Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Filiocht

I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.

I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:

Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
Wikilove: enough said.
Assume good faith: ditto.
Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.

Beyond these, I have no preconceptions and would expect to grow into the role according to the needs of Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum — on the question of de-admining

Above, I say Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins: so, what is an admin, what is abuse of admin status, and how should it be handled?

As I see it, an admin is a user who has been given access to a set of bits of wiki functionality that other users cannot use. The chief components of this toolkit are the ability to protect, delete and undelete pages and to block users. The deal is that these tools are handed over with the implicit, but clear, understanding that they be used for the benefit of the community and the project, not the individual.

The toolkit also carries with it a heightened responsibility to adhere to such basic tenets as Wikilove, assuming good faith, the carrying out of policy, both written and unwritten, the need for consensus for any actions that may be debatable under policy or require policy. In short, the admin needs to model the behaviours that the community and project require from all users if they are to prosper.

Any admin who uses the toolkit and imagined status to impose their own POV, make a point, bully or intimidate other users, unilaterally breach consensus and/or policy, or generally act the dick are, in my view, abusing their admin role. Note that I am not restricting this to the hypothetical rogue admin who goes on a deletion spree; that one is obvious. I am more concerned with an insidious abuse of "power" to undermine the basic premise We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.

So, a fair question; how would I see admin abuse being dealt with? This is not the place to work out a complete policy proposal, so the following notes are just an outline of principles and possible procedures.

By extension of the Talking is better than blocking principle, I would argue that de-admining is better than blocking, too. De-admining means that the user retains the most fundamental "right" on Wikipedia: the ability to edit articles. The community and project also benefit from the retention of the skills and knowledge of an experienced editor. I envisage a number of set-length periods that could be applied; say 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indefinite. For the fixed termination periods, re-admining at the end would be accompanied by a period of mentoring equal in length to the sanction period. Any abuse identified by the mentors during this period would result in an automatic imposition of the next level up sanction.

The process might look something like this:

Request for comment in which a significant body of opinion is that something is amiss (note that I would not impose consensus at this point because of the potential for vote packing).
ArbCom investigates questions of fact. Did the abuse happen? When? Where? How often? etc.
Findings of fact are published to the community. If the finding is that nothing untoward happened, the process closes. Otherwise:
ArbCom investigates circumstances. These would include the admin's previous record, any provocation by others, any statements by the admin that would indicate a negative attitude towards policy or other users or a clear misunderstanding of admin responsibilities, etc. and decide sanction.
Nature of sanctions and rationale are communicated to the admin and then published to the community.
Sanction is imposed.
Some time before the end of sanction, mentors are agreed and appointed and the community is informed.

Now, this may seem very legalistic and is, of course, open to much debate. However, I feel it only fair that I would spell out my approach to this difficult and contentious, but vitally important, issue in some detail. I would rather avoid a situation in which anyone might vote for me without understanding that I do have somewhat strong views on this question. I should also add that I do not see this process as something that would happen very often, but that its very existence might act to cool down potential flareups and cause all of us admins to consider our actions more carefully.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions and comments

Please note that it is my intention to respond to all questions with an assumption that every question is asked in good faith. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Filiocht, is your role in ArbCom going to interfere with the time you spred in improving and writing literature articles? Will you become only a bureaucrat or will you remain an editor? Cheers and all the best, muriel@pt 12:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Muriel, long time no see. I will indeed continue to edit in the world of literature and anything else that interests me, if I ever finish List of cultural references in The Divine Comedy. Thanks for asking, hope my answer does not disappoint you too much. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Not at all because after all we're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground, to cite my favorite candidate. ;) muriel@pt 09:19, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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: I'm 51 and I work in scientific publishing, as well as being a widely published poet. I also occasionally teach and give talks on literary subjects.

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: Without seeming to evade the question, as many as are needed. How long is a piece of string?

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 have a lot of experience editing and creating articles, including a reasonable number of FAs, and have managed to never become involved in an edit war. I like to think that this is because I believe in achieving consensus as the primary means of defusing conflict. I think that my experience speaks for itself; however, I do not mean this in any arrogant sense. What I mean is that anyone who looks at my record as an editor will either conclude that I have handled myself reasonably or that modernist poetry is a field that is unlikely to give rise to conflict in the first place (if only!).

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

A: I originally edited as an anon, then as User:Bmills. That username in combination with my field of interest made it easy for others in the same field to identify me and to start requesting articles on them or on their hobbyhorses. I will admit that this freaked me out at first, but then I came up with the simple solution of changing the name. The fact that it took me so long to do so may bring my credentials into doubt. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:44, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request from Dragons flight

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading and will get back. My longish post above, written before I read your question, may address it in some small part. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting reading! I'm one of those who believe that AfD as it currently operates is less bad than any of the alternatives on offer, so I don't have a lot to say there. Ditto (as per my comments on this page, although I would favour an increase in the size of the ArbCom.

I am concerned to see how content disputes could be better handled, and see a role for the ArbCom as a court of final resort. It is important to recognise that there is no such thing as a person without a point of view. This has to be the starting point for any discussion of content disputing and NPOV policy. To simplify, editors can be categorised into three meta-groupings:

Those who edit in good faith but with no awareness of their biases (possibly the majority, generally speaking just need to have their biases pointed out to them).
Editors who are aware of their biases and make a conscious effort to achieve balance in articles (the "best" editors).
POV warriors who repeatedly attempt to impose their biases on articles (the problem group)

Bearing in mind that any content dispute is likely to involve a mix of some or all these types, how can we, as a community, best address the challenge involved? Basically, I like the idea of a bottom up approach, with editors first attempting to find consensus in Talk, focusing particularly on such guidelines as Wikipedia:Cite sources. This is most likely to work in the absence of a type 3 editor.

If this fails, I'd suggest the creation of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation, where those involved in a dispute could ask for the assistance of one or more uninvolved admin to help build consensus. I am here suggesting admins because page protection and blocking may become necessary, but there is nothing to stop uninvolved non-admins from helping out. (As an aside, I personally prefer page protection to reflex-action 3RR blocks and would like to see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Content mediation replace Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR.

If mediation fails, any or all of those involved, including the mediator(s), can raise a request for comment which may, in turn, result in an ArbCom hearing. My idea is that ArbCom would not rule on actual issues of content but rather on the behaviours of those involved. They may impose sanctions up to and including bans, but most likely order that more disruptive editors refrain form editing the article(s) in dispute. They would also rule that content inserted by such disruptive editors be verified by the other parties, with the assistance/guidance of the mediators and, where appropriate, be included in the agreed version. Editors who oppose the inclusion of any such valid content may be subject to the sanctions previously handed down to disruptive editors.

I'm sorry that this is so long-winded and that I haven't come up with any exciting new policy to win extra points, just a bunch of tentative suggestions. Then again, I need to remain true to my belief that policy can only be made, changed or broken by consensus, I suppose.

Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How long is a piece of string?

More specifically, if you are elected, and it becomes aparent that you need to spend 30 hours per month (or you won't be doing your share, and the arbcom will slow down as a result), would you have any problems with this level of commitment?

And question #2, under what conditions do you think you would step down before your term is up? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First question: No, I wouldn't have a problem. Second question: if I felt I wasn't doing a good job or if I felt that the ArbCom was working against the idea of an encyclopaedia and I could not change that form the inside. Sorry for the delay, on a short (busman's) holiday. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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?

I am a non-practicing atheist and my politics are of the non-party kind; greenish, sceptical, wary of dogma. I think George Bush is a fool, but I would not expect our article on him to say so. Islam is just another religion; none of them really mean anything to me. Islamic culture has produced many fine thinkers and poets, as has Christian culture, Jewish culture, etc. None of which is really to the point of your question. I would recuse myself on cases where the value of modernist poetry was called into question. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

I would expect any decision to based on consensus. That means acceptable to all those involved in making it, not just the majority. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 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?

No. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 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?

Yes. All actions have contexts and the actions of other parties form part of that context. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

--Victim of signature fascism 16:45, 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 15:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No simple answer here, I'm afraid. I've been around long enough to fondly remember the days when I was familiar with all the regulars on AfD, the Pump, etc. However, I'm painfully aware that the way things worked then have not really scaled with the project. On the other hand, I suffer from a deep-rooted aversion to "centrally controlled authoritarian system(s)". So my view is that we need to avoid going down the centralisation route as much as possible. We also need to build much clearer guidelines for consensus-building. Consensus is, at one and the same time, one of the most widely used and one of the most widely misunderstood words in Wikipedia debate. I would us like to put together an agreed definition of consensus and then to ensure that all decision-making processes work to that definition. ArbCom's role would probably be mainly to rule on cases of con-consensual behaviour. Who cares if the train is late if you have good neighbours to talk to on the platform? Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]