Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements
This page lists the candidates for the December 2004 elections to the Arbitration Committee. Candidates should be listed in alphabetical order.
All users interested in the position are invited to add brief candidate statements to this page. These should be no more than 250 words and outline your views on banning and how you feel the Arbitration Committee should handle disputes. Candidates who wish to make longer statements may create a page in their own user space for this purpose, which could also be used for candidates to respond to questions from the community.
Statements in support of or in opposition to candidates can both be made on the /Endorsements page.
THIS PAGE IS NOW FROZEN. Since voting has started, new candidacies are no longer permitted and will be removed.
Members of the Arbitration Committee should see the bigger picture and better distinguish between users mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and users dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active user since December 2002 (see list of list of most active on all namespaces), administrator since May 2003 [1] (making me as of now the second most senior admin in this field of candidates behind only Sannse), and main author of a few featured articles, I can see this big picture; and my user history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for scholarly standards on Wikipedia. I favor the emerging principles of the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, which I initiated. [2]
As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits and too much on policy instead of process. 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.
Wikipedia is no longer the small community it once was, but rather an increasingly complex and cumbersome, occasionally haphazard organization of thousands of users, with some users finding themselves in many different niches; unfortunately, cranks and trolls seem to understand this better than some sitting members of the Arbitration Committee.
To correct this, we need to make institutions like the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation closer and more accessible to the active writers and editors. My membership will help accomplish this; I don't see myself first as a 'Wiki policy expert' or some Wiki 'committee member' but rather as someone who has volunteered a lot of time writing articles. If we don't bridge this gap as soon as possible, institutions like the Arbitration Committee are doomed to become settings for elite cabals completely detached from the purpose of the project, i.e. producing an encyclopedia.
I welcome any questions on my talk page. 172 02:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ambi
[edit]Since my arrival here sometime in 2003, I guess I've become one of the Arbitration Committee's strongest critics. So I'd like to put my hand up to actually do something about this, rather than standing on the sidelines and complaining. I've had plenty of involvement with cases (though only once as a direct participant), which has given me a fairly clear understanding of the workings of the arbitration process.
Above all, the most severe problem facing the Committee is its speed. Justice delayed is justice denied. If I'm elected, I will personally begin work on findings if no evidence has been presented in a new case in a week, and if there's problems getting arbitrators to vote, I will personally see that each arbitrator is aware that their presence is required.
I believe I shouldn't have too much trouble staying impartial. I've requested action against users that I agree with ideologically, and I've defended users I personally dislike. I firmly believe that we should give an individual every chance to reform if they have a record of legitimate (and I use this term loosely) contributions in addition to those which are problematic. At the same time, I have little sympathy for the garden variety edit warrior who comes here only to push their point of view at the expense of all others. Where possible, I advocate restricting such editors from areas where they cannot edit neutrally in favour of a full ban, which I believe should only be used as means of last resort.
That's what you could expect from my term if elected. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me here - I'd be happy to hear from you. Ambi 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Anthony DiPierro
[edit]Oh well, I guess we're not going to find out how the votes are going to be counted before the deadline for declaring candidacy so I'll just declare now and bow out if we wind up using approval voting. If elected, I will be fair. anthony 警告 04:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A more detailed statement is available at User:Blankfaze/Arbcom.
I believe that one thing the Committee needs is people with copious amounts of time on their hands – enough to wade through complex disputes and evidence. Well – I spend more time on Wikipedia than I care to admit. That, I think, makes me ideal for the Committee. I believe I can make fair, neutral decisions, expediently.
About me: I've been registered for 7+ months, and an administrator for more than four. I feel I'm in good standing with the community, and I'll note I've never been a defendant in an Arbitration case or RfC. I spend lots of time doing maintenance-ish work: patrolling RC for vandalism, deleting speedies, categorising... I also try to keep WP:IFD maintained. I have, I think, an excellent knowledge of Wikipedia policies, having read most word-for-word, multiple times.
I believe clearer policies are needed, particularly re: trolling, abuse of adminship, and edit-warring. (I note that I've attempted to contribute policy, but it's hard to come to consensuses in a community as large as ours :-P)
I believe a more expedient Arbitration process is needed to keep abuse/trouble down (to their credit, however, the Committee has been more expedient recently)
I believe in stiff consequences for users who have consistently caused problems. However, I do favour offering rehabilitation to such users first.
In closing, I would like to offer the community my expediency and fair decisionmaking. I genuinely believe that I would make an exceptional Committee member, else I'd not be running. I welcome any and all questions at my talk page. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It was kindly suggested to me that I would be a suitable candidate for the Arbitration Committee.
I have long life experience in arbitration and conflict resolution: in the U.S. military; as an instructor; educator; manager; union steward; father of teen-aged girls.
My belief regarding banning any productive Wikipedian is that you don't. In my opinion a ban is an insult—if the user is so incorrigible that every reasonable attempt at resolution has failed and the editor's rights should be suspended, then we should consider doing it permanently. I am especially mindful that one of our most long-term and productive editors seemed headed for a ban, due to conflict with many others, including myself. But I and others protested the move toward forcing him out; the editor was engaged productively, moderated his behavior and Wikipedia is lucky to still have him.
Disputes are for unbiased resolution; sanctions a last resort. In a perfect world, both sides will agree the arbitration was fair and the situation resolved. Possible? It's what we must strive for.
My time at Wikipedia, as editor, admin, bureaucrat, is an open book that I invite you to read. I prize both the appearance and fact of impartiality, yet am assertive (and often prolix) in the cause of doing what I believe to be the right thing for Wikipedia and its volunteers, and actively ask for community input on decisions. I welcome your questions and concerns at my talk page. I am grateful for your consideration. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedian for about 18 months, and heavily involved, mainly in adding and editing articles, for about a year. My credo on WP would be simply stated as: (a) it must primarily be about the content; (b) the community has become a powerful force to make the Web a better place; (c) the goals of WP are in the best sense Romantic.
The ArbCom is the unromantic end of the project. I would frankly have preferred to have had someone tell me 'Charles, you should stand'; here I am anyway. On the defining questions of policy, sanctions and banning, I think that the past decisions have in general been useful in setting some precedents.
I think sysops who involve themselves in contentious areas should mostly be given the benefit of the doubt, as to their good faith; I also think that they should be held to high standards of conduct and courtesy, though this is not something the ArbCom should look at in a formal sense. On the whole I believe policy should be compatible with Assume Good Faith surviving as a principle, but that POV editing should be seen as breaching WP's charter.
To sum up, I don’t think the Arbitration Committee should become more prosecutorial; I do think it can afford a sceptical line with any editor who comes here with an agenda. Charles Matthews 09:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I realize that I have an extremely small chance of winning this, alas I feel I still must attempt to put forth two messages: First- to Suggest 100 percent full support behind people that will bring a fresh face and change to the arbcom commite in terms of temp injuctions, and how a user gets selected. Second - To bring light to the fact that the policy on Temp Injunctions must be changed, and we must elect arbitrators that will check evidence and full situations before issuing temp injuctions bans(Temp injuction bans which at the rate that arbcom moves end up being longer then arbcoms final decision bans)
I specifically urge you to vote against Raul654 Because of his recent actions where he he has become Condescending to many wikipedians, and his complete lack of checking of evidence. Please see [[3]] for more details. When you have arbcoms members banning users from editing pages they have never edited in their wikipedia history, simply because the rest of the people under that same arbitration case edited thoese pages; You have a problem, one that obviously shows some arbcom members don't bother to check any evidence at all for temp injuctions
If for some Otherworldy chance I'm elected, I will avoid bans and temp injunctions to the maximum possibility and only when a user thoroughly refuses to communicate with me or other users will place them. Temp injuctions should only be put into place after trying to reason and warn the user to change their actions or there will be a temp injunction. They should not be used as proactive preventions, and for sure not without checking evidence in a case first. If temp injunctions contiue as they are we risk alienating our userbase, or perhaps turning what was a minor problem with a user into a much larger one as they no longer feel that the ruleset of Wikipedia is friendly or fair at all.
Hello, fellow Wikipedians. I am a longtime Wikipedia contributor and editor, although I only recently made my appearance under this current UserName. I guess I am somewhat of a Dark-Horse candidate as unlike many of the others here I am not a part of the establishment (i.e. moderators, admins).
I feel I would be a great addition to the Arbitration Committee for a variety of reasons. First off, I am not a part of the establishment and have spent the majority of my time as a common reader/contributor to Wikipedia and I feel this has given me great insight into what the populace wants. This leads to my vision for Wikipedia and how I would rule as an abritrator: I feel Wikipedia is one of the great marvels of our age. However, it is at a crossroads. There are some here would like to only keep a limited group of articles and basically turn this into any other Encyclopedia. I however, feel this should be turned into the great index of worldly information it is possible of becoming, a modern day Alexandria if you will. I will arbitrate in favor of expanding Wikipedia's horizons as much as possible. I will rule in favor of keeping all the articles I feel contribute to Wikipedia's greatness even if others dont find them interesting or up to their standards of 'notability'. I will vote to keep as many schools listed as possible. I will also work to acquiesce 'the other side' by helping to turn Wikipedia into a two-tiered system, one tier of mainline encyclopediac knowledge, another tier acting as an index of ALL the worlds information, including arcane info, creating the greatest resource tool known to man.
In conclusion, if you would like to vote for someone with a fresh perspective, an innovative vision, who will rule justly and who may be a 'maverick' or 'outsider' compared to some of the Old Guard people here, then please vote for ME! CunningLinguist! Thank you.
It appears when I originally wrote this, I was only on as an IP user, well here I am logged in :) I am CunningLinguist and I approve and wrote this message! VOTE FOR ME! -CunningLinguist 07:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Arbitration is an important step in the Wikipedia process. There are, at times, certain intractable individuals who must (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your personal views) be removed from Wikipedia. It is, as I see it, the job of the ArbCom to deal with such situations. This is not to say that every case referred to the ArbCom involves such an issue, but that the "buck stops here" so to speak.
Mediation is a very useful precursor to Arbitration. As a mediator (as well as a long time Wikipedia contributor and Admin) I recognize that fact and would use my position as an arbitrator to ensure that Mediation is given every oppurtunity to succeed. Arbitration should never be a first option. Given the severity of the results able to be levied by the ArbCom, all other options should be exhausted beforehand.
I hope my record as a Wikipedian and person committed to attempting constructive resolutions is tempered by my steadfast opposition to intentional attempts to harm the Wikipedia and the Wikipedia process and results in your support for my bid for a post on the Arbitration Committee
I think the AC system has proven basically sound so far; its only problem is it's paralysingly slow. The job sucks by definition, but needs to be done.
The AC is the court of last resort. Spammers or personal abuse are clear cases to be dealt with quickly and sharply. I don't consider good actions an excuse for bad ones. Temporary restraints while a decision is in progress are also frequently appropriate. This is a project with a particular mission.
I view the real problem on Wikipedia as being people who just don't get it socially — how to work effectively with people even when you regard them as clueless and obnoxious. Playing well with others is not that easy for some. I try very hard not to blow my top writing on Wikipedia, even when dealing with the deeply troublesome. Such people will be the ones ending up at the AC. I support rapid decisions aimed at minimising damage to the wiki and its social structure, secondly with hope for reform of the problem child.
I've spent many years on dealing effectively with trolls, vandals and spammers in Internet communities, particularly Usenet. I've also been on the CAUBE-AU committee since 1998 (the Australian anti-spam organisation).
I've been on Wikipedia since December 2003 and an administrator since June 2004. I have been involved in the Arbcom cases against Mr-Natural-Health, Irismeister and Paul Vogel. I ran in the July 2004 Arbcom Election and came third. - David Gerard 15:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Greetings. I've been around since late 2003 and started editing January of this year. Although I'm no wikimaniac, I love this project and have spent many hours just reading through the web of articles available. Of course whenever I see something to edit I do so. Probably my biggest contribution to Wikipedia is random, completely unorganised copyediting, which is something I think we should all engage in more often. See a typo, fix a typo, sort of thing. Although this isn't to de-emphasise more real work I've done occasionally, such as improved a few articles significantly, start a couple, work continuously on a few, things like that. But you should just look at contribs since actions speak louder than my words.
I'm running for arbcom because I think I fill a niche. A lot of users are not happy with one candidate or another; I've seen lots of sentiments about arbcom being this or that or cabals or this or other baloney. The fact is, it's a divisive thing. There's the politics and the disagreements and the arguing.
I don't like arguing. I like information. Writing. Editing. So my platform to you is this: As arbcommer I will recuse myself from every case.
Simple. No matter how you feel on an issue, I'm not going to inflame things. That is, whether you have ideas bent towards reforming trouble users or towards protecting wikipedia from them or whatever, you can be confident I'm not going to help out the side you disagree with. The most important thing in Wikipedia is the work, not the disputes. The creation, not the destruction--to romanticise a bit. D. G. 03:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that by recusing myself from all cases I would not intend to just be 100% useless to the arbcom. This absolute absence from cases might allow me to devote any and all arbcomming time to considering whether certain cases should be allowed to be brought forth or not. Certainly having one person particularly dedicated to that primarily might be interesting.
Note:
Yes, I HAVE been around since late 2003. No, this is not my original username. My first username was 207.99.6.125 and my second was Not Wikipedia Administrator.
I've been a Wikipedian for three years (I'm user #188) and was the first admin to be elected as a Bureaucrat. When I make a mistake, I'm usually quick to admit it (just ask User:Eloquence).
I'm all about improving accuracy and eliminating bias. Even though occasionally I get flamed for holding POVs that other contributors dislike, I'm generally one to whom people come frequently to put out the flames when the edit wars get out of hand.
I probably have the lowest ratio of (edits reverted) to (extreme POVs held), because I'm rather good at distinguishing between "common knowledge" and "what I personally believe".
I pushed long and hard for the CREATION of the arbitration committee and made sure it had its current powers.
If elected to the arbcom, I would encourage all contributors to try courtesy and empathy first before making an appeal.
For users who do NOT support our goal of making accurate and NPOV articles, I favor quick action. I think an admin would be well-advised to block their account temporarily (i.e., a "temp-ban"); even a 10-minute temp-ban works wonders.
For determined trolling or POV pushing, I would prefer to talk the matter over by private e-mail with arbcom members; I'm sure we can think of something effective if we put our (virtual) heads together.
--user:Ed Poor (talk) 19:50, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I've been an admin since May and I devote a great deal of my time to the project, and I should be able to continue doing so, so perhaps I can help speed up the pace of arbitration decisions.
I think that we must respect anyone who devotes his or her time and energy to this project, unless he or she is plainly a troll out to cause trouble, and we should be more lenient in our judgments in recognition of the fact that we are dealing with volunteers who are trying, in whatever way, to expand or improve the people's body of knowledge. I think the fundamental consideration that the Arbitration Committee must always make is whether a user has done more harm than good or more good than harm. Blocks of a significant duration should never be applied to anyone who falls into the latter category, and we should generally be very hesitant with blocks altogether.
Sometimes we punish people who are engaged in frequent revert wars. In my opinion, a revert war between one person and another or two against one or two against two is not really something we should generally punish with blocks, unless it can be very clearly determined that one side is in the wrong. More problematic are those who revert in violation of reasonable, established consensus regarding what an article should be like; this is where we should be more stern in our judgments. We should also be less tolerant of users who openly reject basic principles of Wikipedia, primarily the principle of NPOV. But it is important to remember that ending revert wars is usually not worth losing good contributors. So in my opinion, we should be fairly selective about the cases accepted, and in those cases that are accepted, we must always make a fair judgment that takes into account the good/harm consideration. Everyking 04:00, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi. You may know me from the IRC channels; I also do random RC patrolling when I have some time to kill, and I adminstrate Wikien-L (that mostly means periodically emptying the moderation queue of spam). I try to insert some wry remark of some sort whenever reasonable.
Some consider the threat of "trolls" overrated. It is true that we are far from overrun, but the price of trolling is not paid in damage to articles: it is paid in the participation of some of our better contributors. I don't think it's even so much the trolling itself which drives users away so much as when a user engages in a formal dispute resolution pricess and is frustrated by inaction and ineffective solutions.
The arbcom must always approach users with excessive kindness and leniency, and should do its best to give users the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. At the same time, it must not be paralyzed into inaction by trivialities, and we should not be afraid to call a spade a spade (no offense intended to Sam :) - and we should deal with problem users quickly, effectively, and with common sense as our guide- especially so in the case of repeat offenders. This includes bans and any other restrictions.
Query me at User:Fennec/Questions and stuff, yo. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm one of the better known "friendly faces" on Wikipedia. As a generally easygoing person, and having dealt many antisocial Wikipedian as an RC patroller and a mediator. I find that I've built up a virtual immunity to Wikistress and developed the ability to converse with even the most sensitive of users. If there's one place in the 'pedia that needs that person, it is the Arbcom, where often the worst of the worst on Wikipedia end up as a last resort. With any luck, as an arbitrator I'll be able to make a difference in the way the 'pedia works and hopefully turn a few of the bad apples back into productive users.
In addition, I have an excellent working knowledge of the 'pedia and its policies, having had a voice in quite a few of them myself; a good grasp of policy is something that I think any arbitrator should have.
I personally think that the Arbcom's current methods work reasonably well; if there is a problem, it is that the process is too slow. I have previously discussed this with some other users, and there are some proposals in the works regarding this. Until then, I'm sure that the Arbcom could benefit with my (legendary?) speed of action.
Please direct any questions you might have of me in relation to the direction to this page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
Hephaestos
[edit]In the past I have been somewhat critical of the way the Arbitration Committee has operated. The at-large election of Wikipedians to the committee to replace appointees should be a good step in the right direction of fixing some of the problems.
The main problem as I see it is the time necessary to accept a case and make a decision on it. I think this process needs to be streamlined, and that the way to do that is to adopt a less legalistic, more common-sense approach. It is my philosophy that cases on Wikipedia are brought against troublemaking accounts, not against individual people per se. Therefore I see no value in pondering possible "precedents" or "extenuating circumstances" etc. If an account is detrimental to Wikipedia, it should be banned. If it is not, it should be cleared from arbitration as soon as possible.
I have been a Wikipedian since August 2002, and an administrator since May 2003. Not having been motivated to work much on articles much lately, if f I am elected I expect most of my time on Wikipedia will be spent on arbitration matters.
I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on my user talk page. - Hephaestos|§ 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia since late 2002, and have been active in policy areas and on articles. I do my best to be a voice of fairness and civility, finding alternate ways to talk to people (IRC, email) and rebuilding bridges when possible when a disagreement happens and people must yield. On contentious topics (e.g. Israel-Palestine), I do my best to push for civility and understanding from all sides. I would like, as a hopeful future member of the arbcom, to help people understand each other's positions better, and with luck, reduce the need for actual punishment. Towards that end, I will strongly emphasise, when people just have strongly different views, that they find new ways to communicate, and I will attempt to find good ways to communicate policy to people who are not yet following it. I also intend to reduce RfA delays.
Policies regarding:
- Users who have a strong opinion and bend/break rules to get their way, but are still open to discussion
- Should be asked not to edit on a certain topic for awhile. Need in-depth discussion on policy and said topics so they won't leave the community but won't disrupt it
- Users who engage in extreme personal attacks or vandalism, beyond getting their way
- Should multiple attempts at talking to them productively fail, may need time out (bans)
- User who evade bans/directly attack the site
- Should be given progressively longer bans until they stop
--Improv 05:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
James F.
[edit]As one of the original members of the Arbitration Committee, helping to formulate and pursue the Arbitration Policy, I would like to think that my actions and decisions over the past year speak for themselves, but I will try to distil my thoughts about it:
Naturally, the duty of serving on the Committee is a great one, both to Jimbo for the responsibility delegated to us, and to the Community, in representing its beliefs. Over the two years that I have held an account on Wikipedia, I have become very much attached to the community, and this focuses my mind when considering whether we can discard people like so much chaff.
I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they ‘deserve’ it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is damaging to the project. Of course, 'damage' is in the eye of the beholder, and so I hope that my decisions have reflected well the overall opinion of our Community.
With this in mind, I would like to ask if you think me a suitable candidate to represent us all in this most vital task of protecting the project from ourselves in our attempts to enlighten the world.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I can't compare to most of the other candidates, but I am running anyway, mainly due to my abundancy of free time. I have been editing since September 2003, but began full-time editing circa February this year; I was elected as a sysop in June. I have been involved in online communities since 1999, and as such, have gained much insight into the nature of individuals arguing online. I was also the main author of Preliminary Deletion.
I believe decisions should be made based on the effect they will have in the long term on our community; if this necessitates a long ban, so be it. However, I believe that it is possible to reform certain troublemakers through prudent methods, such as assigning handlers to them. It depends on whether the user edits in good faith, or clearly has a bone to pick.
I oppose taking outrageous actions to prove a point; just because something makes sense does not give one licence to do so without consulting the community. As such, unilateral actions should be condemned.
Lastly, I think the arbitration process should be sped up. I would propose and support measures that would do this, including several of the suggestions made by other candidates. Having to wait three months for a verdict is a disservice to everyone
This is a short introduction; my full platform is available at User:Johnleemk/December 2004 Arbcom Election. If you have any queries or comments related to my candidacy, please contact me at the latterly mentioned subpage's talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I don't think any of you know me, as this is a very new account. However, I have posted for a medium period of time as an anonymous user, via varied IP adresses, and finally decided to get an account. This site, as I have watched, has degenerated in civility and fairness due to the efforts of mean spirits who boast of their "accomplishments" and begin edit-wars on a whim. In addition, the Arbitration Committee itself has become corrupt, ridiculously voting on whims or personal vendettas. As a member of this committee, I will bring fresh knowledge to the site.
My views on banning are simple. If you consistently hinder, rather than help, the Wikipedia's growth and renewal, you will be banned. If not, you will not be banned.
I feel as if the Arbitration Committee should work closely with the parties in question in a dispute to ensure that both sides get a say in the final decision, rather than the current system, in which some cases have gone on in which the opinion of one of the parties in question has not been fully considered.
In a way, my relative newness to the site is an advantage; it ensures that a vote for me is not a vote for the same tired old puppeteers who have been exerting their influence over much of the site for too long. --Librarian Brent 02:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia has been marred by rude and mean-spirited individuals who see themselves as the epitome of perfection, and who scorn everyone else as a "troll". As a member of the arbitration committee, I would actively seek the resignations of 172, Tim Starling, mav, Jimbo, and Angela -- I would enforce anti-cabalist legislation; and ensure that the wikipedia is run by the people, and not by the losers who have nothing better to do with their lives than dominate the irc/mailing list discussions. I would put an end to the policy of calling votes and then declaring them "settled and closed" before anyone outside of the cabal is even aware of them. My private sockpuppet army would staunchly enforce inclusionism (i have nearly one hundred sockpuppets. That includes 23 sysops, 5 bureaucrats, 4 mediators, 3 developers, 2 arbcom members, and a member of the board in a pear tree -- currently six of my socks are running for arbcom, including this one). Under my regime: deletionists will be shown the door, and their user accounts shall be (ironically enough) deleted.
Problem solving is the only effective way to resolve a dispute between parties. The only other practical way is war. We are not here to make war, because I believe that as decent indiviuals, we know how to resolve a dispute. Wikipedia, while a wiki community, is not a place to make enemies in the first. It is, however, inevitable that disputes between users arise. It is up to the Arbitration Committee to solve these disputes.
So far, the Arbitration Committee has produced diligent results. Its only problem is its slowness. I heartily enjoy maintaining Wikipedia, but I feel that as an arbitrator, I can bring a fresh, sensible fairness to the Committee.
I do not believe that the Committee's members need to have an excessive amount of contributions or powers. While there is nothing wrong with these attributes, and while they may even be benefits, gross statistical information is not always important.
What is important? Opinion is not. The Arbitration Committee, as a microcosm of Wikipedia itself, welcomes differences in opinion, so long as they neither cloud judgment nor precipitate danger. Fairness is the importance. Wikipedia has taught me to better consider opposing viewpoints. For example, in my nation many substances are illegal. Dealing with the NPOV policy taught me to begin to understand why legalizing such substances may be a good idea. While I hold my own subjective viewpoint on the issue, I comprehend and can appreciate opponents' views.
That is the kind of equality and balance I wish to bring to the Arbitration Committee.
I have many kind people to thank for invaluable advice given to me throughout my tenure here.
Let it be known that I have no animosity toward any of my opponents. I welcome any of their questions on my talk page. --ℛyan! | Talk 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)
I've been editing since November 2003 and have been a sysop since May 2004, so I think I have a good understanding of how things work around here, and my username ought to be a familiar one. I watch the arbitration process closely and I have found it to be both fair and helpful—its only real fault is its slowness. I am running for the position because I believe that I can devote the time and energy necessary to speed up the process of dealing with disruptive users and POV pushers—and I believe that Wikipedia's ever-increasing importance and visibility means that greater speed is absolutely necessary.
Regarding sanctions and punishments, I think it is better to reform users than to expel them. I think POV pushers ought to be restricted from editing the topics in which they have shown inability or unwillingness to abide by the requirements of the neutral point of view. I believe disruptive and/or abusive editors ought to be placed under strict parole and only banned outright if that fails to moderate their troublesome behavior.
I believe abusive sysops ought to be treated with special rigor due to the special problems which their misbehavior may cause. Abuse, unchecked, tends to multiply; if sysops are not held to the highest standards, if they are perceived as an elite cabal, then I worry that that perception may become reality.
Essentially, I believe arbitration should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly.
Any questions should be directed to user talk:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones (m) 22:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I joined Wikipedia in early May (if memory serves me correctly) and have been extremely active in the community since then both as an editor, policy-contributor, and admin. I watch every arbitration case that the ArbCom hears and have even brought a case before the Arbitrators, so I have that experience that allows me to relate to the people who request the Arbitrators' relief.
Reforming the procedures of the ArbCom is exceptionally important to me, and I want to make it more efficient, fair, and just for all concerned. In general, I think that the ArbCom has done an excellent job and has done well in being fair and just with many users, especially in the cases of RickK v. Guanaco, RK, Wik, Irismeister, and Rex. However, the main problem–the area desperately in need of change–is the efficiency of the committee. Specifically, this is what I'd like to do:
- Establish specific prerequisites for bringing a case to the ArbCom. The ArbCom should be a court of last resort, and should not be used for advisory opinions or rulings on certain articles.
- Establish specific procedures with presenting a case to the ArbCom. Subpages for requests and quick and speedy archiving will help in the regard. There should be a standardized format that will make requests be matter-of-fact and to the point, instead of long rambling rants. There should also be separte pages for evidence and counter-evidence.
- Develop creative ways of dealing with offenders. Blanket bans tend to be ineffective and only used when reforming the user is too late. Instead, we should look toward creative solutions like a revert parole or ban on certain types of articles. I think this helped particularly in the case of Michael.
- Ban repeat offenders. There will always be users that cannot or will not reform. For those, I advocate temporary injunctions and swift banning.
To close, I say this: Like Mirv, I believe arbitration "should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (Election questions)]] 01:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
P.S. Example: Lir. (see above)
I've been here three and a half months and so far I've been blissfully free of participation in confrontations, edit wars, and the like. I've worked on a variety of topics, mainly in the realm of history, political science, pop culture, lexicography, and the like (see my page User:PedanticallySpeaking/Articles for some of my handiwork). Two of my Wikipedia efforts are trying to help out when I can on WP:RD and updating the WP:RFA section of WP:NAC. I've worked mainly on new articles, but have tried to wikify and cleanup areas where I was knowledgable.
I'll promise what I did in my several campaigns for office in the real world: a fresh perspective from a fresh face.
Vote early, vote often (as they say in Chicago), and please vote for PedanticallySpeaking. Ago gratias! PedanticallySpeaking 17:54, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) (I also have created a page for the campaign User:PedanticallySpeaking/Arbitration.)
I've been editing as Plato since March of 2004. I am not a sysop although I was briefly one for wiktionary. I do think we should try to get tough on trolls, especially ones who break the rules repeatedly and act like there is nothing wrong (i.e. A user whose name starts with an L whom I'll not mention by name).
I feel need to really enforce the three revert rule, because currently it has no teeth. Also I think we need to speed up the arb-com process because it is very slow currently.
I have worked to try to make wikipedia a more friendly place by dealing with people whom I had problems with. Also, I capable of working with all sorts of people.
If anyone has questions for me, my talk is available. (See Also Arbitration commitee election 2004)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 02:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Raul654
[edit]I'm a long time Wikipedian and current member of the arbitration committee. I was elected in August to fill in one of the seats left by the departure of Eloquence and Uninvited Company. I think since the election in August, the speed at which the arbcom handles matters (the primary complaint against it) has increased dramatically, without compromising the fairness of the process.
In general, I tend to have a lot of faith in sysops to enforce policy properly, and my arbitration committee decisions tend to reflect that. I expect all users to abide by policy (once they are made aware of it) and to treat other users with respect. I greatly dislike avowed POV pushers and I am vociferously against trolling.
As I said during the previous election, I think I'm qualified because I'm emminently aware of what goes on on the english wikipedia; that I have deep knowledge of the policies (I helped draft many of them); I've participated in the arbitration process both as participant ('prosecutor' - so to speak - in the case of now-banned user Platus Satire) and arbitrator; and finally, because I would like to continue to serve the community in this capacity.
I think my record speaks for itself, although I'd be more than happy to answer any questions. Ask on my talk page. →Raul654 02:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
Sam Spade
[edit]
Positions
[edit]- Promote understanding, agreement and accordance with M:Foundation issues and policy, particularly NPOV and Civility. Civility is vital, perhaps our most important policy after NPOV. I would enforce the observance of both vigorously.
- Prevent the loss of valuable editors, and promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process.
- Warn problematic users, followed by a light punishment (say a 24hr block) for a second infraction. Blocks should triple after that point, for each repeat infraction. After a month or so of good behaviour, a user may start again with a clean slate.
- Admins should be held to a higher standard than lay users, if any distinction is to be made.
- Arbiters must obey policy in their rulings, rather than their own precedent.
About me
[edit]I fight hard to preserve neutrality, and am known for it. I would vote early, and often.
Please review my fine self, and feel free to leave questions on my talk page, as always:
- (Sam Spade | talk | contributions)
Sam [Spade] 16:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
sannse
[edit]I joined Wikipedia in December 2002 and have been active regularly since then. I have been an admin since March 2003 and a member of the mediation committee since it was created.
I see banning as a necessary tool to manage behaviour on Wikipedia. I don't see it as a punishment, but rather as a practical means to stop behaviour that disrupts the project. For this reason, I support other options if they can be shown to have a better chance of producing the desired result. Clear communication and careful limits sometimes have a better effect than a simple ban.
In general, I think the current process is fair and well thought out. I would like to see it streamlined somewhat, and ways put in place to enable cases to be dealt with more quickly. I think real-time discussions on IRC could be a very useful tool as part of this - although, of course, decisions should still be clearly communicated to the community and not taken in haste.
If I were to join the arbitration committee that would mean leaving the mediation committee. In some ways that would be a shame, because believe strongly that mediation is important and worthwhile, but I also feel that I have something to offer to the arbitration end of dispute resolution. -- sannse (election talk) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
SPUI
[edit]I am a GNAA member. Thus your decision on me is obvious. --SPUI 19:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm an old hand, having been with Wikipedia since July 2001. I used to be an everyday editor, but I've scaled back my efforts this past year. I'm skeptical of concentrations of power and a strong support of the modes of governance espoused in MeatballWiki. I think that voting mechanisms generally reflect a certain laziness, not really the Wiki Way of working together to create a consensus opinion. My questioning of the legitimacy of authority puts me into conflict with others, but I'm always, always willing to work with others to find understanding and common ground. I have a strong distaste for the destruction of information and knowledge. I believe in WikipediAhimsa.
What does this have to do with the ArbCom? Just, I suppose, that I'm guaranteed to represent a skeptical voice on the committee but one always seeking positive action. The Cunctator 20:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hi. Over the past year , I've had some personal experience with the workings of the Arbitration committee in the case of Mr Natural Health and Irismeister. On the whole I was happy with the outcomes. The judgements seem pretty fair (Perhaps a bit soft IMO but then I am biased) What I was not happy with, was the speed at which those judgements took place. I see this as a major failing . Taking months to reach a decision is not acceptable, and if I were elected my main effort would be in finding a way to speed up the process.
I'm very active on wikipedia. I edit nearly every day. I don't believe the wiki is being overrun by POV pushers, edit warriors or trolls, but I do feel the few we have need to be told in no uncertain terms that bad behaviour is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.
I'm not going to go on about how I'll be neutral, fair, and even handed. If you know me you can judge for yourself. If you don't know me, you should look over my edit history. Actions speak louder than words. Do feel free to ask me any questions you like on my talk page. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hi! I have been here since August 2003, and have participated in almost every aspect of Wikipedia, from prolific article writing and editing to VfD and VfU to RfA and RfC, and am throroughly familiar with its workings. I believe I have the knowledge, background, and judgement for the arbitrator position.
Right now, the ArbCom is slow, inefficient, and lacking in clear or sensible standards. I favor quick, common sense, no-nonsense solutions, focused on who is helping the project and who is not.
Some of our best contributors - such as Zoe, Daniel Quinlan, Ark30inf, and Adam Carr - have been or are being driven away because cranks and trolls make Wikilife miserable. I have experienced first-hand what an energy drain problem users are, and how nothing is done. We need to create an environment where people feel that contributing is worth their time and that the free and open nature of the Wiki is not a blank check to ruin our achievements.
However, I also believe that outright bans should not be the first line of defense. Creative solutions can do wonders, and stern, clear warnings should precede administrative action - but those warnings must have teeth.
I will also bring civility to the proceedings. Disputants, right or wrong, should be talked to respectfully by the arbitrators, who are the community's servants, not its masters.
I'm a very active Wikipedian. It is rare for me to go even 48 hours without making an edit; in fact I only have once since July. I can, and will, respond promptly to requests.
Thanks for reading! VeryVerily
Greetings! My name is Josiah, my username is yoshiah_ap, and I would like to serve on the Arbitration Committee. I am, by anyone's standard, a Wikipedian who spends too much time on Wikipedia. I believe in the goals and ideas of wikipedia, as being perhaps the best information database on the internet.
I believe that banning is something that must be done only when all other resources have exhausted. Users should only be banned for a maximum of one month for a first offense. If afterwards, they violate Wikipedia policy to the point the are presented to the Arbitration committee again, they ought to be banned for 6 months, and if, sadly, the problem presents itself again, only then would I vote for a complete and total ban from wikipedia.
I feel the Arbitration committee ought to carry out the dispute resolutions as quickly as possible, which I do not believe happens at this time. I will judge justly, actively participate, and give each user the chances that he or she deserves. Elect me, and I will not disappoint you.--Josiah 21:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)