RomaC's Arbitration Committee Elections page

Please add your questions/comments below. I'll answer them here. Thanks!

Questions

Question

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

--HK 16:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your question HK. I would say that there should be guidelines such as these so that users and arbitrators both know where they stand. In a nutshell, I would say that some Wikipedia processes have become quite complex as the project has evolved, creating a gulf between the 'normal' user and those who know their way round well. This brings about the danger of elitism, to counter that I would support some clearly defined users' rights, along with accountability for arbitrators.

RomaC 05:03, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your interest Tony Sidaway I will respond on your Talk page.RomaC 16:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In case I archive the talk page, the diff for your response is here. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]