This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Epopt (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 3 November 2006 (the Epopt will not be standing for election). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 16:43, 3 November 2006 by The Epopt (talk | contribs) (the Epopt will not be standing for election)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)This is the page for candidate statements from those wishing to run in the December 2006 arbcom elections. Anyone with over 1000 edits on en.wikipedia may run.
- Statements should be less than 400 words although candidates are free to link to a longer statement should they so wish.
- Statements will be accepted until 23:59 1st of December 2006 (UTC).
- Statements should be in alphabetical order by username and in the following format (sed lingua latina non necessarium esse):
===]=== Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. ]
Candidate Statements
Avraham
The Arbitration Committee is an integral part of the smooth running of the wikipedia community. I have always done my absolute best to be fair and accurate, both while editing, in discourse with other editors, and in performance of my administrative duties. I understand that we all have a point-of-view, and that is one of the main elements that makes wikipedia so special. The other element, however, is the agreement we all make with each other to function within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, as fluid or rigid as they may be. One of the main purposes of ArbCom is to act as the arbitors of last resort (barring Jimbo, of course) who handle cases which have exhausted all prior mediation means, while maintaining a professional view of the situation—personal views notwithstanding. It is a difficult, and often thankless, position but one without which our community and encyclopædia would crash and burn in an inferno of flamewars and trolling. Applying a measured sense of reason, a desire to be fair and equitable to all participants, and a liberal smattering of humor, I feel that my background, temperament, wikiediting history, and administrative activities, together with some deep-breathing exercises, would allow me to contribute to the community as a whole in this fashion, and it would be an honor and a privilege to continue to give back to the community and the project in this way.
Thank you.
Crzrussian
I love this project. I have considerable experience improving it as a user and an administrator. If elected to the Arbitration Committee, I will continue doing the work of developing The 💕 at a higher level - but with the same dedication. Besides its traditional duty of identifying and neutralizing repeat policy violators, I believe the Committee will play an increasingly significant role in guarding against abuse among our swelling administrator ranks and in ridding Misplaced Pages of policy and feature creep that has made it so difficult for inexperienced users and anons to contribute. I have made it my priority over the past year to stay as transparent and communicative as possible, and I intend to continue doing the same if elected, making the arbitration process a little less opaque.
So why would you want Crzrussian on the Arbitration Committee?
- I am in the trenches every day, doing the work.
- I am communicative, accountable, and transparent.
- I will collaborate effectively with the other arbitrators.
- I have completed 2+ years of law school.
- My Arbitration Practicum professors gave me an A+. (Really!)
- And last but not least, I love this project!
Daniel.Bryant
Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Misplaced Pages. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Misplaced Pages's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.
Kirill Lokshin
I've been a Wikipedian since June 2005 and an admin since October of the same year; at one point or another, I think I've tried my hand at most of the more interesting activities on Misplaced Pages. (Most of my time is spent working here, if anyone is curious.) I've participated in a handful of ArbCom cases, both as an involved party and as a not-entirely-mute member of the peanut gallery.
Broadly speaking, I think the current ArbCom setup is more-or-less successful (aside, of course, from what seems to be a chronic lack of time on the part of the Arbitrators, and the resulting slow process). There has been a certain tendency, in some cases, to dodge the underlying problem in favor of a simpler superficial one, thus not really resolving the fundamental dispute; but this has been limited enough that it does not necessarily indicate a harmful trend.
Aside from that, I won't descend into any obscenely long ruminations on wiki-philosophical issues here; if anyone is interested in my opinion on something in particular, please don't hesitate to ask!
Kylu
I'm going for simplicity: I'll try to be reasonable, and remember to keep the best interests of Misplaced Pages first in my mind. If I think that I'm prejudiced regarding a case, I'll recuse. If you want to know my definitions of reasonableness, I'd ask you look to my actions, not my statements, but I'm willing to answer almost any questions you have. Thanks! :)
Messedrocker
Hello, Wikipedians!
For those who do not know me, I have been a Misplaced Pages contributor since November 2004 and an administrator since September 2006. Since I am interested in helping as much as possible, I would like to serve Misplaced Pages as an arbitrator. Why me? To put it simply — I would do it. I am aware how aggravating the Arbitration experience is, which should come as no surprise seeing as Arbitration is the end of the line for dispute resolution. You have to have a pretty special case if it ends up being presented before the ArbCom. Special cases require special attention, which I would be honored to give. How do I qualify?
For one, I have never been criticized for incivility or NPOV violations; I have made mistakes in the past but I have learned from them. In my opinion, a perfect arbitrator is one that is trusted. If anything indicates that people have trust in me, take a look at my successful RFA on Misplaced Pages which passed nearly unanimously, or my work on Wikinews, where I have been an admin for over a year and an arbitrator since September. Seeing as I have consistently displayed good judgment, the Wikinews community values me as a contributor. Simply put: as an arbitrator I would use my good judgment for the benefit of the community.
On Wikinews, I have successfully dealt with arguments. One situation, for example, had to do with a page move war. Instead of treating the situation as if it were vandalism, I recognized the true problem at hand: there was no coordination over what to name the article. Nevertheless, I handled the situation strictly, otherwise problems would have escalated. After discussing potential names with people, I then established a straw poll which worked miraculously; there was nearly total consensus for one name. Because I understood the underlying cause, the article achieved a single name.
Of course, I understand the difference between Arbitration and informal mediation. Particularly, I understand that Arbitration generally involves disputatious individuals who do not have the best of faith. Regardless, the reason for everything must be addressed. Successful arbitration in my opinion is as strict as needed, prevents bad things, allows good things, and finally, is efficient and generates as little DRAMA! as possible. I want the ArbCom to be able to say it works.
Please consider me for the Arbitration Committee.
MONGO
After being involved in having arbitration being brought up against me and my involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions, I know I am well versed in the process and procedures of arbitration. My biggest concern is a desire to see an improvement in the decision making timeline. I don't see anything as broken with the system, but will always be open to changes suggested by anyone, and will be more than happy to forward all reasonable requests to fellow arbitrators and the foundation. I have over 20,000 edits with 11,000 or so of those in wiki article space, four featured articles I either started or assisted on as well as another 200 plus other article starts. I am a strong defender of precedent and policy, demand heavily on the use of reliable sources and oppose attempts to misuse Misplaced Pages as a platform for advocacy. I will always recluse myself in cases I have a conflict of interest in, will be completely open to recall/review and demonstrate complete transparency in my edits, as I always have. Most of all, I want to ensure that those editors and issues which are problematic to ensuring we create the worlds most reliable encyclopedic source are dealt with swiftly and fairly. Thank you for your time.
Phil Sandifer
Being something of a glutton for punishment (An essential skill), I offer myself up again. If elected, I intend to focus on the task of writing proposed decisions - something that currently is done by one person. While Fred is quite capable of the task, a second pair of eyes in decision proposing is important, and will lend balance to the decisions.
I also think it is increasingly inevitable that the arbcom is going to have to get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content, and cases that involve trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep that increasingly leads to messes. The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation.
Beyond that, I would apply the philosophy that I've demonstrated in my actions on Misplaced Pages - a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.
PMA
If elected, I intend to focus on the task of arbitration as much as i can - i feel that my almost five years here have given me a pretty good insight into situations that might arise.
/Questions for PMA (I will be away until Monday for medical treatment so i will answer then)
QTJ
I nominate myself for this responsibility because at the core I have absolutely no desire to be a judge of others. This is not meant to be flippant. Sitting in judgment of others requires absolute disinterest and absolute lack of desire to judge in and of itself, in my opinion. The goal of arbitration is not to satisfy one's inner need to arbitrate, but to rectify wrongs and errors outside the person who is the arbitrator. So, lack of desire to be an arbitrator, in my view, qualifies me to be one. It requires that the judge him or herself be sober of the consequences of such a role.
It requires accountability to a deontological standard, and an understanding of teleological standards as well. The goals of the project must be weighed heavily against the spirit of the "rules".
I am not and would not ever seek to be an admin. This may prima facie seem to disqualify me by tradition. However, the separation of the ability to enforce the consequences of an arbitration and the ability to pass judgment have a long historical precedent in the real world in which Misplaced Pages exists to put forth its public face. I would not wish to carry out, but to assist in the interpretation of the system as it applies to each particular case brought forth for arbitration. Carrying out the decisions to their consequences, in my view, can lead to a conflict of interests.
Finally, not wishing to be in such a role, I feel my eagerness to vote to take on arbitration cases would be somewhat tempered by the desire to avoid being part of the ArbCom taking on so many cases as to be absolutely bogged down. Each and every case proposed for arbitration would therefore, in my eyes, be given a thorough and dispassionate cost-benefit analysis, and only those most likely to come to some higher good to the project if arbitrated would be voted into full arbitration.
The Bread
First up. Why Not vote for me?
I am a user who has and will get into disputes, I believe that our guidelines will be interpreted differently by different people, these are situations were the worst disputes arise. When two people have the rules on their side, and the dispute is settled by headcounting or Admins bully their way into winning the dispute. With me on the board you'll get someone who will stand up for the little user, and not let Admins, trolls and people who treat WP like a bureaucracy get away with whatever they want. I always endeavour to not get into a dispute, but they are unavoidable in a community where everyone has their own views. I am not the model WP user and have lost my cool a couple of times, and I know that the people who need their disputes resolved the most are the people who have lost their cool and see no other resort.
I will be a swift and speedy with dispute resolution as no-one wants a dispute to go on forever which is why they come to us, I will be adjective in my resolutions but as fair as I can be to both sides, I believe compromise or finding a middle ground is a good thing
Adios
UninvitedCompany
It has now been some years since I resigned my membership in the arbitration committee, and I think I'm ready to return. I have followed most of the arbitration cases brought in the meantime, and believe I can therefore provide consistency and continuity of decisionmaking. Most of my recent work (last six months or so) has been related to answering the Foundation's email, which has given me a new appreciation for the impact our articles make on the real world.
In general, I'm hoping that Wikipedians will offer their support to potential arbcom members based on their dedication to the project, judgment, and ability to keep cool -- not based on a platform. To the extent I can be said to have a platform, it is made up of these planks:
- The arbcom should not be involved in legislating policy - that's for the community alone
- Any reasonable means of speeding up the process should be adopted. Justice delayed is justice denied.
- I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.
- While I believe that partial remedies such as "probation" and article bans do have a place, I think they are overused and detract from the sense of fairness for people who go to the trouble to bring a case.
/Questions for UninvitedCompany
the Epopt
I am not standing for election this year, for personal reasons and to spend more time with my family and all those other standard lies. Actually, after three solid years of wading through the muck, I want to write encyclopedia articles for a while.