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.
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 list of most active on all namespaces), administrator since May 2003 [1] (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 my talk page. 172 02:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm one of the better known "friendly faces" on Wikipedia. As a generally easygoing person, and having dealt many antisocial Wikipedian as an RC patroller and a mediator. I find that I've built up a virtual immunity to Wikistress and developed the ability to converse with even the most sensitive of users. If there's one place in the 'pedia that needs that person, it is the Arbcom, where often the worst of the worst on Wikipedia end up as a last resort. With any luck, as an arbitrator I'll be able to make a difference in the way the 'pedia works and hopefully turn a few of the bad apples back into productive users.
In addition, I have an excellent working knowledge of the 'pedia and its policies, having had a voice in quite a few of them myself; a good grasp of policy is something that I think any arbitrator should have.
I personally think that the Arbcom's current methods work reasonably well; if there is a problem, it is that the process is too slow. I have previously discussed this with some other users, and there are some proposals in the works regarding this. Until then, I'm sure that the Arbcom could benefit with my (legendary?) speed of action.
Please direct any questions you might have of me in relation to the direction to this page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
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)
I joined Wikipedia in early May (if memory serves me correctly) and have been extremely active in the community since then both as an editor, policy-contributor, and admin. I watch every arbitration case that the ArbCom hears and have even brought a case before the Arbitrators, so I have that experience that allows me to relate to the people who request the Arbitrators' relief.
Reforming the procedures of the ArbCom is exceptionally important to me, and I want to make it more efficient, fair, and just for all concerned. In general, I think that the ArbCom has done an excellent job and has done well in being fair and just with many users, especially in the cases of RickK v. Guanaco, RK, Wik, Irismeister, and Rex. However, the main problem–the area desperately in need of change–is the efficiency of the committee. Specifically, this is what I'd like to do:
- Establish specific prerequisites for bringing a case to the ArbCom. The ArbCom should be a court of last resort, and should not be used for advisory opinions or rulings on certain articles.
- Establish specific procedures with presenting a case to the ArbCom. Subpages for requests and quick and speedy archiving will help in the regard. There should be a standardized format that will make requests be matter-of-fact and to the point, instead of long rambling rants. There should also be separte pages for evidence and counter-evidence.
- Develop creative ways of dealing with offenders. Blanket bans tend to be ineffective and only used when reforming the user is too late. Instead, we should look toward creative solutions like a revert parole or ban on certain types of articles. I think this helped particularly in the case of Michael.
- Ban repeat offenders. There will always be users that cannot or will not reform. For those, I advocate temporary injunctions and swift banning.
To close, I say this: Like Mirv, I believe arbitration "should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly." [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (Any questions?)]] 01:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)
==Plato
I've been editing as Plato since March of 2004. I am not a sysop although i was briefly one for wiktionary. I do think we should try to get tough on trolls, especially ones who break the rules repeatedly and act like there is nothing wrong.
I feel need to really enfrource the three revert rule, because currently it really has no teeth. Also I think we need to speed up the arb-com process because it is very slow currently.
I have worked to try to make wikipedia a more friendly place by dealing with people whom I had problems with. Also, I capable of working with all sorts of people.
If anyone has questions for me, my talk is available.--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 02:38, 15 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)
sannse
I joined Wikipedia in December 2002 and have been active regularly since then. I have been an admin since March 2003 and a member of the mediation committee since it was created.
I see banning as a necessary tool to manage behaviour on Wikipedia. I don't see it as a punishment, but rather as a practical means to stop behaviour that disrupts the project. For this reason, I support other options if they can be shown to have a better chance of producing the desired result. Clear communication and careful limits sometimes have a better effect than a simple ban.
In general, I think the current process is fair and well thought out. I would like to see it streamlined somewhat, and ways put in place to enable cases to be dealt with more quickly. I think real-time discussions on IRC could be a very useful tool as part of this - although, of course, decisions should still be clearly communicated to the community and not taken in haste.
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. -- sannse (election talk) 23:12, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)