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

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]

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]

Form Question from karmafist

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]