Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.

Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.

Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].

An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it.[4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.

Put questions here

1. Given that you have recently been admonished by the ArbCom for making personal attacks and edit warring, do you think that you are an appropriate candidate for such a position of trust within the community? Furthermore, given that the target of your personal attacks was 172, who is also a current candidate, how would you be able to perform your functions properly in the event that both of you were elected to the ArbCom? --bainer (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

1. Thanx for the questions. If you observe the discussions between 172 and myself on content, for example on the neoconservatism articles and on the dictator deletion pages, you will find that we are able to stick to the merits. My alleged "personal attacks" on 172 were in response to incidents of abuse of processes by 172, his unilateral reopening of a closed vote for deletion, and his personal use of admin powers in an earlier incident. If you examine these "personal attacks" you will find they are not the typical name calling, but are themselves very analytical. These analytical skills and my bulldogged insistence in consequences for violations, especially by those that presume to judge or punish others, are quite apropo and useful in the tasks of the arbitration committee. I have an intimate understanding of the root causes and nature of edit warring which will aid the deliberations of the committee. I don't think I am intrinsically an edit warrior, and in fact have strong anti-deletionist tendencies, however, I do find that responding skillfully in kind to edit warring tactics is one way to bring the other party to the table. I have a natural tendency to oppose those who try to abuse their powers or take advantage of the system. The current sanctions I am under, will not impact the performance of my arbitration duties, as reverts are seldom needed and when needed can be requested of admins. The energy I put into the alleged "personal attacks", will be properly directed into analysis and crafting general precedents that will improve the fairness and the perception of fairness in the wikipedia culture. -- thanx again for your consideration of my nomination. --Silverback 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were arbitrating the case against yourself, how would you have handled the case? What penalties, if any, would you have dealt to yourself and other involved parties? Ral315 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have put myself on a personal attack parole, and a 1R per day rule for a period of time, the 6 months was not unreasonable. The 1 revert per article per week parole seems excessive and unjustified by the "edit warring" allegations. It is far more extreme and limiting of ordinary editing than a 1R parole interpreted in the way that the 3RR rule is would be. Furthermore, the multiday penalties the arbcom recommended, appears to sanction unprecedently severe and unilateral action by admins, as if I no longer merited normal considerations of evidence and fairness. I would have santioned 172 for his abuse of the deletion voting process, putting him on parole for those kinds of interferences in the voting processes, since his abuse was unusual and seminal in this dispute. In practice this would have had no effect on him, unless he felt called upon to abuse the processes again. I would have put csloat on a 1RR per day rule parole on the one article he appears to be territorial about as well as a personal attack parole. And if I were Kerry Martin, I would have recused myself. I also would have apologized to myself on behalf of wikipedia for Redwolf24's actions in prejudging the case, and called him to task, perhaps with a temporary week or two loss of admin privilege, for giving the impression that wikipedia does not respect the usual ethical abhorance of double jeapardy.

I would have explained all the decisions, citing the evidence and concentrating on seminal events that if handled differently could have avoided all the conflict and waste. In a sense, however, even the hastey, one-sided and excessive final judgement of the ARBCOM has served the purpose of civil disobedience by calling further attention to the need for reform and fairness. Thanks for your question. --Silverback 05:33, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite possible that the goal of an encyclopedia may itself conflict with the open, freewheeling culture of wiki, yet despite this wikipedia has been remarkably productive, although growing pains and cracks and perhaps even chasms are beginning to show. Of course, IAR is by its nature in conflit with all the policies and rules. IAR is popular because it is cute and irreverent and panders to the human tendency to want to take shortcuts, brush all process aside and get to the result that your hubris tells you is right. It also saves the violator a lot of time and scrutiny, because citing IAR eliminates the need to provide any explanation, no matter how presumptuous or unfair your action may seem to others. I will interpret IAR to be an argument from necessity in order to achieve a "higher" wikipedia purpose. A case brought before that invokes IAR will have to argue how their action supports that higher purpose, and how that higher purpose could not have been achieved by legitimate procedural means. Even then, the claimed "necessity" had better be so great, that it is worth the martyrdom of what ever sanctions may still have to be imposed to preserve both the reality and perception of equal justice. If it isn't that necessary, then you should follow the procedures and policies rather IAR. I myself have committed "civil disobedience" of a sort, in order to draw attention to unfair procedures and abuses, and the consequences are what they are.

Wikipedia is a large organization now. I think it needs to find a minimal set of fair rules that it thinks works and that it is willing to enforce. Unfortunately, there is an admin culture, fed by the cute and irreverent, IAR and "The wrong version", that has resulted in lax and uneven enforcement and a perception of unfairness. A big part of the reason the Arbcom is overloaded is the perception of uneven and unfair enforcement. An overloaded Arbcom feeds the admin culture of hubris, because the admins know the current processes cannot handle the load, and thus they need to act unilaterally. The violations are more numerous because the violators know the arbcom is overloaded, the process is unfair anyway, and the disaffection results in more vandalism and less civility.

With a large organization, the perception of equality and fairness rise, out of necessity, must rise to the level of importance of the ultimate goal of an encyclopedia itself, because otherwise the culture becomes unwieldy and unworkable and the "ultimate goal" is lost anyway. When there is conflict between even the minimal set of of policies, as there inevitibly will be, there needs to be a focus on process even if that leaves the articles in a state that is temporarily of lower quality than they might be by someone's standards, i.e., there is no "right version", short of vandalism and blanking. The goal of fairness and evenness of enforcement becomes paramount. The emphasis of any analysis of a case should be on first or ultimate causes, what started the problem at the beginning, because setting a precedent for ARBCOM interpretation there provides guidance that that will prevent some and hopefully most small problems from starting in the first place or once started, from becoming bigger problems. Many times both sides will have some merit and blame and some rules on their side. While both sides may need to be admonished for not finding a solution short of the arbcom, I will tend to come down on the side of wiki tolerance and acceptance as opposed to the deletionist solution on content and POV issues. If a good faith case can be made that certain information is relevant and from a reasonably authoritative source, even though an equally good faith inconconclusive case can be made for the opposite, then the information should probably come in, in the interest of fairness and civility, that is the "wiki" in wikipedia.

Feel free to inquire further, if I have not been clear enough or have been unresponsive on any point. Thanx for your question.--Silverback 04:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I have no religion except perhaps a fondness for knowledge and truth, but I consider humans a religious species, and religious belief a natural and perhaps more normal state for members of that species. I am inclined towards critical thinking and to take contrary positions if I don't think the other side is make sense or is overstating their case, so I have found myself defending Bush quite a bit even though I think he is a mass murderer. I am opposed to those who presume to rule and abuse other people since that seems presumptuous and unfriendly so I run afowl of those who support communists and dictators quite a bit, since I don't find cultural differences and claims of past victimization or past colonization as legitimate excuses for such behavior. In other words, I think the world is better and safer place if individuals are held responsible for their behavior, and that past wrongs or noble ends cannot justify immoral means. Frankly, I think a fair and impartial process is so important, I would not want to see anyone get an unfair decision, whatever my past history with them might be. So I think in general, I should not recuse, although I also think the appearance of fair is important too, I would recuse if I thought that would make the process appear fairer. --Silverback 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Extremely willing, frankly, I intend to decide cases on the merits, not based on how other arbs are voting. They won't be able to expect me to just tag along. Now if they assemble good arguments based on the evidence, I would give those consideration of course.--Silverback 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

Hell no.--Silverback 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I am not familiar with that case, but considering the behavior of all the parties to a dispute has been a long standing practice of the committee, and I can see the merit in that policy, although I have become concerned that it could be abused by a clique, who could make sure that uninvolved parties bring the complaint, so that their fellow members who were directly involved in the dispute, would not face review and possible sanctions, unless a separate action were brought explicitly against them. I am concerned about the overall fairness of the process.--Silverback 04:08, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism 16:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

You recently filed an WP:RfC on the "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse", which was moved into your userspace following a debate at WP:MFD. I filed an outside view which referred to you as a "troll" (for which I apologize; I disagreed with your point and presentation, but it was still valid); do you still feel strongly about the nature of the "admin culture", and do you feel that you could work well with your fellow arbitrators, most of whom are administrators? Additionally, do you feel administrators who abuse their powers are very common, and, if so, how do you feel they should be dealt with? Thank you in advance for you answers, Silverback.--Sean|Black 04:25, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I still feel strongly about the nature of admin culture, and no, I don't think those who abuse their powers are very common. There is a lot of thankless work that gets done, even by those who do abuse their power, and I am appreciative of that however, even a small minority of admins who abuse, can effect the perception (or look and feel) of the community, just as a few small percentage of rogue cops color the reputation of the Los Angeles PD, or a few abuses of international standards in the treatment of prisoners impact the reputation of the United States. Also, the small minority of admins who abuse reveal a more pervasive part of the culture, the larger percentage of admins that know about and tolerate or defer to that abuse. This deference to the rogue decisions of other admins is widespread. Here,[6][7], even in the glare of attention brought by my RfC which you responded to, Sidaway was admonished for unprotecting an article that was the territory of that rogue admin, who then proceded to revert to what he thought was the "right version" again. We don't need admins who can't admit they were wrong, and insist on maintaining their blatent violation of policy. The other admins and the arbcom need to step in, in such situations to let rogue admins know that they don't own articles and don't have a right to violate the rules or abuse their powers. Frankly, these cases of obvious territorialism and abuse will be the easiest behaviors to eliminate, if a couple members who publicly intend to take a stand against the double standard for such behavior. IAR will be restricted. These cases are easy because the evidence is so clear. A couple arbcom precedents will have the admins enforcing the rule in such cases on their own. More difficult to eliminate will be surrupticious communications resulting in an admin conveniently protecting the version he or his clique prefer. We need to promote a culture of service among admins, not one of status, privilege and irreverence.

I have worked on a number of controversial pages and can usually reach accomodations with reasonable people, even if their views are quite opposite. All it takes is a legitimate persuit of truth, and a willingness to be fair to both sides. I will try to promote a culture of openness on the arbcom, where even discussions on cases take place in the open instead of on backchannels, where people are more willing to make emotional or personal decisions rather than strictly on the merits.--Silverback 08:09, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given your response at Wikipedia:Peer review/Intelligent design/archive2, why do you feel that you would be level headed enough for the ArbCom? I realise I'm going back quite some way, but I haven't seen any evidence you've changed your ways since then. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone can legitimately disagree with a decision to request peer review. Inviting more people to a controversial page, where both sides seem to have achieved a compromise, even if it reads like a debate, is like throwing fuel on fire. Some issues are just controversial, and society's best minds have not been able to convince the other side. When POV warriors have achieved a delicate compromise, well intentioned peer reviewers are more likely to upset the applecart and the disturbance is likely to attract an even larger and less managable number POV warriors. I think our discussion was civil with points made on both sides, but the subsequent history of the article has realized my worst fears. I do sometimes object to presumptious actions by others, that are routinely ignored by most of the community, so what you suggest is a lack of level headedness, is probably a reaction you had due being surprised by my objections. Unusual or rare objections can still be level headed.--Silverback 08:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 16:03, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe in the wiki approach, and the only change we need is a change in the culture of "The wrong version, IAR and deference among the admins. Because of these the admin culture is contributing to disorder rather than order and providing an excuse for more authoritarian measures. Make no bones about it, if wikipedia becomes more authoritarian it will be because that is what the powers that be wanted all along and they were just looking for an excuse to do it. All this wiki culture needs is to openly and fairly enforce the minimalist set of rules and policies that we have. I'm not saying there may not be a need for a minor tweak here and there, to optimize the minimalist set of rules, it may even take as little as a few precedents from the arbcom. In reality IAR is actually more authoritarian in the sense of being perceived as arbitrary and ad hoc (dictatorlike), than merely enforcing the policies rather mechanically and predictably would be.--Silverback 05:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: 52 --Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 can be good arbitrator in terms of quality in just a couple hours a month depending on the complexity of the case, I won't sign off on decisions I haven't researched. However, I assume you are using "good" somehow in the sense of quantity of work, rather than quality. I expect that I will be able to average about 30 to 50 hours a month, but on occasions due to job deadlines may have to miss a week or two.--Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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've been called a POV edit warrior, and I certainly have not shied away from the controversial articles, but a lot of my contributions make it into the articles, based on arguments on the merits, so perhaps I was just upholding encyclopedic standards rather than just being a POV edit warrior. I find that controversial articles are often more in need of balance and new arguments that make both sides see that the opposing side is more reasonable, defensible and evidence based than they originally thought. Frankly, I've seen cliques acting as if they were absolutely sure they were right and that they just had an obstinate person opposing them, then I've analyzed the situation and found out that the clique was quite wrong, and was actually violating NOR and were reflexively rejecting peer reviewed sources by the other side, just because they disagreed with the result. Sorry but NPOV and NOR trumps "consensus".--Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

A: None. --Silverback 05:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:44, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The code seems reasonable. I personally have been more concerned about admin behavior than arbcom, although, I think there have been istances where recusal was called for. I am concerned about this statement: "It is not acceptable to link to a specific user's evidence file against another user to fulfill the third requirement. " I don't quite see what its purpose is. It would seem wasteful to repeat evidence that has already been compiled. If the evidence compilation covers multiple types of violations or if many of the alleged violations are found not to be convincing, but a couple were, it would only be fair to point out which ones were seen as valid.--Silverback 07:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

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 Wikipedia: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 08:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think civility is important to the productivity of the wikipedia community, because some people are bothered and distracted by incivility. I am not particularly bothered by incivility, but I consider it a waste of time. As to editors that are correct in the name space but perceived as rude, I think that would depend on why they are perceived as rude, whether it is due to wasteful attacks or just bruskness. I've seen editors who just isssue commands, such as "don't do this" or "that is not allowed", without a please or an explanation. Since this probably causes resentment, it is counter productive, but does not seem to be an arbcom worthy issue.

Yes, I have an academic background, but am in industry now. I evaluate critiques on their merits. If they are uncivil and raise their voices, I usually shout back "DOES THE LOUDEST ONE WIN?!". I can be quite loud, although I almost never get angry, so I generally never get to demonstrate my voice except at sporting events, where I am also extremely civil, I just cheer for my team, and try to generate enough noise to mess up the opposing teams communications.

I intend to generally act in accordance with the proposed policy, but am disappointed that it is apparently needed. I generally think formal policies should be kept to a minimum, and that our real problem is the Ignore All Rules policy and they type of culture it encourages. We should have few rules and they should be openly and uniformly enforced, and those charged with enforcing them should be held to the highest standards. I made a comment on the proposal, I don't know if it has changed since then.--Silverback 10:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(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 02:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia: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. —James S. 06:58, 5 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. [8]

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 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]