Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements
This page lists the candidates for the January 2006 elections to the Arbitration Committee. The election will run from 9 January 2006, 00:00. People wishing to run for a position on the committee may add themselves to the list before the election start. Candidates should be listed in alphabetical order.
Each candidate will have a separate subpage for voters to ask questions and have discussions with the candidate. The subpage should be linked to at the end of the candidate's statement on this page. If candidates wish to make a statement longer than 250 words, they may use their questions page for that purpose, or they may simply reuse the same statement.
For candidates that have withdrawn, see this subpage.
I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia, but I enjoy the community and feel that I would be a strong addition to the Arbitration Committee. Before registering, I browsed Wikipedia with an interest on learning the entire process of editing, contributing, submitting AfD, and other procedures. Wikipedia is focused on allowing people to receive the gift of free information and to make sure that all users follow proper procedures and enjoy contributing information. I would follow all procedures accurately, professionally, and do my best to resolve the situation and work closely with other members of the Arbitration Committee. Even though I am a new member to Wikipedia, I promise to fulfill all requirements and be very active with the Committee. I love Wikipedia and contributing, and I’m sure it will be a lasting process. I would be a successful mediator and vote decisively and accurately. I do not hold personal opinions of members, as everyone deserves a fair resolution process. Feel free to ask any questions or concerns that you might have. I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. Ajwebb 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
First of all, happy new year to all voters. I have been working here for three years and three months. While I know that alone doesn't mean I could be an arbitrator, I promise if I am honored with such position I will do my best to solve discrepances according to wikipedia principles, and to keep expanding wikipedia into the website I think it will be, in other words, the website of the 00's. Furthermore, I will keep pursuing unity among writers. Antonio New year, new resolutions Martin 12:37, 1 January, 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for the late entry into this race but I think it's a must. Hello all my name is Jorge and I have been a Wikipedian since early August and I am attempt to run for arb-com. I felt recenly that the arb-com takes too long to make a decistion. If I get elected to the arb-com I would try to make desistions that are best for Wikipedia and to look at each case very closely in my own view. Thanks --Jaranda wat's sup 22:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello to everyone and a happy holidays!!!
My name as you know is Aytakin and I have been using and editing at Wikipedia a long time. First without a username and then with my current username. During my time in Wikipedia, I have never been in a argument or a revert war. I always try to discuss everything out instead of attacking. I have always been a great arbitrator and mediator in my whole life and have settled many conflicts. Currently, I am studying law and philosophy on the side and I think these will definitly help me as an Arbitration Committee member.
I will strive to:
- Decrease the tension created between wikipedians!
- Make peace in Wikipedia!
- And help make this the best encyclopedia there is!
So you've seen the rest, now vote for the best, I am Aytakin | Talk
- talk page
- contributions
- Wikipedian since: April 2004
- Administrator since: July 2004
Upon my recent return from a fairly successful wikivacation, I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed to see that the Arbitration process has seemingly fallen into disrepair, or, in the least, "grinded to a near-complete halt".
It's possible that the Arbitrators, be they willing or not to affirm it, are simply burned-out. If that's the case, I'm willing, ready, and able to take up some of the slack.
Too many people see the Arbitration process as a sort of Inquisition or prosecutorial body; perhaps we need to be reminded of its original purpose: to arbitrate, to settle, disputes. If elected I would take a solutions-oriented approach to arbitration. There are times when punitive measures must be taken, but it should not be the go-to solution.
I would like to believe that I have a reputation for striving hard to be impartial and civil in all my endeavours. I think many if not most Wikipedians who know me well would attest to such. I offer myself up as a qualified, experienced, intelligent candidate for the Committee.
- Less bureaucracy
- Refocus on civilly resolving disputes
- Common sense
BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Wikipedia is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.
I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.
I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda. Charles Matthews 11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.
My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.
My biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.
Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!
Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.
Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.
Third Poscript, or, Talking Points:
- Humour
- Pragmatism & Effeciency
- Down with advertising!
D. G. 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, (or should not,) legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.
The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspilage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. I've been a Wikipedian since December 2004 and an administrator since July. Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
It is true that I've only been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 4 months now, but I feel I still have a lot to offer the project. Wikipedia represents cooperative collaberation, but that collaberation works best in an environment where there is a good set of guidelines on submission principles.
The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace. --Dogbreathcanada 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I do not pretend to be high enough for every honour, for every place within Wiki, or for every role needed to ensure the project runs smoothly. I feel my short time here has already taught me how necessary it is to have time, effort and determination; but also a sense of fairness and understanding. Wiki is an ambitious - quite frankly over ambitious and complex in some regard - project, but one of great strength and repute. To keep the wheels turning and all users happy is a task worthy of the strongest person in both mind and spirit. Whether I am able to help and assist is not, as I place myself as a candidate in this election, a question I may be able to answer.
On-line all bets are off. Every trouble maker can cause havoc with edit wars, spamming and inaccurate information. I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals. I am a political person, having stood for election in the 'real world' before, so hearing both sides of an argument is second nature. Within this context, the challenge becomes harder but ultimately a challenge worthy of such an all-round project. We must work together to build this from the bottom-up; to be fair, free and focused, and not split into tiny groups of self-interested keyboard juries.
I am willing to give this experience a real shot. If I fail, and I think that is likely, I will continue to work as hard as possible to make all the articles here of the best possible standard. It is the least any determined Wiki user can do.
doktorb 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
My name is Michael Russell, and I am a Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist practicing in Southern Virginia. I have been a long time user of Wikipedia, but only recently started actively posting, researching, and participating in the back end of the product. I am willing to devote the time to Wikipedia, because I believe it is a noble and worthwhile project.
Growing up in an academic environment where one is expected to be "peer reviewed", I am amazed that this system works as well as it does. I am concerned that the internet seems to be spawning pressure groups pushing for their particular positions or advocacy, and that further many of these seem willing to take liberty with facts in an "end justifies the means" point of view. I watch on-line polls being "pushed" daily, ratings played with at Amazon or IMDB, and have no doubt this happens here as well. I do not support distortion of fact to make a case--if your argument can't be made with facts, it probably needs to be reconsidered.
I will be as fair and as unbiased as possible, and see no reason legitimate conflicts can't often be included in Wiki articles as a discussion, to the satisfaction of all concerned that they have been heard, which is probably the best way to solve many of these conflicts.
I am 47 years old, graduate of the University of Washington (Seattle).
My name is John Robertson. I'm new to Wikipedia. Like many newbies I have wet my feet by first entering material in the discussion section and then making a few forays into simple edits of existing articles.
I am interested in the arbitration committee because of my long standing (nearly 20 years now) interest dispute resolution. My bona fides in this area include: Licensed Attorney; Past Director of Community Dispute Resolution(Mediation) programs; I have mediated over 200 disputes as well as arbitrated a handful of matters. These hearings have included victim restitution, commercial, real estate, community development, environmental, and employment disputes. My vita is available thru a link to a personal website on my user page.
I am also a minor league code kiddie (not worthy to be called hacker) and have an interest in Open Source.
My approach to resolving content disputes would be 1)establish a clear record of the development the article 2)assist each party in the articulation of relief the requesting and basis for their request 3)apply wikipedia governing documents, guiding principals and established practices in making a determination.
I have no axe to grind and can assure neutrality and impartiality. --Edivorce 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Addendum: If selected for service on ArbCom I will not seek nor accept administrator or other privileges beyond that of an ordinary user and editor. --Edivorce 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm a relatively new user but very active within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft. The world is not black-and-white and I believe that some controversial and POV material does belong in an encyclopedia so long as the controversy or the point of view are clearly explained. I think Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators. A well-written explanation of controversial points of view will add depth to the article. I absolutely draw the line at all hate/racist material however, free speech be damned.
I feel the Wikipedia banning guidelines are entirely too lenient and thus I would be content to work without admin priveleges.
I've been a Wikipedian since February 2004 and an admin since May 2004. As many know, I've at times been vocal in opposition to various things the ArbCom has done. Certainly I am a candidate who sees some problems, who feels strongly about them, and wants to change things a bit. My views on the ArbCom are, in fact, mixed: on the one hand, I see it as a useful and positive means of final dispute resolution in the community, and probably the best form of that; in general I favor increased ArbCom involvement in resolving matters, an expanded scope for the committee and ideally an expanded size to go along with that. On the other hand, of course, I have frequently had very strong disagreements with the ArbCom over matters of individual rulings against users. As regards banning, or any kind of strong penalty, my core philosophy, which I stated last year when I ran, is that the ArbCom needs to first and foremost consider a user's positive or negative impact on the encyclopedia, and not harshly penalize (or drive away or alienate) a user who is helping us out. Therefore I tend to take more liberal positions than the existing members of the ArbCom on these kinds of issues, because many or perhaps most of the people we have punished are good users in general. Furthermore, the ArbCom has to consider that its rulings and practices have a large impact on the Wikipedia culture in general. The community comes to reflect the attitudes and approaches of the ArbCom. Therefore the ArbCom needs to be a lot like what we want the community to be: open (favor public discussion over private mailing lists and IRC rooms, and invite community input), sympathetic, and concerned with erring on the side of caution. In looking at cases, it needs to prioritize encyclopedia work over personality feuds, and think of how a case can end beneficially, or at least with no loss, for everybody involved, if possible—how can a case be treated in a positive way, with an eye to reconciliation and harmony between users and productive editing, as opposed to a purely punitive approach? Even if you can't achieve this, you can usually get something close to it. There also has to be a concern with simple pragmatism, with what is actually going to work in fixing a specific problem. Wikipedia doesn't have a jail; we frequently go through hell trying to enforce rulings that are highly questionable to begin with, and leave bitter feelings all around. I'd like to move towards a change in attitude and approach, something more inclusive in process and open in outlook. Everyking 08:09, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Now that it seems that the new ArbCom will be at least partly selected by the community, I've decided to unwithdraw. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Given the uncertainty over the selection/election process, a state of affairs that effectively renders these candidacies meaningless, I have decided to withdraw for the moment. If and when clarity is restored, I may reverse this decision. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.
I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:
- Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
- Wikilove: enough said.
- Assume good faith: ditto.
- Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
- We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.
Beyond these, I have no preconceptions and would expect to grow into the role according to the needs of Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I am one of the original arbitrators appointed by Jimbo and have participated in most of the cases that have been decided. I have sometimes recused myself from cases where I had strong feelings about another user or the subject matter. You can see what I do by looking at the open and closed arbitration cases. I have innovated with respect to Wikipedia:Probation and creation of a /Workshop page for discussion of cases before things are firmed up for actual voting. The workshop page, if used by arbitrators, parties and others, offers a broadbased public venue for discussion of the details of arbitration cases and evidence. I support arbitration of content disputes and have sometimes voted to accept those cases. I expect to be able to serve out any term I am elected to at my present level of activity. I expect to be able to work with anyone who is elected, regardless of any prior differences, as we work together to solve problems which affect the whole community.
I do not feel we should be bound by precedent, but learn by experience, applying that experience to the matter at hand. Although I participate in the ArbCom IRC channel and mailing list I generally support open, on the record, discussion of our cases. talk
Questions, comments and responses
Hola. Me llamo Golbez. And no, I don't speak Spanish, so enough of that. I've been here since March '04, an admin since about Oct '04. I think the Arbitration process is one of great value to Wikipedia, but I think it could use a few changes. If the case is accepted, then clearly it has merit - thus, temporary injunctions should be more common. The process as a whole should be accelerated. I'd like to help with this, and improve my interaction with Wikipedia. I love this place, and think it has great potential, and I'd like to do anything I can to assist it in its goal of recording the sum of human knowledge. I would like to be on the Arbitration Committee to help with Wikipedia and help clean up after bad people, clear good people of poor accusations, and generally keep the cogs turning and well-greased.
I can only promise to look at every case with a purely neutral eye, or recuse myself. Good faith will always be assumed, but not projected. I don't know if I'm a huge force for change, except for the speed and safety issues I've already mentioned; I'm just someone who wants to help the project even more than I am now. I hope you'll consider me. Thank you. --Golbez 01:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Questions and responses, please don't hesitate to ask.
Hi, Guapovia here. I'd like to put my name up for several reasons - honor, laud, glory, and even ego. I think I'd do a good job at it. Yes, I'm a new user, but I've submitted several articles that haven't been deleted, and I think I know what I want to see in a Wikipedia article.
We need a good, solid process, using good solid people, to help Wikipedia become bigger and better. Consistently advanced and enforced policies are another must. Once Wikipedians know what the AC wants, it'll be easier to keep this 'Pedia rolling smoothly.
Opinion on banning: Three serious malicious violations of Wikipedia policy should involve banning.
Vote Guapovia!
Guapovia 14:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I'm Ilyanep. I've been here since May 2003. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat, and have quite a bit of experience as both. The ArbCom has gone very far in the years since it's been created, but there are still some kinks that need to be worked out, and I decided to run because I'd like to be the one to help out.
ArbCom was almost unanimously and rightly criticised last year for its tardiness. I believe that there has been significant improvement, but the large caseload and burnout of arbitrators still remains a problem. I promise that if I am elected, I will try to help find a way to expedite cases while still allowing time for the arbitrators to compile, read, and decide on evidence, which I find very important. I also promise to stay on for my entire term, as I see myself as a person who finishes what he started. The ArbCom has also been accused of bias in the past. I commit myself to strict neutrality in all cases, and am able to see when I can not possibly be neutral, in which case I will recuse. I don't see that happenning too often, however.
I find that complete bans from Wikipedia are nearly impossible to enforce, and go against the spirit of the project. I would support more revert-enforced bans on editing certain categories of articles, mentorship programs, and, if necessary, more topical bans. These are more wikilike than outright bans, and are a step in the right direction in searching for more innovative ways to maintain order.
In the end, I believe that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and most people here are aiming for that goal. A negative experience shouldn't cause one to leave the project. As is said numerous times around the project: if an article is let to evolve, the good will filter through. I believe the community does the same. —Ilyanep (Talk) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm Improv, and have been on since late 2002 (initially under the username Pgunn). I've been a mediator since Jan2005 and an administrator since Feb2005. I also have been a Usenet moderator for a number of newsgroups for over five years. I should state that if I become an arbitrator, I will retain my post on the mediation committee, and continue to mediate as well, as I see no conflict in doing both (although I will abstain on any case that made its way through my mediation unsuccessfully). I don't have a platform, and promise only to be fair as I see it and to put in the effort needed in a timely fashion to prevent delay. All I can say on policy is that I think banning has a place, but I don't think it's possible to say anything useful as to how it should be handled in general. I will also suggest improvements that I think will be productive. I plan to write and make public an opinion on every case I participate in explaining my reasoning, things I have signed on to, and areas where I dissent. --Improv 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
For me, the most important of the five pillars is the one that states that we are an encyclopaedia. More than any other idea or policy, this is the one that will serve as my guiding principle if I am elected to the committee. However, this maxim is hardly a simple litmus test that can be applied with ease in every case. For example, an abrasive editor, however excellent the articles they write, may cause a net negative effect on our quality by poisoning the atmosphere for other contributors; blindly enforcing the rulebook is a poor mode of operation, but at the same time, ignoring the rulebook too much erodes community support. All members of the Arbitration Committee must be aware of the ripple effect from any decision, or the committee will lose its effectiveness. To sort through all the possible ramifications of any ruling is a task that requires a thoughtful, reasonable, and humble ;) person such as myself.
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 [two] year[s] 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 [three] 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 not 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 continue 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)
[Addendum: Further to this, my statement of last year, I would like to note that the Committee's pace has slowed even more so towards the end of this year than that of the last, and I hope that, whether or not I am elected to remain on, that at least a good number of dedicated candidates are successful.]
[Updated: James F. (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)]
I'm Jayjg. I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004, was made an administrator on September 13, 2004, and in July of 2005 Jimmy Wales appointed me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm a pretty active Wikipedia editor, having made over 30,000 edits.
I believe the Arbitration Committee is an unfortunate, but necessary, last step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. In the past I've felt and raised concerns about the effectiveness of all of the formal dispute resolution mechanisms (including mediation, RfC, and RfAr). RfAr in particular has suffered from slowness (mostly related, I believe, to having far too many inactive members), and from decisions that tended to be too narrow to be effective (e.g. prescribing remedies on one specific article, when the issue is an editor's behaviour in general). I think it's important for Arbitrators to keep in mind that our primary and ultimate goal here is to create a great encyclopedia.
I have found the Arbitration process itself quite interesting, but extremely time consuming; reading through the evidence on a single case can take many hours. I've been actively involved in almost all cases started after my appointment to the committee; in addition to regular involvement in votes on whether to accept or reject case, and regular contributions to the Arbitration Committee mail-list, I've also worked on the Skyring, Alfrem, Gabrielsimon, Ed Poor, AI, Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, Rktect, Rainbowwarrior1977, DotSix, Keetowah, Onefortyone, BigDaddy777, Everyking 3, Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, jguk 2, Louis Epstein, REX, Polygamy, Stevertigo, Lightbringer, Maoririder, Rex071404 4, Silverback, and Ultramarine cases. In the future I'd like to get even more involved in trying to build the workshop pages, which is where the decisions are crafted by the arbitrators, the involved parties, and any other member of the community who wants to make suggestions.
I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.
I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.
I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.
I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.
Hello, I'm Jtkiefer, a registered user since June 2005, and an anonymous editor for a long time before that. I've been an administrator since late August 2005, and I'm now active in the Welcoming Committee and the Stub Sorting WikiProject.
The arbitration process needs to be streamlined; this is widely agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. The arbitration case duration has been reduced without compromising diligence, but I feel that this can be improved even more. Good members who become involved as arbitrators are often alienated by the process; their experience is lost when they resign or leave the project, and I feel that this problem too must be given serious attention.
I believe that bans must be treated as a last resort when dealing with problem users. Either all other possible solutions must have been tried and have demonstrably failed, or there must be good evidence that all other solutions would have absolutely no chance of succeeding. Probation, selective bans on certain articles, and mentorship are ways of dealing with problematic behaviour which I consider should be integrated into the process, because they keep the user on the path to improvement. I also feel that the Arbitration Committee should be flexible, and should focus more on the spirit of the existing rules rather than the enforcing the exact letter of them. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The last thing I wanted to do is run for arbcom, but from my dealings with the system at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, I feel that it's necessary to enact some change.
My running is basically a protest against the arbitration process as it is, not against any particular member of the arbcom itself since I deeply respect all of them i've talked to individually. My goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system.
Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if Jimbo Wales interfered in any way, unless he truly does look down upon other Wikipedians, thus destroying the idea that Wikipedia is Egalitarian, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.
You can see some of my ideas for reforming Policy creation and enforcement here. I wish all the other candidates the best of luck, and ask all the voters to let me know what I can do to gain your trust.
I've decided to reverse my previously announced intent not to run after a curious discussion (on IRC) with another editor who told me that people object to me being on ArbCom because I am too well-trusted and well-respected in the community. Apparently, being trustworthy and respected are qualities not desired in Arbitration Committee members. I found this argument so brazenly illogical that it convinced me to run.
I don't have a platform, other than a promise to handle each case fairly, with every decision intended to further our fundamental goal: to write an encyclopedia. Kelly Martin (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I may want to help out with arbitration too. :
Most of my time this year was spent making sure that there was at least some dispute resolution available via the mediation cabal. This was conceived as a stopgap measure to provide mediation while the mediation committee was down (which it was for much of the year.)
If you can survive that, I guess you can survive almost anything. Nos morituri te salutamus!*
* "Those who are about to die, greet you!", the traditional hail of gladiators, right before being tossed to the lions and such.
My name is Oliver Brown. I have been a Wikipedian since February 2003, serving as a contributor, copyeditor, policeman, administrator and bureaucrat. I am fair, empathetic, articulate, firm and forgiving. An arbiter should be tactful and considerate. One must remember that there is a face behind each user name.
In regards to what experience I have that would help the Arbitration Committee, I’ve created a WikiCity to chronicle underground music in my local community. I teach history in a public high school. I’ve served as the PTA parliamentarian, and currently serve on the Equity Team. I’ve written rulebooks and by-laws for various projects - including (when in my teens) arbitration by-laws for a homemade baseball little league we had on my street. My BA is in Political Science.
In regards to how the committee should handle disputes, this is how I would lay it out: the arbiters should not know the usernames or identities of those involved in a dispute. Each side of the dispute would submit a report making their case; the report would refer to PERSON A and PERSON B, keeping the arbiters in the dark. There’s more to the process, but that’s the gist.
In regards to the banning question, I wouldn’t rule out a ban as a last resort. It’s like expelling a kid from school. There’s a process - a long process, even for serious offenses. The number one task at hand is to create a wikipedia - an encyclopedia formed and shaped by the minds of thousands - but can it be done fairly and without hurt to contributors? This is a great social experiment. As a committee member, I will take great care in understanding the various points-of-view at hand, and I will try to find solutions that will bring dignity to all. I will also work to create procedures that are efficient and fair. I feel wikipedia is important and vital to mankind. I am devoted to it. Kingturtle 07:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello. I am officially throwing my hat into the ring for appointment as a Wikipedia Arbitrator.
I am running because I feel I can provide an impartial mind to the arbitration process. I have an extensive access to knowledge to assist me in determining facts, an ability to determine the difference between neutral and biased points of view, and uncanny problem-solving capabilities that were developed and exploited in Future Problem Solvers competitions in my youth.
I am a frequent page editor and creator. I have recently been invited to join WikiProject Professional wrestling in recognition of my contributions to the project from outside. I am also a major player in the creation and maintenance of pages relating to Dance Dance Revolution. I have done reverts on many cases of vandalism.
I seek to be a user-arbitrator. I will not seek the powers of an administrator or bureaucrat if I am appointed to a position as arbitrator.
Thank you for your consideration.
My Name is Kyle Hamilton; I am a junior at the Brooks Inst of Photography. I am majoring in Film.
I am interested in the working on the arbitration committee because I have a good deal of experience in dealing with disputes and getting to a speedy resolution. I refined my ability by working with producers in the film industry and by working on set having to make quick decisions/resolutions on set.
The approach I would use to help resolve disputes here would be as follows
- 1: Look at how the article was developed and try to establish a clear unclouded record of how the article was developed.
- 2: Look into what other users have done in the past.
- 3: Review what other members of the arbitration committee have done in the past.
- 4: stay neutral stay neutral stay neutral.
- 5: Beat people with sticks
Wikipedia is more then an encyclopedia to me, it is a repository of all human knowledge a concept that many here in our community don’t grasp this is something more then an encyclopedia it is something short of a miracle, Wikipedia and her sister projects are home to all of Humanitys works and knowledge.
General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 is the most biased admin that I've seen.
I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.
Hello all! I'm not going to lie. Even though, I've been a Wikipedan since October, 2004, there is still so much about the project and community that I still need to immerse myself in. Just some backgrounder, my real name is Luke and I herald from the Beautiful British Columbia city of Vancouver in Canada.
Since discovering Wikipedia in 2004, and in keeping with its' foundings, I believe that I have taken an active approach to improving the credibility and knowledge base of the database. As egotistical as it sounds, I feel that Wikipedia and future disputes will be well served by having me on the committee. I'm able to bring depth, experience, knowledge to resolving disputes and am able to approach problems to hopefully reach an un-biased, comprimisable decision.
With regards to banning, it is unfortunately neccessary during some situations. However, it should be noted that banning should only be used as a last resort and not freely.
On how the Committee should handle disputes, I feel that to ensure credibility and consistency, it should handle all potential cases as they are requested. I believe that some guiding pointers to follow when resolving disputes are:
- to keep an open mind, free of prejudices
- understand that even though this is an English version, that other cultures use this version
- decisions should be for the good of the community and encyclopedia
- always think first and never rush
For a more in depth discussion on any of the issues surrounding my candicacy, be sure to visit the subpage where I will happily answer all questions.
Luke 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned.
I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Hello there, I'm Mackensen. I've been here since August of 2003, and was made an admin a year later. My purpose in running for the Arbitration Committee is twofold: to serve the community and to push the notion of accountability and legitimacy with regards to the actions of administrators. Arbitration is a perhaps unfortunate yet clearly necessary final step in dispute resolution, because the community has vested such powers in the body. This entails a responsibility on the part of the Committee to act intelligently to uphold policy and to ensure that people can continue to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. This also means holding administrators accountable if they shoot from the hip–this whole project will fall apart if people don't trust us.
Hallo all! I have browsed, admired and edited articles on Wikipedia for more than six months. It is a wonderful site as a comprehensive encyclopaedia, but the arbitration committee needs to handle the disputes more effectively and impartially (including the fact that hoax claims must not be highly entertained). Hence I feel that the members of the arbitration committee need to have a sufficiently large knowledge base, so that they could distinguish points which conform to the neutral point of view from those that are naïvish and that have been added out of emotional ecstacy. As far as knowledge with relevance to India, Hinduism, Indian philosophy, Hindi, linguistics, phonetics, engineering, Indian Institues of Technology are concerned, I feel that I am a good candidate for this post. I also propose a strict action against vandalism. I request you all to consider me for this opportunity.
As for myself, I am Mr. Saumya Ranjan (appearing in wikipedia under the name of Cygnus_hansa), a fourth year Chemical Engineering student from the prestigious insitute IIT Bombay. I have been editing various articles, especially those related to Hinduism, for a long time to bring them in conformity to the neutral point of view and yet with an Indian perspective.
I've been in Wikipedia for around a year, and I think it's time for me to allow myself to give back to the community more than the usual housekeeping work. I admit I'm relatively new when it comes to dispute resolution, but my candidacy is to allow myself to offer the best of my ability in the service of Wikipedia and her community, and nothing else.
I have seen a lot of changes in Wikipedia for the last year, but my fundamental principles of assuming good faith, keeping civil even in the worst of situations, and to give newcomers reasonable chances does not change. Just as always my actions, past or future, are open for scrutiny by anyone. If possible, I'd want to see more in reformative action than just punishment.
I am Maywither. I am the most amazing and awesome Wikipedian ever. Place me on the committee and I will not make you sad.
Greetings. I'm Merovingian. I've been a Wikipedian since November 2003 and an administrator since March 2004. That doesn't really matter, though. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and the key to its prosperity is only more change. As the community has grown and diversified, the need for binding solutions has grown, too. The Arbitration Committee is dedicated to finding and developing these solutions.
Certainly, the committee has been a mixed blessing. While it has solved many disputes, it has been plagued by a backlog of cases and too much unimportant arguing. Usually, a fairly simple disagreement escalates, and the committee spends too much time picking through longwinded rants. An enlargement of the Arbitration Committee of just three could very well move cases through much more quickly.
I believe that I can help. During my time at Wikipedia, I have tried my very best to adhere to the projects tenets of honesty, good faith, and neutrality. All three are important features to be found in an arbitrator. If elected, I will maintain a high level of participation; the committee’s progress has been hindered by inactive members and resignations. I care about this project too much to give up. If elected, I will act with fairness to all involved parties, and conduct my work with the other arbitrators in the open. If elected, I will keep my personal views out of all cases, as I have tried to do when writing articles.
I welcome questions, comments, or criticisms.
I was wikiborn in October, 2003 and was an administrator since February, 2004. As the number of active editors grow, the number of conflicts naturally grow, so I am willing to give my share of time to this cleanup task as well.
- I feel that further fate of the project depends on maintaining a reasonable working environment.
- I am going to oppose the false idea that "all people are equal" (see into the history of Communism to understand what I mean). A better (but still not ideal) statement would be "... equal before the Law" (or "...before God" in some cultures). But in most societies the application of the Law does recognize that people are fundamentally unequal.
- I will be standing for zero-point-one-tolerance (0.1-tolerance) for disruption of wikipedia's spirit of cooperation, such as ad hominem attacks, policy gaming, information censorship. "Zero-point-one" is a recognition that people are human, can make errors and have emotions.
- I will stand for a structure in disputes, for efficiency.
- Pledge: fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation.
I see the job of the Committee as to sort out problems that have gotten so bad that no one else can deal with them, and that are wasting the time of editors who are here to write, and to seek the ideal solution: the one that ends up with the least damage and lets the people who are here to work cooperatively and productively on articles do just that.
I believe strongly in keeping a civil and productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, and not being overly bound by precedent in search of a proper outcome. I also believe in using no firmer a touch than is necessary to remedy a problem.
There are certain issues I am firm on, including civility and respect as well as the proper use of admin powers. I also am a strong supporter of ignoring all rules, which makes me all the more disturbed when that guideline is abused for ends it wasn't meant for.
As a temporary appointee I believe most of my time on the AC so far has been spent "learning the ropes", and have found I would rather write articles than serve on the AC; what sane person wouldn't? But it hasn't made me want to snap yet, either, so I will fill the post if I am wanted back. Questions welcomed.
My beliefs about Wikipedia are simple: we are here to create a free encyclopedia, and policy, procedure and process are simply tools to enable us to do that most easily. I believe in a light touch; we should have the minimum quantity of rules necessary to function, and the enforcement of them should bear in mind the intended outcome—creating that encyclopedia—rather than in their mechanical application.
On the banning question, I believe it should be applied with my overriding principles above in mind—only if it is necessary for the functioning of the project. The purpose is not to punish, but to remove people who have proven they are not interested in helping the project, people whose intent is to disrupt and who will not reform.
I have a strong and abiding passion for the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and I've put in more time on it than I probably want to admit. I intend, if chosen, to apply myself to this task with equal passion. I am used to thankless jobs—I am a systems administrator, and know the rewards for good work are simply more work and nobody noticing.
I would love to hear your questions, comments or indeed criticisms. Thank you. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 15:48, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
As Wikipedia expands, it is suffering 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 other editors. 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.
Arbcom has the potential to deal with problems that are beyond any one administrator. To realize that potential, Arbcom has to make two decisions: which requests to consider, and which requests not to consider. The act of deciding wisely which cases need to be heard is more important than the details of whatever decision is reached. The ability to provide stability and finality to the community is key. Arbcom must not get distracted by cases the community can handle. But Arbcom must not hide from difficult cases, simply because they are ugly. Deciding where the line falls is where the hard work is.
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. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency to the process as I can. Thanks. Nandesuka 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.
- I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors must end and the spirit of true arbitration must return.
- I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.
- I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally dealing with problems, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.
I'll expand on the last item. More problem users should be handled by community/administrator consensus alone. If they feel unfairly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process; but both (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. On the other hand, if that user is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while making it easier to review the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (revised 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC))
I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.
The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.
Banning should be undertaken preferably only when the editor is found to be disruptive and it is certain that he/she will not make any sort of useful contributions. However, if a user has made good contributions but has a case up at ArbCom that may need banning for the first time, I'm willing to give the user a second chance.
I've been a wikipedian since June 2, 2005, and an administrator since September 6, 2005. I initially wanted to run for arbcom, then decided not to, and now (at the last minute), I've decided to go for it.
I've been around arbcom for a while. I've never been very involved in it, but I helped file the first Ed Poor case, which I withdrew from after mediation. I don't really like the decision they made on that case, since they basically closed the case almost instantly after opening it, and hardly any of the dispute was about his bureaucrat powers. I also was fairly active in the Pigsonthewing case, but I agree with the decisions made there, even though they seem to have failed, at this point.
I have strong opinions on lots of things, and will recuse myself from anything I don't feel I can handle neutrally. I can feel my biases, and have never let them get in the way of editing. Of course, most of my editing is minor anyway...
I think that arbitration should be a relatively quick and straight forward process, but it should never be rushed. I generally do not agree with banning users who regularly contribute to writing an encyclopedia, in the first case they appear in. They should be sanctioned appropriately, depending on what they did, and given a chance to correct their behaviour. If they should show up in another arbcom case in a reasonable time, doing the same thing, stronger sanctions or maybe even a ban should be strongly considered. I especially support bans if the user does not appear to be interested in writing an encyclopedia.
ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always.
--Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration is one of Wikipedia's most difficult and intense jobs. To be a good arbitrator requires the ability to look at the ideas behind two or more groups whose opinions differ sufficiently to be beyond less serious forms of reconciliation. Part of this requires being able to look at the key ideas behind vitriolic arguments, and seeing how they can be made to work together. Some of the most violent arguments, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, begin with small misunderstandings.
My personal background gives me unique insight into how to resolve arguments and avoid the pitfalls of communication. My childhood was spent between parents who argued non-stop, and I often had to find ways to help them come to peace and understand one another. I have also lived in many different countries, so I am not only fluent or highly skilled in many different languages, but I understand the different cultural sensibilities that can further provoke arguments. Along with other users, I founded the Scandinavian Mediators Club, which seeks to help people on Wikipedia who speak a Scandinavian language and need assistance.
In terms of my theories regarding the Arbitration Committee and its place on the Wikipedia project, I feel that more should be done to make sure that conflict is resolved before it arrives at the ArbCom. This would involve greater integration between the members of the Arbitration Committee and the various mediation groups on Wikipedia, as we can only work efficiently when we are working together. There are just too many editors, articles, and areas on Wikipedia in which arguments can develop. On the flipside, I feel that the cases that do reach the ArbCom are currently processed too slowly, spanning across weeks of arguments and evidence gathering. This needs to stop, as such long periods of uncertainly can dampen the growth of the project by failing to provide precedence or a good solution to problems.
I have been looking forward to working on the Arbitration Committee since I found out about it. I have been active on Wikipedia since May 2004 and an admin since December of the same year. If elected, I intend to make sure that the Arbitration Committee becomes more culturally sensitive, is better able to interact with members whose first language is not English, is more active in promoting mediation before arbitration, and acts more promptly. Thank you!
- An update: My apologies for my slow reply to many of the questions asked of me. I am currently on holiday to the middle of the desert in Namibia, so my Internet access has been difficult. I will return home in a week where I have full-time internet access. Thanks! Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I have been following Wikipedia development for a few years now, and have recently returned to editing after a long break. I have seen a lot of cases go through, so my aim as an arbitrator is simple. To keep Wikipedia a decent encyclopedia and to deal with those who wish to corrupt it. The current system is too slow, and lots of damage has occurred and vandals don't take the system seriously.
I have dealt with a large number of vandals and nonsense over the years and know a lot of the technical goings on at the wiki, so I feel confident on being able to take on the challenge of dealing with these disputes and restore credibility to the system.
I'm Ral315; I've been a user since November 2004, began editing in December 2004, and became an administrator in September 2005. I'm running for Arbitration Committee for one simple reason: Because I want to help.
The proceedings of the Arbitration Committee have always interested me, since I first joined Wikipedia. Lately, the Committee has been having a very tough time handling its caseloads. I applaud all remaining Committee members for being able to stick through all the burnout that inevitably happens when dealing with so many disputes. I also applaud all members running for Arbitration Committee this year; anyone willing to run for such a time-consuming position must either be extraordinarily dedicated, or insane. From what I've been told, I belong to the latter group.
In all seriousness, the Arbitration Committee serves an important purpose on Wikipedia: Settling disputes between users, and more often, doling out punishments to unruly users. Such a position needs a strong, unbiased user. I feel that I can fulfill these requirements. I do not plan to decide cases based on my personal beliefs, nor on any other user's personal beliefs. Cases should be decided on the merits of the case alone. Too often, both inside Wikipedia and in the real world, problems are decided on personal beliefs and biases. I will keep bias out of my decisions if I am elected to the Arbitration Committee.
Another part of being an Arbitration Committee member is being available to the community. I am regularly available on Wikimedia IRC channels, and I always try to respond to messages left at my e-mail address and on my talk page.
Finally, I think that to be an effective Arbitration Committee member, one mustn't take arbitration too seriously. The main goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The only reason that the Arbitration Committee should ever punish a user is if the user is so disruptive that corrective action is needed.
If you have any questions that I might help answer, please feel free to leave a message on my talk page, and I will try to answer it as soon as I can. Ral315 WS 03:53, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as WP:AMA. As can be seen from my work at the medcom, I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close AfD's where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events here thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia: You take something, you give something back -- that's how I see it. I've been using Wikipedia as an information source for years now, making occasional edits along the way when something was wrong or just awkward. I registered in 2005 and started making more edits. Oh, I donated the piffling sum of $5 to the fundraising drive (but if everyone gave just five dollars...).
Anyway, I love the Wikipedia project and I do what I can to try and keep it progressing. As an arbitrator, well, I'd do what I could to try and keep it progressing. Philosophy? The five pillars work for me. Plus an open and inquiring mind. As for banning, I believe that's got to be the last resort, people will find a way to come back and screw with the project if they are simply kicked out. Better to go in with respect and reason first, help people realize that Wikipedia is their place too. And if that fails, then try again. Of course, sometimes that won't work and action will be necessary -- I'm hopeful but not utopian.
Hi! I'm candidating for the ArbCom because I believe in justice in Wikipedia and think I can bring about positive change as to the fairness of arbitration procedures. I have worked in mediation in the past (in real life), and also in various cases at both the English and Romanian Wikipedias. If I become an arbitrator, my most important consideration will be to look at both sides impartially and to guarantee that the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way. I am a firm believed in dialogue, and I always aim to make sure that both sides understand very well what the dispute is about, since I believe that alienation and misunderstanding is the most significant and most dangerous root of conflict. It is only through true justice and transparency that we can bring about a better, more stable and more trustworthy Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask any questions on the questions page below. Thanks, 
Ronline ✉ 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I am nominating myself, because, well, I like me. I have been a "wikipedian" for only a short time, but it's been glorious. I think there is a great deal to be done in terms of getting the word out about how great a resource wikipedia can be. I use it everyday to check facts, and to beat people in stupid trivia. I'm sure if I were still in school, that I'd use it for educational research as well. One key issue to me is that of silly censorship. Yes, you may have been here longer than me, but this is an open community of people working for the same goal. Let's keep it this way. So grab a pitch fork and a torch and let's hit the streets together and burn whatever monsters there are that might be hampering the cause and progress of Wikipedia!
Rowlan 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
- Like Kim Bruning, I am interested in aiding the functions of our hard-worked Arbitration Committee. Also like him, I am wary to fully enter this "race" until the process is clarified. I hate unnecessary and premature self-aggrandisement, so I shall delay writing any more until the appropriate juncture. [[Sam Korn]] 22:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Now could be the appropriate juncture. I don't intend to be long writing this. Points I believe would make me a good Arbitrator
- Complete and obsessive dedication to Wikipedia
- A belief in reconciliation before confrontation and rehabilitation before sanctions
- I am fair in always looking at both sides' faults
- My strongest belief is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and this should be reflected in the Committee's decisions
- I have been around well over a year now, and understand every policy – I have also served as a mediator recently; although I haven't done much work, I have acted as a mediator, and have learnt a lot from looking at others' cases and also from on-going arbitration cases
- This is the key one: I consider myself absolutely approachable and always helpful in my dealings with others.
The Arbitration Committee is very important to Wikipedia. It isn't as important as articles, but keeping the community moving is important. As I feel capable of doing so, I consider it necessary that I should offer what I can to help. ==
[[Sam Korn]] 23:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
My experience is extensive, I have handled more cases before the ArbCom than I can easilly remember, all but one decisively successful, and I mediate contentious pages on a daily basis.
I oppose the ArbCom deciding based on its own precedent, and favor rather an interpretation of wikipedia:policy most effective in producing and sustaining an encyclopedia and its editorial staff.
I will be especially severe with administrators who violate policy, misuse their status, and disgrace their office. I will be particularly leniant with new users who clearly mean well, and I am particularly inclined to allow experienced users to act as mentors in such cases.
Rather than thinking of myself as a judge determining guilt and punishment, I will adjudicate based on the needs of the encyclopedia, mindful of the mechanics of Group dynamics and behavior modification.
Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.
Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.
Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].
An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it.[4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.
I'm quite interested in helping with Arbcom, but I have hesitated to put my name forward as I am reluctant to hand myself over to a selection process that doesn't yet seem to exist.
I've been a Wikipedians since December 2001 and have been an admin since December 2003 (which by extrapolation means that something good has to happen in December 2005). I currently have the distinction of being number one on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Sheer number of edits is a pretty meaningless statistic, but it does show that I have a fair amount of time to dedicate to the project.
I follow Arbcom fairly closely, but have only participated directly in only a couple of cases. I feel that in almost all cases the committee does its job admirably, though its speed is, as has often been noted, is sometimes far slower than ideal.
- contributing on Wikipedia since: about June 2005
- under this Username since: January 2006
Why am I, as a total newbie, nominating myself for this honorable place? The answer is not quite clear even for me. I would like to help Wikipedia as it's a great project. I see this honorable place as a chance to continue with my work reverting vandalism. I see that I will most likely not get a single vote, but I must give it a try. Just to say, I was there, I tried to make a difference. Thank you. If you give me a vote, thank you very much. :) Skyscrap27 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
I've been contributing on Wikipedia for a few months, but I've only just (a day ago) joined (created a username). Why should I be on an Arbitration Committee? I live in a real world (just like all of us) where fights do happen. When you're arguing with somebody, you don't need anybody to tell you what to do, what to say. Both sides need someone to say they're right. That's compromise. If you're a noob (and a lot of arguing happens between new members), you won't listen to somebody old and experienced (just like parents), first you'll listen to other newbies. If the Arbitration Commitee has a new member, it will gain more influence towards other newbies. You're most likely to listen to a person your "age" than to a old member. Of course, I realize that it's a long shot, but that's what I think. Thank you. Skyscrap27 12:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Major opinions:
- I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights (with minor objections to rule no. 3).
- I agree with the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct (exception is recusion in case arbitrators feel strongly about some case (not someone), and I don't agree with it).
- Main job of ArbCom should be to insure growth and evolution of Wikipedia.
- ArbCom must be the highest body of Wikipedia and it must decide independently (it must not be under any pressure).
- Even more time must be spared to protect Wikipedia from advertising and vandalism.
- Vanity should be allowed (very limited, though), as long as in consists of pure facts only, not speculations or bragging.
Skyscrap27 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I have a good amount of experience with the arbcom from the outside, and I feel confident saying that the single biggest thing it takes is wading through evidence pages - often confusingly ordered and worded evidence pages. It involves reading diffs, and a huge amount of dedication to piecing together what's going on.
This is a change from what the arbcom needed last year. Last year, the arbcom was dealing with cases like Lir, Plautus, and Irismeister regularly, and dragging at them. That's not the case this year - the last slam dunk malevolent user the arbcom dealt with was Plautus, which took them a week.
It doesn't take anyone special to ban Plautus or Lir - I doubt there's a person running in this election who wouldn't have done that. What we need are arbitrators who are willing and able to put in the commitment to the harder cases - to the ones that involve the well-meaning editors with a legitimate disagreement that need to be disentangled, not smashed with a banstick.
Different circumstances require different kinds of arbitrators. And I promise to be one of those different kinds of arbitrators. If elected, I promise to review evidence carefully, and to look at situations with the larger Wikipedia community in mind. Like it or not, arbcom decisions are cited as justifications in policy debates now, and the arbcom needs to be careful about what it says in light of that. A recent near-disaster is the Coolcat case, when the arbcom nearly made a ruling that could easily have been interpreted as shutting down informal mediation. I was one of the ones who pointed out that problem, and if elected, I intend to keep problems like that from happening - without abandoning the need for effective rulings that minimize the need for repeat cases.
Granted, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia, having mostly devoted myself to the improvement of individual articles on matters wqhere I felt my lights could come in useful. I still have been able to see how contributors with differing views of a subject might come into conflict, even when doing their best to adhere to civility and NPOV, but regarding the other side's version as irredeemably wrong and unworthy of mention at all ... and that's not even mentioningcases when personal involvement in an issue cannot but skew viewpoint, and the depredations of trolls and vandals.
If chosen, for as long as I serve, I will strive to uphold the ideals completeness and neutrality this wikigroup strives to embody, and to give all cases placed before me fair and optimal treatment, drawing both from existing jurisprudence and my own resources, as well as the considered opinions of my colleagues, particularly the more experienced ones, or those having shown themselves most worthy of my esteem. --Svartalf 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Although I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months, I have contributed alot, especially reverting vandalism and inviting newcomers. I think I would be a great addition to the Committee and would greatly appreciate a post. Thank you very much for your consideration.
I am a Wikipedian since January 28 2005, and I have some knowledge about ArbCom. The ArbComm is a place for the final stage of dispute resolution. I have made around 2500 edits as of January 6 2006. I do apologise for my late application for the elections.
The Arbitration Committee has done a far satisfactory job, but it can be much better. I would revamp the ArbCom from what it is like now. Arbitration is the final and worst way to solve a dispute. The ArbCom can be improved by having more arbitrators than now, as it will come to a concensus faster than what it is now. Some can take as long as three months, which I feel is a total waste of time. If I am elected as an arbitrator, I will help to come to a decision faster. The Arbitration Committee should cooporate to agree on the decisons. The committee needs a more cooporative effort than what it is now. Current members take quite some time to vote on the proposed decisions on that particular user and those involved.
I find edit wars quite disruptive, and I am strongly against vandalism. Other ways of solving a dispute, maybe using Mediation. I would have a fair view and see what is the best to solve the dispute. Blocking users should be done for those who have make a disruptive enviornment to Wikipedia. Civility is a must for all editors, I do not like personal attacks at all as this is a community, not a battleground. Banning should be done on very disruptive editors, and those who are vandals. I believe banning should be done on very serious cases. If not, a probation for sometime, or a month's block. --Terence Ong Talk 17:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is growing fast, and its response has been to secrete a shell of bureaucracy as sclerotic as any state. Too many rules, too many feet to tread on. Too many new editors scared away.
Arbitration is intrinsically slow and unscaleable. Administrators are individuals working in loose cooperation, which does scale.
Too many cases are reaching arbitration. We should be careful about the cases we accept, and give administrators more technological power by working with developers to share ideas for more tools to help them. Alternatives to blocking, more flexible IP and username blocking arrangements, more watchlists for administrators, subscribable watchlists, edit throttles for edit warriors, per-page blocking. Spending time and effort on this will be worth our while as a committee because it will reduce our caseload by empowering and strengthening Wikipedia's immune system.
Abusive treatment of newcomers starves the community of new blood and unnecessarily expands the class of disaffected trolls and vandals. Edit warring and biting by administrators and other experienced editors should be taken seriously because it drives people away. I want to focus on this. The administrators should take the bulk of the load, but the Committee should act as a check on the administrators.
The Arbitration Committee has a resource of previous cases and decisions, and what ensued from those decisions, that amount to the wisdom of some of the best wikipedians. The Committee, augmented by interested former members, should from time to time make non-binding recommendations to the community for policy clarifications or changes, with the aim of stimulating Wikipedia's immune system and reducing arbitration caseload.
Through my time on wikipedia, I've attempted to add dispassionate, non partisan contributions to a variety of topics. I've added some pages relating to Pennsylvania politics, while contributing to a number of national figures. I've also helped establish the depth of material on current NBA players, and added a number of movie titles.
Arbitrators need to be dispassionate, dedicated and cogent, and I think my track record on wikipedia demonstrates these qualities. Upon election, I'd hope to help make the arbitration committee a more effecient operation, while maintaining precise and non biased decisions. I believe that severe action should always be a last resort relegated to the most egregious of circumstances and the wikipedia community should continue to foster a genial climate of respect and honesty. Most disputes can be resolved peacefully and civilly, and this is a testament to the strength of wikipedia.Trilemma 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
I want to make it clear, before I even start listing the details, that I have no idea what to expect from adding my name onto this list. I do however, believe strongly that the community should provide the Wikimedia Foundation/Jimbo/Wikipedia itself as many legitimate options as the community can, and I believe I am a legitimate option.
I have been an editor on Wikipedia since about May 24th, 2005. In that time I have engaged in a number of disputes, controversies, mediations, etc. Likely as not, you have not heard of them, and to me that is a Very Good Thing. The accomplishments of bringing editors at their worst to their best should not be advertised, because it showcases fellow editors at their worst, not their best. I beleive very strongly that Wikipedia needs to treat its editors as people, fellow human beings, and offer them that basic respect.
Thus, the goal of Arbitration is not punish those who have done wrong in some cosmic sense, but to protect the integrity and longevity of the project. Thus ArbCom must stand between the community and the Encylopedia, and intercept any disaster that may befall either. Keeping in mind those principles, Arbitration would be a processes which handles, primarily, disputes between editors. Ideally, the Arbitration Committee should be able to clearly delinate principle and action in such a way that it never has to do anything: the Arbitration Commitee should truly be the step of last resort. This is however, the ideal. In reality the Arbitration needs to balance making itself unpleasant enough to be the last resort, as well as accessible enough to those who need it. Arbitration needs to focus on every applicable resource to protect the project, especially from dispute. This includes rescuing editors who have caused trouble, but have potential to reform, as well as losing good editors who threaten to demoralize scores of others. I believe strongly that Arbitration Committee should spearhead a community wide effort to create alternatives to two parties going to arbitration asking "who's right and whos wrong?!". This includes formal and informal mentorship agreements, formal and informal mediation, and controling the usage of dispute resolution tools to prevent damage to the project.
I think I provide a unique perspective. I provide the combination of beliefs I expressed above, and the relative newness to formal authority. I am NOT mired in past high profile disputes, and I very strongly believe that you need as many diffrent voices you can get, so long as they all work together.
Tznkai 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I have lurked on Wikipedia for several months now, learning about the system and all of the unique elements that make Wikipedia the fascinating endeavor that it is. I have recently begun to add my own touches to articles, interconnecting and disambiguating and wikifying. I admit freely that I am relatively new to this process, particularly given the experience of many other candidates.
That might be a strength.
I am eager to provide a fresh perspective to the committee. I haven't been around that long, I don't have any biases to fall back onto. Nor do I have a preconcieved notion as to how the site (or the committee) should function. This may make me a sort of "odd man out", where a pseudo-outsider is brought into the committee to provide just that fresh perspective. My experience is with the encyclopedia; I believe it is the duty of each committee member to evaluate the merits of each case in terms of impacts to the Wikipedia project as a whole. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and any decision must reflect that ultimate goal.
I agree with and support the hastening of the process; arbitration should not take forever. It is important to ensure that the committee is able to make an informed and reasoned decision, and time must be allotted for due diligence. With the committment of the committee members, I believe that this due diligence does not need to take forever.
It is unfortunate when a case escalates to the point of ArbCom's involvement, but such cases can and will occur from time to time. The committee's committment to swift and fair resolution of such matters is precisely why such a committee can be effective as a final semi-judicial authority.
ZZ 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I am running for Arbitration comittee because I am a responsible contributor who reverts Vandalism, assists new editors, and Makes sure that Wikipedia is a clean, accurate Encyclopedia. I no longer state political opinons in Talk Pages.