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

Revision as of 00:17, 19 November 2008

Revision as of 00:30, 19 November 2008

Line 1:

==[[User:WJBscribe|WJBscribe]]==

:'''Note:''' ''A longer version of this statement is at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WJBscribe/Full version|/Full version]]''

I confess thatto I havehaving always been rather astounded by the trust the community has shown in me and yet it seems I find myself once again asking if I have your confidence. 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. I am proud of what I havemy achievedachievements in those capacities and now I am offering to serve on the Arbitration Committee.

A lot of mistakes have been made by the Committee - especially in the past year - and there is often little sign of it learning from them. The Wikipedia community is now looking for a change of direction from the Committee and there are several areas in particular where I believe learning from past failures is a priority:

:''Transparency''. Whilst some deliberations may have to occur privately, there is much that could be brought into the open. I think it important that ArbCom give more thought to whether an issue truly ''needs'' to be discussed in privateprivately and, if not, move the discussion to the on-wiki.

:''Clarity''. Clear wording and certainty of interpretation is essential in ArbCom decisions.

:''Appropriate sanctions''. If a problem is such that ArbCom is being asked to intervene, targeted sanctions are needed. The overuse of article probation is becoming problematic - whilst it can be useful in some circumstances, it is not a magic solution to all content disputes – and frustration with “general amnesty” and “hugs all round” decisions is understandable.

Line 11:

:''Block reviews''. Often blocked users are told that they should email ArbCom to appeal their block. The Committee should be providing a public 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?

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 takeanything 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.

*{{usercheck-short|WJBscribe}}