Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements
This page lists the candidates for the December 2004 elections to the Arbitration Committee. Candidates should be listed in alphabetical order.
All users interested in the position are invited to add brief candidate statements to this page. These should be no more than 250 words and outline your views on banning and how you feel the Arbitration Committee should handle disputes. Candidates who wish to make longer statements may create a page in their own user space for this purpose, which could also be used for candidates to respond to questions from the community.
James F.
As one of the original members of the Arbitration Committee, helping to formulate and pursue the Arbitration Policy, I would like to think that my actions and decisions over the past year speak for themselves, but I will try to distil my thoughts about it:
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.
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’ 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.
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.
Yours,
James F. (talk) 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I've been editing since November 2003 and have been a sysop since May 2004, so I think I have a good understanding of how things work around here, and my username ought to be a familiar one. I watch the arbitration process closely and I have found it to be both fair and helpful—its only real fault is its slowness. I am running for the position because I believe that I can devote the time and energy necessary to speed up the process of dealing with disruptive users and POV pushers—and I believe that Wikipedia's ever-increasing importance and visibility means that greater speed is absolutely necessary.
Regarding sanctions and punishments, I think it is better to reform users than to expel them. I think POV pushers ought to be restricted from editing the topics in which they have shown inability or unwillingness to abide by the requirements of the neutral point of view. I believe disruptive and/or abusive editors ought to be placed under strict parole and only banned outright if that fails to moderate their troublesome behavior.
I believe abusive sysops ought to be treated with special rigor due to the special problems which their misbehavior may cause. Abuse, unchecked, tends to multiply; if sysops are not held to the highest standards, if they are perceived as an elite cabal, then I worry that that perception may become reality.
Essentially, I believe arbitration should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly.
Any questions should be directed to user talk:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones (m) 22:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Raul654
I'm a long time Wikipedian and current member of the arbitration committee. I was elected in August to fill in one of the seats left by the departure of Eloquence and Uninvited Company. I think since the election in August, the speed at which the arbcom handles matters (the primary complaint against it) has increased dramatically, without compromising the fairness of the process.
As I said during the previous election, I think I'm qualified because I'm emminently aware of what goes on on the english wikipedia; that I have deep knowledge of the policies (I helped draft many of them); I've participated in the arbitration process both as participant ('prosector' - so to speak - in the case of now-banned user Platus Satire) and arbitor; and finally, because I would like to continue to serve the community in this capacity. →Raul654 21:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)