I've been a wikipedian since June 2, 2005, and an administrator since September 6, 2005. I initially wanted to run for arbcom, then decided not to, and now (at the last minute), I've decided to go for it.

I've been around arbcom for a while. I've never been very involved in it, but I helped file the first Ed Poor case, which I withdrew from after mediation. I don't really like the decision they made on that case, since they basically closed the case almost instantly after opening it, and hardly any of the dispute was about his bureaucrat powers. I also was fairly active in the Pigsonthewing case, but I agree with the decisions made there, even though they seem to have failed, at this point.

I have strong opinions on lots of things, and will recuse myself from anything I don't feel I can handle neutrally. I can feel my biases, and have never let them get in the way of editing. Of course, most of my editing is minor anyway...

I think that arbitration should be a relatively quick and straight forward process, but it should never be rushed. I generally do not agree with banning users who regularly contribute to writing an encyclopedia, in the first case they appear in. They should be sanctioned appropriately, depending on what they did, and given a chance to correct their behaviour. If they should show up in another arbcom case in a reasonable time, doing the same thing, stronger sanctions or maybe even a ban should be strongly considered. I especially support bans if the user does not appear to be interested in writing an encyclopedia.

ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always.

--Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights? --HK 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the user bill of rights, I agree on 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. I sorta disagree with 3, because precedents are good, and there will always be loopholes and such in policy. I'd still prefer to avoid creating entirely new rules. #5 is kinda confusing, and I'm not sure what it means. It looks like it means that admins are bound to enforce rulings, which I don't completely agree with. We have 700 admins, it's impossible for all of them to completely ignore arbitration rulings. Therefore, if a few don't want to bother enforcing them, then there will always be someone who will. Especially since, as of now, all arbcom members are admins. Otherwise, it mostly appears to be a simple, sensical document, which would be a useful guideline. For the arbcom code of conduct, it's lengthy and seems overly bureaucratic. I still mostly agree with what it says, but would prefer not to be bound to it. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What is Wikipedia supposed to be?
2. What is Wikipedia, now?
3. What needs to change?
4. Does ArbCom have anything to do with this change?

Ta. Rob Church ^Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. And a wiki community dedicated to writing said encyclopedia.
2. I've often joked that Wikipedia is the internet. We are a huge collection of information, though much of it is in the form of bad articles, stubs, unreferenced articles, and other less desirables. The areas we have the best coverage in are things like video games and anime. In fact, any time I want to know something about video games or anime, this is the first place I look! The English language Wikipedia is also the biggest wiki community currently.
3. We need to work more on writing an encyclopedia. More specifically, we should spend less time screwing around. Things like arguing about userboxes and other useless or less useful things. I'd like to see us get full, or atleast very good, coverage of the most encyclopedic topics, that a general encyclopedia like Britannica has. And expand from that, articles that special purpose encyclopedias would have. I have no problem with the gaming and anime, this is still useful information. There needs to be a lot less POV pushing, edit warring, and other things which get in the way of this.
4. Absolutely. ArbCom is where users should go when everything else in the dispute resolution process has failed, or in extreme cases, is likely to fail. ArbCom's goal needs to be to help users to write an encyclopedia in peace and harmony. I've learned that the real purpose of arbcom is to prevent or stop wheel wars. ArbCom does that by providing binding remedies to hopefully resolve disputes. If we didn't have an ArbCom, all major disputes would eventually have to get settled by a godking. Jimbo is far too busy to deal with this crap.

--Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What will you bring to the arbcom? ComputerJoe 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be a fresh member. I'd like to replace someone on arbcom so that they can take a break from the constant crap that they have to deal with. I have an open mind, and will review all evidence from all parties with an equally open mind. I strongly feel that everyone should get an equal arbitration, even if it makes it take a little longer. Preferably, disputes that I arbitrate in will be ones that I have had no prior participation in at all. I feel that this makes arbcom more useful, because it's a completely new set of eyes. This won't be an excuse not to hear a case, though. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. What's your opinion on desysopping as an ArbCom penalty?
2. How closely do you think admins should have to follow policy when using their special powers?

—Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. This is something I've thought about alot, but managed to screw up and leave out of my statement. :) I think we should be more liberal to desysop, but additionally, more liberal to sysop in the first place. Adminship should be no big deal, and if it's easier to desysop them, then it will be easier to get new ones, as people will be more likely to support a candidate. Desysopping should be used only in cases of clear abuse, where the admin has been requested, in a serious manner, to stop the behaviour, and has not. Things like using admin powers in content disputes, unblocking themselves, etc. In most cases, it would be preferable to attempt some sanctions on the use of their powers first, along with a warning, in the strongest terms possible, that they *MUST* stop the behaviour they were engaging in, or they *WILL* be desysopped. I feel that ArbCom should directly desysop people, and not send them to RFA to have their sysophood reconfirmed. Precedent shows that almost nobody will support anyone who has had a recent arbcom case against them. If ArbCom sees so much of a problem with the admin's conduct, that they are willing to desysop them, they should do it themselves. However, if the choice is made to send them to RFA for reconfirmation, the RFA should be worded to make it obvious that it is here because of the RFAr, and link to it, to help users make a decision.
2. While they should follow policy closely, the policies that are written down are often a poor representation of the actual policies in use. Common sense should be the biggest thing. And, all admins should be required to have some common sense. :) (I think even the ones that have abused their powers have atleast a little of that). Things that I absolutely hate are using admin powers in content disputes, "wheel warring", and unblocking themselves (which often results in a wheel war anyway). I will never support gaming the system. For example, if a user is reverting a page 3 times a day, every day, for months, without violating 3RR, and they are blocked, the blocking admin has done nothing wrong.
3. I strongly request that if you have any further questions about desysopping, that you ask. This is something very important to the community.

--Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should not have these templates. This is a cause of concern for 2006. I don't think arbcom should get involved with userboxes. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]