|
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)
==<s>[[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]]</s> (withdrawn)==
<s>Firstly, I want to make it clear that I can't compete with most of the other nominations on edit count. I'm running purely on the credibility of my ideas to make the AC work better; all I ask is that you read them and give me fair consideration.</s>
<s>We all know the AC is slow, unworkably slow in some cases. Where I disagree with some other people is I feel it is the process, not the people, that's the problem. The AC lacks focus. Instead of dealing with the only thing that actually matters: ''is this user's presence a net positive or negative to wikipedia?'', it gets bogged down into a he said/she said clash of personalities. I firmly believe that two weeks should be the maximum time a case should take: one week to submit evidence, and at most a week to decide a course of action.</s>
<s>I I am elected, I will seek to restructure the AC along these lines:</s>
* <s>No more X vs Y cases, individual AC cases consider the actions of only one party</s>
* <s>Evidence pages will be limited to actual evidence (ie links only, no huge monologues) and a couple of paragraphs of overview for and against</s>
* <s>Decisions will be made on a single criteria: is this user good for wikipedia, considering all flow on effects (eg other users leaving due to their actions)</s>
* <s>Remedies will also be along the same lines, doing whatever is necessary to make the user a net good for wikipedia, up to and including permanent banning if other avenues are exhausted</s>
<s>I will do everything I can to make this to happen, but if that can not be achieved, I will follow whatever the consensus over the correct form of the AC is. Adherance to a published policy is the only thing that gives the AC any legitimacy, and I firmly believe when policy is broken, we should seek to fix it, not disregard it.</s>
<s>Any questions can be directed to my [[User_talk:ShaneKing|talk page]]. Thank you for your time. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 23:51, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)</s>
What the Arb Comm needs right now is full community support, and I don't believe my candidacy assists in that. It appears that if I was to be elected, my endorsement of Sam Spade would only be a devisive issue. As I can't in good faith retract my endorsement of Sam, my only course of action available is to withdraw my candidacy. The needs of the Arb Comm must come before any need of myself to be elected to it. Anything one invididual can bring to the table isn't worth making wikipedia any more factionalised than it already is. I'm sorry if I've wasted anyone's time, and I thank you all, in particular those who have supported me. [[User:ShaneKing|Shane King]] 13:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
==SPUI==
| 