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

Statement
I want to make it clear, before I even start listing the details, that I have no idea what to expect from adding my name onto this list. I do however, believe strongly that the community should provide the Wikimedia Foundation/Jimbo/Wikipedia itself as many legitimate options as the community can, and I believe I am a legitimate option.

I have been an editor on Wikipedia since about May 24th, 2005. In that time I have engaged in a number of disputes, controversies, mediations, etc. Likely as not, you have not heard of them, and to me that is a Very Good Thing. The accomplishments of bringing editors at their worst to their best should not be advertised, because it showcases fellow editors at their worst, not their best. I beleive very strongly that Wikipedia needs to treat its editors as people, fellow human beings, and offer them that basic respect.

Thus, the goal of Arbitration is not punish those who have done wrong in some cosmic sense, but to protect the integrity and longevity of the project. Thus ArbCom must stand between the community and the Encylopedia, and intercept any disaster that may befall either. Keeping in mind those principles, Arbitration would be a processes which handles, primarily, disputes between editors. Ideally, the Arbitration Committee should be able to clearly delinate principle and action in such a way that it never has to do anything: the Arbitration Commitee should truly be the step of last resort. This is however, the ideal. In reality the Arbitration needs to balance making itself unpleasant enough to be the last resort, as well as accessible enough to those who need it. Arbitration needs to focus on every applicable resource to protect the project, especially from dispute. This includes rescuing editors who have caused trouble, but have potential to reform, as well as losing good editors who threaten to demoralize scores of others. I believe strongly that Arbitration Committee should spearhead a community wide effort to create alternatives to two parties going to arbitration asking "who's right and whos wrong?!". This includes formal and informal mentorship agreements, formal and informal mediation, and controling the usage of dispute resolution tools to prevent damage to the project.

I think I provide a unique perspective. I provide the combination of beliefs I expressed above, and the relative newness to formal authority. I am NOT mired in past high profile disputes, and I very strongly believe that you need as many diffrent voices you can get, so long as they all work together.

Tznkai 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

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

--  HK   16:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * My first response, without even looking, is it sound suspiciously like mainstream politics, and thus should be killed with fire, because Politics is Bad and Wikipolitics is Worse. Glancing through the Code of Conduct it looks like a bunch of suggestions that are easy to follow (when to recuse), a few redundancies (Follow WP:NPA, no really?), and a misunderstanding.
 * " Those elected by the will of the Wikipedia community to serve on the Arbitration Committee are bound by the principles of impartiality and fairness in their decisions."
 * While I agree with the sentiment, its technically incorrect to say the ArbCom's power derives from the will of the community. This isn't a majority ellection/represntative government, is the community putting forward its opinions on who will best serve to protect the encylopedia from errant memebers of the community, and who will best serve to protect the community from errant members of the same, and handing it up to Jimbo to figure out. Personally, I think the diffrence between mob rule and consensus decision making is a tricky one, and thats what we have someone with reserve powers for. Of course ideally, this would all be moot because we wouldn't NEED an ArbCom, people would settle things on their own.
 * So to the first, the Code of Conduct, I would be willing to follow its principles, as the community has every right to ask and largley expect the ArbCom to act like responsible community members, but I would suggest against putting it as policy, because it reinforces the erronious idea that ArbCom is the Supreme Court of Wikipedia, bring your complaints here, and let us decide WikiLaw.
 * I'll address bill of rights in a second--Tznkai 04:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Alright. Did a little more looking, and found a couple of sticking points.
 * "No ex post facto laws."
 * This came up in the Code of Conduct as well. This is dead wrong in one sense, and very true in another. The restriction of ex post facto laws is designed to keep a party (usually citizenry) protected from governing authority (usually the state), where as the state would oppress the citizenry, by making up laws that they broke. First off, ArbCom isn't about laws, wiki or otherwise. Its about protecting the project (project= >51% enyclopedia + <49% community). So no laws. No matter what rules or policies are being followed or not, disruption of the project must be addressed. ArbCom is the last resort for dealing with disruption. Thus, any "punishments" or preferably, remedies are judged by magnitude of the problem, not by policy guidlines. We don't sentance people for crimes around here, and we don't fine people. Thats wikipedia as a whole, editor, adminstrator, arbitrator, and Foundation board member. So. No Laws. No Oppressing users. No stopping the protection of the project within reasonably action.
 * "Arbitration Committee members should follow policy and precedent rather than altering it."
 * Policy isn't ArbCom's perogative or master. Protecting the community and Jimbo are. It is answerable to the community, if for no other reason than the practical. Policy is a tool to protect the project. ArbCom is a tool to protect the project. No one overrules the other, protection of the project and the head bludgeoner thereof rule both policy and ArbCom.
 * Now, any moment here, people are going to ask why I'm so deferential to Jimbo.--Tznkai 04:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Let me summarize what I said up there into something simple: ArbCom, Adminstrators, and Policy are all tools to protect the project.--Tznkai

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?''

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 02:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hoo boy. Lets take these one at a time:

--Tznkai 03:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe very strongly in the opinion that people should keep their opinions on religion and politics the hell out of Wikipedia, except for the occasional friendly chat or bias exposure to make a troll feel silly about getting the bias very wrong. I similarly believe that ________ is evil statements about any topic is not against the Neutral Point of View Policy, but is incredibly unhelpful. I would likely reject cases that are about article content, and recuse from cases that involve people I am known to be involved with, but I can think of no subjects I would need to recuse from. Oh wait, I take that back, abortion would be an off limits area for me, as I am a major contributor to that article.
 * I am extremly willing to say what I think, and unwilling to fight for the sake of fighting. Thus I will register my objection if I am in the minority and there is no hope of discussion moving forward, and move on. I will not fight and fight and fight, as I believe that is useless.
 * They involve a slightly higher burden of proof, and claims that "the last case was decide wr0ng!!!1111!!!1!!" well earn my skepticism, but sometimes, mistakes are made, or people (gasp) change. I'm perfectly willing try letting people try again.
 * Yes. You're not going to get a complete picture just by focusing on the problems comitted by a single involved party. I admit to the enjoyment of the idea that parties that bring forward cases when they have also contributed to the problem, will suffer the consequences for that problem.
 * Jimbo Wales hold reserve power for a good reason. Wikipedia is largley his baby, and (slightly joking here) we serve at the pleasure of the Wikimedia Foundation, if for no other reason that they pay for the server bills. So no, barring some twisted situation of a conspiracy of Arbitrators protecting a single arbitrator who has commited serious crimes and/or has brought disaster to the project, and somehow Jimmy Wales is involved/hoodwinked, I can't think of a decent reason not to trust the man.
 * Consider, as an example, the twisted situation concerning Kelly Martin, who was appointed directly by Jimbo Wales without regarding the community's viewpoint, and who is now the subject of extreme scorn by much of the community. I raise this only as an example, as here appointment ceases as soon as the elections are made, and hence is somewhat moot here. In such like situations [in general] do you refuse to concede to the community and side with Jimbo, or would you side with the community against his support for the arbitrator? --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 15:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think we're begging the question here, so I'm going to give a two part answer, and I apologize in advance if it seems smarmy somehow. Under my understanding there is not a clear sign from the community that what Kelly did was Wrong, or even Abusive. I think the only thing resmembling consensus from the community is that it was definatly unpopular, which is not the same thing at all. I think the next closest thing to a definate message from the community is that it was considered unwise, and that it'd be nice if she would acknowledge that maybe the people who disagree with her aren't idiots, and have brains themselves. Neither of these, in my opinion, are sufficient grounds for thinking about overriding Jimbo. So in the specific situation mentioned, I defer to Jimbo and trust his judgement, because there isn't an obvious community consensus that KM has violated the standards of conduct expected of an Arbitrator, ((I personally see these as unwritten, similar to a US Judgeship is) at best there is a significant population that wants Kelly to think a little more longer, ask a little more before deleting templates, and thinks not doing so is rude, abrasive, and slightly silly. There is no sign that this was an abuse of the position of Arbitrator (not directly involved in a case, and she did recuse), no clear consensus or even majority opinion that Kelly is likley to cause trouble relating to Arbitratorship that is going to be problematic. I will admit that the backlash it's caused is concerning (because we should all be concerned when people are complaining, why are they complaining), but I disagree there is a clear message from the community that Kelly is not trusted as an Arbitrator.
 * Part two of the answer is addressing what you're getting at more directly. Let us say, hypothetically, there was a clear, community consensus, or even a comunity super majority with 80 concuring, 15 dissenting, and 5 abstaining, that Arbitrator A has done Act B. Act B would have to in violation of the standards expected of an Arbitrator (roughly speaking, to be trustworthy and sensible enough, generally speaking, especially in matters of dispute resolution) and/or indicitive of Arbitrator A being a significant threat to the goal of ArbCom, and thus a threat to the project. So assuming that Act B was not merley unpopular, but a violation of the above, I would likley resign from the commitee, and speak as a community member. Why? Because the abuse of power to inflict my opinion of right just because I happen to have the power to do so is a violation of the standards stated above. If however, Act B does not violate the standards exepected of an Arbitrator, it is within the privledge and it is the duty of another Arbitrator to abide by their own understanding of the situation, taking into account the community message.
 * In summary, I think the question you wanted me to get at was this: "are you willing to side with the community or with Jimbo?" The answer is, it depends on what is right in the situation. ArbCom is not by the people, for the people. Its a collection of individuals who have been chosen, hopefully rightly, to protect the project and provide one of the channels of last resort to deal with dispute resolution. The follow up question then, is "If you find yourself in disagreement with Jimbo, and in agreement with the community, will you use your influence/position as Arbirtator to do something about it?" and the answer is: "Barring extraordinary circumstance, no." In this I am willing to take a clue from politics. When you disagree with the people that got you where you are to the point where you can't work together, you pack up your bags, write a nice little letter of protest, and take it outside. TINC, and lets keep it that way. I am not going willing to be the inside man for the masses, nor am I the Man keeping them down. I'm putting forward my name for consideration because I believe I am a legitimate option in being willing to arbitrate disputes fairly with the goal of protecting the project. ArbCom is a tool to protect the project, NOT some form of government.--Tznkai 17:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really. Wikipedia is a not a democracy, and we don't really have a govermental structure per se. Its erronious to see ArbCom as an office, as this is a useful, but equally perilous analogy. However, anyone so served would do well to take it seriously, as it is sign of *something* wrong. If subjected to one myself, I would likely resign, but I am loathe to force anyone else to. ArbCom serves to protect the community and the encylopedia, and not in that order! Its not a post per se, or a position of Honor and Peerage. Its a job that pays horrible, and so long as it is clear that the Arbitrator continues to serve the purpose of an Arbitrator, even a supermajority does not change that. However, I stress again, that if someone is censured, it bears investigating because clearly *something* is wrong, whether its a job for ArbCom or the community at large is a diffrent story all together. (I myself am a large fan of mediation)
 * Uh. Dunno about strong opposition, but I have written a number of things I disagree with on abortion. I try to avoid opinion writing as much as possible, and organize, describe, and cite. That takes my own personal point of view out of the article quickly.
 * Does that answer everything?

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?

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. &mdash;James S. 06:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't "pledge" anything, as that sounds suspiciously like campaigning. However:

1. I think these seem pretty sensible thus far. Recusal is done when there is poentail for conflict of intrest, or just not being able to fully grip the situation. I don't think this needs to be written down, it should be obvious.

2. I find the idea of Arbitrators being held to a higher standard a laudible one, but this isn't it. The current system, (read:Jimbo) in my opinion, is not broken enough to force systemization. Furthermore the ACCC treats ArbCom like a criminal court, instead of a commitee which is there to protect the project, especially (and possibly exclusivly) via dispute resolution. Ex Post Facto I covered in a previous question, but, ignoring tone, the idea that ArbCommers must be held to an even higher standard of sensibilty and respect is sensible.

3. No. I refuse to pledge to anything, as I despise even the appearance of campaigning. I'd like to reduce the back log, and Ideally, find a way to shuffle off as much to previous dispute resolution proccesses (saaaay mediation) as humanly possible. More people isn't a bad idea, should there be enough potential Arbitrators available.--Tznkai 07:56, 5 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 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Well. This is going to be a wonderfully complicated answer and I'll try to cut down on rambling.

First off, Improv is right on one very important point. There Is No Right To Free Speech On Wikipedia. There is however, an expectation that so long as you abide by policy, work on the encylopedia, and play nice (a nice redundant statement right there) you can say what you want. We have every right to demand that users remain civil, polite, and if not constructive, avoid being destructive. To apply policy, lets pull out some applicable policies thenL WP:CIV WP:NOT WP:NPA. The third is very much redundant with the previous two, but these are pretty much my three of my favorite four, with the last being WP:NOR/WP:CITE. Anyway whatever the letters of CIV, NOT, and NPA, it is very clear the intent of the above policies is to protect the enyclopedia from the one thing that will kill it the fastest: editors. Editors are the lifeblood of our project, but also the primary force pulling it apart. Editors have a nasty tendancy to not get along, and when they don't get along they tend to get nasty. Excessive nastiness leads to a collapse in the project.

So we have a couple things to address here. Do these userboxes/personal opinion templates (POTs) present a significant threat to the project, and what should ArbCom do about it? The short answers are probably, and hopefully nothing. The long answers follow

POTs are harmful because displaying a Point of View, especially one that is political or religious in nature quickly hobbles WP:AGF and leads to quick debates about whos POV is infecting the article more. POTs are not a problem in them selves per se, but quickly lead to violations of CIV, NOT, and NPA, because of the loss of good faith and the tendancy for Person A and Person B to find something to disagree about. That or have sex, but as the second is difficult via wiki, the first happens. So, are they cause for concern? Yes, as they will ineveriably lead (because of the nature of people) to conflict that would'nt have occured in the first place.

What should ArbCom do about it? Ideally, nothing. I'd like to think that editors, and editors and adminstrators together can talk together calmly and sort it out. When that fails, I think discussions on the Village pump, TFD, etc. should be able to take it over. When ArbCom is likley to have to step in is if/when arbitrators begin to wheel war (always bad) there is a massive failure of the community to reach consensus, and/or two uesrs have massive conflicts using POTs to get their point accross. Remeber, on wikipedia there is no right to free speech. Which is not to say that we should go around controlling speech, but we expect people to be nice to other people. Although you can still make fun of the wiki as I recall. Anyway. ArbCom is the last line of defence. If POTs erupt to the point when ArbCom needs to stand in, then by their nature, some new rules need to be laid down. ArbCom isn't a maker of policy or bound by it per se, its another tool to protect the project. If POTs reach the point where ArbCom needs to step in, the project is likley in need of protection, and ArbCom can make a ruling to protect it while the community catches up with some applicable policy. Hopefully, it doesn't reach that point.

That answer everything?--Tznkai 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not, but it shows that you've thought fairly deeply about the issue. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)