User talk:Neutrality/Arbitration question

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is for any questions you have relating to my participation in the December 2004 Arbitration Committee elections.

"Enforcing community norms" sounds wonderful but it does beg the question "which community?". This statement of yours rather implies that you would arbitrate in favour of users who are thought to be "within" the community and against those who are perhaps thought of as "outside". In particular, admins are admins partly because they are perceived to be upholders of the community norms but their decisions are not always clearly in pursuit of any norms at all, or meet the norms of one section of the community or another. There are plenty of editors who are feisty, aggressive even, and do let their enthusiasms get the better of them but are nonetheless valuable contributors. Some admins, it seems to me, make a pursuit of "fighting" those editors. Their idea of what the "norms" are may diverge from those of the minority voices, but even if they form a majority, they are not necessarily right. What I am saying, I suppose, is that by setting yourself up as a defender of the "norms" are you suggesting you will enforce a majority view even when that view does not really represent a consensus? I'd feel very uncomfortable voting for a person who was not at least sympathetic to all, and did not at least hold the view that every effort should be made to include different voices rather than still them. Dr Zen 03:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. I do not believe that users should be blocked for having unpopular opinions, as such an idea is m:anti-wiki. This is not what I mean by "community norms." By "enforcing community norms" I mean that users should not troll or disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. In other words, if users wish to change existing policy they should feel free to do it by legitimate means (community consensus and discussion) and not break/circumvent the rules. We should encourage being bold, but also enforce some degree of justice. In other words, a "Wikipedia state of nature" is inherently unjust and we need some sort of wikigovernment to remedy this. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 15:38, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the excellent answer, N. I hope you'll live up to that when duly elected next month!Dr Zen 22:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hope so! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 23:59, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

Could you explain how speedy deleting articles that are going through the deletion process is respecting "community norms"? It looks a lot like "disregarding the community and acting unilaterally". Even if you believe it is absolutely clearcut that an article should be deleted and there is a forming consensus, there is still no provision in the policy to act like this. This from a guy who gave me the full spiel about how users ought not to break the rules! Dr Zen 02:00, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Do you think it is appropriate for someone to bring a case before the arbitration committee to further a political goal? (yes, no, please explain your answer).

Would a wikipedian be irresponsible to try to politically capitalize on a controversial situation because he/she is running for a position? (yes, no please explain your answer).

Would you or have you ever used a controversial situation for your own political benefit? (yes, no: why, why not please explain your answer)

Thank you and please answer each question in full.Arminius 08:27, 25 Nov 2004 (TC)

Well, for your first question, I'm unsure what it means. Do you mean "further a political goal" as in an outside ideology (like liberalism or conservatism) or do you me interwiki politics? This first is against the NPOV policy, but the second one is a bit hazy; it's awfully hard to judge whether someone is bringing a case because of politics and self-interest or that they feel that doing so is the right way.

To answer your second question: what do you mean by "politically capitalize"? Again, if a candidate is manipulating people, that's one thing; if the candidate is commenting on controversial issues in the wiki, that's another thing entirely. We ought to encourge frank and open discussion of current issues.

And for your third question: I have never and will never use a "controversial situation for my own political benefit. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 18:16, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

---

You may remember that I coordinated the previous two elections, for the board, and for the arbitration committee. I am willing to coordinate this election as well, and have asked Elian to assist. However, we would like to have the support of the candidates to do this. Do you support us coordinating the election? My policy is to be entirely neutral, and to ensure this, I will not be voting myself (I didn't vote in previous elections either). All results will be announced following the final count. Please answer on my talk page. Danny 01:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A Message to my Fellow Candidate

Friend,
The Arbitration Committee elections are almost here. I humbly ask for your vote in this election cycle. I have been a user of Wikipedia for over a year. I was here before the Community Portal, categories, or <tt>{{stub}}</tt>. I know how Wikipedia operates, and I am prepared to do my part to deal with problematic accounts. I wish to cut out the bureaucracy that makes our website stagnate. We need solutions to our problems now. If you want an arbitrator who believes in action, frankness, honesty, and fairness in every case, I am your arbitrator. Thank you for your time. You are under no obligation to answer this message.

--Paid for by Mero. for ArbCom

[edit] "Get tough on trolls"

Hello. Your statement has a graphic that says "Get tough on trolls" but that's not addressed by the text. I'd like to know to what extent you're interested in getting tough on trolls. Let me ask the question this way: of the arb com cases you've seen, have there been any in which the arb com was too lenient on a troll? Naming names will help convince me that you're serious, incidentally. Thank you for your time. Wile E. Heresiarch 08:21, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. What I mean when I say "get tough on trolls" is not so much as giving disruptive users harsher punishments, but dealing with them more effectively and swiftly. The case of Irismeister comes to mind. Irismeister should not have had dozens of 24-hour blocks before he was finally given a one-year ban. An effective ArbCom would've acted quicker and treated all concerned with respect. In other words, "get tough" means more "be quick" than "be harsh." Thanks again. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 14:34, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some questions

If they let you be an arbcom are you going to bother to learn the rules/continue to break the rules? Why should we think you'll do the duties of an arbcom when you don't do the duties as an admin? i.e. you ignore and delete requests and complaints from users directed to you as an admin on your talk page. Why did you volunteer to be an admin if you don't want to do what's involved? Also how can you be an arbcom when you oppose democracy?:

Neutrality recently used vulgar language against me and just now today, taunted me on my talk page (an entry which I deleted). He constantly reverts people with false and misleading edit summaries. He refuses to dialog. And he quite obviously holds grudges. Rex071404 23:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

This vote is invalid. I object to taking this vote seriously. Just the facts, ma'am:

This user was once 24-hour blocked for inappropriate behavior

A total of twelve users supported an RfC against this user

An arbitration request is currently pending against this user The Arbitration Committee has issued a temporary injunction against this user. Neutrality 00:32, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Question: what wikipedia policy supports your assertion that "this vote is invalid"? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 00:48, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The vote is not officially invalid in the sense of "explicitly should not be counted," but common sense says the vote is essentially meaningless with regards to determining consensus. Perhaps "invalid" is not the best word to use. Neutrality 00:51, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Are you going to be taking the same line- that people you don't like should be arbitarily denied the rights they have? I get the impression that you Kowtow to anyone "above you" (on an internet noticeboard).

I trust every current bureaucrat and their judgement, and I truly mean that. Neutrality 01:08, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC) "In general, I think that the ArbCom has done an excellent job and has done well in being fair and just with many users,"

As you deleted two oppose comments from the election page calling the person's right to take part in the election "trollish nonsense" shouldn't you resign as a candidate? And as you can't read and understand basic English: claiming I'd made legal threats - you don't really have the ability needed to judge these arbcom cases, where people get pretty het up, do you? You say you'll get tough on trolls but you call everyone who disagrees with you a troll so how will that work? WikiUser 19:10, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)