User talk:Mirv/Arbitration election
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Questions regarding my candidacy in the December 2004 Arbitration Committee elections should be placed below.
(William M. Connolley 23:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Given that you are standing, why are you endorsing 6 candidates (9 if 9 places) rather than 5 (8)?
- In endorsing a full slate of candidates, I'm operating with the assumption that I'm not going to be elected. My endorsements are for candidates I would like to see win, should I fail. —No-One Jones (m) 23:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- (William M. Connolley 23:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Oh, OK. Don't be too downbeat though (self-fulfilling prophecies, etc).
Contents |
[edit] Arbitration Elections
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] Please provide some practical insight into your candidacy
Mirv, I find your candidate statement somewhat confusing. On the one hand, you state that the actions of the Arbitration Committe have been "both fair and helpful". On the other hand, you state "I think it is better to reform users than to expel them."
OK, then how about the arbitration case involving Shorne? Do you agree or disagree that his actions warrant blocks or a ban?
For example, would you have blocked Shorne from editing communism-related articles for the length of the arbitration proceedings?
If the other arbitrators were discussing whether to ban him for a few months, how would you respond?
A case that is not so cut-and-dried can reveal a lot about the character of the individuals who are given authority to make decisions about such a case.
You state that you want to prevent an "elite cabal", (some argue it's already here, others see nothing wrong), so I'm curious to find out if you would rule any differently than the current Arbitration Committee.
Since you are not on the Arbitration Committee, you can offer your opinion without affecting the fairness of those proceedings.
Thanks for running for election. I appreciate having more choices from which to choose.
Cheers,
--DV 02:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- [H]ow about the arbitration case involving Shorne? Do you agree or disagree that his actions warrant blocks or a ban?
- I agree that his actions warrant censure; the current remedy (a two-month ban) is, I think, on the harsh end of what I would find acceptable. Were it up to me I would give him a short ban, at most a week, as a symbolic measure. Given the history of that case I would probably accept, reluctantly, the two-month ban.
- For example, would you have blocked Shorne from editing communism-related articles for the length of the arbitration proceedings?
- Yes, if only as a damage-control measure.
- If the other arbitrators were discussing whether to ban him for a few months, how would you respond?
- I would discuss solutions that would allow Shorne to keep contributing while limiting the damage he could cause. I would probably propose something like two of the remedies now being considered: a tight revert parole (one per page per day) combined with a strict requirement to discuss each edit. A user who is willing to continue editing under those restrictions is probably (though not definitely) serious about the project's goals.
- You state that you want to prevent an "elite cabal", (some argue it's already here, others see nothing wrong), so I'm curious to find out if you would rule any differently than the current Arbitration Committee.
- I want to prevent even the perception that administrators are in any way an elite class of users: admins are not supposed to have any special authority, and those who think they do should be brought up short very quickly. (Arbitrators, on the other hand, do have some degree of special authority, which is why the elections for the position are a bit more serious than requests for adminship.) So far I have only seen two cases of sysop abuse—Zero0000 and Guanaco—come before the arbitration committee, and there I thought the remedies were about right. In the first case, which was clear-cut, Zero was temporarily desysopped and afterwards placed on probation in his admin capabilities. In the second case, which was messier, Guanaco was required to reapply for admin abilities if he wished to keep them, in order to judge whether the community still thought he was worthy of adminship.
P.S. You asked only about Shorne, but his case was part and parcel of one which included several other users. Did you mean to ask how I would rule in the case as a whole, or only in the matter of Shorne's behavior?
—No-One Jones (m) 02:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-
- Thank you Mirv, for your timely reply.
-
- I am curious how you would vote in the case as a whole, as it involved multiple parties, but I specifically mentioned Shorne as there seems to be quite a difference in opinion concerning his actions among various other users.
-
- If you want to expand upon your answer to include the case as a whole, feel free to do so, but your answer as it stands is very informative. Thanks.
-
- Cheers,
-
- --DV 03:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Endorsement
Greetings. You have my endorsement for Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004, and you have therefore earned the Quadell seal of approval. Feel free to use this image, or not, as you like. (You won't hurt my feelings if you don't.) – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:09, Nov 22, 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.
[edit] Question
Mirv: thank you for standing, and for establishing this page to ask questions. You mention the enforcement of community norms in your candidacy statement. By this, do you mean written rules, or the unwritten, customary rules of interaction within the Wikipedia community? - Scooter 03:30, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Both, since I do not see the two as separable. The written policies are, in part, a codification of the unwritten norms; the unwritten norms depend largely, but not entirely, on the written policies. I consider the two equally important; just as it's possible to stay within the letter of the law while completely ignoring its spirit, it's possible to break the rules as they're written in ways to which almost nobody would object.
- For example: A user who reverted certain pages three times every 24 hours while never discussing his reverts would be within the written bounds of the three revert rule, but would be breaking the social norms of discussing one's edits, working for compromise, and so forth—but a user who reverted a page four times in 24 hours, while at the same time conducting an active, polite, and reasoned discussion on the talk page, would be staying within the unwritten norms while violating the written rules. A sysop who blocked a persistent and unrepentant Wikispammer would not be strictly within the letter of the blocking policy, but would be well in line with the community consensus that Wikispam is a Bad Thing—while a sysop who blocked a user for 3RR violations when he was involved in an article dispute with that same user would be well within the written blocking policy but would be violating the largely-unwritten rule that sysops are not supposed to have any extra editorial authority.
-
- I believe I have a better idea, yes. So would you recommend any action against a user who, as in your example, reverted a page three times exactly, thus staying with the letter of the "law", but did not otherwise discuss his reverts, or engage in polite discussion on the matter? - Scooter 19:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, if he only did it once it wouldn't be worth taking it to arbitration—but if he kept reverting a dozen pages thrice daily for weeks on end, never discussing his reverts along the way, then maybe he would merit arbitration. Arbitration is only for persistent misbehavior, in my opinion. —No-One Jones 23:16, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
-
