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

Revision as of 02:03, 15 November 2004

Revision as of 02:27, 15 November 2004

Line 19:

Naturally, the duty of serving on the Committee is a great one, both to Jimbo for the responsibility delegated to us, and to the Community, in representing its beliefs. Over the two years that I have held an account on Wikipedia, I have become very much attached to the community, and this focuses my mind when considering whether we can discard people like so much chaff.

<br />

I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they ‘deserve’&#8216;deserve&#8217; it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is damaging to the project. Of course, 'damage' is in the eye of the beholder, and so I hope that my decisions have reflected well the overall opinion of our Community.

<br />

With this in mind, I would like to ask if you think me a suitable candidate to represent us all in this most vital task of protecting the project from ourselves in our attempts to enlighten the world.

Line 63:

If I were to join the arbitration committee that would mean leaving the mediation committee. In some ways that would be a shame, because believe strongly that mediation is important and worthwhile, but I also feel that I have something to offer to the arbitration end of dispute resolution. -- [[User:Sannse|sannse]] ([[user talk:Sannse/Arbitration election|election talk]]) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

==172==

Members of the Arbitration Committee should see the bigger picture and better distinguish between users mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and users dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active user since December 2002 (see list of [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits|list of most active on all namespaces]]), administrator since May 2003 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&diff=913061&oldid=912977] (making me the most senior admin in this field of candidates), and main author of a few featured articles, I can see this big picture; and my user history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for scholarly standards on Wikipedia.

As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits. This is what I want to change. As an arbitrator, I'd favor focusing on the accuracy and constructiveness of the edits in question-- as opposed to the personalities-- to the greatest extent possible ''within the framework of the established norms, rules and procedures of the committee''.

Wikipedia is no longer the small community it once was, but rather an increasingly complex and cumbersome, occasionally haphazard organization of thousands of users, with some users finding themselves in many different niches; unfortunately, trolls seem to understand this better than some sitting members of the arbitration committee. Too often trolls gain considerable sympathy by playing "victim." I worry that the systems in place to resolve disputes, like the arbitration, are perhaps actually exacerbating them.

I welcome any questions on [[User talk:172|my talk page]].