Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WJBscribe/Full version: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 00:06, 19 November 2008

Latest revision as of 10:38, 29 November 2008

(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 1:

;Extended statement

I confess thatto I havehaving always been a littlerather astounded by the trust the community has shown in me - perhaps this is a good time to thank all of those who have encouraged me to run in this election, your words have truly humbled me - and yet it seems I find myself once again asking if I have your confidence once again. I have been a bureaucrat for roughly a year and an administrator for just under two. I have also been chairing Wikipedia's [[WP:MC|Mediation Committee]] since January, a role from which I will stepping down in December. I am proud of what I have achieved in those capacities and now I am offering to put some of what I have learned into practice in a new arena by serving on the Arbitration Committee.

There is no denying that the role of an Arbitrator is a hard one. I gave long and serious thought to whether it was one that I was able to fulfil. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who have taken on this difficult responsibility. To them it must often have felt like they were navigating a minefield without the help of a map. Often users are all to ready to declare that they have lost faith in an Arbitrator or the Committee as a whole when they find themselves disagreeing with a decision. Nevertheless the Committee’s work is important and it is essential that the best candidates are appointed to it. And whilst I do respect those who have served on ArbCom, a lot of mistakes have been made - especially in the past year - and there is often little sign of the Committee learning from those mistakes. I believe that the Wikipedia community would now like to see a real change of direction from the Arbitration Committee. In particular, there are several areas in particular where I believe it is a priority that ArbCom learn from past failures:

Line 15:

:''Block reviews''. Often blocked users are told that they should email ArbCom to appeal their block. Sadly an all too common experience is that emailing the ArbCom list is like throwing correspondence into a black hole. Block reviews do not have to happen in a vacuum - I would argue that ArbCom should provide a log of what appeals it has received and what has been done in respect of them. Who has reviewed them, who have they asked for evidence and what was their conclusion? If arbitrators cannot find the time to review the blocks themselves, they need to delegate these reviews to others and request from them an independent report on the merits of the block in question.

Throughout my time at Wikipedia I have always been open to questions and willing to explain my actions. I don't promise you'll always agree with me but, were I to be elected, I will make myself available to discuss any stance I take which you find problematic and I will listen carefully to your opinion. For me the ArbCom of the future is one less defensive and more open, willing to make difficult decisions even where these may be unpopular, and able to respond constructively when challenged.

<strong style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]] [[User talk:WJBscribe|(talk)]]</strong> 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

<hr />

*{{usercheck-short|WJBscribe}}

*[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WJBscribe/Questions for the candidate|Questions for the candidate]]

*[[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe|Discuss the candidate]]

{{ #ifexpr: {{CURRENTTIMESTAMP}}>20081201000000 | *'''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe|Support or Oppose this candidate]]''' | *Voting opens at 00:00 UTC on 1 December 2008. }}