131.155.229.224 (talk) →Reply: reaction to reply |
|||
Line 130: | Line 130: | ||
<br> |
<br> |
||
In the diffs you are pointing out, a user believing that I was acting out of bad faith, was attempting to make the proceedings about me rather than about the topic, and I offered to move aside if I was getting in the way of the proceedings, since the discussion on the user which the rfar was based upon was the focus there, and I assumed that some may have seen my zeal getting the discussion off topic. The only response I got was from Fred Bauder, who said "Just don't get carried away, you're not hearding cattle here."[[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
In the diffs you are pointing out, a user believing that I was acting out of bad faith, was attempting to make the proceedings about me rather than about the topic, and I offered to move aside if I was getting in the way of the proceedings, since the discussion on the user which the rfar was based upon was the focus there, and I assumed that some may have seen my zeal getting the discussion off topic. The only response I got was from Fred Bauder, who said "Just don't get carried away, you're not hearding cattle here."[[User:Karmafist|karmafist]] 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
: I think I can see your point. It's the duty of arbitrators to investigate the initiator(s), and, perhaps initially, not of those providing the evidence. Personally, I would expect "evidence" to provide a well rounded picture of the situation, regardless whether the situation concerns just one "Involved party" or more, defendant or arbitration initiator or even plain user. I believe the evidence provided regarding you, did have some bearing to the case. Perhaps thanks to your zeal. I thank you for your reply and your recommendation. I'll consider creating that account, but for the moment I'm comfortable with just my IP address. Best of luck with the elections. You're very brave for applying for this. [[Special:Contributions/131.155.229.224|131.155.229.224]] 02:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC) |
|||
==Instruction creep== |
==Instruction creep== |
Revision as of 02:14, 9 December 2005
Karmafist
The last thing I wanted to do is run for arbcom, but from my dealings with the system at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, I feel that it's necessary to enact some change.
My running is basically a protest against the arbitration process as it is, not against any particular member of the arbcom itself since I deeply respect all of them i've talked to individually. My goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system.
Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if Jimbo Wales interfered in any way, unless he truly does look down upon other Wikipedians, thus destroying the idea that Wikipedia is Egalitarian, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.
My Ideas
- A 3 person mini-arbcom at each section of rfc as an appelate device for rfcs gone awry, or not gaining a consensus to reduce the load on the arbcom, which will be known by another name.
- A 7 person appelate arbcom for all cases not concluded in the sectional arbcoms to reduce the load on the "main arbcom".
- A bi-yearly regular caucus, similiar to a Loya Jirga, on topics regarding the arbcom open to all wikipedians so they can know that they have input in the process, and to foster more confidence in the process.
- A bi-yearly regular caucus, similiar to a Loya Jirga, on policies and how they relate to each other regarding former precedents and their intentions so regular users better know the ins and outs of confusing policies, particularly when they conflict.
- A new bicameral legislative council to be named later run through sociocracy, basically as any consensus based portion of Wikipedia runs now, only bigger. The "Lower" House would consist of all registered users, all of which could propose new policies(minimum time for discussion is 7 days, average would be 20-30, closed by admins or bureaucrats). The "Upper" House would consist of a set number of elected users, with the majority being at large, but with a minority representing certain geographic regions in order to maintain a wide array of viewpoints that might vary with different cultures and locales. The "Upper" House's job would to either accept, refine, or reject policies passed by the "Lower" House.(minimum time for discussion is 7 days, the average would be 40 or so, but this is just a guess, closed when consensus is clear) Jimbo would be the defacto leader, as he is now with the arbcom, but would be seen as a last resort.
This would replace our now ambiguous and frustrating policy creation process.
- Assistance by the entire system to admins and board who try to enforce policy
- Regular updates by arbcom members on cases
- The right to a speedy arbitration for the subject of the arbitration
- A cataloging on arbitration histories for ease of reference.
- Filing of Amicus Arbitrations for users who have broken policies while on probation, to be heard by a 3-7 person "Last Resort" Arbcom.
Questions and Comments
Form question by Snowspinner
Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Answer
I ran for the State Legislature. I was, and still am in District 19, one of the guys that didn't win, so i'll let you take a guess which one I was. I've been training, kind of a political Rocky Balboa (50/50 with trying to start a career), to win in 2006, and politics is almost nothing but bullshit. Would you like me to elaborate? karmafist 02:45, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Arbcom ideas good, rest, hmm
You asked me to come look, so here I am! :-)
- Your arbitration committee ideas aren't even half bad, deploying 3 (wo)man flying teams to rfcs might solve scaling issues.
- The policy idea is seriously suboptimal for use on wikis. :-) People do regularly propose similar systems, but they're not a good idea. (that and the proposal can't be linked to arbcom nominations, of course)
So on balance, some good ideas and some bad ideas. :-)
Kim Bruning 19:04, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- The reason democratic review is suboptimal on wikis, is because wikis have a revert button and the real world does not. If someone were to (accidentally) blow up Queen Elizabeth, you're in big trouble, so you're going to need a complete system of laws and checks and balances to prevent that from happening. If you accidentally blank Queen Elizabeth on the other hand, you can just revert. Kim Bruning 19:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks for your question Kim! I think we miscommunicated somewhere there, that analogy doesn't quite fit, but even if it was, I think Queen Elizabeth would get sick of being reverted all the time.
However, the sociocratic (not democratic) body i'm talking about is about policy creation, not about policy enforcement. Right now the process seems to be some kind of arcane anarchic process that doesn't really seem to hold that much weight anyway since they can be whittled and dittled almost at will as long as you don't cross the "invisible line" of changing them if they don't work they're intended to, which will happen over time. I think everything regarding the internal workings of Wikipedia should be clear and fairly generalized instead of gaining flexibility at the expense of sturdyness. Let the rfcs and this new "arbcom system" refine the generalities through new precedents, which the policy making body can change later on if needed.karmafist 02:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Are you familiar with the Nupedia story? Kim Bruning 05:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I also don't see how Nupedia relates to the "Wiki-Legislature" either, anybody could propose new policies or fixing policies, the only difference is it would be along lines similiar to afd at the first level, and a mix of the arbcom and afd at the second level, better than the edit wars/talk page free for alls regarding policy reforms we seem to have now. karmafist 06:15, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
- Well, AFD is not really considered successful... Kim Bruning 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Punishment
I've noticed two instances of you (Karmafist) using blocking as a means to punish (and hence take revenge) or threaten users who have upset you. I'm talking about events surrounding diff 1, diff 2. Is this how you will approach the arbcom? This is not meant as an attack on you, it's just the vibe I have recieved and I'd like you to clarify. Even as I write this I fear you will block me for my comment, which is not a comfortable/neccessary postion for any Wikipedian to be in.--Commander Keane 18:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Answer
Commander Keane, thank you for your question, and don't worry, you don't have anything to fear from me. Pigsonthewing had been harrassing me (mainly on WP:AN/I) and numerous other users, in particular Leonig Mig, who had to create a new user account to avoid harrassment. Yet, the arbcom did nothing, despite the fact POTW ignored his rfc and his rfar.
I think the arbcom should be more proactive, one way or another, and I will not stand by while users like POTW escalate hostility. karmafist 19:27, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cease making personal attacks. I have harassed no-one. Andy Mabbett 19:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
You see, this is a perfect example. POTW, and many others like him don't seem to understand the finer points of policy or twist policy to serve their own needs by believing something is something or not something regardless of if that's true. POTW does this several times a week in regards to many users at WP:AN/I or WP:AN or WP:AN/3RR or on their talk pages or through revert wars or what have you. And I could give examples up the yazoo, but POTW will just be back here whining and complaining via the "Ostrich Method" (If I stick my head in the sand, it doesn't exist) or the "Megaphone Method"(If I yell loud enough, others will hear me, but I won't be able to hear them.)
People like POTW(those who don't wish to work with others when needed) are far more disruptive than any petty vandal, and the arbcom should be far more proactive in rehabilitating and reprimanding disruptive editors such as POTW.
For more information on what i'm talking about in regards to POTW, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing. karmafist 23:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
- Cease making personal attacks. Andy Mabbett 15:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
RFA vote comments
Do you think you'd be able to resist jumping on people who happen to vote against you on issues, and to refrain from gloating over Boothy's ban? I was kinda surprised to find you were an admin, let alone trying to get on the ArbCom Proto t c 15:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Answer to Proto
Proto, thank you for the question, and quite frankly, it's one of the reasons why I felt it was necessary to run. What Proto doesn't understand is that Kelly Martin often told me during the POTW case that "You don't have to save Wikipedia all by yourself, Wikipedia does not revolve around you." However, on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Johnleemk, she basically opposed for the same reason -- Johnleemk had not entered her orbit of acknowledgement, which is an absurdly poor reason to oppose since there are hundreds of thousands of Wikipedians she does not know who do great things for this project, as Johnleemk had. That's behavior unbecoming of any Wikipedian, let alone an arbcom member, and such behavior sabotages our fragile sociocratic consensus system.
However, Proto didn't know this, because the arbcom and associated bodies are currently too over stretched to disseminate such information, and as a result, most Wikipedians go with their knee jerk reaction to situations that are multi layered and complex, like Proto's second comment.
At Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/WikiFanatic, I attempted to calm the nerves of the candidate, who has basically talked about nothing other than adminship for the past few months on the Wikipedia IRC Channel. He was incredibly anxious, and needed something to calm his nerves so he wouldn't mae a faux pas. I took the now urban legend rfa WP:POINT violator Boothy443, and made a joke about it, calming Wikifanatic down and making a whole bunch of people laugh in the process. Ral315 and me had disagreements over this, but like the above, it was largely due to miscommunication. Me and Ral talked it over, and eventually learned to respect each others' shortcomings, even if we did not entirely agree on philosophies regarding Wikipedia itself. I'd like to offer that same olive branch to Proto right here since Proto has followed a path similiar to Ral's recently in regards to this, and similiar to Ral, is a damn fine contributor to this project from what I've known.
However, in the future, the arbcom and related boards must be far more pro-active in preventing these kinds of potential powderkegs, and in order to do this, I think drastic changes that most of the "entrenched" candidates are not willing to take, despite their otherwise vast abilities, are necessary. karmafist 16:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
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?
- First off, thanks for the question -Ril-/victim of signature fascism(which title do you prefer?), I appreciate your participation in this process. I do have somewhat strong political opinions which have been reduced by the Wikipedian mindset. For example, me and MONGO were involved in an edit war at George W. Bush around a year ago, something I regretted so much that I only edited that page once afterwards (don't ask me to find the diff). My regret apparently was mutual in Mongo's opinion as he said at my rfa, and I returned his kindness by supporting him by nominating him for adminship.
How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?
- I'm a strong admirer of Paul Wellstone, and it was once said that he'd be the 1 in a 99-1 vote if that's what he truly believed in. I'll try to follow in his footsteps.
Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?
- Absolutely not, each case is unique. However, they'd be redressed by a separate arbcom to reduce case load.
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?
- It does, although I believe the arbcom needs to be vastly expanded in order to achieve this goal. karmafist 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
--Victim of signature fascism 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Question from Marsden
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 15:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Answer
I don't think such a change is necessary, although I do believe that our current approach that a scattered approach is appropriate either since there should be some uniformity in how we resolve disputes so we don't get any double standards or misconceptions among how things work on the arbcom. Rulings should be based on interpretation of precedent rather than perception whenever possible. karmafist 22:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk
Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)
A: 24 year old realtor, although i'm looking for other careers.
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 assume 20-30, but that's with an expanded arbcom system. I won't be able to tell until I get there, since I've never had to be an arbcom member before, and my methodology may differ in time requirements from other arbcom members.
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 don't usually get involved in article disputes, but I have to a smaller extent regarding non-user rfcs, trying to reform the process into a templatized affair, similiar to user rfcs, rather than what is my opinion, a "free for all" process where users are invited to go to an usually tumultuous talk page and join the fray. My current examples of this are at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Democrat userbox and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ward Churchill.
Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.
A: None, unless there i'm editing unconsciously. You'll have to ask my psyche on that one. karmafist 22:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Question from a newbie
A quote of a question posed by -Ril- (and your answer):
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?
- It does, although I believe the arbcom needs to be vastly expanded in order to achieve this goal. karmafist 23:06, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
After reading the above, I was reminded of what you said here and here. Have you since 18:24, 29 November 2005 revised your opinion on "the case against Yuber"? 131.155.229.224 12:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Reply
Thanks for your question, I can see how you could see that as difficult to interpret, and I think I understand why since I focused more on it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate whereas I assume you focused on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Before I go on, I'd like to recommend to you getting an account, you just click on where it says "Sign In/Create Account" at the top right hand side of your screen, it takes two seconds and doesn't require any money or e-mail address.
Nine times out of ten, there is likely to be nothing out of order with the initiator to the extent that something actually will need to be done, even though arbitrators should check to make sure. If there is something, I'd suggest an approach similiar to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/FuelWagon v. Ed Poor, renaming and clarifying the rfar to identify that both sides are now "defendants" in regards to the rfar.
In the diffs you are pointing out, a user believing that I was acting out of bad faith, was attempting to make the proceedings about me rather than about the topic, and I offered to move aside if I was getting in the way of the proceedings, since the discussion on the user which the rfar was based upon was the focus there, and I assumed that some may have seen my zeal getting the discussion off topic. The only response I got was from Fred Bauder, who said "Just don't get carried away, you're not hearding cattle here."karmafist 22:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think I can see your point. It's the duty of arbitrators to investigate the initiator(s), and, perhaps initially, not of those providing the evidence. Personally, I would expect "evidence" to provide a well rounded picture of the situation, regardless whether the situation concerns just one "Involved party" or more, defendant or arbitration initiator or even plain user. I believe the evidence provided regarding you, did have some bearing to the case. Perhaps thanks to your zeal. I thank you for your reply and your recommendation. I'll consider creating that account, but for the moment I'm comfortable with just my IP address. Best of luck with the elections. You're very brave for applying for this. 131.155.229.224 02:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Instruction creep
When you mentioned your ideas on the Village Pump, people thought it was a parody of Wikipedia policy, not an actual attempt to enact new ones. Can you do anything to make your policy more comprehensible, with less instruction creep? rspeer 17:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure, I'd love to. Please feel free to refine it if you'd like. karmafist 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Also: word count nitpicking
The suggested statement length was 250 words. Yours is over 500. Can't you shorten it so your statement isn't twice as prominent as the ones for candidates who followed the guidelines? rspeer 20:00, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll do a summary and put the main bulk of the proposals on a user sub page. I'll post it on here once i've done so. karmafist 22:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)