Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/NSLE
Statement[edit]
I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.
The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.
Banning should be undertaken preferably only when the editor is found to be disruptive and it is certain that he/she will not make any sort of useful contributions. However, if a user has made good contributions but has a case up at ArbCom that may need banning for the first time, I'm willing to give the user a second chance.
Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion[edit]
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?
Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Fully support recusal section; I am however against no ex-post facto rules. With regard to that, I fully support the bit right below - "Alternative to above: Everything is fair game" - about this section. Otherwise, I agree with the general idea. And yes, I'd be more than happy to push for a bigger ArbCom. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 08:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions by Rob Church[edit]
- Why don't you subscribe to WP:IAR when it's appropriate?
- How would you deal with a dispute brought about by a user who's signature takes up some four lines of wikitext?
Ta. Rob Church Talk 14:06, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- WP:IAR for me ultimately causes most user/admin action conflicts on Wikipedia. Kelly Martin's RFC came about because she deleted stuff out-of-process. She ignored the rules when she deleted them, and we ended up with a big mess. To not subscribe to WP:IAR gives me a chance to express myself over something I might have done - either by explaining my actions and getting support, or apologising for a bad mistake (which I've already done once to bishonen, over the unblocking of User:Siblings CW). I'd have no excuses with WP:IAR (which some admins seem to be hiding behind). With regard to number 2, I assume this comes from Nightstallion's RFA. I'd treat it like any other dispute, although that would not change the fact that IMHO four lines of wikitext for a sig is too long. NSLE (T+C+CVU) 00:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, it stems from the fact that your signature is four bloody lines long. Rob Church Talk 13:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand that some people are opposing my candidacy due to me not subscribing to the belief of WP:IAR. I acknowledge the fact that IAR exists for a reason, and would like to emphasise that while I do not subscribe to it, this does not mean I will not use it when needed, in dire circumstances where its use is called for. NSLE (T+C) 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Concerns over personal attack templates[edit]
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 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)