Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Comments moved from voting page
- Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".
[edit] W.marsh
Bureaucratic, inconsistent. Deskana drove User:Android Mouse from the project by running a checkuser with no evidence then publicly outing AM. Deskana then refused to run similar checkusers, blanked my questions about why not, tried to guilt trip me by claiming twice he'd no longer run checkusers as he once did because of me (empty promises both times) then complained about me on a private mailing list, again with guilt trips about how I was going to make him stop doing checkusers, and enticed all manner of bureaucratic types to come at me on misinformation. All that was really needed between us was a simple discussion but his tactics made that impossible. As an arbcommer I have no confidence people would be treated fairly or consistently. Deskana might be the greatest guy in the world if you are being nice to him... but in my experience he has a wild reaction to criticism. See [1] here for the main discussion, which links to all relevant earlier discussion. W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would like to take the chance to respond to this. When I was a newer checkuser, I checked an account called User:Neil Larson that had edited RFA disruptively. I found that it was Android Mouse. I didn't keep this a secret, at the time. I agree that it was unnecessary for Android Mouse to leave. Since then, when checking similar SPAs, I have acted more tactfully and preferred to warn the users in question privately via e-mail first, before taking any public action. When it seemed that W.marsh had a complaint about how I'd used checkuser, I told him the appropriate places to complain: the Arbitration Committee and the Ombudsman Commission, but he responded by telling me "how bureaucratic". I do not think sending a quick e-mail to one (or both) of these committees is bureaucrat. And yes, I did get angry and upset when dealing with W.marsh, because when you spend hours upon hours of your life doing people favours by being a checkuser and get more hassle about it than you do thanks, it can be very frustrating. --Deskana (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is bureaucratic because it amounts to a refusal to consider discussing the question with a respectable editor, in favour of referring them to higher authorities immediately - pillar to post, in effect. Furthermore, everyone knows that anyone who actually sends an email to those places is instantly accused of litigious trolling for doing so. You should be prepared to contemplate things one-to-one rather than one-to-committee. Splash - tk 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did discuss this issue with him on my talk page, shortly after the check was performed. The discussion referred to above (that was initiated by W.marsh on an unrelated RFCU page) was initiated several months after the event. I did not wish to discuss the issue again, as my opinion had not changed. The original discussion was here: User talk:Deskana/Archive 15#Check. As my opinion had not changed since that discussion, I invited W.marsh to send an e-mail, since it was obvious that we were never going to agree on my usage of the tool. --Deskana (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think you really misunderstand me. My hope was always that we could come to an agreement by discussing this as two editors who've been around for a long time. I would never arbitrate you or send e-mails to private committees or so on... that's just not my style. You said this was my only option though... this is very frustrating to someone who doesn't want to deal with bureaucracy, and it's not a good attitude for an arbitrator. Some people are going to criticize you... throwing bureaucracy at them can be a disaster, as it was in this case. I always had the feeling you were treating me more like a troll than an admin. --W.marsh 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I did discuss this issue with him on my talk page, shortly after the check was performed. The discussion referred to above (that was initiated by W.marsh on an unrelated RFCU page) was initiated several months after the event. I did not wish to discuss the issue again, as my opinion had not changed. The original discussion was here: User talk:Deskana/Archive 15#Check. As my opinion had not changed since that discussion, I invited W.marsh to send an e-mail, since it was obvious that we were never going to agree on my usage of the tool. --Deskana (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- It is bureaucratic because it amounts to a refusal to consider discussing the question with a respectable editor, in favour of referring them to higher authorities immediately - pillar to post, in effect. Furthermore, everyone knows that anyone who actually sends an email to those places is instantly accused of litigious trolling for doing so. You should be prepared to contemplate things one-to-one rather than one-to-committee. Splash - tk 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nick
Support, and I understand the Opposes below, so I would hope that Deskana would be open to stepping down if the demands of being an arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat and administrator impact on his work on the Arbcom. Hopefully with recent additional checkusers (both non arbs and the soon to be former arbs) together with a new 'crat, there shouldn't be a huge workload away from the Arbcom to contend with. Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nishkid64
Oppose. Essentially, I feel Deskana has his priority issues here on Wikipedia. He's made thousands of edits to Wikipedia in recent months, but hardly any to the mainspace. I understand he has responsibilities on Wikipedia as a bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter, but frankly, if that detracts from his encyclopedic contributions, then I don't think he should be accumulating more responsibilities here. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Walton One
Weak Oppose. I don't dislike or distrust Deskana. He's a good admin and a mature, level-headed guy, and I even think he's been a good 'crat (an accolade I grant to few, seeing as I have a long-standing dislike of the concept of bureaucratship itself). But I am worried about the concentration of power issues. No one should serve simultaneously as checkuser, bureaucrat, oversighter and arbitrator; it perpetuates the perception, even if not the reality, of an oligarchic elite running Wikipedia. We need democracy and accountability. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings cannot be trusted with too much power - and Deskana, like all of us, is only human. WaltonOne 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kingturtle
- I cannot vote either way. You'd be great in the Arbitration Committee, but I feel that we need you to remain in the Mediation Committee. Kingturtle 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] @pple
Strong oppose, an admin, a crat, a checkuser, an oversighter, member of OTRS and mediation committee and a student in real life? And now a future arbcommer? With an average active level can you accomplish all the complex tasks in those different roles? Not to mention a severe lack of mainspace editing along with being an advanced mathematician but no contributions to any mathematics articles now and before. No thanks! @pple complain 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi @pple. Just a couple of things I'd like to point out if that's OK. Arbitrators cannot serve on the Mediation Committee as that has long been seen as a COI, therefore Deskana would have to resign that role were he elected. Also if you look through the current ArbCom members you will see that most of them have oversight and checkuser access - it just so happens that Deskana has already been trusted with those permission levels. A lot also have OTRS access as this is given to trusted people pretty much reagrdless of how much use they will make of it (and ArbCom members need to be confirmed to the Foundation anyway). It is true that only two ArbCom members at present are also bureaucrats but I would point out that Deskana stepped forward to offer to serve in that role when we we're terribly short of active crats and faced mounting backlogs. He has been very active as a crat. However a number of crats who were away then are now active again and recently as you know I also became a bureaucrat - I intend to be very active in that role. I take your point, and I'm sure Deskana does too, about mainspace editing but I thought it worth clarifying that Deskana would not have that much extra time requirements of him on-wiki that the other present Arbitrators. WjBscribe 14:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- With respect Scribe, where is there any evidence that Deskana cares about his lack of mainspace contributions? Rather than become a checkuser and an oversight and a bureaucrat and OTRS, he could have edited content. He chose not to work on the encyclopedia. It's didn't just somehow happen. --JayHenry (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I echo JayHenry's remarks on this. The prime function of a Wikipedia editor is editing articles and we seem to be seeing the development of a strata of super-user functionaries who are increasingly distanced from this. I have no difficulty seeing the need for the various functionary roles: I'd simply prefer them to spread out over a much wider userbase of active editors.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- As I stated in my support, editcountitis is bad, including whereweretheeditsmadecountitis. Every major organization requires backroom support for the frontline personnel, and eventually, that requires having some people who are dedicated mainly to such support and only occasionally see what's happening up front. Love it or hate it, that's the reality of any large organization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Riana
I'd just like to say that this was possibly the hardest vote for me. Dan is a good friend and I admit this almost pushed me to support straightaway, but I decided to think about it for a little while. The lack of mainspace editing in the past few months is a concern. The concentration of power is also a concern. However, I ultimately believe that Deskana has the best interests of the project at heart. If the people we have apparently elected as our best and brightest consider this to be the case, I see no reason why I shouldn't. He is accustomed to making difficult decisions and weighing options - also, despite the important roles he has to juggle, I've never once found him to be anything but a thoughtful, considerate and intelligent person. What I dread most is the so-called cabalists getting on arbcom and turning arbitration into even more of a intimidating process than it already is for us 'rank and file editors' - I don't see that danger here. Good luck, ~ Riana ⁂ 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hear, hear! :) --DarkFalls talk 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Other comments
Ok guys. This the start of a interesting two weeks, so please be courteous and patient. Daniel did right by moving W Marsh's comments, As I did Nick's. Consensus was reached a while ago that this is the correct process. The problem is notification was not adequately performed, in my view. I notified Nick of my action, and I took a while to finish it, and Daniel ended up finishing for me. Remember, extended comments belong on talk pages, but moves should be followed by proper notifications. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I could live with that, but the removal was followed by the explanation that it's okay to make persuasive arguments in support votes but not in opposes. That's not good. --W.marsh 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know, and I can't explain for it. I can only promise to be quicker about it in the future. It's been one hour and I've seen hundreds of votes, kinda hard to keep track of. But, it's the first day. Let's give it time. You can help too. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who was it that said that long support comments were ok but not for oppose? Cla68 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No one said it. It was just that Daniel moved W.Marsh's oppose comment but did not move support comment similar in length. This made it appear like that. But as I said above, this was a misunderstanding. All long comments should be moved, regardless of the position (+ or -). This has been done so. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I said that I felt that support comments were less contentious than oppose comments. This, combined with the fact that Nick's comment was shorter, meant I wanted a second opinion. Daniel 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you for the explanation. Cla68 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- (ec) I know, Daniel. This is just a misunderstanding for a newly opened election. We're not bots, so our edits are not fast and perfect at the same time. I've received some comments too with some of my other moves, but it's part of the job. Besides, this particular issue has already been resolved. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I said that I felt that support comments were less contentious than oppose comments. This, combined with the fact that Nick's comment was shorter, meant I wanted a second opinion. Daniel 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- No one said it. It was just that Daniel moved W.Marsh's oppose comment but did not move support comment similar in length. This made it appear like that. But as I said above, this was a misunderstanding. All long comments should be moved, regardless of the position (+ or -). This has been done so. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Who was it that said that long support comments were ok but not for oppose? Cla68 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I know, and I can't explain for it. I can only promise to be quicker about it in the future. It's been one hour and I've seen hundreds of votes, kinda hard to keep track of. But, it's the first day. Let's give it time. You can help too. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- After careful consideration, I must oppose. While my initial reaction to the candidacy was positive, I am a bit concerned about concentrating positions of trust/power in a single editor. I think that Wikipedia is better served by spreading such positions around and having lots of editors who concentrate on the areas of their strengths rather than a few editors who handle a large number of administrative tasks. However, it is W.Marsh's comment that tipped me over the edge to oppose. I have a great deal of respect for him and his concerns are very troubling. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would point out that a lot of the current Arbitration Committee members have OTRS access, like myself. In addition, if I did not already have checkuser/oversight, I would almost certainly gain them upon election, as any Arbitratiors willing to do so can. So really, the only "power" that I have that all other Arbitrators do not is bureaucrat, and even then, two of the current Arbitrators are bureaucrats. --Deskana (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Right. If this were like an RFA and I could comment on every oppose, I would point that out to every opposer who mentioned that. I think people need to check their facts before voting. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- I would point out that a lot of the current Arbitration Committee members have OTRS access, like myself. In addition, if I did not already have checkuser/oversight, I would almost certainly gain them upon election, as any Arbitratiors willing to do so can. So really, the only "power" that I have that all other Arbitrators do not is bureaucrat, and even then, two of the current Arbitrators are bureaucrats. --Deskana (talk) 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- In principle, no one should be both bureaucrat and arbitrator. The concentration of power is a problem in itself. Even the best of us are human, and no human being can be trusted to use near-unlimited power wisely or well. I'm certainly not suggesting that Deskana would deliberately abuse any of his powers, and I know he has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. But we need more democracy, accountability and openness, so what we really need are arbitrators who are not part of the "establishment", who are fully independent, and who do not hold other positions of trust - just as judges in real life must be independent of the legislature and executive. WaltonOne 14:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- If my role as a bureaucrat would interfere with the way I handled a case, I would recuse. The only thing is, I cannot forsee such a circumstance. This is why I do not believe being both a bureaucrat and an Arbitrator has any pracitcal repercussions, and is why I put myself forward for Arbitrator. In this respect, I am not part of the establishment. Besides, I do not see any prestige behind the role of a bureaucrat. I'm an editor just like anyone else, I'm just trusted with a few more tools. The access level "bureaucrat" was designed to lump together a load of roles that it was decided were not suitable for administrators: adminship promotions, bot flags, and renames. Renames are the only place where the bureaucrat decides anything for himself; adminship promotions are handled by RFA and bot flags handled by BAG. Even then, renames are a pretty trivial exercise, there is just more potential for abuse or doing things wrong (and causing GFDL vios) with them than there is with other adminship responsibilities. I feel the same about checkuser/oversight. As such, I do not recognise bureaucrat/checkuser/oversight as power. I totally understand the perception that Arbitrators have power, since as a committee they can force sanctions on people without their permission. But I do not feel this conflicts with other roles I have. I do feel it conflicts with my role as a Mediator, which is why I am resigning from active duty if I am elected. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are actually some ways in which a small crat presence on ArbCom is helpful. It allows editors to be reysopped more clearly as an official act of the committee. Where editors under ArbCom sanction wish to be renamed, it would be far more appropriate for an Arbitrator to consider the request and rename them. Obviously these are things an Arbitrator can ask a crat to do, but an unbroken chain would make processed far more efficient. In addition, ArbCom is often called upon to evaluate whethere an adminsitrator has fallen below community expectations. A curent bureaucrat, as someone involved in determining the consensus at RfA is very well placed to judge what the Community's expectations of administrators are. As such, I think it a useful voice to include on a Committee - indeed I think it would be wrong for any part of the community (including bureaucrats) not to be allowed representation on ArbCom. WjBscribe 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- (To Deskana) Like I said, I'm not at all suggesting that you would act in an improper manner or that there would be a direct conflict between the roles of a bureaucrat and arbitrator. I'm just fundamentally uncomfortable with one person having a number of different roles, as it perpetuates the perception (even if not the reality) of élitism. I fully agree that bureaucrats don't, and shouldn't, exercise much power in practice. But I think it's unhealthy that some people at present (notably Raul654) hold a lot of power and are, in effect, accountable to no one. We need democracy and accountability. To give you a real-world parallel: I trust David Cameron, and I hope that he becomes Prime Minister following the next general election. But I would not trust him, or anyone else, with absolute and unchecked power, because even the best of us, with the best of intentions, can be wrong or can make bad decisions from time to time; hence why I believe in parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in the real world. Obviously, the governance of Wikipedia is less important than the governance of Great Britain, but the same principles (albeit watered-down) should apply. So I trust you, but I don't think you should take on any more powers. (I will, of course, change to Support if you agree to resign as a bureaucrat.) WaltonOne 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, Walton, do you trust Deskana to act responsibly as an arbitrator? Do you trust him to act responsibly as a bureaucrat? The comparison with the British parliament is flawed in one way. Deskana will not have absolute power over Wikipedia's community. His vote will not count more in RfAs, he could not make Wikipedia change with the click of the button. There are other arbitrators to keep him in check if he goes awry; same with bureaucrats. As an arbitrator, will Deskana really be different from his colleagues if he is also a crat? Will he be more "powerful" than them because of that tool? Same goes with bureaucrats. Will he be any different, or able to make his word law? He will not be accountable to no one. A steward could easily desysop and decrat him if he is careless with the tools. He can easily be removed from arbitration should he have flawed and wrongful judgement. Also, will Deskana's ability as a crat diminish if he is also an arbitrator? Will his judgement as an arbitrator lose its quality if he is a crat? When it comes down to it, past the mirages; a crat's ability to sysop, rename, usurp et cetera, are just tools. Nothing more, nothing less. A tool that holds responsibility, but only a tool. He will still have to listen to the consensus of others, he will not be able to go with his own point of view on the situation. The conclusion is that his role as a bureaucrat has nothing to do with his role as an arbitrator. If you trust him as an arbitrator, then vote for him. --DarkFalls talk 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- That isn't a flaw in the comparison, as no one member of the British Parliament has absolute power, just as no one member of the ArbCom has absolute power. The relevance of the comparison with real-world politics is to do with the concentration of power. Would it be appropriate if the President of the United States were also to sit on the Supreme Court? One could argue that he would not have absolute power as President, and that on the Court there are "other justices to keep him in check if he goes awry". But this situation would still be unconstitutional and wrong, because the judiciary (and, like it or not, ArbCom is Wikipedia's judicial branch) need to be 100% independent of other office-holders.
- You're right, in theory, that "A steward could easily desysop and decrat him if he is careless with the tools. He can easily be removed from arbitration should he have flawed and wrongful judgement." But this misses the point entirely. I trust that Deskana will not go insane and do anything to intentionally harm or compromise Wikipedia, and I trust that he would be removed from office if he did. But "trust" is not an absolute concept. Just because I trust someone to act in good faith and to do their best for Wikipedia, doesn't mean I trust them to make the right decisions 100% of the time. For instance, where's the accountability of the bureaucrats who decided to sysop Danny when he was opposed by over 100 people at RfA? Were they desysopped and decratted? No. And as long as bureaucrats can get away with making decisions that ignore the will of the community (however rarely they choose to exercise this power), bureaucratship is a position of political power. We need the ArbCom to act as an independent check and balance, holding other office-holders to account, and the way to achieve this is a strict separation of personnel. WaltonOne 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- "We need the ArbCom to act as an independent check and balance". If Deskana's bureaucratic judgement is challenged in any way, and if it goes to arbitration; I have no doubt that Deskana will recuse himself as an arbitrator. I do not think a "strict separation of personnel" is necessary in this circumstance, as Deskana will not involve himself in decision-making of cases in which he has a conflict of interest. It is possible for the rest of arbcom to judge Deskana's rights and wrongs, and I trust they won't portray Deskana as a arbitrator and not a regular editor when judging his use of bureaucratic tools. Furthermore, other arbitrators such as UninvitedCompany have the "power" of both crat and arbitrator, and I don't see any problems arising from it. As for ignoring the will of the community, I see no relations between this and being an arbitrator. As far as I know, being an arbitrator does not make a substantial difference in decisions made as a crat. And thus I return to my original question. Is Deskana able to "get away" with bad judgement if he is also an arbitrator? Does it make any difference? --DarkFalls talk 08:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- Well, generally I just don't want to see the development of a power élite, and the mentality that accompanies it. I want to see an ArbCom that both appears to be, and in fact is, genuinely independent, just as the judicial branch needs to be 100% independent of the executive in real life. You may not see any problems arising from the existing double position of arbitrator-bureaucrats such as Raul654 and Uninvited Company, but I do, as per my comments (now moved to the talk page) on Raul654's vote page; having far too much power has evidently given Raul a sense that he can act with impunity and pursue a personal agenda (hence the recent edit-warring and 3RR violations on his part). Personally, as you know, I would abolish bureaucratship entirely, or give it to all administrators. I would also ideally like to see at least 50% of ArbCom composed of non-administrators, and those who are fully outside the wiki-"establishment"; for me, independence is a far more valuable attribute than experience. This is unlikely to be achieved, but I intend to do everything in my power to prevent anyone being both bureaucrat and arbitrator. Unfortunately, Deskana is the only one who is affected by this requirement (it also applies to Raul654, but I would have strongly opposed him anyway). So even though I like Deskana, and he's been a much better bureaucrat than I expected, I have to oppose this nomination. WaltonOne 11:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I am a little confused about your insistence of complete independence in arbitration. I could not see how the roles of arbitration and the judgement involved could be tainted if a person have a few extra responsibilities. Sure, a person with crat rights may have a different opinion on things, but every editor varies. The only problem I find with crat and arbitration rights is a potential conflict of interest when they collide. But I, like Deskana above, could not picture such an issue. Also, I have to respectfully disagree with your views on the diversity of arbitration. Although diversity could be great as it allows different views to be brought to arbcom, a non-admin will probably be sysopped after he is elected, and this point can be proved moot. In Raul's case, I think the recent edit warring could be due to his mentality (no offense meant) rather than a concentration of power. I think it is unfair to generalize on other people, based on one person's actions. As in a survey, you cannot generate an accurate picture, based on one or two people. Can we generalize on all American politicians because of George Bush? Can we portray the Australians as bushrangers because of Ned Kelly? Can we say that all the British are heroes of war because of Churchill? Raul does not represent every person with those rights; you cannot assume whether Deskana is reliable because of Raul's judgement. --DarkFalls talk 05:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- I think we'll just have to agree to differ about this. I understand the validity of what you're saying, but I would still prefer to see a genuinely independent ArbCom; although I agree that actual conflicts of interest would be rare, I think that having a full separation of personnel is desirable because it establishes the image, as well as the reality, of an open and accountable Wikipedia. Furthermore, I think Raul's conduct is relevant because I don't think Raul is a bad editor or lacking in judgment; if he were, then the community would not have trusted him with so many positions of power over the years. Rather, I think he is an example of how a concentration of too much power in the hands of one individual invariably, over time, gives that individual a sense of superiority and makes them unwilling to listen to others. This is why all large human communities need democracy and accountability, and why I want to see outsiders, not experienced power-holders, elected to the ArbCom. As I've said earlier, power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. So although I like Deskana, and trust him to do his existing jobs to the best of his ability, I don't want him or anyone else to have too much power. WaltonOne 11:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- The thing is, Walton, do you trust Deskana to act responsibly as an arbitrator? Do you trust him to act responsibly as a bureaucrat? The comparison with the British parliament is flawed in one way. Deskana will not have absolute power over Wikipedia's community. His vote will not count more in RfAs, he could not make Wikipedia change with the click of the button. There are other arbitrators to keep him in check if he goes awry; same with bureaucrats. As an arbitrator, will Deskana really be different from his colleagues if he is also a crat? Will he be more "powerful" than them because of that tool? Same goes with bureaucrats. Will he be any different, or able to make his word law? He will not be accountable to no one. A steward could easily desysop and decrat him if he is careless with the tools. He can easily be removed from arbitration should he have flawed and wrongful judgement. Also, will Deskana's ability as a crat diminish if he is also an arbitrator? Will his judgement as an arbitrator lose its quality if he is a crat? When it comes down to it, past the mirages; a crat's ability to sysop, rename, usurp et cetera, are just tools. Nothing more, nothing less. A tool that holds responsibility, but only a tool. He will still have to listen to the consensus of others, he will not be able to go with his own point of view on the situation. The conclusion is that his role as a bureaucrat has nothing to do with his role as an arbitrator. If you trust him as an arbitrator, then vote for him. --DarkFalls talk 06:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- (To Deskana) Like I said, I'm not at all suggesting that you would act in an improper manner or that there would be a direct conflict between the roles of a bureaucrat and arbitrator. I'm just fundamentally uncomfortable with one person having a number of different roles, as it perpetuates the perception (even if not the reality) of élitism. I fully agree that bureaucrats don't, and shouldn't, exercise much power in practice. But I think it's unhealthy that some people at present (notably Raul654) hold a lot of power and are, in effect, accountable to no one. We need democracy and accountability. To give you a real-world parallel: I trust David Cameron, and I hope that he becomes Prime Minister following the next general election. But I would not trust him, or anyone else, with absolute and unchecked power, because even the best of us, with the best of intentions, can be wrong or can make bad decisions from time to time; hence why I believe in parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in the real world. Obviously, the governance of Wikipedia is less important than the governance of Great Britain, but the same principles (albeit watered-down) should apply. So I trust you, but I don't think you should take on any more powers. (I will, of course, change to Support if you agree to resign as a bureaucrat.) WaltonOne 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- There are actually some ways in which a small crat presence on ArbCom is helpful. It allows editors to be reysopped more clearly as an official act of the committee. Where editors under ArbCom sanction wish to be renamed, it would be far more appropriate for an Arbitrator to consider the request and rename them. Obviously these are things an Arbitrator can ask a crat to do, but an unbroken chain would make processed far more efficient. In addition, ArbCom is often called upon to evaluate whethere an adminsitrator has fallen below community expectations. A curent bureaucrat, as someone involved in determining the consensus at RfA is very well placed to judge what the Community's expectations of administrators are. As such, I think it a useful voice to include on a Committee - indeed I think it would be wrong for any part of the community (including bureaucrats) not to be allowed representation on ArbCom. WjBscribe 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- If my role as a bureaucrat would interfere with the way I handled a case, I would recuse. The only thing is, I cannot forsee such a circumstance. This is why I do not believe being both a bureaucrat and an Arbitrator has any pracitcal repercussions, and is why I put myself forward for Arbitrator. In this respect, I am not part of the establishment. Besides, I do not see any prestige behind the role of a bureaucrat. I'm an editor just like anyone else, I'm just trusted with a few more tools. The access level "bureaucrat" was designed to lump together a load of roles that it was decided were not suitable for administrators: adminship promotions, bot flags, and renames. Renames are the only place where the bureaucrat decides anything for himself; adminship promotions are handled by RFA and bot flags handled by BAG. Even then, renames are a pretty trivial exercise, there is just more potential for abuse or doing things wrong (and causing GFDL vios) with them than there is with other adminship responsibilities. I feel the same about checkuser/oversight. As such, I do not recognise bureaucrat/checkuser/oversight as power. I totally understand the perception that Arbitrators have power, since as a committee they can force sanctions on people without their permission. But I do not feel this conflicts with other roles I have. I do feel it conflicts with my role as a Mediator, which is why I am resigning from active duty if I am elected. --Deskana (talk) 15:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Comment from Redrocketboy
Although I can't vote (too new), I'd say that while Deskana is probably capable, I wouldn't support him. This would be due to the fact he is relatively inexperienced, and he has too much on his plate already. Too much on his plate without doing a lot either - that is, writing articles. I'd rather the arbcom was not made up of policemen, but by people who actually improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for running though. Redrocketboy 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] daveh4h
Deskana seems to have amassed a lot of "power" (perhaps a bad word for it) in a short time; so count me among those concerned about concentration of power. I do not know how common this is. It's kind of hard for me to judge how he has done using his new tools in this short period of time. I would most likely support him in the next election if there are no incidents. I liked the answers to his questions and he most likely would be a great arb but the amount of tools and the time period he has gained them troubles me a bit daveh4h 09:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Zachary crimsonwolf
While I agree that Deskana has his hands full, it does not mean that he cannot carry out his responsibilities well. I've read many comments concerning his mainspace edits and many positions as an arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter and whatnot. I feel that we are putting too much concern on his mainspace edits. 2444+ edits to articles are excellent; just how many users have that many edits? Clearly, the importance of having a huge edit count is being overrated here. Regarding Deskana's numerous positions, I think he is a good example of being a productive user. Not many would have been able to take up so many responsibiities and carry them out without fail. And there are some that question his experiences as an editor and doubt his abilities to be able to use his tools fairly. However, we should all be reminded that this user is a bureaucrat and an admin; it is already clear that Deskana will know how to use his new tools accordingly. People, I hope that you'll trust him to get his job done. I wish him good luck. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
