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

Karmafist
The last thing I wanted to do is run for arbcom, but from my dealings with the system at Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, I feel that it's necessary to enact some change.

My running is basically a protest against the arbitration process as it is, not against any particular member of the arbcom itself since I deeply respect all of them i've talked to individually. My goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system.

Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if Jimbo Wales interfered in any way, unless he truly does look down upon other Wikipedians, thus destroying the idea that Wikipedia is Egalitarian, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.

My Ideas For the election, my ideas for reform seem to be in two areas. Policy Creation, Policy Education and Policy Enforcement/Interpretation

Policy Enforcement/Interpretation

 * 1) A 3 person mini-arbcom at each section of rfc as an appelate device for rfcs gone awry, or not gaining a consensus to reduce the load on the arbcom, which will be known by another name.
 * 2) A 7 person appelate arbcom for all cases not concluded in the sectional arbcoms to reduce the load on the "main arbcom".
 * 3) Filing of Amicus Arbitrations for users who have broken policies while on probation, to be heard by a 3-7 person "Last Resort" Arbcom.
 * 4) The right to a speedy arbitration for the subject of the arbitration
 * 5) Regular updates by arbcom members on cases

Policy Education

 * 1) A bi-yearly regular caucus, similiar to a Loya Jirga, on topics regarding the arbcom open to all wikipedians so they can know that they have input in the process, and to foster more confidence in the process.
 * 2) A bi-yearly regular caucus, similiar to a Loya Jirga, on policies and how they relate to each other regarding former precedents and their intentions so regular users better know the ins and outs of confusing policies, particularly when they conflict.
 * 3) Assistance by the entire system to admins and board who try to enforce policy, likely as another WP:AN subpage.

Policy Creation

 * 1) A new bicameral legislative council to be named later run through sociocracy, basically as any consensus based portion of Wikipedia runs now, only bigger.
 * 2) *The "Lower" House would consist of all registered users, all of which could propose new policies(minimum time for discussion is 7 days, average would be 20-30, closed by admins or bureaucrats).
 * 3) *The "Upper" House would consist of a set number of elected users, with the majority being at large, but with a minority representing certain geographic regions in order to maintain a wide array of viewpoints that might vary with different cultures and locales. The "Upper" House's job would to either accept, refine, or reject policies passed by the "Lower" House.(minimum time for discussion is 7 days, the average would be 40 or so, but this is just a guess, closed when consensus is clear)
 * 4) *Jimbo would be the defacto sovereign, as he is now with the arbcom, but would be seen as a last resort. This would replace our now ambiguous and frustrating policy creation process.

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 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Answer
I ran for the State Legislature. I was, and still am in District 19, one of the guys that didn't win, so i'll let you take a guess which one I was. I've been training, kind of a political Rocky Balboa (50/50 with trying to start a career), to win in 2006, and politics is almost nothing but bullshit. Would you like me to elaborate? karmafist 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Arbcom ideas good, rest, hmm
You asked me to come look, so here I am! :-)


 * Your arbitration committee ideas aren't even half bad, deploying 3 (wo)man flying teams to rfcs might solve scaling issues.


 * The policy idea is seriously suboptimal for use on wikis. :-) People do regularly propose similar systems, but they're not a good idea. (that and the proposal can't be linked to arbcom nominations, of course)

So on balance, some good ideas and some bad ideas. :-)

Kim Bruning 19:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason democratic review is suboptimal on wikis, is because wikis have a revert button and the real world does not. If someone were to (accidentally) blow up Queen Elizabeth, you're in big trouble, so you're going to need a complete system of laws and checks and balances to prevent that from happening. If you accidentally blank Queen Elizabeth on the other hand, you can just revert. Kim Bruning 19:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question Kim! I think we miscommunicated somewhere there, that analogy doesn't quite fit, but even if it was, I think Queen Elizabeth would get sick of being reverted all the time.

However, the sociocratic (not democratic) body i'm talking about is about policy creation, not about policy enforcement. Right now the process seems to be some kind of arcane anarchic process that doesn't really seem to hold that much weight anyway since they can be whittled and dittled almost at will as long as you don't cross the "invisible line" of changing them if they don't work they're intended to, which will happen over time. I think everything regarding the internal workings of Wikipedia should be clear and fairly generalized instead of gaining flexibility at the expense of sturdyness. Let the rfcs and this new "arbcom system" refine the generalities through new precedents, which the policy making body can change later on if needed.karmafist 02:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you familiar with the Nupedia story? Kim Bruning 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I also don't see how Nupedia relates to the "Wiki-Legislature" either, anybody could propose new policies or fixing policies, the only difference is it would be along lines similiar to afd at the first level, and a mix of the arbcom and afd at the second level, better than the edit wars/talk page free for alls regarding policy reforms we seem to have now. karmafist 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, AFD is not really considered successful... Kim Bruning 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's far more successful than just about any other blank-f-blank. karmafist 07:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Punishment
I've noticed two instances of you (Karmafist) using blocking as a means to punish (and hence take revenge) or threaten users who have upset you. I'm talking about events surrounding diff 1, diff 2. Is this how you will approach the arbcom? This is not meant as an attack on you, it's just the vibe I have recieved and I'd like you to clarify. Even as I write this I fear you will block me for my comment, which is not a comfortable/neccessary postion for any Wikipedian to be in.--Commander Keane 18:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer
Commander Keane, thank you for your question, and don't worry, you don't have anything to fear from me. Pigsonthewing had been harrassing me (mainly on WP:AN/I) and numerous other users, in particular Leonig Mig, who had to create a new user account to avoid harrassment. Yet, the arbcom did nothing, despite the fact POTW ignored his rfc and his rfar.

I think the arbcom should be more proactive, one way or another, and I will not stand by while users like POTW escalate hostility. karmafist 19:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cease making personal attacks. I have harassed no-one. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You see, this is a perfect example. POTW, and many others like him don't seem to understand the finer points of policy or twist policy to serve their own needs by believing something is something or not something regardless of if that's true. POTW does this several times a week in regards to many users at WP:AN/I or WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR or on their talk pages or through revert wars or what have you. And I could give examples up the yazoo, but POTW will just be back here whining and complaining via the "Ostrich Method" (If I stick my head in the sand, it doesn't exist) or the "Megaphone Method"(If I yell loud enough, others will hear me, but I won't be able to hear them.)

People like POTW(those who don't wish to work with others when needed) are far more disruptive than any petty vandal, and the arbcom should be far more proactive in rehabilitating and reprimanding disruptive editors such as POTW.

For more information on what i'm talking about in regards to POTW, please see Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. karmafist 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 15:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you already said that, POTW. ''Or was the megaphone too loud for you to hear if anybody else was listening? POTW is symptomatic of another problem we're having on Wikipedia'', often people feel like they can't get anything done unless they use the Megaphone Method or some kind of shady Cabalism. This needs to be changed, and hopefully some kind of Wiki-Legislature that standardizes and simplifies things for anyone who wants to get policies created, changed or annuled. karmafist 01:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 10:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * And the megaphone's batteries are beginning to die out ladies and gentlemen. POTW was blocked earlier today, the second time since the arbcom case against him ended four days ago. If the Arbcom could have stepped in months ago as a bulwark against such behavior, this could have been nipped in the bud and POTW could continue with his productive edits. Unfortunately, it seems like he's too set in his way to change now, and he's likely to continue to be blocked over and over again until one day the block is indefinate. Right now, the arbcom is too time and resource strapped to do this, but this can be changed if we get more arbitrators and more proactive arbitrators willing to backup admins on the front lines. karmafist 07:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It would certainly help Andy to engage in productive edits if you didn't keep having a go at him. David | Talk 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sorry Dbiv, but like i've said above and below, coddling users like Andy just won't work. It's been done so far and look what's happened. Him in particular, is history to me. My main goal now with this candidacy is preventing future POTW situations, and if he responds on this page, he's rescinded his right for me to ignore him here. karmafist 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

RFA vote comments
Do you think you'd be able to resist jumping on people who happen to vote against you on issues, and to refrain from gloating over Boothy's ban? I was kinda surprised to find you were an admin, let alone trying to get on the ArbCom Proto t c 15:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer to Proto
Proto, thank you for the question, and quite frankly, it's one of the reasons why I felt it was necessary to run. What Proto doesn't understand is that Kelly Martin often told me during the POTW case that "You don't have to save Wikipedia all by yourself, Wikipedia does not revolve around you." However, on Requests for bureaucratship/Johnleemk, she basically opposed for the same reason -- Johnleemk had not entered her orbit of acknowledgement, which is an absurdly poor reason to oppose since there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians she does not know who do great things for this project, as Johnleemk had. That's behavior unbecoming of any Wikipedian, let alone an arbcom member, and such behavior sabotages our fragile sociocratic consensus system.

However, Proto didn't know this, because the arbcom and associated bodies are currently too over stretched to disseminate such information, and as a result, most Wikipedians go with their knee jerk reaction to situations that are multi layered and complex, like Proto's second comment.

At Requests for adminship/WikiFanatic, I attempted to calm the nerves of the candidate, who has basically talked about nothing other than adminship for the past few months on the Wikipedia IRC Channel. He was incredibly anxious, and needed something to calm his nerves so he wouldn't mae a faux pas. I took the now urban legend rfa WP:POINT violator Boothy443, and made a joke about it, calming Wikifanatic down and making a whole bunch of people laugh in the process. Ral315 and me had disagreements over this, but like the above, it was largely due to miscommunication. Me and Ral talked it over, and eventually learned to respect each others' shortcomings, even if we did not entirely agree on philosophies regarding Wikipedia itself. I'd like to offer that same olive branch to Proto right here since Proto has followed a path similiar to Ral's recently in regards to this, and similiar to Ral, is a damn fine contributor to this project from what I've known.

However, in the future, the arbcom and related boards must be far more pro-active in preventing these kinds of potential powderkegs, and in order to do this, I think drastic changes that most of the "entrenched" candidates are not willing to take, despite their otherwise vast abilities, are necessary. karmafist 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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?''
 * First off, thanks for the question -Ril-/victim of signature fascism(which title do you prefer?), I appreciate your participation in this process. I do have somewhat strong political opinions which have been reduced by the Wikipedian mindset. For example, me and MONGO were involved in an edit war at George W. Bush around a year ago, something I regretted so much that I only edited that page once afterwards (don't ask me to find the diff). My regret apparently was mutual in Mongo's opinion as he said at my rfa, and I returned his kindness by supporting him by nominating him for adminship.
 * I'm a strong admirer of Paul Wellstone, and it was once said that he'd be the 1 in a 99-1 vote if that's what he truly believed in. I'll try to follow in his footsteps.
 * Absolutely not, each case is unique. However, they'd be redressed by a separate arbcom to reduce case load.
 * It does, although I believe the arbcom needs to be vastly expanded in order to achieve this goal. karmafist 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

--Victim of signature fascism 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

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 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer
I don't think such a change is necessary, although I do believe that our current approach that a scattered approach is appropriate either since there should be some uniformity in how we resolve disputes so we don't get any double standards or misconceptions among how things work on the arbcom. Rulings should be based on interpretation of precedent rather than perception whenever possible. karmafist 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

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: 24 year old realtor, although i'm looking for other careers.

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: I assume 20-30, but that's with an expanded arbcom system. I won't be able to tell until I get there, since I've never had to be an arbcom member before, and my methodology may differ in time requirements from other arbcom members.

''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 don't usually get involved in article disputes, but I have to a smaller extent regarding non-user rfcs, trying to reform the process into a templatized affair, similiar to user rfcs, rather than what is my opinion, a "free for all" process where users are invited to go to an usually tumultuous talk page and join the fray. My current examples of this are at Requests for comment/Democrat userbox and Requests for comment/Ward Churchill.

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

A: None, unless there i'm editing unconsciously. You'll have to ask my psyche on that one. karmafist 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Question from a newbie
A quote of a question posed by -Ril- (and your answer): ''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?'' After reading the above, I was reminded of what you said here and here. Have you since 18:24, 29 November 2005 revised your opinion on "the case against Yuber"? 131.155.229.224 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It does, although I believe the arbcom needs to be vastly expanded in order to achieve this goal. karmafist 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for your question, I can see how you could see that as difficult to interpret, and I think I understand why since I focused more on it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate whereas I assume you focused on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Before I go on, I'd like to recommend to you getting an account, you just click on where it says "Sign In/Create Account" at the top right hand side of your screen, it takes two seconds and doesn't require any money or e-mail address. Nine times out of ten, there is likely to be nothing out of order with the initiator to the extent that something actually will need to be done, even though arbitrators should check to make sure. If there is something, I'd suggest an approach similiar to Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor, renaming and clarifying the rfar to identify that both sides are now "defendants" in regards to the rfar. In the diffs you are pointing out, a user believing that I was acting out of bad faith, was attempting to make the proceedings about me rather than about the topic, and I offered to move aside if I was getting in the way of the proceedings, since the discussion on the user which the rfar was based upon was the focus there, and I assumed that some may have seen my zeal getting the discussion off topic. The only response I got was from Fred Bauder, who said "Just don't get carried away, you're not hearding cattle here."karmafist 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I think I can see your point. It's the duty of arbitrators to investigate the initiator(s), and, perhaps initially, not of those providing the evidence. Personally, I would expect "evidence" to provide a well rounded picture of the situation, regardless whether the situation concerns just one "Involved party" or more, defendant or arbitration initiator or even plain user. I believe the evidence provided regarding you, did have some bearing to the case. Perhaps thanks to your zeal. I thank you for your reply and your recommendation. I'll consider creating that account, but for the moment I'm comfortable with just my IP address. Best of luck with the elections. You're very brave for applying for this. 131.155.229.224 02:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Please let me know if I can help you in the future, and please let others you meet on Wikipedia about this election, it's going to affect us for a long time coming. karmafist 16:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As the "user" in question I'll just repeat that this claim that I 'was attempting to make the proceedings about you' is untrue. The ArbCom needs to consider background and reasons for behaviour, and in that case some of your actions were highly relevant to these issues. I included only a fraction of that evidence (what I felt was needed to prove the issue), did not bring in any information about you not related to the Pigsonthewing arbitration, and (most notably) did not propose or even support any 'principles', 'findings', 'remedies', or 'enforcement' actions directed at you... indeed, I actually argued against such. I did suggest that a temporary injunction should be applied, but that seemed a given under the circumstances. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 22:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Then we'll have to agree to disagree considering that every edit in Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing/Evidence had to do with me in some way, and since he was blocked twice before I even met him, and twice since the rfar closed four days ago in addition to the eight times he was blocked by users other than myself during the rfar that he decided to ignore completely.


 * When someone is that thick headed(and I assume this'll be seen by my detractors as a violation of WP:NPA, even though he definately isn't learning to co-exist with others, as per his continuing blocks),it takes a tougher stance than average, which currently the arbcom isn't ready to take. karmafist 07:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Karmafist, the problem with 'agree to disagree' here is that we are talking about my thoughts. You have said I was "trying to" or "attempting to" do something. I know that is untrue and have said so. You have chosen to ignore WP:AGF to essentially claim that I am lying. So allow me a small demonstration of what "making it about you" would have actually looked like;

Proposed principle: Sysop powers must not be used to win a dispute about content Proposed finding of fact: Karmafist took sides in a content dispute he was mediating, threatened to block a user if they did not accept his version of the page, actually enacted that block when the user refused, and then protected the page after reverting it to the form he preferred. Proposed finding of fact: Karmafist has repeatedly violated admin policy to win a content dispute (as above), to block and reblock a user he was in dispute with, and to unblock himself... twice. Proposed remedy: Karmafist is placed on an 'admin parole' for a period of six months. During that time he should not engage in any activities which violate policies for admins and is encouraged to discuss potentially controversial actions with other admins in advance.


 * I could go on, but I think you get the idea. I was TRYING only to show that some of your actions and behaviour played a direct part in causing some of the things Pigsonthewing was being criticized for. Had I been TRYING to 'make it about you' my approach would have been very different... and I'd hazard that most of those motions would have passed. I didn't DO that because I didn't want you to be 'punished' or to leave Wikipedia. That doesn't mean I think you should be on the ArbCom or enjoy being called a liar. --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 13:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply To The Reply To Save On Colons
Well, we could be constructive, but I guess we can still go on this avenue if you'd like CBD. You still don't seem to understand what happened there.


 * You've forgotten the first letter of AGF, assume. Assumptions are only necessary at first glance. Once you know or understand a situation, assumptions are no longer appropriate. People misconstrue this often about WP:AGF.
 * What you said above is misguided and would have failed because quite frankly, I didn't care about a certain version, my involvement at Coleshill, Warwickshire was Metapedian, not Exopedian (I cared about the dispute between the users, not the content). So, I created a synthesis edit of the two users, with the majority of it being POTW's content. That wasn't enough for him, and his behavior continued. Apparently, my mistake was Doing Something. A mistake i've paid for in aggrevation to the point where i'm not going to do it again in our current system of things (see Administrators' noticeboard/3RR, Administrators' noticeboard, and User talk:165.247.82.173.)
 * I unblocked myself because ultimately I thought this was the end, that the POTWs of the world had won and there was no place for me here anymore, and as soon as this happened, Bishonen, Evilphoenix, Titoxd, Gryffindor, Locke Cole, Sam Korn, Banes, MONGO, TanalumTelluride, Nandesuka, and David Gerard begged me to stay. If POTW was in my shoes and did the same thing, how many people would do the same? I don't like being called a liar, but ultimately only you and POTW are the ones saying so, and you're free to do so, it's your opinion. karmafist 18:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Instruction creep
When you mentioned your ideas on the Village Pump, people thought it was a parody of Wikipedia policy, not an actual attempt to enact new ones. Can you do anything to make your policy more comprehensible, with less instruction creep?  r  speer 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Sure, I'd love to. Please feel free to refine it if you'd like. karmafist 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Also: word count nitpicking
The suggested statement length was 250 words. Yours is over 500. Can't you shorten it so your statement isn't twice as prominent as the ones for candidates who followed the guidelines?  r  speer 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll do a summary and put the main bulk of the proposals on a user sub page. I'll post it on here once i've done so. karmafist 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed creation of an Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct
Do you support the creation of a Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales? - Ted Wilkes 18:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I believe most arbcom members follow this already, but a codification would be appropriate, even though I can't follow WP:AGF here in regards to your motives due to Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone. I may disagree with many of the arbcom members, but keep in mind even though they haven't come up with a decision on that rfar yet, I would likely be tougher than them on any rulings. karmafist 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Policy
Given that this position involves the interpretation and carrying out of policy, why should someone who ignores policy be on the arbitration committee? I'm refering to your continued creation of new stub types without following the policy of first proposing them and giving them names that are in violation of the stub sorting naming guidelines. This is after you had already been informed of these, so ignorance cannot be claimed on as an excuse on your part. Caerwine Caerwhine 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would just like to note that it's not a requirement to propose new stubs at WP:WSS/P, and that neither WP:WSS nor WP:WSS/P are backed by any policy. Policies are those such as WP:V, WP:NOR or WP:NPA. —Locke Cole 22:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * However, the stub naming guidelines are part of WP:NC which is policy. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:20, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer would be no on that as well. You'll also note the precise wording used at WP:NC– "This page is an official policy on Wikipedia.". It doesn't say "This page, and all pages linked from this page, are official policy on Wikipedia." (and nor should it). —Locke Cole 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Even going by just the text on WP:NC, the stub templates that Karmafist created broke the naming conventions. WP:WSS/NG's main function is to give a long-winded explanation with examples of what the paragraph on WP:NC says much more suscinctly. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Answer
Thanks for your question, Caerwine. Ignoring policy is in itself policy when a user believes that they have no other option -- WP:IAR. Right now anything regarding stubs (WP:WSS, WP:SFD, etc.) is basically in the hands of a few instruction creep fans, such as Caerwine above. After seeing a several month long debate with the now New-Hampshire-State-Highway-Stub, I lost most of my faith in the stub system. The rest of which was eroded to nothing by a series of low level WP:NPA vios (closer to arrogant remarks than actual personal attacks) , , , among more that I may have missed. (WP:NPA needs to be fixed too, it's become the Wikipedia version of jaywalking, but one step at a time.) To me, WP:WSS/NG won't be acceptable until it's no longer than a section long since it should be intuitive, and WP:SFD won't be acceptable until consenseii there can be trusted, which apparently isn't the case since Grutness opened a new proposal for deletion on December 10th New Hampshire-stub a day after the same stub was proposed for deletion, and he saw that he wasn't going to be able to get consensus like he's gotten so many times before since most SFDs aren't opposed. karmafist 18:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, WP:IAR itself is not policy, and in my view is highly illegitamate when applied to administrative actions, as opposed to editing issues. This favorable citation alone IMO disqualifies User:Karmafist from being an acceptable candidate for the arnbcom. So do his other attitudes on this page IMO. Soemone so impationent with process does not strike me as a good candidate for teh arbcom, where process is vital. DES (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the system is on the verge of failure, particularly since you seemed to Ignore All Rules with Ignore All Rules, unilaterally claiming a consensus from a mere talk page discussion.. What we need isn't smoke filled room opinion pushers like DES here, but a clear and codifed system for establishing policy where consensii are out in the open and fairly clear, like WP:AFD. Until that day, i'll IAR at will whenever something gets in my way or someone else's way or building a better encyclopedia. karmafist 07:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Good thing i'm not a candidate for "teh arnbcom", eh DES? ;-)

Reply
As you noted, the second SFD you refer to was for a separate redirect discovered the day after after the initial SFD. In order to ensure the full seven days, it couldn't simply be folded into the original, and it would be quite possible and has been the case in the past that votes for a template and a redirect to the same will be different. It would have been nice if Grutness had noticed the redirect at the same time and been a bit more civil about it.

In any case, that's not what I referring to. The stub I was referring to in my question was the one for real estate you created on the 9th and nothing to do with the mess in either the state stubs or the highway stubs which have engendered controversy. The only reasons I can see why you chose to not propose it were either haste, or a desire for a prefered name that didn't following the naming conventions, since the stub type itself is not proving at all controversial.

I'll be the first to admit that the SFD for the various state highway stubs was not well managed, mainly because it tried to tackle too many issues at once. (" " vs. "-"; -Stub vs. -stub; -State-Highway- vs. -state-highway-; and -State-Highway- vs. -road-) That's one reason I stayed clear of that particular mess.

You've complained that the naming guidelines are unclear, perhaps you would care to propose an alternative? The core guidelines are given in a simple seven sentence section at the start, the rest of the naming guidelines page explains the reasoning behind them and details the known exceptions, which are mainly stubs that predate the naming guidelines. The exceptions section has gotten much shorter over time as execeptions have been taken to SfD. Hopefully, we won't need an exceptions section in a few months, either because the exceptions will have been made to follow the guidelines or the guidelines adapted to fit the exceptions that have been kept. Caerwine Caerwhine 22:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Reply To The Reply
I'd love to give an alternative, and i'm only sorry that it takes this much whining (no offense to your sig there) to get it listened to it seems. Ultimately, that was one of the biggest reasons why I ran for this position, I'd like to spearhead a place where policy can be proposed and worked upon without it blowing into the wind like what we have now at the Village Pump, and usually "Pulling an Ed Poor"(deleting such a well tread page) doesn't work. If I tried to propose policy regarding this at the Village Pump or one of the stub areas, it'd more than likely be swiftly ignored.

Here's my idea.
 * 1) Every word except "stub" is always capitalized.
 * 2) No abbreviations, except for when the category is better known as an acronym(even then, if an alternative exists, it's preferable)
 * 3) Hyphens are used at every level and before "stub"

And that's it. Period.

Personally, I believe that any overcomplicated policy in regards to things that may act as a "gateway drug" for further involvement in Wikipedia (such as stubs or Collaborations) is a WP:BITE country.

That was ultimately my impetus to making the redirects. A newcomer or non-regular stub adder should not have to deal with the organization of stubs, that's WP:WSSes job. Their jobs should be to put the stubs on the articles. If they want to go further from there, fine. But they shouldn't have to learn an arcane set of guidelines and precedents in order to help Wikipedia. karmafist 01:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think that you'd have gotten a fair hearing without making a ruckus, but we'll never know now. Your ideas aren't all that radical, tho I agree with only some of them. The last section of WP:WSS/P is set aside for proposals concerning stubs to do something more ambitious than creating a new stub or the deletion or removal of an existing one.  I'll address my points to your proposal when I see it there so as to avoid any further clutter here. Caerwine Caerwhine  04:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd like to think so as well, but i've been burned too many times in the past few months in regards to things like WSS and related areas, one of the biggest reasons why i'm here. Thanks for reaching out though, i'm glad we could move forward instead of backward. karmafist 07:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

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 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 09:26, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1) It's very important, although it also must be remembered that at times there may be lapses of civility due to misunderstandings from personal perceptions, making the ability to respect other viewpoints from others, whether in disputes or not, is more important than generalized civility.
 * 2) I suppose so, I don't remember any issues with civility with my professors, but you can e-mail one of them at lwelkowi@keene.edu if you'd like a more thorough answer.
 * 3) I don't agree with the decision guidelines, but most of the rest seems appropriate.

karmafist

Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?
Do you support User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC))
 * I like 7 and 8, the others need to be refined to work, but there's a good start there. However, I don't think that refinement will come until there's a clear, open and streamlined process for policy creation, revision, and annulment karmafist

=Announcement= I am currently answering the questions below, I will have them answered within 10-15 minutes. karmafist 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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?

Tito xd (?!? - help us) 06:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions from Zordrac
Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 16:26, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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?

Answer

 * 1) Transparency is incredibly important. No discussion should be made on e-mail or IRC without an outside ombudsman recording the discussion for outside sources.
 * 2) No.
 * No, not at all. A common misunderstanding of AGF is the "A", something that needs to be rectified by updating WP:V to also correspond to user actions. If they are critical at first glance, then yes, thea would be an AGF vio, but as long as their criticism is fairly civil given the circumstances(arbcom cases can be traumatic for many), they have the right not to be censored.
 * 1) I wouldn't. Recusal in those cases should be automatic for all arbitrators. To paraphrase what i've said about adminship, you can be an arbitrator and an editor, but not both at once.
 * 2) Via a checks and balances system through a legislature(mentioned above) and succinct rules. There should be a limit to review, and it would be very rare, but arbitrators are human, and that should be remembered. karmafist 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from User:Benapgar
1. You were recently involved in a block war with another administrator. What happend there?

Certainly! Thanks for your question, this is a perfect example of why a stronger, larger arbcom is needed as well as clearer policies. deleted the shortcut to Requests for comment/Kelly Martin to stifle further opinion there, claiming that it was attracting "trolls", afterwards protecting it. However, under WP:CSD, there's no justification for deleting that, and nothing was put to WP:RFD, where deletions of Redirects are made when they cannot be speedied.

Basically, he saw that, he didn't like it, and since he felt he was above policy that he could IAR instantly. I made sure he understood that this was not acceptable, first at AN/3RR, and then afterwards when nobody else would confront him on this, directly going against this subjective use of admin powers.

SCZenz blocked both of us to try and solve the problem since nobody was stepping in, I applauded him for it, but Snowspinner blocked him as retribution.

What I want is not block wars or edit wars or what have you, but to know that the process is equal and clear for everyone, and until that time, i'll stand up against those who wish to subvert the structure of Wikipedia for their whims. karmafist 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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 | help remove biblecruft 02:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again Victim of signature fascism, I appreciate your continued questions. I see Jimbo as a "Wiki-Monarch" as little more than a figure head, similiar to say, a human personification of our community -- a rallying point. Otherwise, he's just another admin to me, with strengths and faults, good days and bad days. Heck, I even helped Jimbo out the other day. karmafist 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) As for your last question, I believe a standard would need to be introduced defining where a "strong opinion" is divided from a regular one. karmafist 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

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 Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct?

2. Are there any parts of 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 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. &mdash;James S. 06:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Question from Rob Church
Your statement seems, to me, to criticise the committee as-is, and as has-been, somewhat. Arbitrators burn out, face daily opposition to their actions, and are slandered on a daily basis. At the risk of sounding confrontational; what makes you think you'd fare any better? Rob Church Talk 13:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Rob, and don't worry, unless you seek confrontation, you won't find it with me. I can't do better. Nobody can. Like i've said above, the key is a systematic reform of the process, starting with more arbitrators. The system as it is now is guaranteed to burn out arbitrators and overload the system to the point where no cases will be heard, regardless of their merit. karmafist 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Freakofnurture
&mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:40, Jan. 8, 2006
 * 1) Do you believe you have said, at any point, anything genuinely offensive to Pigsonthewing?
 * 2) Do you feel that Mr. Mabbett's ability to tolerate criticism is lower than might be expected from a reasonable person?
 * 3) Do you think his interpretation of WP:NPA is selectively applied, and/or broader than appropriate?
 * 4) Do you recall any harsh comment directed at POTW by anyone that wasn't mitigated by his own general incivility?
 * 5) Do you wonder if Andy is attempting to google bomb the phrase "cease making personal attacks" ?

Answer

 * 1) More than likely, when you get deeply involved in a dispute, it's very easy to lose focus towards what's important.
 * 2) Absolutely. Per Section 4 of Key Policies at WP:RULES, acceptance of constructive criticism is mandatory for any Wikipedian.
 * 3) Absolutlely again, unfortunately, WP:NPA is often too vague or unrealistic for many editors to take seriously, it reminds me of a speed limit on a highway -- it takes a gross violation of it, usually on many occasions, for anything to happen. We're discussing ways to reform WP:NPA right now at Esperanza/NPA Reform so instances like POTW's view of that policy don't occur again.
 * 4) Not particularly.
 * 5) Heh, perhaps. At this point, Wikipedia is a natural haven for Google Bombing, when researching for List of Bountyheads in Cowboy Bebop most of the examples in the first 2 or 3 searches were either from Wikipedia or a mirror of the article I was trying to research for. karmafist 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Concerns over personal attack templates
User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Village pump (policy):


 * I am concerned about |recent 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.

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 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)