Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Withdrawn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
These users are no longer a part of the candidate pool.
Contents |
[edit] 172
The comments I made when announcing my candidacy are now irrelevant. The performance of the Arbcom has improved dramatically following a series of excellent appointments by Jimbo Wales. The speed with which some cases have been accepted and concluded in recent weeks has been amazing. I urge everyone otherwise inclined to vote for me (which I hope includes the 124 people who voted for me last time around!) to support the recently appointed incumbent arbitrators appointed by Jimbo (most emphatically Jaygj and Kelly Martin, because of the perspective they bring to the committee related to their professional qualifications as content editors), along with Ambi, Charles Matthews, Improv, SimonP, and Snowspinner. Each of these candidates is staunchly committed to the highest standards of encyclopedic content. (In particular the sheer amount of high quality encyclopedic that SimonP has uploaded on Wikipeida is mind-blowing!) There's little doubt that they each understand the ideal balance to strike between our goals-oriented content/style rules and our process-oriented behavioral rules. 172 23:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
In a famous 1957 essay "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality," Robert Merton called attention to the possibility that an organization's rules, procedures, and hierarchy of offices—structures originally conceived as a means—could become transformed into ends themselves. When this happens, a familiar process of displacement of goals sets in, leading to an over-concern with strict adherence to regulations, legalism, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness.</strike}{
When I ran for arbitrator last year, I called attention to the possibility that the excessive preoccupation of the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) with its own rules and discipline were leading to greater and greater displacement of Wikipeida's sole goal: writing an encyclopedia. Over the past year, the committee has grown yet more cumbersome, ineffective, inefficient, and inaccessible. I fear that I was right last year.
Despite the timid attempts to revamp the increasingly myopic body, the Arbcom still focuses too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits, and too much on process instead of product. 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.
To correct this, we need an Arbcom composed of active writers and editors, not just administrators or bureaucrats who enjoy close access to the foundation. Members of the Arbcom need to see the bigger picture and better distinguish between individuals mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and individuals dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active editor since December 2002 (with intermittent breaks) and founder of the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, I can see this big picture; and my contributions history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for strict encyclopedic standards. 172 | Talk 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Additional information, comments, and questions
[edit] Ambi
I've decided to pull out and give someone new a shot at arbitration. My priorities in my personal life, particularly with my degree, have been changing over the last few months as I've begun to get my life together, and I'm going to need plenty of study time to put in the effort I want to next year. Moreover, things are already speeding up, and there is no shortage of good candidates here, so there's not much risk of someone abominable ending up on the committee. This largely eliminates the reasons I decided to nominate in the first place, so I've decided to spare myself the extra year of digging through the worst of Wikipedia.
Arbitration is quite possibly the most thankless task on Wikipedia. I know, because I've been there. I was one of the arbitration committee's major critics in the early days, and successfully lobbied for changes in quite a number of decisions. I was then elected to the committee last December, and for six months was one of its most active members, before stepping down some months ago after becoming burned out, and subsequently spending several months doing little else but writing new articles.
In the months since I stepped down, things have grinded to a near-complete halt, so it is with some trepidation that I throw my hand into the ring once again. My votes as an arbitrator are on the record for interested parties, as is my general philosophy with arbitration matters - what is best for the encyclopedia? If elected, I will once again try to stand by those who, whatever their beliefs, want to write a neutral encyclopedia in good faith, and see that those who want to disrupt the project don't continue their behaviour unchecked. I will support alternatives to banning users where possible, and over time I've come to have a fairly good understanding of which measures actually solve issues and which are a waste of time. I would also like to hope I've been as neutral as possible in the past and can continue to be in the future - I have never hesitated to recuse myself from a case if there was a perception of a conflict of interest.
Above all else, I want to make sure that the arbitration process starts moving again. If re-elected, I will be back voting nearly every day, and making sure that new cases don't sit on the requests page for a month waiting for someone to formally accept them. I'm also prepared to give some time to the one thing I didn't do enough of as an arbitrator - writing out proposed decisions, which has become a major bottleneck in the process. Finally, if I'm re-elected to my open position, I will only serve a one-year term, and most probably not stand again. Ambi 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Carbonite
Greetings, I'm Carbonite. I've been an editor since November 2004 (originally as User:Carrp) and an admin since March 2005. I think the ArbCom is absolutely essential to Wikipedia's success and I want to help in every way that I can. I'll fully admit that I'm not an especially gifted writer, but I am determined, fair and analytic. As a programmer and statistician I try to approach every issue logically and attempt to see all sides. All decisions would be based solely on that case's facts and merits.
The ArbCom can and should be improved in many ways. Most importantly, as Wikipedia evolves, so must the ArbCom. Although I believe that increasing the number of arbitrators is an important component of this growth, it's certainly not the only part. Streamlined procedures must put in place for all aspects of the ArbCom's duties. Far too often, cases will sit for weeks or even months before being resolved.
It's crucial to always keep in mind that Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. Dispute resoltion is about removing obstacles that stand in the way of achieving that goal. When a user is consistently taking more from the project than they're contributing, and all attempts to rectify this have failed, it's the place of the ArbCom to decide what's best for the project. If a user can or will not change their behavior so that it creates a net positive for the project, restrictive measures would be necessary. These measures may include a ban on editing certain pages, a revert limitation or various forms of parole (for personal attacks, removing comments, etc..) In extreme cases or in cases where previous measures were ineffective, a ban would be in order.
I would be honored to serve on the ArbCom and welcome any questions on my talk page or through my email link. Thank you for your consideration. Carbonite | Talk 14:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Linuxbeak
Hi everyone. For those who don't know who I am, I'm Linuxbeak. I'm an active administrator who has had plenty of experience dealing with users who, through the course of their actions on Wikipedia, make their way towards an arbitration case. Specific examples of this can be found with User:MARMOT and User:JarlaxleArtemis.
I'm efficient, thorough, and persistant. I am not afraid to jump into situations which may seem "sticky". In regards to Arbitration cases, I know how the Wikipedia community functions and reacts to different situations, and I'll state right off the bat that I do not come into this election with the mindset of pleasing everybody. Instead, I come in with the mindset to do what is correct. Every situation is different and has its own twist; as such, the arbitrator is to be calm, cool, collective, and a bit of a detective. He or she must be willing to investigate a case in depth (such as looking at user contributions, community discussion in regards to the case, etc.) in order to make a valid and fair decision. This means donating time and energy. This also means not letting a case become cold. I think a case should be examined more or less as soon as it's posted (while taking into account the reality of, well, real life).
In regards to banning users... well, that's what ArbCom does, yes? Let's face it: we get the occasional problem user who needs to be dealt with. Bans are a serious matter and should not be thrown about at will. For "obvious" cases, I think the ordinary administrator has sufficient power to handle a situation that is causing a problem. However, when it comes down to the "not-so-obvious" cases, that's when you need intellegent, neutral and fair arbitrators looking at it. Depending on the severity of a situation, a ban isn't always the necessary or even the correct course of action. There are alternatives, after all. However, when a problem user creates a situation that is wasting the time of administrators and editors (i.e. dealing with the user's behavior and arguing with said user instead of fighting simple vandalism or creating and expanding articles), that problem user must be dealt with. And... seeing that I've got my share of experience dealing with these types of "sticky" user situations... I'm the sort of guy you'll be looking for to arbitrate. Linuxbeak | Talk 02:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
An afterthought: bans are not toys. Bans effectively kill off a user. Bans are also used as "case law" for what someone is NOT to do while a member of Wikipedia. As such, bans should be seen as a last-ditch effort to prevent a user from detracting from Wikipedia. I have been directly involved and have been key in investigating and compiling evidence leading towards the banning of two of the six "banned via community consensus" users. Let me tell you this right now: it takes an enormous amount of time, effort, and caffeine to get someone banned (as it should!). You need to get the evidence necessary to facilitate a ban. I will make this clear: I will not dedicate my time and effort towards seeing someone banned unless I am totally positive that a ban is either appropriate or there is reasonable proof that there is significant reason to ban. Otherwise, I will see that other measures are taken. Linuxbeak | Talk 21:09, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Questions
[edit] Talrias
I am withdrawing my candidacy. Thanks to the people who have contacted me, publically and privately, offering their support for me. Thanks for the questions people have asked me; I hope my answers have helped in the debate about both the role of the Arbitration Committee and the responsibilities of its members. If people would like to discuss this with me, I'd be glad to; please leave a message on my talk page or contact me on IRC.
I wish good luck to all the other candidates. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
