Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Pilotguy (talk | contribs)
21,089 edits
+Pilotguy
i withdraw
Line 25: Line 25:
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Raul654}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Raul654}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Ryan Postlethwaite}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Ryan Postlethwaite}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Secret}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Shell Kinney}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Shell Kinney}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Swatjester}}
{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Swatjester}}

Revision as of 02:28, 6 November 2007

Shortcuts

2007 Election status

This is the page for candidate statements from those wishing to run in the December 2007 arbcom elections. Anyone with over 1000 edits as of November 1, 2007 on the English Wikipedia may run. Candidates should self nominate.

Remember...

  • Statements should be fewer than 400 words, although candidates are free to link to a longer statement should they so wish.
  • Statements will be accepted from 00:00 November 1 until 23:59 November 30 2007 (UTC). Any new submissions subsequent to November 30 will be reverted and removed.
  • Statements should be listed in alphabetical order by username, and should be transcluded from a main candidate nomination statement page. Create Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/YOUR USERNAME using the following template;
{{subst:Arbitration Committee Elections statement|Your Username|Your statement. ~~~~}}

Cbrown1023

Hello, I'm Cbrown1023 and I would like to run for the Arbitration Committee. I have been an active editor on Wikipedia since August 2006 and an administrator since December 2006. I believe that, from my experiences clerking and writing proposals for a few arbitration cases, that they take a little too long to be decided upon and would like to see the process sped up. Dispute resolution can be a nasty business, but it is a necessary evil in the world of community-based activities. Wikipedia needs level-headed and neutral people to work on the Committee and solve disputes amongst editors or at least get them to stop when all other methods have failed. I believe I would be a good arbitrator because I am easy to approach, believe in Wikipedia, and would like to assist it with my time.
I spend most of my time on Wikimedia projects behind-the-scenes, in places like OTRS and the mailing lists where I need to work with disgruntled editors daily. Work such as this requires a courteous and firm manner and a deep understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, thus I believe I would make a good addition to the Arbitration Committee.
Thank you for considering my nomination. Cbrown1023 talk 04:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David Fuchs

For those who know me not, I am David Fuchs. I've been a member here since 2005, an active contributor since 2006, and an administrator since May of 2007. Well then, let's be short and to the point. I think the dear ole' ArbCom is pretty much fine, but it needs to be more active. It seems to me whenever I look over at the ArbCom pages, half the members are inactive, and cases are pouring in. Not good.

I've "done" dispute resolution, being the one in the dispute and out; back when I was a newbie, I got into a protracted content dispute with another editor; as far as I know, my persistence only succeeded in alienating the other user to the point of leaving Wikipedia. That's always bothered me, and I think it's shaped my focus since- if a more experienced editor had pulled me aside, the whole debacle could have been avoided. I was also a member of the now-defunct Association of Members' Advocates, and I learned several important things from my months there; one, the more layers of bureaucracy you add to the dispute resolution process, the slower it grinds; and that if you've got long queues of grievances and conflicts and don't get to them, things tend to bubble over and escalate more than they need to. In 90% of disputes on this fine wiki, I've found you can defuse situations by simply calmly talking to each editor; most issues don't even need dispute resolution if you have at least one person who keeps cool. But then, there are *those* kinds of issues, and that's why we've got Das Oberteil- ArbCom.

As an ArbCom member I would remain active in other areas of the Wiki, as I feel it is important for a Committee member to stay involved and aware of issues and to head off conflicts on noticeboards before they escalate to the point of needing the formal involvement of the Committee. Similarly, I feel that it's important for a member of ArbCom to look over a case thoroughly and attempt some reconciliation or resolution by other methods before actually accepting the case. In short, I feel that I will be able to do all of the above, and promise to do so to the best of my ability. David Fuchs (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deskana

Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. --Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Dreamafter

I am a non-admin, having lost a recent RFA, but I feel that this is not considerable. I have been doing WP:AIV, and vandal warning, and I am a volunteer member of the Mediation Cabal, even though there is no cabal... Looking through my own things, my block log is, technically, clear, and my contribs show themselves, I guess I could say. I would dearly love to make sure that I can clear the backlog, and keep it clear, I am a very good diplomat, and I care about what happens, that means, I think that disputes need to be fixed in a non-attack way. I have been registered since 15:06, 8 April 2007, and have been editing consistantly, unless I was away for some weird reson, as in, July, I was away at a Cadet Camp, staffing there. In my opinion, I don't have a lot of biases, and neither should a committee member have, or show in a case. I have no law degrees, nor am I studying it, but I know enough about the basic principals of dispute fixing, for lack of a better word. I hope to provide a thorough way of coming up with a good way of keeping the backlog down, and I will be on a lot of the time, to make sure that I am active. Vote for me if you like my ideas. Dreamy § 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page is intentionally left blank.

Endlessdan

Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. EndlessDan 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Giano

I first edited properly in May 2004. I had a couple of short term names before finally settling on Giano - my childhood nickname. I'm not an Admin, and have never wanted to be. An arbitrator needs only to form a sound opinion.

I believe passionately that the Wikipedia project can succeed through high quality content. I think that all editors should be encouraged to contribute to main-space, if only through copy-editing or formatting, at least initially. As a chronic dyslexic I am always amazed at how helpful most editors are with copy edits and advice and this is one of Wikipedia's strengths. To me one of the greatest wiki-crimes are summaries such as this [1] to a new editor. Lack of linguistic and grammatical skills need be no impediment to editing Wikipedia. The lambasted editor in question there I suspect has an enormous amount to contribute if it can only be encouraged. We all have something to contribute but often is does need a little fostering.

My faults: I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless. Some of my doings have probably become exaggerated with the telling. For the record: I don't think IRC should be banned but kept in its place. I have used it myself. Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins. From time to time some matters do need to be discussed privately but these are always affairs for the Arbcom rather than a general admin.

Regarding Arbcom deliberations many problems can be solved by common sense. Many wikipedia problems become confused by pile-ons and opinions from those not grasping the situation. "Troll" is frequently shouted at anyone persistent in seeking the truth. The result is often muddy water, impossible to see through. This has been the case some of the more notorious Arbcom cases. Other cases are avoidable, more understanding is required to see where controversial editors are coming from, and more use employed of talk pages - often compromise can be reached before an edit war commences.

I would be very useful to the Arbcom, I have more experience than many other editors at both writing content and the machinations of Arbitration. I see two sides of each coin.

Hemlock Martinis

Five months ago, I would never have even dreamed of doing this. Five months ago, I was just another editor. I spent most of my time plumbing the depths of uncategorized pages, doing relatively minor cleanup duty. Then, over the summer, I closed the deletion discussion for the Allegations of Chinese apartheid article, and was subsequently drawn into that whole larger apartheid allegation fiasco. I put all the pages of the resulting ArbCom case on my watchlist and observed with great interest as it all unfolded. Then, I watched it all re-fold. I watched as discussion dragged to a standstill, as people weaseled their way around plainly obvious conclusions until finally it ground to a screeching halt. Now, just this last week, it was closed. What was the result? Nothing.

The Arbitration Committee needs new blood and fresh ideas. Cases are at an all time high and yet still half of the ArbCom is inactive. This is unacceptable. We need active, committed and involved arbitrators. We need people willing to make decisions with the same speed and efficiency that we would expect of a community that has so effectively written about the Virginia Tech shootings, the Burmese monk protests and the California wildfires in real time.

I don't have a lengthy resume. My involvement in the Wikibureaucracy has been minimal apart from my regular duties as an administrator and the forays I've briefly mentioned above. My involvement in major disputes has been quite neutral, and I promise to bring you only a fresh, open mind. I'm willing to listen to all sides. I can't promise that I'll be on here 24/7, or that I'll participate in every single case - after all, predicting the future would violate WP:CRYSTAL - but I promise to do my best. Thank you. Hemlock Martinis 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Messedrocker

Why should I be an arbitrator? For one main reason: I love Wikipedia. It has been a part of my upbringing, it has made me develop as a person, and I want to help this encyclopedia deal with the filth of everyday life.
I ran for the Arbitration Committee last election, and I withdrew as I felt I was not experienced enough. Since then, I became more involved in mediation; in addition, I prepared and delivered a lecture at Wikimania 2007 on dispute resolution based on my insights that have accumulated over the time I have spent mediating. I would like to bring these insights to the Arbitration Committee.
The most important part of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia. In order to get this encyclopedia written, it has a community of editors which way too often gets into fights, resulting in endless drama that continuously scars the community. At the end of the dispute resolution line is the Arbitration Committee which has the responsibility of being the final word on wiki fighting. I'm of the opinion that an arbitrator must be effective, must be capable of thinking, must give a care, and most importantly, wants to see pervasive issues within Wikipedia to come to an end so that we may go back to writing the encyclopedia.
As arbitrator, my wish is to keep arbitration sessions focussed, to listen to angry parties and figure out why they're angry, and think of a way that the Arbitration Committee can help. It's time to solve problems. MessedRocker (talk) 00:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misza13

Hello! My name is Michael, I have been editing since July 2005, and trusted with the mop a year later.

To date, my main focus on Wikipedia has been the technical side, that is writing scripts and bots (including not-so-secret-anymore adminbots). I am a developer of the pywikipediabot project (author of the discussion archiving script, among others) and a staff member of the countervandalism network as well as an operator of several bots.

As you may have noticed, I rarely involve myself in the dispute resolution process and non-technical aspects of the Project – that's because I'm of the observing types, often keeping many opinions to myself. I am however told that people trust my judgment and when I do comment, I value logic, reason and civility over emotions, vague accusations and mud-flinging. I also value product over process – while the rules were written to help in everyday Wikipedia operations, I know when to ignore them should they stray from or be a constraint in achieving the core goal of building a free encyclopedia.

If elected, I seek to be an active member, helping both with the arbitration process and checkuser backlogs as well as use my technical skills to find ways of automating processes without compromising integrity or privacy issues.

For all issues that this terse statement does not cover, I invite you to the questions page. Yours, Миша13 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieurdl

Why someone who is a non-administrator? I'll tell you why.
  • The major issue is backlog. Why are these cases being backlogged? Some may say invariably that it is due to a small amount of members on the Committee, but I say it is more complicated than that. Many editors on here have overextended themselves by being involved in so many different things that arbitration is but one part of their responsiblity, and that is a bad thing. To arbitrate effectively, you must be committed to this work and be free to do the job right. This is what I bring to the table here- clearing the backlogs and getting things done properly with efficiency and competency.
  • You have to be a diplomat. Diplomacy requires the ability to bring cold, precise facts to the arbitration while being human at the same time. How many times have you brought something to talk only to be given a succinct statement or a brushoff? This is unacceptable- we are all people, and the human touch with reason is crucial. I have that capability to provide the essential balance required.
  • Because I care, not because of prestige. I actually care about what goes on in Wikipedia and am not looking for an overall "powers that be" mega-Wikipedian status. Too often times the power of the position is the primary goal of people because they feel they can further themselves. By choosing me for this committee, you get an editor that has the best interest of the site at heart- knowledge. If I don't know something, I admit it and I research.
Thank you for taking the time to read this, and please ask me anything you like. Monsieurdl 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to officially concede the election. Please view my voting talk page for my concession statements. I truly thank all of you who gave me constructive criticism and those who took the time to give me a fair chance. Thank you!

Moreschi

Shall we begin, ladies and gentlemen? Even if not, it's nice to see you, to see you - nice! I typed out something lovely and then realized it was way too darn long: so as to not to disturb its artistic-rhetorical qualities, it's in a user subpage all for your delight right here. Cheerio! Moreschi Talk 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad

Thank you for considering my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.

I registered my account in February 2006, began editing actively in July 2006, and became an administrator in January 2007. I have participated extensively in arbitrations for more than one year and have drafted many workshop proposals, several of which have been included in the final decisions.

Someone sought to "draft" me to run for the Arbitration Committee in last year's election, but I believed I was too new a user at that time. Instead, early in 2007 I was named as a Clerk for the committee. Clerk responsibilities including opening and closing cases, monitoring the case pages, providing procedural advice to parties, and preparing implementation notes for decisions. This work has familiarized me with all aspects of the arbitration process and with its strengths and weaknesses.

My off-wiki resume includes 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in Manhattan. Despite this, I would not bring a legalistic approach to the Wikipedia arbitration process. What I would do is seek in every case to analyze the evidence carefully and to reach a result that is fair to all users involved in the case and will best serve the project as a whole.

It is essential that the Arbitration Committee speed up its process of considering and deciding cases. This year as in the past, there have been delays in deciding many cases. Too often, these delays have caused bitter disputes between editors, which were brought to arbitration to obtain a just and speedy resolution, instead to fester and worsen. Such outcomes defeat the whole purpose of having a high-level body of experienced and respected editors to resolve disputes as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

I respect the difficult role that the arbitrators and the Arbitration Committee play. Dealing with some of Wikipedia's most intractible disputes and most truculent users—to say nothing of the sensitive matters that the arbitrators must sometimes address off-wiki—is inherently a time-consuming, challenging, and sometimes tiring role. If the community chooses me among the editors to play this role, I will do so diligently and to the best of my ability. I look forward to answering questions from members of the community.

Pilotguy

Hello everyone; thank you for taking the time to read my statement. For those of you who don't know me, I've been editing here since December 2005, and an admin since June 2006 (though I recently took a four month break until a couple of weeks ago). Like many others, I assist in OTRS. I am also semi-active in Wikinews, among other projects.

There are two problems with ArbCom that certain people have pointed out to me over my tenure. First, the large number of cases. Certainly, this is something that is unlikely to be remedied, as the community is large, and disagreements occur. Second, there is an issue with arbitrators not being as active as people wished. It would be disrespectful for me to present my candidacy to you without promising my continuous activity, should I be elected to the committee. If nothing else, my timely responses to any questions you might have should prove this.

No one likes coming to ArbCom. I've never met anyone who's said it's an enjoyable experience. People who make it to ArbCom have tried everything to resolve the situation, and are tired enough as it is. It is a difficult process for any and all Wikipedians involved. I want you to know that I am here to help you reach an agreement, not to spank you. I would work closely with all involved, through whatever methods, and make an attempt to come to an agreement. I want to help construct a principle or principles that make people walk away with a better sense of understanding, and to help construct a fair remedy or remedies that make people walk away with a sense of satisfaction.

I have had times when dispute resolution has called, not just as an administrator or through OTRS but also as a brief member for the now-defunct AMA. I have witnessed many-an arbitration case and know what the community wants and doesn't want. If nothing else, take this away from my statement; this encyclopedia is community driven. While ArbCom has to decide some things for themselves, if elected, I will be here to listen to you, work with you, and assist you, until you walk away satisfied. Some things we must decide on our own, but at the same time, I can not, and will not, ignore the community's opinion. I am here for you. -Pilotguy contact tower 03:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Pilotguy - Withdrew on 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC). Woodym555 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654

Hello all. I've been an arbitrator now for almost 3 1/2 years. I was elected back in August of 2004. The reason I wanted to become an arbitrator was I was very unhappy with how the (then-newly created) dispute resolution process was working. In particular, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654 left a very bad taste my mouth. Plautus was ultimately banned, but only after weeks of unbelievably outrageous behavior that caused several good users to permanently leave. I wanted to join the arbitration committee to make it better serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia - to favor those who do good work, rather than bending over backwards to give 3rd and 4th chances to users who do not share our goals of building an encyclopedia. How far we have come since then.

In the early years of the committee, I authored many cases - not as many as Fred Bauder, but certainly more than my fair share. Owing to time spent on the other work I do here - as an administrator, checkuserer, oversighter, member of the press committee, featured article director, and contributor to the encyclopedia - in the last year or two I have not authored as many cases as I used to. However, I have made it a point to take the lead on some of the more controversial ones (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war). I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on WikipediaReview detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

Just to lay out a few of my other accomplishments:

  • It was at my suggestion that the three-revert rule became enforceable. (I wanted to propose it as a principle in a case, but James F. suggested we do it through Jimbo. This was ultimately what was done) It may not be perfect, but it is certainly an improvement over the 100-revert war we were dealing with at the time. (And I mean that literally)
  • I created the clerks system. It started out a bit rocky, but I think the program has turned out to be a very useful tool for the arbitration committee, helping to spread out the more mundane activities over a larger group of users.
  • I set up the Arbitration Committee mailing list. (We used to use one provided by user:Nohat. After a wikimedia.org mailing list allocated, I set it up, and, along with others, administer it to this day)

I stand by my record as an arbitrator, and if re-elected, I will continue to do so in the same fashion.

Ryan Postlethwaite

For all those who don't know me, I'm Ryan. I've been a member here since October 2006 and an administrator since March 2007. For me, arbitration is an unfortunate process - as a community, we should be able to sort all of our problems ourselves. Normal dispute resolution channels should fix all problems we have without anyone having to make rulings. Currently however, this isn't the case and the committee has to step in when all other methods have failed.
I would see myself as a community arbitrator, I think I'm quite in touch with how we operate and I actually prefer to try and sort issues out before they reach the levels of arbitration. Taking things out of the community's hands is something I couldn't support if at all possible. If I was part of the committee I would like to see the arbitrators take a more active role within the community, appearing on noticeboards in an attempt to avoid arbitration, but I'm not naive and do understand that sometimes a case is inevitable, even if it's simply to hash out the community's core values. As an arbitrator, I would examine all requests that were made, and wherever possible, attempt to make suggestions as to how the community could handle the dispute - if that wasn't possible, then I'd accept the case.
I have experience with arbitration, I've proposed a number of principles, findings of fact and remedies that have been adapted by the arbitrators in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
Finally, I believe it's important that an arbitrator must put the community's underlying principles into their mind when studying a case. Whatever their personal opinion, it should be put aside and they should look for a solution that would benefit the project - I feel I am a good candidate to do this. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shell Kinney

There are two main reasons that I would be an asset to the Arbcom. First is my commitment to the Foundation's projects and the community that supports them. Second is my experience with Wikipedia, dispute resolution and OTRS.
I've been an editor since June 05 (my account name was previously Jareth) and an Admin since November 05. I started working on the now defunct Wikipedia helpdesk email shortly before becoming an administrator - when this closed, I was invited to volunteer at OTRS. While some of the answers to OTRS emails are simple, many involve research to resolve and all require delicate handling of disputes and a solid knowledge of policy.
The ArbCom needs members who can stay active and nimble even under the weight of a rather thankless job. Thank you for this opportunity. Shell babelfish 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swatjester

My name is Dan Rosenthal, user User:Swatjester, and I would be an excellent choice for an Arbitrator. I have been an English Wikipedia editor since December 28, 2005 as an anon, and January 4, 2006 as a registered editor. In my time here, I've been promoted to administrator, accepted onto the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee (a.k.a. wmfcc/ComCom), OTRS, and from May 2007 through Sept. 2007, I served as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Arbitrators have to deal with sensitive matters and are given not only a public, but a private trust. I believe my time dealing with privileged material, such as OTRS legal complaints, and communications committee matters, shows that I can be trusted to have the information security required as an Arbitrator.

I'm also a law student, at American University in Washington D.C. I believe that this provides an interesting perspective of looking at things. Law school teaches one to think like a lawyer. It teaches one to draft solutions to often complex problems, to find broader principles from specific rulings, and to present arguments effectively and to the point.

I do NOT wish to bring the legal profession to Arbitration Committee cases. Law suits are slower than ArbCom cases. A recent case I've been following, a standard defamation case, was filed in July, and the "Evidence" (discovery) phase is not scheduled to end until January. In addition to expediency, Arbitration is simply not court. Though there is a panel of decision makers, similar to appellate courts in the United States, the Arbitration Committee is not usually bound by precedent, there is not an adversarial system of lawyers arguing, there are no complicated rules of civil procedure and evidence. It's a system unique to Wikipedia, and it deserves to be treated that way. I believe that I can make the Arbitration process faster, and in some cases more fair (for instance, recent cases have taken far longer than necessary due to lack of presence of some arbitrators, and some have been accepted, only to be later dismissed. While this is sometimes appropriate, other times it is not).

As a final word, I'm also familiar with the Arbitration process, and the stresses it entails. I've been a party in a couple of Arbitration cases, both as the requesting party, and as a requested against party. Arbitration creates a lot of stress on its participants, some would say in a manner similar to litigation, and I believe that it is important to have Arbitrators who understand what the parties are going through, and the causes that led them to that stage, rather than an aloof, distant decision maker.

⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

White Cat

Hi, everybody out there. For those who may be surprised why am I even a candidate there is a very simple yet unorthodox explanation for this. I have had gotten into a fair share of disputes. Of course being into disputes is by very nature not pleasant. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either. After how can anyone truly be able to deal with disputes big or small without experiencing big or small disputes.
I'd like to talk about my "failures"
  • I have one hell of a block log (as user "Cool Cat" and "Coolcat")
  • I have had 4 failed RfA's here on en.wikipedia. Full list is available here and I would recommend a short peek at it at least.
  • I let my paranoia bother AKMask to the point of an RFC.
  • I had been in front of ArbCom twice as an involved party:
    1. WP:RfAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek had put me on a year long temporary mentorship on issues concerning Turkey and/or the Kurds and banned me from mediating indefinitely until I am officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. That case was closed on 5 October 2005. Two out of three the other involved parties User:Davenbelle and User:Fadix ended up getting banned indefinitely* and for a year* respectively.
    2. WP:RfAR/Moby Dick had not levied any remedies on me. That case was closed on 13 August 2006. A number of remedies were levied on Moby Dick, a user treated like a sockpuppet of Davenbelle at least by arbcom*.
I am not "proud" of any of this and I will not even attempt to make excuses. But I can't change the past. I was not genetically engineered with wikipedias policies and I do have a learning curve with a finite slope.
I have been recommended to have a fresh start with an unconnected account but I desire not to do that. My reason for this is simple. I value honesty above everything else. It would be dishonest for me to come and claim to be a different user - at least in my own mind. I refuse to give up on my ideals simply because it is convenient.
So in sum I am not any near your "ideal" and popular candidate. I think I have a lot of experience that I can put to good use should I get appointed as an arbitrator. I hope to offer a different perspective which I feel is healthy in any median. I strongly feel that if everybody is thinking alike, often nobody is truly thinking. Weather I have grown adequately with my involvement with wikipedia and other wikimedia projects such as commons in my 2+ years here is for you to judge.
-- Cat chi? 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman

If there is one place where I feel I can help Wikipedia, it would be in ArbCom. I’ve been around since March 2006, an administrator since January 2007, and I’ve certainly viewed enough disputes, especially the impact such disputes have on the community at large, where I understand what a responsibility ArbCom would be.

I do have some experience with dispute resolution, doing some work providing third opinions and participating occasionally at WP:MEDCAB. I’ve definitely browsed around ArbCom in the past few months, so I understand that it is not only a huge responsibility, but something where you have to know what you’re doing, and something where you have to handle criticism. Of course, you can’t let criticism, or anything for that matter, sway your decision. We are voted in by the community in hopes that we handle the largest of disputes in a way that ultimately abides by the core principles of Wikipedia and improves Wikipedia as a whole.

One thing I can guarantee is that if I am elected, I will be an active member. We’re elected to be the decision makers of the final step of dispute resolution, and that’s what we need to be. If something has went through dispute resolution with no consensus, and it is a matter which ArbCom has generally accepted in the past, then of course we need to do our job, and determine the proper course of action that will most benefit this encyclopedia. I trust that I can uphold what I believe can be done in this statement, and I believe I can be a good arbitrator. Wizardman 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Candidate_statements&oldid=169518352"