Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page lists the candidates who stood in the Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004 for two missing seats on the Arbitration committee.
All users interested in the position were invited to add brief candidate statements to this page. These were to be no more than 250 words and candidates were asked to outline their views on banning and how strict they felt the Arbitration Committee should be.
THIS PAGE IS NOW FROZEN. Since the election is over, new candidacies are no longer permitted and will be removed. The results of the vote are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004.
Contents |
[edit] 172
13:26, 25 Jul 2004 I'd like to enter myself into the race. 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 (ranked #60 on the most recent 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 note in particular what happened to Wik, who used to be one of Wikipedia's best contributors until he was driven off by trolls and vandals.) 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 13:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[BTW, I am extremely impressed by Sj's candidate statement in particular. I could not have said what he's articulating in his statement better myself. 172 12:00, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)]
[edit] Raul654
01:28, 26 Jul 2004
I'm running now because I think the arbcom needs dedicated, serious people to shoulder serious responsiblity. I've been here a long time (almost a year), I know most of the users, and I think most of you know me. I think I've established a reputation for fairness and good judgement. I've argued before the arbitration committee before (and as of two days ago I was about to argue another case there), and I'm very well versed in our policies - I've helped write many of them.
Unlike most of the current arbcom, I'm usually very involved in day-to-day matters on Wikipedia. I'm a lot more aware of what's going on than most other users, and this gives me better perspective than most.
I think my view on problem users is best summed up by this email I sent to the mailing list, in response to a question from Jimbo. As I said there, I feel that most problems on Wikipedia stem from a small group of well-known users who do their best to disrupt things without violating any written rules. I'd like to see common-sense applied in these cases. Contributors who are habitally told that their actions are unacceptable should not expect the arbcom to give them yet-another-warning. In cases where it's apparent that the user will not reform, I do support banning. →Raul654 01:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Note - Snowspinner asked me to comment on how I would have acted in previous arbcom cases. You can find my answers here. →Raul654 00:47, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Snowspinner (withdrawn)
02:31, 26 Jul 2004
I've cheated a bit and put a longer statement at User:Snowspinner/arbcom. The short form, however, is that I have a lot of past experience moderating Internet communities, and have a good understanding of how to balance the need to cater to community desire with the need to exercise good judgment. I would say that my position is probably a bit more strict than much of the arbitration committee, but I don't think I'm particularly out of line with them. (And you can read on my longer statement how I'd have ruled on several prior cases).
Generally, my goal would be to minimize disruption to Wikipedia. This involves giving problem users with hope of reforming opportunities to reform, but acting swiftly and decisively against those with actively bad intentions. Permabans are not unreasonable for some users, and should be employed when necessary.
I also promise to move quickly to decide to or not to hear cases, and to make my votes on rulings.
Past that, most of what Raul says applies just fine to me too. Snowspinner 21:05, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
A late addition - because I'd really like to shower this particular idea with praise. I really, really like the most recent innovation to come from the arbcom, the standing order as in Wikipedia:Requests for Arbitration/Standing orders/Anthony. I think this is a very good step towards dealing with users who are creating problems but do not seem to be editing in bad faith, and, if elected to the arbitration committee, would make great use of these. Snowspinner 23:41, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
Since I have one case before the arbcom at the moment and it appears that the matter of Avala is going to be heard as well, I do not feel that at the present the arbitration committee would be well served by my membership, since it would only lead to a number of recusals. Furthermore, I note that there's a paucity of people who are willing to put the time into compiling substantive evidence dossiers for the arbcom. Since there are many candidates already on this page that I find acceptable, I am more inclined to let one of them take the position on the arbcom, and to continue making my contributions ones of evidence for the time being. Snowspinner 17:21, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Ambi (formerly known as Ambivalenthysteria)
03:22, 26 Jul 2004
I've had an account here for over a year now, and hopefully, many of you have come to know me. I'm running because, while I appreciate the excellent job the AC have done in establishing the Committee over the last few months, I see need for improvement. I'm not talking about policy either - that's another matter entirely.
The slow speed of proceedings over the last few months is one thing that concerns me. I'm always around, and it's a rare day that I don't check into Wikipedia. If I'm elected to the AC, it will become my first priority here, and I'll do my best to keep proceedings moving along.
When it comes to disciplinary action, I suspect that my position may be slightly more strict than that of many members of the current committee, but I can also think of some recent cases where I'd have voted for lighter sanctions. I've had a fair bit of experience in dealing with troublesome users, as both an administrator on another encyclopedia project for some years now, and a moderator on another site. As such, I tend to have little tolerance for those who come here to disrupt Wikipedia and contribute nothing, and believe in dealing with them firmly and quickly, though of course respecting precedent and policy. However, if it seems that the behaviour of a disruptive user could be corrected, I'll try to advocate a sanction to encourage this. In this way, I'm very much in favour of the new concept of standing orders.
Finally, as with Raul, I believe that habitual disruptors should not expect the AC to give them warning after warning. If the user shows no inclination towards reforming, I too support banning. In response to a note on my talk page, if I'm elected here, I plan to resign my position on the Mediation Committee. If anyone has any further questions, please feel free to ask me.
[edit] Sam Spade
04:13, 26 Jul 2004
[[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I am very concerned to see so many departures and the slowness of the process, and feel it is imperative that departed members return to the committee as expeditiously as possible. If elected I commit to participating fully and regularly.
I provide my edit history as example of my neutrality and judgment, and my talk page in order to contact me w any questions regarding my positions on various matters. Generally I tend to side w the consensus of other committee members, with a preference toward progressive punishment. In the case of Paul Vogel, I would have voted to ban for one month, with his return conditional on creating a user account, obeying policy, avoiding copyright violations, etc., w any violation resulting in a 2 month ban, etc. I strongly favor the doubling policy in regards to punishments, starting with a small penalty, and doubling it with each subsequent violation.
I think the arbitration committee should not be in the business of writing policy, but that individual members should be encouraged to submit policy proposals, and guide public consensus, voting often and voicing their opinions on sundry matters of importance. I think it is imperative that arbitration committee members respect and enforce policy, rather than becoming "rogue" judges. I support Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors as a policy proposal, and in general am strongly in favor of more policy enforcement.
Sam [Spade] 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] David Gerard
I think the AC system has proven basically sound so far; its only problem is it's paralysingly slow, as it finds its feet. The job sucks by definition, but needs to be done.
The AC is the court of last resort. Spammers or personal abuse are clear cases to be dealt with quickly and sharply. 24-hour blocks for egregious personal attacks after a warning are becoming accepted practice, which I approve of. I don't consider good actions an excuse for bad ones.
I view the real problem on Wikipedia as being people who just don't get it socially — how to work effectively with people even when you regard them as clueless and obnoxious. Playing well with others is not that easy for some. I try very hard not to blow my top writing on Wikipedia, even when dealing with the deeply troublesome. Such people will be the ones ending up at the AC. I support rapid decisions aimed at minimising damage to the wiki and its social structure, secondly with hope for reform of the problem child.
I've spent many years on dealing effectively with trolls, vandals and spammers in Internet communities, particularly Usenet. I've also been on the CAUBE-AU committee since 1998 (the Australian anti-spam organisation).
I've been on Wikipedia since December 2003 and an administrator a bit over a month, something I view as the large and shiny keyring that you get with your mop and bucket. - David Gerard 15:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Jwrosenzweig
I wish to "toss my hat into the ring" as well, meaning absolutely no direspect to or lack of confidence in the above candidates.
Banning: I believe banning is an important tool which we must not use too frequently. Many disputes are nothing more than poor manners and bias. However, given the number of editors and edits here on a daily basis, "not too frequently" may still be much more often than was true 12 months ago when I started editing here. We need to accept that -- we are a major source of information on a worldwide network, and by its very nature we attract those who would destroy us and those who wish to bend our site to their own ends and devices. We should assume good faith for new arrivals who are learning our ways, but when it becomes clear that someone is here for the purpose of destroying the site or commandeering it and cannot be dissuaded by a lesser penalty, we have to be ready to ban swiftly and firmly. I hope enough people know me by now to know that I do my best to be patient and welcoming to new users who need help adjusting, and that I can therefore be trusted to know when the time for patience has passed, and the time for consequences has arrived.
I have submitted evidence in 3 arbitration cases, and been a party to one. I believe this gives me good insight into how the process has worked (largely, very well) and into how it feels to be on the other side of the coin. I hope to propose ideas that will help the AC continue to develop a wise and fair system. I like the idea of mediation and hope to support increased dialogue between MC and AC. And lastly, while I aim to take care in making decisions to ensure I am not being rash or hasty, I also hope to improve the speed of the AC by voting more quickly, especially on cases that are fairly clear. I have edited here since July 2003, been an administrator since September 2003, and was made a bureaucrat last month. I would appreciate your vote, and will not hold it against anyone who prefers one of the other excellent candidates for this post. Jwrosenzweig 18:08, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Misterrick
Arbitration is of the main keys to maintaining the integrity on Wikipedia. I would like to point out that although I have not participated in any type of arbitration on either side of the Wikipedia service. I currently work negotiating contracts between video/television production companies and their clients in the New York City metropolitan area. In addition to negotiating I act as an independent arbitrator in the event a dispute arises between a production company and the client. I have been employed in this field for approximately 5 1/2 years and I am confident that I can be an asset as an arbitrator on Wikipedia. Misterrick 04:19, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Merovingian
Problem solving is the only effective way to resolve a dispute between parties. The only other practical way is war. We are not here to make war, because I believe that as decent indiviuals, we know how to resolve a dispute. Wikipedia, while a wiki community, is not a place to make enemies in the first. It is, however, inevitable that disputes between users arise. It is up to the Arbitration Committee to solve these disputes.
So far, the Arbitration Committee has produced diligent results. Its only problem is its slowness. I heartily enjoy maintaining Wikipedia, but I feel that as an arbitrator, I can bring a fresh, sensible fairness to the Committee.
I do not believe that the Committee's members need to have an excessive amount of contributions or powers. While there is nothing wrong with these attributes, and while they may even be benefits, gross statistical information is not always important.
What is important? Opinion is not. The Arbitration Committee, as a microcosm of Wikipedia itself, welcomes differences in opinion, so long as they neither cloud judgment nor precipitate danger. Fairness is the important. Wikipedia has taught me to better consider opposing viewpoints. For example, in my nation many substances are illegal. Dealing with the NPOV policy taught me to begin to understand why legalizing such substances may be a good idea. While I hold my own subjective viewpoint on the issue, I comprehend and can appreciate opponents' views.
That is the kind of equality and balance I wish to bring to the Arbitration Committee.
I have many kind people to thank for invaluable advice given to me throughout my tenure here.
Let it be known that I have no animosity toward any of my opponents. I welcome any of their questions on my talk page. Merovingian✍Talk 11:06, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Lir
I am strongly opposed to sysop abuses; we need non-sysops on the arbitration committee. I have been around for almost two years, and have edited thousands of articles. Lirath Q. Pynnor
[edit] Sj
I want to see the arbitration committee focus on being excellent arbiters of what is and what is not productive for the WP project, looking a reasonable amount of time into the future. To this end, I think the AC should respond quickly and prolifically to requests, and should shy away from micromanaging sentencing and endless agonizing over intent.
More effective than explicit banning, for some fixed period : removing the standard restrictions on interactions with a given user/article -- for instance, allowing automatic reversion of a user's edits to certain topics; or allowing a user to be banned by any sysop for any reason (allowing for other sysops to disagree & unban, or hammer out the details of ban duration [unlike an explicit, irrevocable ArbComm Ruling]) -- continuing to leave sentencing decisions in the hands of the broader body of users|admins. More comments and questions can be found on my talk page. +sj+
