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

Revision as of 00:30, 19 November 2008

Revision as of 00:35, 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 to having 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 my achievements 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 little sign of it learning from them. The Wikipedia community is 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 particular 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 privately and, if not, move the discussion 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.