Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Tony Sidaway

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Tony Sidaway

[edit] Nomination statement

Wikipedia is growing fast, and its response has been to secrete a shell of bureaucracy as sclerotic as any state. Too many rules, too many feet to tread on. Too many new editors scared away.

Arbitration is intrinsically slow and unscaleable. Administrators are individuals working in loose cooperation, which does scale.

Too many cases are reaching arbitration. We should be careful about the cases we accept, and give administrators more technological power by working with developers to share ideas for more tools to help them. Alternatives to blocking, more flexible IP and username blocking arrangements, more watchlists for administrators, subscribable watchlists, edit throttles for edit warriors, per-page blocking. Spending time and effort on this will be worth our while as a committee because it will reduce our caseload by empowering and strengthening Wikipedia's immune system.

Abusive treatment of newcomers starves the community of new blood and unnecessarily expands the class of disaffected trolls and vandals. Edit warring and biting by administrators and other experienced editors should be taken seriously because it drives people away. I want to focus on this. The administrators should take the bulk of the load, but the Committee should act as a check on the administrators.

The Arbitration Committee has a resource of previous cases and decisions, and what ensued from those decisions, that amount to the wisdom of some of the best wikipedians. The Committee, augmented by interested former members, should from time to time make non-binding recommendations to the community for policy clarifications or changes, with the aim of stimulating Wikipedia's immune system and reducing arbitration caseload.

[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] Question from Sjakkalle

Are you mad? :-) Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:04, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

There was only one catch, and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and he would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to, but if he didn't want to, he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.
"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
I figure if I have to fly these missions I might as well be the bombardier. --Tony SidawayTalk 19:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from Cryptic

  • You have been an outspoken proponent of WP:IAR, and have recently come under a great deal of fire for this stance (interested third parties: RFC, RFC 2). While you've apologized profusely for incivility, you've been quite been unapologetic for the actions the controversies stemmed from. How do you reconcile this with your statement above? —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


  • Your proposal for more technological powers is intriguing; however, you opposed Wikipedia:Quick and dirty Checkuser policy/proposal, saying that you "want to see more than a beauty contest for this kind of power." Would you be in favor of more widespread access to this ability, and if so, to whom would you like to see it granted? —Cryptic (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

In the case of the Albert M. Wolters article the application of Ignore all rules was straightforward. The article was caught in the usual stalement on Votes for undeletion, but a glance at the deleted article and the deletion debate was enough to convince me that, if undeleted, the chance of the article being deleted in an Articles for deletion rerun was minuscule. Because the controversial nature of IAR would draw more editors to the second deletion debate, I concluded that consensual support for the keeping of the article was guaranteed and that the wider consensus that would be gained would be in the interests of the community. Accordingly I ignored all rules to give it the chance of another run. I was right. The article got an overwhelming keep vote, a potential copyright problem was quickly fixed, and so the article remains.

I see absolutely no potential conflict between this and my candidate statement. Editors should always be free to innovate in the interests of the encyclopedia, subject to consensus.

In my opinion, checkuser access must only ever be given to qualified information technology specialists who are trusted by the development team, subject to the agreement of the Foundation. A vote of confirmation of such an appointment may be carried out if desired, but checkuser access must never be available solely because someone has enough votes. --Tony SidawayTalk 21:37, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Follow-up question from Charles Stewart

Have you ever regretted any applications of WP:IAR that you've made? (08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Questions from Zephram Stark

  1. What is your opinion of the Wikipedia: Policy Trifecta?
  2. Does Wikipedia policy exist for the sole purpose of creating structure for dispute resolution when consensus is not reached? If not, what other purposes are there for Wikipedia rules? --Zephram Stark 22:23, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


The Trifecta is the lightning rod of policy--by which I mean that even if I'm following the written policy to the letter, I'm not doing it right unless my behavior also fits the trifecta.

Wikipedia policy exists for the sole purpose of writing an encyclopedia. Everything else is secondary. --Tony SidawayTalk 23:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form question by 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'm a parent, and I've been in information technology from 1975 (when really intelligent machines were expected to be developed within the next twenty-five years) to 2005 (when really intelligent machines were expected to be developed within the next twenty-five years). --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form question by 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)

Use my common sense. The rules are there to serve us in building an encyclopedia; the encyclopedia doesn't exist to serve the rules. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from User:-Ril-

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

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 16:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

On the Political compass I always rate something like -8.5, -7.5, extreme left libertarian. I would not recuse myself on political grounds because I don't judge people by their beliefs (I've believed some pretty unusual things in the course of my 49 years and it never stopped me being a decent human being).

I think my history as an editor demonstrates adequately that I don't go with the flow.

All requests for redress must be considered on their merits.

As far as I'm aware it's always been the case that all parties to Wikipedia arbitration are subject to rulings--moreover, there may be rulings on individuals not party to a case. I fully support this. I have always deliberately joined myself to arbitration cases in which I comment. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Marsden

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 16:05, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


In my opinion it is impossible for Wikipedia to become more orderly, or more centralized, even if I believed this to be desirable. It's far too vast and the resources are far too limited.
The spirit of cooperation depends on the goodwill of individual editors being communicated through example. So far it seems to have survived, though I think the behavior of some experienced editors, particularly administrators, damages it. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 18 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: 49. I'm a software developer.

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: Roughly fifty hours per month. It's going to eat into my editing time.

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 had around 7,000 edits, about half in main namespace, when I was made administrator in early March. I also happen to think that knowledge of policy and dispute resolution is important, and I've done everything from mediating disputes to bringing a case to arbitration.

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

A:

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hypocrisy?

How do you consider yourself above the abuses you decry in your statement? You've been guilty of them yourself in the past. 216.237.179.238 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure hypocrisy is considered a negative in this context though. -- Grace Note


  • An arbitration committee election is not a useful tool for dispute resolution. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed Arbitration Committe Code of Conduct

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 18:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Because of the unique role of the Arbitration policy, it would be inappropriate for arbitrator conduct to be subject to policy decided by consensus. In order to work, the arbitration committee should probably be answerable only to the Foundation and Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:13, 19 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?

In your case, this is asked to enter your opinion into the election record, and because an eloquent response is expected. Xoloz 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


  • As I already said to Cryptic above, Editors should always be free to innovate in the interests of the encyclopedia, subject to consensus. Use of administrator powers is also subject to consensus. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

  • No. I strongly oppose such fripperies. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 06:01, 21 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?
  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?
  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.)

PurplePlatypus 08:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki and a community. It has fairly tight rules and they should be enforced. Civility is very important; it's a major part of one current arbitration case in which I am involved. Longtime editors, administrators and the like don't get a free pass, they're subject to the same rules everyone else is.
I am not a member of any academic community.
Wikipedia consensus-based policy cannot and should not extend to arbitrator conduct. That would be incompatible with the Committee's unique role. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:48, 24 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?
  1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
  1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 07:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


I'm sure that most of my Wikipedia time would be devoted to arbitrator business. I'm not presently involved in much editing, devoting most of my Wikipedia time to a project on the tool server which is of limited duration and should not clash. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from Zordrac

  1. What are your views with regards to transparency of ArbCom decisions?
  2. Do you think that administrators should be treated differently to non-administrators in ArbCom decisions?
  3. Do you think that someone who is critical of Arbitration Committee decisions is in violation of WP:AGF?
  4. How would you handle a case in which you were personally involved?
  5. Do you think that Arbitration Committee decisions should be able to be reviewed?

Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 16:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the workshops because they may be useful to arbitrators. Some aspects of arbitration must be opaque, sadly.

Arbitrators as subject to arbitration decisions must be treated as all editors. Sadly I fear this has not alwsays beem the case, particularly with regard to edit warring, which must always be condemned.

Criticism of arbitration decisions, per se, is absolutely not a violation of the assumption of good faith.

I would obviously recuse from a case in which I was personally involved.

Arbitration committee cases are not subject to formal reviewe, but they can be vetoed by Jimbo Wales.

Having said that, consensus is pretty powerful. I myself successfully initiated events that led to the overturning of one arbitration committee decision, so it's possible. On WP:RFA] I led a grassroots campaign against the decision to submit Stevertigo to the humiliation of an enforced re-application for adminship. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:40, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from User:SqueakBox

What do you think of the current admin election system? How differently would you treat admins from non-admins (a) concerning admins role as admins? and (b)when they are up in front of the arbcom as a normal editor? SqueakBox 16:51, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Oh I'd do away with RFA completely if I could think of a better way. Meanwhile it kinda works. Mostly.

I wish I could pray for better admins. Meanwhile I shall attempt to bring out the best in those that we have.

Before arbitration, everybody is equal, but we must recognise that an administrator can do far more damage. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:47, 28 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?

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 01:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely and unconditionally oppose the view that editors individually or as a group have any right to depose an arbitrator. That is the role of the Board and Jimbo Wales.

I tend towards the view that the community's involvement in choosing arbitrators is almost always bad. They should probably all be appointed.

The NPOV question is a good one. I honestly don't think I've ever edited an article on which I have a strong opinion. It would seem rather unsporting. I don't think passion and editing mix. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Passionate edits

Don't you care about Scheme programming language? --- Charles Stewart 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well I quite like using the language. I'm not amazingly passionate about the article but I have removed what appeared to be passionate anti-Scheme advocacy from it on occasion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:03, 9 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?

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?

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.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

If I were a member of the arbitration committee, I could not be bound by, nor should I be influenced by, any code of conduct compiled by the editors. I adamantly oppose its very existence.
The arbitration committee should be expanded as and when there are suitable candidates.
I haven't made any comment on proposed changes to rules. I'm sure that the board is quite capable of deciding what to do all by itself. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand.
Under what conditions, if any, would you recuse yourself from an arbitration?
Why do you feel it would be wrong to codify such conditions?
Are you opposed to transparency? —James S. 18:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would recuse when I felt myself unable to make a fair judgement in a case. I am adamantly opposed to transparency in the arbitration deliberation process. Arbitrators must be absolutely free from any taint of outside influence. The community must not attempt to influence the conduct of arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:04, 8 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 09:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

As an administrator I find it frustrating to see other administrators engage in actions that hurt the encyclopedia and drive off new users or, worse, convert their enthusiasm into annoyance, edit warring and trolling. My concerns on this can be seen in the Mel Etitis RfC and the Maoririder arbitration case, and to a certain extent in the Pigsonthewing case (although that case was somewhat symmetrical). Although one doesn't need an admin bit to play the asshole and drive people away, abuse of the admin bit should in some cases result in its removal.
On arbitration procedure, I was the editor who originated the motion to remit the Stevertigo RFA, which was ordered as part of an arbitration case in which the artbitrators could not reach agreement to deop him, back to the arbitration committee with a message: "We won't do your dirty work, we expect you to take the discussion to deop this person." This was a calculated move on my part to establish that arbcom has the power to do this. It succeeded beyond my wildest expectations. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)