Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Extended: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) Cr. |
Arcticocean (talk | contribs) Private issues excepted, all discussion should be on-wiki. |
||
Line 3:
This page details some additional information on where I stand on various issues relating to the committee. If my views on an issue are unclear or need clarification, or I simply haven't detailed them, then please bring it up on my candidacy questions page.
* '''On-wiki discussions.''' The mailing list should be used sparingly. If elected, one of my first goals would be to establish some kind of discussion area for the committee to use. At present, there is no venue for the discussion of miscellaneous issues not relating to a current request (which go on [[WP:A/R]]), to general issues (which go to [[WT:AC]]), or to announcements (which go to [[WT:AC/N]]). When an ''arbcom-l'' thread is started, it should be easy to say "There is no good reason to discuss this privately. Let's transfer this to the public discussion area."
* '''Effective sanctions.''' If an issue is being arbitrated, a serious problem exists. I would not support a weak or ineffective remedy. A decision should drive as close as possible to a solution to the problem the committee is considering.
* '''Little sympathy for those who disrupt.''' An editor's conduct can be problematic if it prevents others from effectively writing articles or collaborating, or if it causes a Wikipedia article to not honour our core policies, or if it brings the project name or the reputation of a Wikipedia subject area into disrepute. If it was demonstrated to me that an editor's conduct was problematic (in these or in other ways), I would sanction that editor in a manner that neutralised their disruptive additions.
| |||