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

Revision as of 17:21, 31 July 2004

Latest revision as of 23:19, 4 February 2023

(31 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)

Line 1:

This page lists the candidates who stood in the upcoming[[Wikipedia:Arbitration electionCommittee toElections fillJuly the2004|Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004]] for two missing seats on the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration committee]].

IfAll you areusers interested in thisthe position, pleasewere addinvited ato add brief candidate statementstatements belowto this page. ThisThese shouldwere to be no longermore than 250 words and shouldcandidates were asked to outline yourtheir views on banning and how strict youthey feelfelt the Arbitration Committee should be.

'''THIS PAGE IS NOW FROZEN.''' Since the election is over, new candidacies are no longer permitted and will be removed. The results of the vote are at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004]].

This page will be declared frozen at 24:00 UTC on Monday, August 2, 2004.

New entries to the bottom, please.

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

Line 16 ⟶ 14:

I welcome any questions on [[User talk:172|my talk page]]. [[User:172|172]] 13:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[BTW, I am extremely impressed by Sj's candidate statement in particular. I could not have said what he's articulating in his statement better myself. [[User:172|172]] 12:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)]

==[[User:Raul654|Raul654]]==

Line 26:

I think my view on problem users is best summed up by [http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-July/014289.html this] email I sent to the mailing list, in response to a question from Jimbo. As I said there, I feel that most problems on Wikipedia stem from a small group of well-known users who do their best to disrupt things without violating any written rules. I'd like to see common-sense applied in these cases. Contributors who are habitally told that their actions are unacceptable should not expect the arbcom to give them yet-another-warning. In cases where it's apparent that the user will not reform, I do support banning. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 01:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Note - Snowspinner asked me to comment on how I would have acted in previous arbcom cases. You can find my answers [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Raul654#Arbcom_questions here]. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 00:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]]==

==<s>[[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]]</s> (withdrawn)==

''02:31, 26 Jul 2004''

<s>I've cheated a bit and put a longer statement at [[User:Snowspinner/arbcom]]. The short form, however, is that I have a lot of past experience moderating Internet communities, and have a good understanding of how to balance the need to cater to community desire with the need to exercise good judgment. I would say that my position is probably a bit more strict than much of the arbitration committee, but I don't think I'm particularly out of line with them. (And you can read on my longer statement how I'd have ruled on several prior cases). </s>

<s>Generally, my goal would be to minimize disruption to Wikipedia. This involves giving problem users with hope of reforming opportunities to reform, but acting swiftly and decisively against those with actively bad intentions. Permabans are not unreasonable for some users, and should be employed when necessary.</s>

<s>I also promise to move quickly to decide to or not to hear cases, and to make my votes on rulings.</s>

<s>Past that, most of what Raul says applies just fine to me too. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 21:05, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)</s>

<s>A late addition - because I'd really like to shower this particular idea with praise. I really, really like the most recent innovation to come from the arbcom, the standing order as in [[Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony]]. I think this is a very good step towards dealing with users who are creating problems but do not seem to be editing in bad faith, and, if elected to the arbitration committee, would make great use of these. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)</s>

Since I have one case before the arbcom at the moment and it appears that the matter of Avala is going to be heard as well, I do not feel that at the present the arbitration committee would be well served by my membership, since it would only lead to a number of recusals. Furthermore, I note that there's a paucity of people who are willing to put the time into compiling substantive evidence dossiers for the arbcom. Since there are many candidates already on this page that I find acceptable, I am more inclined to let one of them take the position on the arbcom, and to continue making my contributions ones of evidence for the time being. [[User:Snowspinner|Snowspinner]] 17:21, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

==[[User:Ambi|Ambi]] (formerly known as Ambivalenthysteria)==

==[[User:Ambivalenthysteria|Ambivalenthysteria]]==

''03:22, 26 Jul 2004''

Line 48 ⟶ 50:

The slow speed of proceedings over the last few months is one thing that concerns me. I'm always around, and it's a rare day that I don't check into Wikipedia. If I'm elected to the AC, it will become my first priority here, and I'll do my best to keep proceedings moving along.

When it comes to disciplinary action, I suspect that my position may be slightly more strict than that of many members of the current committee, but I can also think of some recent cases where I'd have voted for lighter sanctions. I've had a fair bit of experience in dealing with troublesome users, as both an administrator on another encyclopedia project for some years now, and a moderator on another site. As such, I tend to have little tolerance for those who come here to disrupt Wikipedia and contribute nothing, and believe in dealing with them firmly and quickly, though of course respecting precedent and policy. However, if it seems that the behaviour of a disruptive user could be corrected, I'll try to advocate a sanction to encourage this. In this way, I'm very much in favour of the new concept of standing orders.

Finally, as with Raul, I believe that habitual disruptors should not expect the AC to give them warning after warning. If the user shows no inclination towards reforming, I too support banning. In response to a note on my talk page, if I'm elected here, I plan to resign my position on the Mediation Committee. If anyone has any further questions, please feel free to [[User talk:Ambivalenthysteria|ask me]].

Line 94 ⟶ 96:

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 CommitteCommittee'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 important. 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.

Line 102 ⟶ 104:

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;">Merovingian]]</fontspan>]]<big>&#9997;</big>[[User talk:Merovingian|<fontspan colorstyle="color:orange;">Talk</span>]] 11:06, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

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

I am strongly opposed to sysop abuses; we need non-sysops on the arbitration committee. I have been around for almost two years, and have edited thousands of articles. [[User:Lir|Lirath Q. Pynnor]]

==[[User:Sj|Sj]]==

I want to see the arbitration committee focus on being excellent arbiters of what is and what is not productive for the WP project, looking a reasonable amount of time into the future. To this end, I think the AC should respond '''quickly''' and '''prolifically''' to requests, and should shy away from micromanaging ''sentencing'' and endless agonizing over ''intent''.

More effective than explicit banning, for some fixed period : removing the standard restrictions on interactions with a given user/article -- for instance, allowing automatic reversion of a user's edits to certain topics; or allowing a user to be banned by any sysop for any reason (allowing for other sysops to disagree & unban, or hammer out the details of ban duration [unlike an explicit, irrevocable ArbComm Ruling]) -- continuing to leave sentencing decisions in the hands of the broader body of users|admins. More comments and questions can be found on [[User_Talk:Sj#ArbComm|my talk page]]. [[User:Sj|+sj]][[User Talk:Sj|<span style="color:#ff6996;">+</span>]]

[[Category:Wikipedia ArbCom elections archive]]

[[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004|Candidate statements]]

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