There is nothing acceptable about wheel wars. They, by definition, involve administrators, editors who are generally respected and their judgment trusted, and are expected to act responsibly. It is for each of these reasons that administrators are usually given discretion with their judgment: because we trust it. Engaging in wheel wars violates that trust and shows a disrespect for the other admins you are reversing. It is also a demonstration that someone is ill-suited to the position of administrator, if they can't deal with their disagreements by discussion, asking for outside opinions, and finding consensus for controversial actions. Administrators will disagree with other administrators, it is a fact, but wheel warring is harmful demonstration of lack of judgment and not the way to deal with it. Not having the decency to engage another admin in discussion and wheel warring is most likely a failure to assume good faith, as well. Consensus is one of the most important concepts an admin is expected to understand, and disregard for it is not on. The occurence of a wheel war is also disruptive to its subject; whether it's a user repeatedly blocked and unblocked, an article deleted and undeleted or protected and unprotected, that part of the 'Pedia can't function normally. Needless to say, I think wheel wars are good grounds for desysopping, though I would stress again the need for a pattern of misbehavior in any case. Dmcdevit·t 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that you will find that all of the above cases concerned, specifically, abuse of their sysop powers. The term "wheel war" is imprecise and has been used on Wikipedia to cover cases where a legitimate difference of opinion is expressed in successive opposite actions over a case where there is no settled opinion. A recent example that I hope we can both agree is not a wheel war, and was quite beneficial in resolving a case where there was quite a lot of disagreement and good arguments on both sides, is the pattern of blocks and unblocks in the case of Mistress Selina Kyle (block log).
But this is your candidacy, not mine, so I'll leave it there. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Candidate_statements_Dmcdevit_1f5e.html"