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

Revision as of 19:56, 27 July 2004

Revision as of 21:20, 27 July 2004

Line 59:

==[[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]]==

I think the AC system has proven basically sound so far; its only problem is that it's paralysingly slow, as it finds its feet. The job sucks by its very definition, but it needs to be done.

The AC is the court of ''last'' resort. Spammers or personal abuse are clear cases to be dealt with quickly and sharply. 24-hour blocks for egregious personal attacks after a warning are becoming accepted practice, which I approve of. NorI do Idon't consider good actions an excuse for bad ones.

I view the real problem on Wikipedia as being people who ''just don't get it'' socially — how to work effectively with people even when you regard them as idiotsclueless and obnoxious. Playing well with others is ''not that easy'' for some. I try very hard not to blow my top writing on Wikipedia, even when dealing with the deeply troublesome. Such people will be the ones ending up at the AC. I support rapid decisions aimed at minimising damage to the wiki and its social fabric, secondly with hope for reform of the problem child.

I've spent many years on dealing effectively with trolls, vandals and spammers in Internet communities, particularly Usenet. I've also been on the [http://www.caube.org.au/ CAUBE-AU] committee since 1998 (the Australian anti-spam organisation).