User:KnightLago/Sandbox/Quotes

Ethics
I don't think you really get the concept of "never".

This isn't about emotions, it's about something else, something called ethics. I calmly and rationally believe that ArbCom are bad people, and I calmly believe that one must not cooperate with their likes, even when cooperation simply means doing nothing. Like all agents of Satan, they are ignorant dupes with worn out souls, who refuse to distinguish right from wrong, and act as a collective to immunize themselves from individual responsibility. Like the nail which pierces your foot, or the rain which annoys you by falling on your head--- it's pointless to get angry--- a creature without a soul is just an inanimate object. Likebox (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

On the power of ArbCom
(Warning, semi-essay, semi-rant to follow)

The fact of the matter is, ArbCom does make policy &mdash; to a point and within somewhat vague parameters &mdash; and it always has. Whether it's by applying some sine qua non Foundation mandates, or enforcing the basic principles underlying the project; sometimes it's by simple force of its interpretation of past practice and written policy. This, indeed, is as should be: the authority to draw a line in the sand and to exclude participations from those who step over it is the basis of the concept of final dispute resolution. In essence, we took over the primary role of Jimmy in the early days who settled disputes when the community itself could not figure out the right course of action &mdash; or agree on which was right.

The oft repeated mantra that "ArbCom only applies the policy, only the community can make policy" is, on close examination, relatively meaningless: if the community had agreed on a course of action then there would be nothing for ArbCom to do; disputes reach the committee only in two cases: when the community is unable to agree on what the proper resolution is, or when the actual means to that resolution is out of reach (as, for instance, in the case of removal of rights or handling of private information). Settling disputes by definition requires making policy. When the community finds that editor X violated rule Y by doing Z, then we just tweaked policy (even if relatively subtly in some cases).

Now, most of the time, the direction in which this policy writing (call it "tweaking" or "interpretation" if it makes you feel better) goes in the same direction that most editors would lean to; so few people notice or care. After all, our guiding principles are and will always remain those to which editors implicitly agreed when they joined our project: the well-being of the project, the five pillars, and a very few edicts coming from the Foundation (the copyright and privacy policy, mainly) and since basically everyone agrees on those, things don't get out of hand. Some of the time, however, the community itself isn't able to agree on a proper course when faced with a contentious issue and the committee has to take a position that will, invariably, anger or frustrate part of the community. Not only is this inevitable, but it's the reason the committee does (and should) exist. The alternative is camps that battle it out indefinitely, and the inevitable wheel wars that would result would be devastating. (And no, just coming down on wheel warring in isolation wouldn't help&mdash; you'd just give the advantage to the ones who acted unilaterally the fastest).

So, having to rule on contentious matters is inevitable. But then, rule how? Look at the current composition of the Committee. It's no surprise that an elected body would end up being so fundamentally diverse. Deletionists and inclusionists. Hardass enforcers, and patient negotiators. Lawyers, engineers, what-have-yous. The community picked a bunch of people they trusted to work for the best interests of the encyclopedia even if it meant that, someday, they might rule against them. They hope we will be there to make the tough calls when the community cannot; that we would be able to balance all these competing rules, requirements, pillars and objectives and do the "right thing".

Hence, this policy.

As a rule, Wikipedians love transparency. They like to discuss things (sometimes to death), and balance things, and evaluate history. They prefer to guide things to a consensus whenever it's at all possible. We all do. Likewise, nobody would wish to see the project harmed or destroyed by outside forces&mdash; and protecting the project from disrepute is a very important part of that (legally, morally and ethically). But sometimes, those needs conflict: pedophiles using Wikipedia to groom children, or to promote sexual abuse of children is obviously damaging to Wikipedia; but so is discussing the matter in the usual transparent matter. Not even counting the legal problems that a public discussion on whether some editor is or is not a pedophile can bring, the damage caused by an editor, say, that continues to edit on childhood topics after dozens of editors have publicly expressed good faith concerns that they are a sexual predator (but where consensus was not reached) would be deadly to Wikipedia's reputation &mdash; even if entirely unfounded.

Hence the quiet disposal. It's not very tasteful, and it offends some of Wikipedia's fundamentally libertarian principles. It's also, in context, the least worst way of handling things. Does this mean that ArbCom's secret decisions are always perfect? No. Personally, I think we sometimes veer dangerously close to witch hunts because of the moral panic that tends to surround the very topic of pedophilia. Sometimes, I think that we're being considerably too liberal in our definition of pedophilia, and cast too wide a net. I am part of that committee, and those concerns I express and are listened to. There's a reason we're a committee: so that, on average, we'll do the right thing. That the needed extremists will balance out when they clash, but that they'll spur the moderates when action is needed.

Does it mean that such a policy will always do the right thing? Probably not. Definitely not. We're 12-18 fallible human beings. Does the committee as a whole agree that this is required to protect the encyclopedia? Yes. Is it the best balance that can be achieved between protecting children, Wikipedia's reputation, our desire for fairness and transparency, and the reputation and life of those editors that &mdash; even if they are too dangerous to keep &mdash; remain human beings? Definitely. &mdash; Coren (talk) 00:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)