Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:30, 23 November 2004

Latest revision as of 07:41, 16 August 2025

(45 intermediate revisions by 33 users not shown)

Line 3:

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.

Endorsements can be added at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements]].

'''THIS PAGE IS NOW FROZEN.''' Since voting has started, new candidacies are no longer permitted and will be removed.

__TOC__

Line 9 ⟶ 11:

==[[User:172|172]]==

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 [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits|list of most active on all namespaces]]), administrator since May 2003 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&diff=913061&oldid=912977] (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 [[Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards|Forum for Encyclopedic Standards]], which I initiated. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Forum+for+Encyclopedic+Standards&action=history&limit=500&offset=0]

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''.

Line 25 ⟶ 27:

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. Nevertheless, whereWhere 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 [[User:Ambi/Questions for the candidate|here]] - I'd be happy to hear from you. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Anthony DiPierro==

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. [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|警告]] 04:44, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Blankfaze|blankfaze]]==

Line 43 ⟶ 48:

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 [[User talk:Blankfaze|my talk page]]. Thanks. [[User:Blankfaze|{{<b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b>]] | [[User talk:blankfaze|<b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:Blankfaze90%;">)</sig}}b>]] 06:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]]==

Line 51 ⟶ 56:

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&mdash;if the user is ''so'' incorrigible that every reasonable attempt at resolution has failed and the editor’seditor'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’sIt'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 [[User_talk:Cecropia|talk page]]. I am grateful for your consideration. -- [[User:Cecropia|Cecropia]] | [[User talk:Cecropia|''explains it all'' ®]] 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Line 65 ⟶ 70:

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&#8217;tdon’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. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 09:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Chuck F|Chuck F]]==

Line 81 ⟶ 86:

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! -[[User:CunningLinguist|CunningLinguist]] 07:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Line 86 ⟶ 93:

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 current 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

Line 104 ⟶ 111:

== [[User:DG|DG]] ==

<div style="float:right;margin-left:1em;">[[Image:vote-dg.jpg|rightcenter|I'm Dom Galdós and I approved this message.]]</div>

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.

Line 112 ⟶ 119:

<b>As arbcommer I will recuse myself from every case.</b>

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.</b> [[User:DG|D.]] [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 03:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

<b>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.</b> This absolute absence from cases might allow me to <b>devote any and all arbcomming time to considering whether certain cases should be allowed to be brought forth or not</b>. Certainly having one person particularly dedicated to that primarily might be interesting.</b>

<b>Note:</b>

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.

== [[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed]] ==

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 pushedmake longa andmistake, hardI'm forusually thequick CREATIONto of the arbitration committee and made sureadmit it had its(just currentask powers[[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.

Line 138 ⟶ 153:

== [[User:Fennec|Fennec]] ==

[[Image:FennecFoxVulpes zerda sitting.jpg|thumb|250px|right|I find the other election banners on this page somewhat silly and slightly annoying (for largely aesthetic reasons), but as long as they're going up, here's a copy of the pic on my userpage. Without slogans photoshopped in.]]

Hi. You may know me from the [[m:IRC channels|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

Line 156 ⟶ 171:

the case of repeat offenders. This includes bans and any other restrictions.

Query me at [[User:Fennec/Questions and stuff, yo]]. -[[User:Fennec|Fennec]] [[User_Talk:Fennec|(&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;はさばくのきつね)]] 03:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Grunt|Grunt]]==

Line 165 ⟶ 180:

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 [[User:Grunt/Questions for the candidate|to this page]]. -- [[User:Grunt|Grun]][[User talk:Grunt|t]] [[European Union|{{User:Grunt/euflag}}🇪🇺]] 01:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

==Hephaestos==

Line 174 ⟶ 189:

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:Hephaestos|user talk page]]. - [[User:Hephaestos|Hephaestos]]|[[User talk:Hephaestos|&#167;§]] 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Improv|Improv]]==

Line 204 ⟶ 219:

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.

<br />

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 &#8216;deserve&#8217;‘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.

<br />

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.

Line 212 ⟶ 227:

[[User:Jdforrester|James F.]] [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]]==

I would like to stand for the arbitration committee. My views on banning, handling disputes and my qualifications follow. Please direct any questions you may have to [[User talk:Jongarrettuk|my talk page]].

==[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]]==

===Banning===

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 [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion|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.

Banning is contrary to the concept of having a wiki, but it is occasionally a necessary evil to protect users who read or edit in good faith from those who seek to disrupt. Where employed it should be as short as possible, and we should encourage those we ban to reform and become good Wikipedians.

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.

===How I would handle disputes===

Disputes should be handled politely, quickly and in everyday English: this is a disciplinary process, not a court of law.

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

I will:

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 [[User talk:Johnleemk/December 2004 Arbcom Election|the latterly mentioned subpage's talk page]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*ensure that I always vote quickly (within a week) unless I had previously excused myself

[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

*restrict my considerations to the evidence brought before me

*only accept evidence and discuss cases in the publicly available forum of the Arbcom area of the Wikipedia namespace

*support the case or defence put forward by an unpopular editor if, in the evidence before me, that editor is in the right.

I will not:

==[[User:Librarian Brent|Librarian Brent]]==

*pre-judge (so I will not accept a case and simultaneously say that a user is troublesome).

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.

===Qualifications===

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.

I am a 30 year old chartered accountant from [[London]], [[England]]. I am used to analysing complex positions calmly and without prejudice. I have only been at Wikipedia a short time and am not a sysop, so would offer a balance to others on the committee.

==[[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]]==

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 [[Wikipedia:Preliminary Deletion|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

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.

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 [[User talk:Johnleemk/December 2004 Arbcom Election|the latterly mentioned subpage's talk page]]. [[User:Johnleemk|Johnleemk]] | [[User talk:Johnleemk|Talk]] 16:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--[[User:Librarian Brent|Librarian Brent]] 02:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Lir|Lir]]==

[[Image:Here's2.jpg|200px|thumb|right|Vote for me!]]

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<small> (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 sockpuppetssocks are running for arbcom, including this one)</small>. Under my regime: deletionists will be shown the door, and their user accounts shall be ''(ironically enough)'' deleted.

==[[User:Merovingian|Merovingian]]==

Line 268 ⟶ 271:

I have many kind people to thank for invaluable [[User:Merovingian/archive|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 [[User talk:Merovingian|my talk page]]. --[[User:Merovingian|<fontspan colorstyle="color:green"><big>&#8475;</big>yan!]]</fontspan>]] | [[User talk:Merovingian|<font color="orange">Talk</font>]] 17:21, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Mirv|Mirv]]==

Line 279 ⟶ 282:

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]]. [[User:Mirv|&#8212mdash;No-One]][[User talk:Mirv|&nbsp;''Jones'']]&nbsp;[[Special:Emailuser/Mirv|^(m)]] 22:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Neutrality|Neutrality]]==

Line 306 ⟶ 309:

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 [[User:Plato/Arbitration commitee election 2004|Arbitration commitee election 2004]])--[[User:Plato|[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick]] [[User talk: plato|</small><font color=red><small>@</small></font><font color=green>)---^--</font>]]]] 02:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==Raul654==

Line 315 ⟶ 318:

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 [[user talk:Raul654|talk page]]. [[User:Raul654|&rarr;Raul654→Raul654]] 02:41, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

==Sam Spade==

[[Image:Mandelpart2.jpg|thumb|centerright|200px|550px]]

===Positions===

Line 358 ⟶ 361:

I am a [[gay nigger association of america|GNAA]] member. Thus your decision on me is obvious. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] 19:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:TaThe bu shi da yuCunctator|Ta bu shi daThe yuCunctator]]==

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.

I don't believe I have too much trouble remaining impartial. I've dealt with edit wars through the proper channels and I hope that I have enough experienced editors behind me. I'm seeing a bit of disruption, but I feel that it's only from a few users. I have been talking to people like [[User:Chuck_F]] to try to keep them from getting too wild, and I really think they could be good editors with a bit of guidance. I beleive in restoration if someone truly wants to change their ways, something I'm impressed with on Wikipedia. The most controversial thing I've done is track down [[User:Netoholic|Netoholic]]'s trail of controversy and attempt to bring it to the proper channels so that something can be ruled. I feel I have a better idea of the process now. I'm an active member of the community, and though I've had an extended wikivacation from real editing (feeling a bit low at the moment), I hope my work with articles like [[Cyclone Tracy]] and [[Exploding whale]] will show that I'm quite serious about Wikipedia. Oh, forgot to add, you can contact me [[User talk:Ta bu shi da yu|here]] if you have questions. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 12:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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. [[User:The Cunctator|The Cunctator]] 20:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

'''Note:''' In the interests of full disclosure (this was raised on the [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements|talk page]]) I have been giving evidence in Netoholic's arbitration. See [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Netoholic/Evidence]]. - [[User:Ta bu shi da yu|Ta bu shi da yu]] 21:34, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Theresa knott|Theresa knott]]==

Hi. Over the past year , I’veI'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’mI'm very active on wikipedia. I edit nearly every day. I don’tdon'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’mI'm not going to go on about how I’llI'll be neutral, fair, and even handed. If you know me you can judge for yourself. If you don’tdon'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. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Tart, knees hot)]] 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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. [[User:Theresa knott|Theresa Knott]] [[User talk:Theresa knott| (Tart, knees hot)]] 22:22, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

== [[User:VeryVerily|VeryVerily]] ==

Line 392 ⟶ 396:

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.--[[User:Yoshiah ap|Josiah]] 21:18, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[Category:Wikipedia ArbCom elections archive| ]]

Endorsements can be added at [[Category:Wikipedia: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/|Candidate statements/Endorsements]].

[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections candidate statements|2004-12]]