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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Hello all! I'm not going to lie. Even though, I've been a Wikipedan since October, 2004, there is still so much about the project and community that I still need to immerse myself in. Just some backgrounder, my real name is Luke and I herald from the Beautiful British Columbia city of Vancouver in Canada.

Since discovering Wikipedia in 2004, and in keeping with its' foundings, I believe that I have taken an active approach to improving the credibility and knowledge base of the database. As egotistical as it sounds, I feel that Wikipedia and future disputes will be well served by having me on the committee. I'm able to bring depth, experience, knowledge to resolving disputes and am able to approach problems to hopefully reach an un-biased, comprimisable decision.

With regards to banning, it is unfortunately neccessary during some situations. However, it should be noted that banning should only be used as a last resort and not freely.

On how the Committee should handle disputes, I feel that to ensure credibility and consistency, it should handle all potential cases as they are requested. I believe that some guiding pointers to follow when resolving disputes are:

  • to keep an open mind, free of prejudices
  • understand that even though this is an English version, that other cultures use this version
  • decisions should be for the good of the community and encyclopedia
  • always think first and never rush

Contents

[edit] Question

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights?

--HK 16:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel that Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct is a good idea. It will help sure restore credibility and respect to not only the committee but Wikipedia on whole. There are guidelines that Arbitration Committee members should follow. Its' good that a policy is being solidified to help guide the actions of the members. It will also ensure that cases are dealth with in a consistent and non-subjective manner. Along with the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct, I'm also a supporter of the user Bill of rights. However, I also feel that we should proceed carefully. We should not strive to create all-covering rules and guidelines but rather ones' that we can expand upon. Luke 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed that you tend to edit in chunks and on only a few pages, then disappear for a bit... are you ready and able to make your WP visits a regular part of your life? :) Janet13 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your question and taking the time to look into my Wikipedia background. Although not leaving a "trail" so to speak, I actually do spend a significant portion of my online time at Wikipedia. Most of my time although perhaps not indicated, are reading articles through the 'Random Article' function and reading 'Recent Changes'. I am ready to make a larger commitment, both in time and content, to the Wikipedia project. I hope this answers your question. Luke 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Form questions from Simetrical

  • What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
As an ArbCom penalty, I think it can be a totally legitimate action. However, hypothetically, that is not to say that in cases involving minor wrongful actions committed by a sysop, desysopping should not be taken. I, personally, would have to review past precedence and consider the facts of each case individually.
I think it should also be worth noting that if desysopping is a regular ArbCom penalty, it may be perhaps that sysop (Administrator) standards/guidelines are not/have not been implemented to address certain, perhaps, sysop prerequisites. But then again, that falls outside the realm of ArbCom, so to speak.
  • How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I think admins should have some guidelines to follow. This is especially important for the new admins who are, perhaps, not familiar with the entire role. I think, personally, it would be prudent to develop certain policies and guidelines for admins to follow. Thus, in the event of actions contravening the policies and guidelines, ArbCom will have additional information to base their decisions on.
In terms of how closely they should follow it, at this time, I'd probably say fairly close. That means that adhere too and follow. This just helps in ensuring consistency in community and ArbCom decisions.
I hope that answers your questions, Simetrical, and if not or have more, please do let me know. Luke 05:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question about precedent

The arbitration committee is not currently bound by precedent, do you think this is right? If elected, what value would you place on precedent from previous cases? Thryduulf 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It can be both positive and negative that the ArbCom is currently not completely bound by precedent. I am a supporter of precedent. I believe that once binding decisions are made, they should be made to deter future actions of the same calibre or liking. Thus, eliminating the need to change precedent unless negative actions are seen to be increasing in frequency or otherwise. By not basing decisions on precedent, ArbCom (and even Wikipedia as a whole) can be perceived, as un-true as it is, as inconsistent, an un-credible source, and a project run by users who have no dis-regard for others. I don't think this is right. I believe that ArbCom for the majority should be based on precedent with the odd exception case.
If I were to be elected onto ArbCom, I would place a significant value to using precedent. As above, I believe that the precedent system would work well with Wikipedia. In my real life career, I have personally made decisions using precedent and for the reasons stated above, I have no regrets to involving it.
I hope this answers your question Thryduulf, if not please do let me know. Or even more, if you or anyone else doesn't think the precedent system would work, I'd be happy to discuss it here. Luke 04:54, 12 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 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a cause for concern. It will not only be an issue for 2006 but, as far as I can see, for the duration of Wikipedia's existence. As long as Wikipedia remains to be an open-project, we will never be able to fully eliminate personal views from the project. The best we can do is try to minimize the onset. Along with the Arbitration Community, it will take a full community effort to minimize certain views. I believe, that the problem is not inherently with just Wikipedia but with all "open" settings.
The way I see it:
  • I support the proposed User Bill of Rights and the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct.
  • No matter what level of involvement we have in Wikipedia (ArbCom, Admin, Reader, Editor, etc), all users should be treated with the benefit of the doubt.
  • Users should recognize that even though this is an English Wikipedia, that there are other diverse cultures from many different nations that use and edit it as well.
  • Whatever my role in the Wikipedia community, I will always strive to promote an atmosphere of communal understanding and respect for a worldview as to reach the best way possible to collectively share the world's information.
Luke 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you address the question, please? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Candidate_statements_Luckyluke_9f8f.html"