Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/172

In a famous 1957 essay "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality," Robert Merton called attention to the possibility that an organization's rules, procedures, and hierarchy of offices—structures originally conceived as a means—could become transformed into ends themselves. When this happens, a familiar process of displacement of goals sets in, leading to an over-concern with strict adherence to regulations, legalism, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness.

When I ran for arbitrator last year, I called attention to the possibility that the excessive preoccupation of the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) with its own rules and discipline were leading to greater and greater displacement of Wikipeida's sole goal: writing an encyclopedia. Over the past year, the committee has grown yet more cumbersome, ineffective, inefficient, and inaccessible. I fear that I was right last year.

Despite the timid attempts to revamp the increasingly myopic body, the Arbcom still focuses too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits, and too much on process instead of product. This is what I want to change; as an arbitrator, I'd favor focusing on the accuracy and constructiveness of the edits in question—as opposed to the personalities—to the greatest extent possible within the framework of the established norms, rules and procedures of the committee.

To correct this, we need an Arbcom composed of active writers and editors, not just administrators or bureaucrats who enjoy close access to the foundation. Members of the Arbcom need to see the bigger picture and better distinguish between individuals mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and individuals dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active editor since December 2002 (with intermittent breaks) and founder of the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, I can see this big picture; and my contributions history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for strict encyclopedic standards. 172 | Talk 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have been an active editor on Wikipedia for nearly three years focusing on some highly contentious topics in history and contemporary politics. In the process, I have gotten to know a number of users with whom I'm on quite friendly terms, and others with whom I'm on less friendly terms. Therefore, I would without exception recuse myself from any case involving the following editors: Lir, Sam Spade, Silverback, Ultramarine, Fred Bauder, and Netoholic. I am probably biased in favor of a far greater number of editors. If I case were to involve such an editor, without exception I would seek advice from fellow arbitrators regarding whether or not I should recuse myself. In the event that any current or former arbitrator were to advise me to recuse myself from any particular case, I would do so on the basis of that advice alone and without exception. If I were to fail to follow those standards above, these comments here would demonstrate grounds for my removal from the committee quite clealry. 172 | Talk 10:41, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: What would you change or do differently if you were elected to the arbitration committee? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 03:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be afraid to challenge established practices on the committee that have failed; and I will not be afraid to remind my colleagues that the Arbcom is only a means to an end: serving the editors of the main namespace. I would also focus on making the Arbcom a more responsive, efficient institution by recruiting a staff to assist our work. Any judicial body that handles the volume of work that Arbcom is beginning to see has a staff. So I don't understand why the arbitrators seem so preoccupied with having a small number of people do all the work and make all the decisions secretively on the IRC. It's time that the Arcom start recruiting assistants who can relate to our content editors to handle casework, answer process-related questions, and work with arbitrators on verifying claims, briefing them on the information they have gathered. 172 | Talk 09:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk[edit]

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

A:While I'm sure that candidates will be judged by the community's assessment of their work on Wikipeida, not by CVs or resumes or anything else along these lines, I can see the value in asking this question as a way of gaining insight into the perspective of the candidate. I try to stay anonymous, but I have given out some personal details. I am a statistical outlier in the 1940s row on the "Wikipedians by age page." [1] I am a historian focusing on international political economy, which had peaked in popularity during the oil crises of the 1970s but renewed currency in recent years. When I am not teaching, I am doing research. 172 | Talk 08:53, 9 October 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:Frankly, I'm sure that it'll require more time a month than I-- or any working person for that matter-- can afford to volunteer. Nevertheless, I am confident that I will be able to handle it. Since there is never a shortage of volunteer labor on Wikipedia, I plan on creating subpages in my namespace where anyone will be free to prepare my casework. I also plan on appointing some trusted assistants to help me interpret all the work. (In large research universities, delegating is done all the time, with TAs grading much of the homework and even giving lectures.) Not only would delegating help me do more work in less time, but it would bring more perspective to the process of arbitration and make matters more transparent. The solution to the members' lack of time is to creat an effective institution that transcends the individual personalities of its members so that you do not have a small handful of people doing all the work. Therefore, my longer-term goal will be creating a staff of assistants and ombudsman, perhaps under each arbitrator or under the committee as a whole. 172 | Talk 08:53, 9 October 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 agree completely. Unless an arbitrator has experience editing the main namespace, he or she is not going to understand what causes conflict on Wikipedia. I don't want to name any names, but there are arbitrators who are of the condescending mentality that anyone who gets into a conflict is a "problem user." They fail to understand that conflict is inevitable when anyone can edit controversial material in a near-anarchic environment because they aren't editors. They fail to understand that good editors can disagree. (On that note, I'm on very good terms with at least a dozen editors with whom I was once involved in edit wars or heated arguments.) Unless we are dealing with overt trolls like Skyring and LaRouche cult editor Herschelkrustofsky, I think we should avoid micromanaging sentencing and agonizing over intent. Instead, an arbitator who can understand were the litigants and "plaintiffs" are coming from will be able to figure out creative ways to end conflicts rather than explicit banning, such as separating the disputing parties by barring them from editing particular articles. 172 | Talk 08:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

A:172 has always been a bit too much work for me. I would never have time for another account! 172 | Talk 08:53, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved comments[edit]

Retrieved from a deleted page upon my request by Raul654 [2]

Support

• Support. Yes, 172 is a highly-contreversial editor, but he truly cares about Wikipedia; he was even willing to give up his own adminship. He has some innovative new ideas about ArbCom and some strong views, and we need at least one editor like him on the commitee. Neutrality^talk 23:45, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support You seem to have hit the proverbial bull right in the eye. The rules need to be trimmed, bureaucracy needs to be put in check, and content is at least as important as personality of the editor. There are people whom I respect, if not like, and I'd like to see them on Wiki. But the other kind has no place here. For what it is worth, you have my full support.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 01:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

• Oppose... he's proved himself untrustworthy to the wikipedia community :-\ Redwolf24 (talk) 02:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose See the two arbitration cases involving him [3][4] and his numerous 3RR violations and repeated unblocking of himself [5]. Ultramarine 12:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means, I invite everyone to review the two cases so that it is clear to everyone that I am under no sanctions or restrictions as an editor, unlike the two people who requested the cases against me (first Lir, second Netolithic). Instead, the first case resulted in the finding that I am "valued contributor with expert knowledge in my areas of interest." [6] The second was more inconclusive. It decided that I forfeited my adminship because I choose not to defend myself against Netolithic's laughably flimsy charges of 'administrative abuse'. In principle I disagree with the Arbcom's practice of hearing the "cases" of malicious trolls against competent, good-faith editors. (In fact this is one of the reasons I am running again for arbitrator. I ran in December 2004, coming only around seven percentage points from winning.) So, at the time I felt that it would be better for the community if I protested the litigious culture poisoning the atmosphere on Wikipedia by not responding to the case, even if that meant the loss of my adminship. Nevertheless, if any legitimate contributor is interested in reviewing any of my actions as an administrator from May 2003 to this year, I will be happy to explain my reasoning. 172 | Talk 07:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I like the AC focusing more on "process instead of product". That is what the body was set up to do - deal with misbehaving editors. If 172 wants to suggest a body to review the content of Wikipedia, by all means, let him do so, but that body is not, and should not be, the Arbcom. JesseW, the juggling janitor 22:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutral

• I'm not sure. 172 is a great editor in my opinion; a good academic and very passionate about what he writes about. Unfortunately, I am slightly swerved by all the controversy that has revolved around him (I'm not saying any of the accusations are true or false, however). I think he would make a good arbitrator, but I'm not sure as to what the reactions of other wikipedians will be to his rulings. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [7][8] [9] 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 07:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dragons flight,

If you don't mind, I'm going to respond to each of the individual proposals point by point.

wikien-l/2005-October/thread[edit]

Responses to be inserted upon completion See my response to 4 in the third thread. By and large, I don't see too many problems with the current size and length of terms. 172 | Talk 00:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/RFC[edit]

Responses to be inserted upon completion

1. Strong support. I was one of the early people to come out in favor of an editorial review board. If anyone is interested in restrarting the discussion, contact me by email or on my talk page. Or just go to the special page I created on the proposal: Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards/Editorial arbitration.
2. I'm skeptical about the possibility of mediation working in the long run. The people on Wikipedia are not professional negotiators, without the training in the subject necessary to get opposing camps on Wikipedia to agree voluntarily. But if people agree to serve on it, and if editors seek its assistance, there's no harm in trying it out.
3. Strong oppose-- sounds like an invitation to trolling.
4. Oppose-- I can understand Gmaxwell's point, but encountering a really stubborn POV pusher can be hell. Editors who can see the shades of gray should not have to put up with that. 172 | Talk 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wait and see. In the end article validation should be Wikipedia's goal. For now, however, I think we should at least get an editorial review board off the ground, which would be much easier, before considering changes of a much greater magnitude.
6. I support a content advisory board, perhaps as a step below launching an editorial review board. I have been in touch with professional academics, journalists, and graduate students willing to serve on an editorial advisory board on Wikipedia. In the long run, I'd hope to see such a body establish its legitimacy in the community on its way toward becoming a review board with formal authority.
7. Strong oppose-- ignoring problems don't make them go away.
8. I doubt the idea of "NPOV admins" would work. Setting up an editorial advisory board with public scholarly credibility would be more realistic.
9. I was very disappointed at the time that Mav's proposal for a content subcommittee did not get enacted. One my goals as an arbitrator would be restarting that very same discussion. A content subcommittee working under the Arbcom would be of much help, helping the committee better relate to our best members. I'd support this proposal even if a separate advisory board were established.
10. Oppose-- too difficult to define consensus.
11. Oppose-- would easily degenerate into disputes over nepotism and cronyism.
12. Still considering.
13. Oppose-- The NPOV subcom may not be familiar enough with the subject at hand to be able to make the right judgment.
14. Oppose-- instruction creep to the extreme.
15. Support-- objective critetria for naming and other content standards can indeed be reached.

Proposed_modifications_to_rules[edit]

1. Unnecessary. If an innapropriate candidate runs and fails, the only reasources wasted or his or her own time.
2. Unecessary-- a solution in search of a problem. I don't see what's wrong with approval voting, the current system.
3. Oppose-- but not strongly. I think it's more efficent to have Jimbo continue to appoint the vacancies. Further, Jimbo has had a good track record in his appoitments.
4. Strongly oppose. The Arcom can hardly seem to fill its 12 seats, let alone 24. The solution to backlog is creating a staff of caseworkers verifying evidence, answering process questions, and gathering evidence working under the arbitrators. That way the same number of arbitrators will be able to do more work in less time.
5. Oppose due to the timescale.
6. Oppose. Same principle as the response to number four.
7. Strong oppose. The ArbCom will be divided into three subcommittees, or "circuits", of about nine users each-- instruction creep has never worked on Wikipedia.
8. Strong oppose-- instruction creep inherent in such a complicated voting method.
9. Oppose-- current system is fine.
10. Support. Sockpuppet voting is a problem. I remember how frustrated I was when I suspected that a great editor I nominated for adminship (who happened to be one of the arbitrators elected last year) lost because of sockpuppets sometime in mid-2004. UninventedCompany raises a good point that there are no reliable means of detecting sockpuppets. But I trust that common sense methods for disqualifying votes would be used if it ever came to this. Even if this policy is never acted it, adoping it might might at least act as a deterrent.
11. Oppose per UninventedCompany. Rotating terms are important because they make the Arbcom less political than it otherwise would be.
12. Undecided at the momemnt.

172 | Talk 00:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:19, 27 November 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 18:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]