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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Talrias (withdrawn)

I am withdrawing my candidacy. Thanks to the people who have contacted me, publically and privately, offering their support for me. Thanks for the questions people have asked me; I hope my answers have helped in the debate about both the role of the Arbitration Committee and the responsibilities of its members. If people would like to discuss this with me, I'd be glad to; please leave a message on my talk page or contact me on IRC.

I wish good luck to all the other candidates. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination statement

As someone who believes wholeheartedly in the principles of community, collaboration and consideration, I wish to join the Arbitration Committee as I believe committee members should hold those three C's as their key principles. They are all important, not just for the Committee but for Wikipedia as a whole. It is important to remember not just what Wikipedia is, but how it will achieve its goals - free access to knowledge for all. Community, collaboration and consideration are the key to this. If I am elected to the Arbitration Committee, I will employ these three principles in the following manner:

  • Community. Wikipedia works, on the whole, because the vast majority of people can harmoniously contribute to articles. However, the few who do not, the people who end up before the Committee, are also part of the Wikipedia community. To that end, Committee members must realise that the people being sanctioned are human beings too and that the aim of the Arbitration Committee is not just to punish people, but to make sure at the end of their punishment they are able to cooperate and collaborate on articles, helping in the aim of a fantastic encyclopaedia.
  • Collaboration. Many Arbitration Committee cases are due to failure between different parties to collaborate on articles in a polite and respectful manner. As an Arbitration Committee member, my emphasis would be towards finding an amicable solution allowing collaboration in the future.
  • Consideration. Respect for other people, not just their viewpoints, should be shown by both the Arbitration Committee and the people in the dispute. It is important to share not just an opinion but reasoning as to why that opinion is held. Arbitration is not a place to criticise people or their opinions, but to aid them in becoming a welcome member of the community and making sure they can join in the development of the encyclopaedia; the key is showing consideration to all views.
Talrias (t | e | c) 22:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Further information

[edit] Questions

Please ask any questions you have about me or my candidacy. I will answer on this page and inform you on your user talk page that I have responded. I have added this page to my watchlist.

[edit] jguk

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?

I believe a statement of the number of hours a month I would arbitrate for would not be accurate or fair to the people who would be bringing cases. I would recuse from all cases where I have some kind of relationship (either a close friendship or a previous personal dispute), and examine all the necessary evidence for cases I was arbitrating. I believe that it is better to be fair with a decision than hasty.

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.

While not in the article namespace, I was responsible for the relaunch of both the United Kingdom collaboration of the fortnight and the collaboration of the week. I have helped improve one article to featured status, A. E. J. Collins, and I have contributed to articles related to Northern Ireland, which, as reflected in real life, are frequently politically slanted. My favourite NI-related article, while not long, is Northern Ireland naming dispute, which examines the different names for the region by people of different political parties. I would invite people to look through my contributions to see the entire picture, as well as the 'highlights' I have written about above.

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

I have only contributed to Wikipedia from the username 'Talrias'.

[edit] Dragons flight

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 08:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I've read through the various proposed modifications to the rules suggested a few times:
  • I agree with the principle of a "midterm" election in the case that one or more arbitrators resign from the Committee, however I think they should serve until the end of the year (until the next December Arbitration Committee elections), rather than filling the remainder of the term.
  • I also support a shorter term duration (such as the suggestion to lower it to 2 years rather than 3). If this were to be introduced, it would need some serious consideration concerning how the tranches would be divided. The proposal as suggested is a good idea - it just needs more thought and discussion.
The other proposals each have their merits and problems - the important thing is that they are all discussed by the community and the good ones are implemented in practice rather than languishing as proposals.
I've also re-read through the Arbitration Committee reform discussion and again I think it has some good ideas for possible ideas but each proposal is not in an advanced enough stage to actually be implemented. I support quite a few of them in principle; the devil is, of course, in the details.

[edit] Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the most helpful ways I've learnt to detect bullshit were regularly participating in debates at my school and running my school's philosophy society in my final year. Knowing when people are talking nonsense and shifting on to the next topic or point is a skill I quickly learnt from it. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:14, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] karmafist

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 18:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The goal of making a fantastic encyclopedia should be the keystone of every Arbitration Committee decision. Wikipedia policies are only a means to an end; they are not an end in themselves. If policies conflict, then either they should be clarified so they do not conflict, or they should not be policy. I believe Wikipedia's policies are in place to promote harmonious editing; if they don't promote that then those policies should be disregarded. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I must say, that is an absolutely fantastic answer, although i'd like to disclose that i've respected Talrias in regards to Metapedian issues for awhile now. karmafist 23:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] -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?

No, I do not hold any strong political or religious opinions.

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

It depends what the opinions of the other arbitrators are, and how much I agree with them or not. I would operate by the principles highlighted in my nomination statement.

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

No, I have no broad categorisation of any request. I would view each case on its merits and demerits, and make an appropriate judgement based on that.

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? -Ril- 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe that the Arbitration Committee should be a zero-sum game. If it is, then the Arbitration Committee would just rule on whichever party had the worst behaviour. It's important to remember that the aim of arbitration is not to punish people but to make them into better Wikipedians. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Marsden

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 00:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your question, it's definitely a fair one. I am very interested in history (particularly British and European history), and while my highest qualification in history is at GCSE level, I am an avid reader which has broadened my knowledge of the times which older generations lived through.
One of the advantages of being a student are the resources of the university at my disposal. As it says on my user page, I am at the University of Manchester which has one of the largest libraries in the UK. The subjects which cases are likely to be brought forwards are likely to be highly controversial ones - and therefore interesting - and I would enjoy the excuse to get a few books on the subject from the library to improve my knowledge of the subject in order for me to make a more objective decision. There's no reason why I can't benefit from the cases!
It is unlikely that all the 2005-6 Arbitration Committee would be of a similar age to me, given the candidates standing, the present members who will be staying on. I think I'm right in saying that past arbitrators, and Jimbo/the Board, are quite happy about advising current arbitrators on cases. I would never be too ashamed or too arrogant to ask for advice, and to discuss the matter with other arbitrators. While my decisions will of course be decided by me and not the other arbitrators, past or present, I will always take others' advice into consideration.
I hope this answers your question satisfactorily; please don't hesitate to ask if you think I could clarify some aspect of it for you. Talrias (t | e | c) 01:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ted Wilkes

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 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The general idea sounds like a good one - obviously the content of such a guide would need to be carefully considered. I wouldn't support any code of conduct which had been hastily put together or rushed. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)