Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions
| Line 175: | Line 175: | ||
[[/Questions for Wildthing61476]] |
[[/Questions for Wildthing61476]] |
||
===[[User:ShadowyCaballero|ShadowyCabal]]=== |
|||
I support impartiallity to the extreme. I love the pursuit of absolute truth, even though it will never be acheived. I have plenty of time, and I will do a good job. |
|||
[[/Questions for ShadowyCaballero]] |
|||
Revision as of 17:31, 7 November 2006
This is the page for candidate statements from those wishing to run in the December 2006 arbcom elections. Anyone with over 1000 edits on en.wikipedia may run.
- Statements should be less than 400 words although candidates are free to link to a longer statement should they so wish.
- Statements will be accepted until 23:59 1st of December 2006 (UTC).
- Statements should be in alphabetical order by username and in the following format (sed lingua latina non necesse est):
===[[User:Arbcom Candidate|]]=== Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. [[/Questions for Arbcom Candidate]]
Candidate Statements
The Arbitration Committee is an integral part of the smooth running of the wikipedia community. I have always done my absolute best to be fair and accurate, both while editing, in discourse with other editors, and in performance of my administrative duties. I understand that we all have a point-of-view, and that is one of the main elements that makes wikipedia so special. The other element, however, is the agreement we all make with each other to function within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, as fluid or rigid as they may be. One of the main purposes of ArbCom is to act as the arbitors of last resort (barring Jimbo, of course) who handle cases which have exhausted all prior mediation means, while maintaining a professional view of the situation—personal views notwithstanding. It is a difficult, and often thankless, position but one without which our community and encyclopædia would crash and burn in an inferno of flamewars and trolling. Applying a measured sense of reason, a desire to be fair and equitable to all participants, and a liberal smattering of humor, I feel that my background, temperament, wikiediting history, and administrative activities, together with some deep-breathing exercises, would allow me to contribute to the community as a whole in this fashion, and it would be an honor and a privilege to continue to give back to the community and the project in this way.
Thank you.
I love this project. I have considerable experience improving it as a user and an administrator. If elected to the Arbitration Committee, I will continue doing the work of developing The Free Encyclopedia at a higher level - but with the same dedication. Besides its traditional duty of identifying and neutralizing repeat policy violators, I believe the Committee will play an increasingly significant role in guarding against abuse among our swelling administrator ranks and in ridding Wikipedia of policy and feature creep that has made it so difficult for inexperienced users and anons to contribute. I have made it my priority over the past year to stay as transparent and communicative as possible, and I intend to continue doing the same if elected, making the arbitration process a little less opaque.
So why would you want Crzrussian on the Arbitration Committee?
- I am in the trenches every day, doing the work.
- I am communicative, accountable, and transparent.
- I will collaborate effectively with the other arbitrators.
- I have completed 2+ years of law school.
- My Arbitration Practicum professors gave me an A+. (Really!)
- And last but not least, I love this project!
Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Wikipedia. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Wikipedia's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.
Hello, I have been editing since September 2005 and am now presenting myself as a candidate for your approval. I have given my best to some of the many things there are to do here - including writing, translating, removing vandalism from recent changes, uploading and sorting images, and administration. This is, to me, what makes it great here, that there are so many possibilities and so much to do. I have read some of the cases and for the most part have been impressed with them, so I have a lot of respect for the current and previous committees as well as various participants in these arbitrations , and the other candidates on this page. Admittedly, I am a little bit green at dispute resolution, but would like to be involved in this activity. I have stayed out of disputes myself, but do not mind reading them. I can treat all parties fairly, and render decisions with logical and reasonable interpretations of our rules.
Hello! The Arbitration Committee, the final step in our dispute resolution process, is a critical and integral part of Wikipedia, and I humbly offer myself as a candidate for these elections. I’ve been here since May 2005, and was promoted to admin in August of that year. My contributions to Wikipedia (currently at 14,000 edits, although I give little value to edit counts) span a breadth of topics: from writing and contributing to the encyclopedia to helping newcomers to performing administrative tasks, I’ve always been dedicated to this wonderful project.
I’ve also had significant experience in our dispute resolution processes. I’ve been a member of the Mediation Committee, one of the key steps prior to arbitration, since September 2005 and am now one of the longest-serving active mediators. Seeing disputes firsthand and attempting to mediate the cases has provided me with invaluable experience, and will allow me to serve as Arbitrator more efficiently and with more judgment. I’ve also followed the activities of the Arbitration Committee closely, providing evidence in several cases. I also wrote the entire series about the Arbitration Committee and the elections for the Wikipedia Signpost’s series on the January 2006 ArbCom elections; articles covered everything from the history of the ArbCom, criticism of the committee, reform attempts, to duties and requirements of ArbCom members. During the series I also interviewed most of the ArbCom members. Conducting these interviews, along with researching and writing the series, has provided me with a keen and unique perspective about the ArbCom.
My experience is not limited to dispute resolution, though. I’ve nominated several featured articles and pictures, and created and improved countless others. I’ve also served the community in other capacities: I’ve written nearly 100 articles for the Signpost since August 2005, am on the OTRS team, am a Meta admin, and also am on the Communication Committee’s Internal Subcommittee, responsible for being a liaison for the community to the Foundation and vice versa. I’ve always been of the community, and will always be for the community.
My platform is simple: I will always listen closely to everyone, carefully consider all the options, and do whatever is best for the encyclopedia. Ultimately, the duty of the ArbCom is to improve the encyclopedia, and I will always keep that priority first.
It has been a great honor and privilege serving the community, and I look forward to continuing to serve.
Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the longer-time members of Wikipedia, arriving in 2003 and becoming an administrator in 2004, and I hope to bring with me some breadth of experience with the project. I remain convinced that Wikipedia should be, as it was, a flat hierarchy, for we are all volunteers, and we are all equals. Each gives as her or his abilities and interests dictate, and the best arbitrators are those who are most articulate and conversant with the policies of Wikipedia. Thus, being on ArbCom is a job rather than an honor, and arbitrators are judges of policy infractions rather than legislators. I hope that my long history of article writing (I keep a brag list at my user page), involvement at XfD (user:Geogre/AfD has some of the material that led to the "notability" guideline, and Wikipedia:Managed Deletion was possibly the first shot at what would become prod and the expanded CSD (although those were the result of the hard work of many, many others, and I claim no credit except for working)), the various noticeboards, and DRV testifies to my experience and to my temperament. My one interest is in transparency, respect, and subordinating all other concerns to the maintenance of a sound editing atmosphere for our volunteers -- the people who made Wikipedia one of the most used and visited sites on the entire web. I welcome questions and hope to help the community understand the positions ArbCom takes, as well as to help the other members of ArbCom respond to the needs of the general community.
Arbitration is the final step in ruling on user behaviour, and as such, is important to keep the project (and community) running smoothly. It takes a lot of time and devotion - I am willing to devote my energies to it if elected. Arbitration, like some other activities on our projects, takes a good grasp of policy and of the good of the project -- there are many different styles of judgement possible for an arbiter. If you like mine, then vote for me. I've been involved with Wikipedia since late 2002. I have been a mediator, and have also settled disputes through other, less formal means, before, during, and after my time as an active member of MedCom. I've been involved in various projects over the years, from OTRS to the India-related-topics Wikipedians Notice Board (check my userpage for the full list), and care a lot about the project. I know Arbitration is an exhausting, thankless task - I won't claim to be different or better than the other people who have served on the committee (many of whom I know), I'm just willing to serve.
Just the facts. You may be astonished to see me here. I've never been a Wikipedia admin; nor do I have any such desire. I don't think it's a prerequisite. I have been active on this project in policy matters; not all of you agree with me on every point but then, I don't expect that. I hope I've treated everyone fairly at all times. I think it's not too much to say that I've been instrumental in several popular policy initiatives. I'm most proud of my work at Wikipedia:Wheel war and of my maintenance of {{cent}}. If you don't see me much in articlespace, it's because I don't think I know more than other editors about most things. I do some cleanup, template work, and documentation; and I produce graphics, such as Image:Pi-unrolled.gif.
I will not attempt to expand ArbCom's scope beyond issues of user conduct. I will not permit my personal opinions on substantive issues to cloud my interpretation of what editors have or have not actually done. I will not be a party to any "legislation from the bench"; I will not endorse any decisions that extend or amend policy as our community chooses to define it. I will not use an ArbCom seat to "steer" this community; I will never lose sight of the fact that I'm just an ordinary editor, like you and you and you. I have opinions and I'm not afraid to state them but none of them will ever be "official". I will not even attempt to "solve" problems or mediate disputes. If you egregiously violate our policy, I will endorse a remedy for your trouble. That's it.
I will defend the core principles upon which our community and project are founded: open editing, neutrality, civility, consensus, and common sense. I will not exceed ArbCom authority in order to do so. ArbCom is for issues involving user conduct only and I will resist any attempt to encroach on other areas. I will uniformly be available at length to explain my reasoning on any point. I swear never to do anything in secret that I would not do publicly; I uphold frank transparency at all times.
Finally, I will do everything possible to move cases through RfArb in a more timely fashion. John Reid 09:12, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've been a Wikipedian since June 2005 and an admin since October of the same year; at one point or another, I think I've tried my hand at most of the more interesting activities on Wikipedia. (Most of my time is spent working here, if anyone is curious.) I've participated in a handful of ArbCom cases, both as an involved party and as a not-entirely-mute member of the peanut gallery.
Broadly speaking, I think the current ArbCom setup is more-or-less successful (aside, of course, from what seems to be a chronic lack of time on the part of the Arbitrators, and the resulting slow process). There has been a certain tendency, in some cases, to dodge the underlying problem in favor of a simpler superficial one, thus not really resolving the fundamental dispute; but this has been limited enough that it does not necessarily indicate a harmful trend.
Aside from that, I won't descend into any obscenely long ruminations on wiki-philosophical issues here; if anyone is interested in my opinion on something in particular, please don't hesitate to ask!
I'm going for simplicity: I'll try to be reasonable, and remember to keep the best interests of Wikipedia first in my mind. If I think that I'm prejudiced regarding a case, I'll recuse. If you want to know my definitions of reasonableness, I'd ask you look to my actions, not my statements, but I'm willing to answer almost any questions you have. Thanks! :)
Hello, Wikipedians!
For those who do not know me, I have been a Wikipedia contributor since November 2004 and an administrator since September 2006. Since I am interested in helping as much as possible, I would like to serve Wikipedia as an arbitrator. Why me? To put it simply — I would do it. I am aware how aggravating the Arbitration experience is, which should come as no surprise seeing as Arbitration is the end of the line for dispute resolution. You have to have a pretty special case if it ends up being presented before the ArbCom. Special cases require special attention, which I would be honored to give. How do I qualify?
For one, I have never been criticized for incivility or NPOV violations; I have made mistakes in the past but I have learned from them. In my opinion, a perfect arbitrator is one that is trusted. If anything indicates that people have trust in me, take a look at my successful RFA on Wikipedia which passed nearly unanimously, or my work on Wikinews, where I have been an admin for over a year and an arbitrator since September. Seeing as I have consistently displayed good judgment, the Wikinews community values me as a contributor. Simply put: as an arbitrator I would use my good judgment for the benefit of the community.
On Wikinews, I have successfully dealt with arguments. One situation, for example, had to do with a page move war. Instead of treating the situation as if it were vandalism, I recognized the true problem at hand: there was no coordination over what to name the article. Nevertheless, I handled the situation strictly, otherwise problems would have escalated. After discussing potential names with people, I then established a straw poll which worked miraculously; there was nearly total consensus for one name. Because I understood the underlying cause, the article achieved a single name.
Of course, I understand the difference between Arbitration and informal mediation. Particularly, I understand that Arbitration generally involves disputatious individuals who do not have the best of faith. Regardless, the reason for everything must be addressed. Successful arbitration in my opinion is as strict as needed, prevents bad things, allows good things, and finally, is efficient and generates as little DRAMA! as possible. I want the ArbCom to be able to say it works.
Please consider me for the Arbitration Committee.
After being involved in having arbitration being brought up against me and my involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions, I know I am well versed in the process and procedures of arbitration. My biggest concern is a desire to see an improvement in the decision making timeline. I don't see anything as broken with the system, but will always be open to changes suggested by anyone, and will be more than happy to forward all reasonable requests to fellow arbitrators and the foundation. I have over 20,000 edits with 11,000 or so of those in wiki article space, four featured articles I either started or assisted on as well as another 200 plus other article starts. I am a strong defender of precedent and policy, demand heavily on the use of reliable sources and oppose attempts to misuse Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. I will always recuse myself in cases I have a conflict of interest in, will be completely open to recall/review and demonstrate complete transparency in my edits, as I always have. Most of all, I want to ensure that those editors and issues which are problematic to ensuring we create the worlds most reliable encyclopedic source are dealt with swiftly and fairly. Thank you for your time.
As Wikipedia expands, it continues to suffer growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As janitors, admins have more options, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are most stressful, administrators can confuse their hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues. In my view, the most difficult problems Arbcom had to deal with this year concerned exactly this issue.
It's the nature of any semi-judicial body that at least one party will be unhappy about their decision. Arbcom can't avoid that sort of criticism. What they can do, however, is to zealously guard the principle of transparency, so that when they make a decision its underlying principles are clear. This means favoring open process over closed process, avoiding secret appeals and secret evidence except as a last resort (for example, when required by law), and explaining the rationales behind their decisions in clear and simple language.
People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned. But every editor has the right to be treated civilly, even during disagreements. It is never appropriate to ignore civility.
I have been editing for several years now, and strive diligently to strike a balance between caution and common sense as both an editor and an administrator. If selected as an arbitrator, I will continue to do the same for that role. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency and efficacy to the process as I can. Thanks.
Being something of a glutton for punishment (An essential skill), I offer myself up again. If elected, I intend to focus on the task of writing proposed decisions - something that currently is done by one person. While Fred is quite capable of the task, a second pair of eyes in decision proposing is important, and will lend balance to the decisions.
I also think it is increasingly inevitable that the arbcom is going to have to get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content, and cases that involve trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep that increasingly leads to messes. The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation.
Beyond that, I would apply the philosophy that I've demonstrated in my actions on Wikipedia - a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.
If elected, I intend to focus on the task of arbitration as much as i can - i feel that my almost five years here have given me a pretty good insight into situations that might arise.
/Questions for PMA (I will be away until Monday for medical treatment so i will answer then)
I can't really say too much about myself. I deal with these sorts of issues quite a lot here (I almost exclusively dabble in behavior stuff, to be honest), and I'm willing to give this a shot as well.
/Questions for The prophet wizard of the crayon cake
It has now been some years since I resigned my membership in the arbitration committee, and I think I'm ready to return. I have followed most of the arbitration cases brought in the meantime, and believe I can therefore provide consistency and continuity of decisionmaking. Most of my recent work (last six months or so) has been related to answering the Foundation's email, which has given me a new appreciation for the impact our articles make on the real world.
In general, I'm hoping that Wikipedians will offer their support to potential arbcom members based on their dedication to the project, judgment, and ability to keep cool -- not based on a platform. To the extent I can be said to have a platform, it is made up of these planks:
- The arbcom should not be involved in legislating policy - that's for the community alone
- Any reasonable means of speeding up the process should be adopted. Justice delayed is justice denied.
- I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.
- While I believe that partial remedies such as "probation" and article bans do have a place, I think they are overused and detract from the sense of fairness for people who go to the trouble to bring a case.
/Questions for UninvitedCompany
In my time here at Wikipedia, I have discovered that a lot of the heated discussions, arguements, and personal attacks are handled, and resolved through the work of the Arbitration Committee. I feel that I would be a good addition to this committee, as I have dealt with issues I have seen with even-handedness, keeping my cool when accusations are thrown my way, and my ability to listen to all sides before passing judgement. I welcome any and all questions, and I will do my best to answer them in a timely fashion. I also respect the opinion of my fellow Wikipedians as to my worth in an ArbCom position, be it good or bad.
I support impartiallity to the extreme. I love the pursuit of absolute truth, even though it will never be acheived. I have plenty of time, and I will do a good job.