Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut

This is the candidate statements page, where editors wishing to run in the 2008 Arbitration Committee elections have presented themselves and their nomination statement. Nominations are now closed.


Table of Contents.
AnthonyQBachler  · Carcharoth  · Casliber  · Charles Matthews
Cool Hand Luke  · Coren  · Dream Focus  · Fish and karate  · George The Dragon
Hemlock Martinis  · Jayvdb  · Jdforrester
Justice America  · Kmweber  · Lankiveil  · Lifebaka  · Privatemusings  · Risker
Rlevse  · RMHED  · Roger Davies  · Shell Kinney  · SirFozzie
The Fat Man Who Never Came Back  · Trojanpony  · Vassyana  · White Cat
Wizardman  · Withdrawn candidates.

Standing candidates

[edit]

AnthonyQBachler

[edit]
My intention is to assist in arbitration on matters of technical or historical fact, or where necessary, disagreement on technical terminology. My list of contributions is rather long, some minor, some major, and include a few articles that I created. I have been a member of Wikipedia since shortly after it began.

Carcharoth

[edit]

I'm User:Carcharoth, and I first edited in January 2005, began editing regularly in January 2006, and became an administrator in October 2007. My editing interests are mostly in the areas of science, history, and history of science - mainly gnomelike work but also bringing several articles to higher standards. I also have a long history of contributions in the project and other namespaces. I am standing for election to the Arbitration Committee to serve all members of the diverse community that build this encyclopedia. The attributes I think I would bring to the role, helping to resolve or end otherwise intractable disputes, are:

  • Flexibility to adapt to the needs of different cases
  • The time and inclination to carry out careful analysis of cases
  • Over two years sustained editing of Wikipedia with wide-ranging experience of different areas
  • Specific experience at administrators' noticeboards (especially AN and ANI)
  • Participation at Arbitration requests, evidence and workshop pages
  • Knowledge of the major Wikipedia policies and guidelines
  • Remaining objective and fair and being able to see both sides of a dispute
  • Being able to argue effectively and articulately for a particular position
  • Attention to detail, research skills and summarizing a debate to move it forward
  • The imagination to propose something different where it might help resolve a dispute

Over the next two weeks, I intend to expand on these and other thoughts in a longer statement in my userspace. I have been reviewing my editing over the last two years, and will be linking to examples of debates and discussions that I have participated in, to demonstrate what I might bring to the role. Concerning the specific major issues that have arisen this year in the English Wikipedia, I will be happy to answer questions on those topics, as well as areas not covered in this statement.

While considering whether to run in this election, I said to several other editors that I thought it would be particularly hard-fought. There are lots of able candidates that are standing in this election, many of whom care deeply about Wikipedia, even if there are differences in philosophy. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I pledge to support those who are elected. If I am elected, I pledge to work closely with the current and new arbitrators to resolve disputes in a timely manner and address the concerns of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

[edit]

Hello, I am Casliber (which happens to be an unspaced version of my real name) and have been editing since May 2006, and an admin since March 2007. I am nominating myself for arbcom as I feel I have some attributes which may be of benefit to wikipedia in difficult cases.

My main role is as a contributor and coordinator of (hopefully) quality content; wikipedia excels in its opportunity and use of collaborative editing. No man editor is an island and the skills in various areas of putting pen to paper (or digital equivalent) that I have improved on since I have been here I have been impressed and grateful for. I have spent most time in areas which make use of collaborative editing; Featured Article, DYK and (to a lesser extent) Good Article writing, as well as involvement with various wikiprojects (Fungi, Dinosaurs, Birds, D&D, medicine, some sports etc.), and have thought of ways of how to bring out the best in people with respect to article writing and improvement.

Now in my day job I am a psychiatrist and part of my job/role/skill-set/training etc. involves listening and watching and figuring out things like whether people are able to negotiate and collaborate with others, and if/how they can assume responsibility.

I figure experience in both of these areas may be useful in analysing difficult cases in how firmly to apply remedies or when to cut some slack in figuring out what is ultimately best for the 'pedia and how to get the best out of users.

Another point I'd like to make is that doctors generally shouldn't treat themselves or their families; the analogy here is arbcom. Many currently involved, and seeking to get elected have been involved for some time. This is a good thing and I fully support their involvement. However, I do think the committee may benefit from some experienced wikipedians who may not have been heavily involved and are hence more able to make objective observations and recommendations in some cases where arbcom members may be involved or a particular case is critical of some aspect integral to arbcom in some way.

Thus, if folks feel this is a benefit, I am happy to serve. If people feel all candidates should be heavily experienced, then so be it. Ask away.

Charles Matthews

[edit]

You can think of me as a continuity candidate. On leave at the start of 2008, I took more leave in mid-August, returning recently. The reasons were very different. In between we were shorthanded, and I did first drafts in a couple of major cases, because that was needed work. (Then Newyorkbrad returned and I could take some personal time to deal with real life.)

Time away from the Arbitration intray did give me chance to think over the (bruising) job. Basically I’m a backroom boy: I do committee work and drafting in collective discussions, deal with block appeals and people with a beef, and quiet diplomacy. This matters, but why?

First metaphor: Wikipedia is a fantastic vehicle, but the suspension isn’t so great. The “backroom” absorbs some of the shocks so that others can get on with article work. (Which is what I also do, mostly.) Second explanation: the Internet, folks, is a place where the “average case” people and the “worst case” people are very, very different. People should be treated as normal and decent unless there’s a reason otherwise. But the worst case can be pretty bad. Hence there is the toxic stuff, and a need for a group who really can collectively face up to what actually happens (it is going to).

A non-vintage year, 2008, for Arbitration, but there have been reasons. Moving on, here’s my take: Arbitration always has been run much like “WikiProject Arbitration”. The reforms people suggest usually look like conversions to something more like an onwiki process, and that may yet happen. Ask a candidate, not what are the advantages of something more process-like (obviously quicker and more predictable, in routine matters), but what are the potential drawbacks? Things we know from onsite: Would it become the preserve of a smaller group who care most? Full of arcane rules and wonkish? Fine for standard situations but giving odd results when matters required anything unorthodox? Generally, wouldn’t it suffer from restricted insight, when you need the full range of perceptions?

Of two kinds of good Arbitrators: “legal naturals” and “people of good sense” (non-exclusive), I can’t claim to be the first, rarer sort, so I’ll run as the second. My old credo will do. Single tough case to remember: “Attack sites”. I was active in horsetrading it to a conclusion. Not everyone was pleased, but the underlying issue stopped being so divisive.

Cool Hand Luke

[edit]
Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.
Thank you. Cool Hand Luke

Coren

[edit]
Hello!
I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work. As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement. Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.
I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it. Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.
I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:
  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
  • Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".
Thank you for your consideration.

Dream Focus

[edit]

I don't believe any one person should be able to decide if an article is deleted, or even a significant portion of itself deleted. Nor should this be decided by just whatever three random strangers are around at the time a third party moderator is called for. If dozens of people have contributed to an article over the years, and none of them had a problem with its size, then why should the opinion of a handful of people who don't care about the subject at all, be able to decide this? Most users will never bother to post their opinions unfortunately, and most people don't return to reread an article they liked, or mark it to watch, to keep track of what's going on.

  • If there is ever a arbitration called for, to settle a dispute between editors, I'll make certain the "its too long, and I prefer short articles" excuse for editing is never considered valid. An article is judged by its context, not its length.
  • The size of an article is never an excuse to erase information from it. If the information is valid to the article, it should remain. If it can be put on a side page, so be it. If not, leave it alone. I doubt most people mind scrolling down to read through a lengthy article, if they are interested in the subject.

I might not always make the right choices straight away, but I do patiently discuss things, try to figure everything out, and then make a rational decision. I will listen to all sides of any argument, and work to settling things in a fair and logical way. Dream Focus (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish and karate

[edit]

Hello. I'm Neil, also known as User:Fish and karate. I've been on Wikipedia since March 2005, and an admin since April 2006.

In that time, I've contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, both as an editor and as an administrator. I believe the experience and knowledge I've accumulated over this time would stand me in excellent stead as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Why do I want to volunteer my time to be a member of the Committee? Because I believe I can contribute in a positive manner, and help the Arbitration Committee to act as the body it was created to be - a group of experienced users that resolve disputes that the community could not resolve. I participated extensively (under my former username, Neil) in the recent RFC on the Arbitration Committee's standards and practices - see here, here, and here. I am knowledgeable in the way ArbCom functions, and would not become overwhelmed by the volume of work or of the complexity.

The priority is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This means everyone's priority should be "what makes the encyclopedia better"? Things that make Wikipedia better:

  1. Well-written, researched, interesting content
  2. Collaborative editing
  3. A strong, consistent, and ethical approach to decision-making
  4. Clear and timely communication
  5. Politeness
  6. The avoidance of hostility
  7. Understanding
  8. Empathy with another's point of view

My decision-making, as part of Arbitration work, will be made based on the above. I believe strongly in trying to rehabilitate "problem" users. I believe in a light touch when it comes to "punitive measures". Targeted editing restrictions rather than wholescale blocks, progressive blocks rather than indefinite bans for those whose intentions are good but methods are poor. I believe in Wikipedia, and want it to continue to be the single best example there is of collaborative contributing. I believe that as a part of the Arbitration Committee, I could play my small part in enabling that to continue. Thanks for reading. fish&karate 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George The Dragon

[edit]

I, George The Dragon, am standing in order to give the community a chance to decide how they are governed. Currently, User:Jimbo Wales decides who to appoint to the Arbcom. Mr Wales retains the right to ignore the results of this poll and appoint whomever he so desires. A vote for me will be a vote to say this situation is not right and then Mr Wales will have to decide whether to appoint me or use his powers as Wikipedia's de facto Constitutional Monarch to appoint someone else.

Has not Wikipedia now reached a stage where we need to be free of the whims and personal views of one man?

It's really as simple as that: Who governs Wikipedia - one man or all of us?

Hemlock Martinis

[edit]

I've been an active contributor since October 2006 and an administrator since April 2007. I have three main issues. The first one is speediness. Like many members of the community, I am frustrated by the drawn out, time-consuming endurance feats that some of these cases have become. Last year when I ran, I promised a speedier and more efficient case evaluation. This year, we saw a case so long that ArbCom actually apologized. These kinds of delays make it more difficult for the Arbitration Committee to effectively deliver judgment. These delays undermine ArbCom's authority. They need to stop. I was right then, and I'm right now.

The second is boldness. There is a feeling of fear among Arbitration Committee members about overstepping perceived bounds. This has caused two negative results: first, there is a stagnation in new ideas and novel approaches to solving cases; and two, the Arbitration Committee often finds itself unwilling or unable to sanction long-time entrenched editors due to the perceived status of those editors. This is baloney, and it needs to end. The same boldness that allowed us to build this encyclopedia must now be used to police it.

The third issue is common sense. I've watched these proceedings get bogged down in legalese jargon and misleading explanations. If one editor says its raining and another editor says its snowing, ArbCom ought to be able to just look outside. ArbCom needs to move away from stirring testimonials and stories of how so-and-so is a "valued editor" or a "longstanding member of the community", and start moving towards actually assessing an editor's actions and effects. In judging these cases, I would use what I refer to as the "House test" - does an editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh that editor's negative impact on the community? Change is needed.

Please help me put ArbCom back on track. Thank you. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 20:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayvdb

[edit]

Hi. My name is John Vandenberg. I have provided a detailed history about myself on my userpage. I believe that arbitrators should be very open and honest about their formal education and experience in order that the community can make informed decisions about who to vote for, and so that people coming to the committee for arbitration can get a feel for the people that will be making the decisions.

I served as an Arbitration Clerk for much of the first half of 2008. I resigned due to a messy affair, which has since been settled amicably. This experience, and the termination of it, was an eye opener. I am aware of the responsibility, workload and difficulty involved.

My commitments:

  1. I will not edit policy pages or influence policy. This is the responsibility of the community, and arbitrators should not write the policies that they will use in decisions.
  2. I will oppose any remedy that is not substantially grounded in existing policy that was written by the community, or on resolutions passed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  3. I will be highly active and available, or I will step down and turn in my "access".

I will bring to the committee:

  1. Broad technical skills to automate tasks that the committee regularly performs, and improve processes where possible.
  2. Broad experience and exposure to the culture, policies and leaders of most of the WMF projects. There are very few arbs, ex-arbs, or other candidates who have measurable experience outside of English Wikipedia.
  3. Broad language skills - I can only write in English, however I enjoy working with foreign languages and people who don't have a good grasp of English
  4. Limited patience for long & drawn out cases. Quick and measured solutions that result in the least amount of pain and disruption are good. Perfect is the enemy of good.
  5. Limited wiki-friendships with the elite in the power structure here on Wikipedia. It will be rare that I need to be recused.

Whilst on the committee, my mission for reform within the committee and arbitration process will be to:

  1. Encourage participatory democracy.
  2. Fire the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up.
  3. Require that arbitration cases have a clear scope before they open.
See here for more detailed explanations of these three points.

Jdforrester

[edit]
I'm now coming to the end of my fifth year as an Arbitrator, having helped found the Committee in 2003/4. I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others would provide. Necessarily, in the five years I've been working on and around the Committee, I have given a number of people reasons to take a dislike to me, to find something I've said or done, or some position I've held, with which to disagree. Further, I can understand - and empathize with - those who think that it's time for a change, that long-serving Arbitrators are part of the problem, having habituated ourselves and our working practices to the processes as we've developed them. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the validity of those concerns; that's the community's rôle, and reasonably so. Indeed, I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions.

Justice America

[edit]
I feel Wikipedia's Arbcom needs a real shaking up, and I'm the one to do it. I've observed this site for years, though I generally have shied from making physical edits. In real life I'm a lawyer, and will use my legalese to work through even the most difficult cases. I feel my lack of connection here makes me an ideal candidate, as I have no conflicts of interest. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you look past my inexperience. Justice America (talk) 08:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber

[edit]
My beliefs on the Arbitration Committee are fairly well-known, but if you're out of the loop...I think it's utterly illegitimate. However, I do recognize that my efforts to either formally eliminate it or, (preferably, for a variety of mostly symbolic reasons) simply convince the community to ignore it altogether are not likely to be successful in the short term. It's a long road ahead, and while I'm traversing it I need to find a way to minimize its negative impact on the community in the meantime.
The Arbitration Committee (yes, I have a better name for it, and besides what it engages in is not "arbitration" in any sense anyway, but I digress...) operates primarily by exercising power it does not and has never legitimately possessed. Though, true, the members are elected by the community (ignoring for a minute the fact that one man who is not all that special and also exercises power he does not and has never legitimately possessed holds a veto over anyone he disapproves of), the Committee itself was never created by the community. It was forced upon the community, and so regardless of how its membership is chosen it remains illegitimate.
So why do I want to participate on an illegitimate committee? Frankly, I don't. As a member, I will vote to decline any and all cases submitted to it, politely suggesting instead that the involved parties go to a legitimate form of dispute resolution, such as RfC, mediation, or any other mechanism that may be created by the community (and therefore has legitimate authority).
I'm not an opponent of hierarchy and authority in the abstract. I am an opponent of de facto authority that does not have its source as an express creation of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the latter, and a vote for me is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs.

Lankiveil

[edit]

I've been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and I thought that I might as well throw my hat in the ring here. Arbcom is an important mechanism for resolving disputes and solving problems that can't otherwise be solved, but despite the best efforts of the current slate of arbitrators, I feel that it has not lived up to the community's expectations. Wikipedia needs a strong and decisive arbcom that can solve problems quickly before they flare up into serious issues, and not an arbcom that is seen to conduct its affairs in secret, dither on controversial cases, take astonishing amounts of time to come to decisions, or end up delivering "soft" resolutions that do little to resolve antisocial behaviour and little to prevent further disruption to the project.

I can't promise to resolve all of these problems myself, but I will promise to:

  • Involve myself in a limited number of cases at first, in order to maximise the amount of attention that I can devote to each one.
  • Vote on proposals promptly in an attempt to reach a consensus as quickly as possible, thus avoiding delays in closing cases and all the uncertainties involved for those concerned.
  • Promote an arbcom that is as open and accountable as possible.
  • Engage with any and all parties to ensure that both I and the arbcom as a whole remain accessible to the community at large.
  • Should I go inactive or be unable to discharge by arbcom duties in a timely manner, I will resign in order to allow another, more active arbitrator to take my place, thus allowing the committee as a whole to continue with a 'full team on the park'.

Reasons that you should support me:

  • I have a long editing record stretching back to 2004, free of any major disputes or drama.
  • I have a level head and can make reasonable, commonsense decisions; I was described as "Steady, clueful, trustworthy" and "can be trusted" at my RFA.
  • I believe that drama of any sort only hurts the project, and will take a strong stand against it.
  • I have a solid record of contributions, both as an editor and as an administrator, which I believe show that I am dedicated to this project, and that my judgement is sound and that I can be trusted.

Thankyou for your consideration, and best of luck to all the other candidates.

lifebaka

[edit]
Looking over the other candidates these past two weeks, I haven't seen all that much diversity in them. Pretty much all the strong candidates have lots of involvement at ANI, RFA, other arbitration, etc. While there's nothing wrong with this, I'd like to supply at least some sort of alternative. So, here I am, metaphorically standing as a candidate (I do most of my editing seated, to be honest).
As far as arbitration itself goes, I'm a complete outsider. I've never participated in any case in any way. I do, however, learn fast (then again, so do we all; the learning curve for Wikipedia is pretty steep), so I should be fine in the long run. I assure voters that I wouldn't be running if I didn't feel I am capable of doing a good job on the Committee.
Most of the time I've been active on Wikipedia, both before and after becoming an admin earlier this year, has been spent around the various article deletion processes, at first AfD and then the CSD and DRV. I've worked at DRV for nearly a year now, and am active in editing the CSD policy page and the talk pages of all three. The skill set used in making the decisions for these processes is entirely different from those used at ANI and the like, which I believe would be a useful asset to ArbCom. I also hope it gives me a slightly different perspective than most of the other candidates.
My thoughts on what ArbCom should be doing are pretty much what everyone else says. It should be fast and responsive. Supposing that I am elected, I will do my best to be both, insofar as I am able. Beyond that, I'll try to cause as few drahmahz as possible.
Well, here goes nothing. I sign here, right? lifebaka++ 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusings

[edit]
Privatemusings
for ArbCom.
Listen to PM explain his perspectives - and check out the 5 big ideas

If you've got a moment, I'd love you to take a look at my 5 big ideas. Thanks!

G'day Wikipedians :-)

I've been around the wiki for a few years now - less than some, but more than most, I'd say (reader from 2003 onwards, dabbler 2004, registered my first account 2005).... Head over to my userpage for important background, and of course feel free to ask any questions of me you'd like

I've been fairly critical of arbcom on a number of levels for quite a while, and feel it's only fair to stick my hand up, and offer a few ideas as part of my candidature. This is a preliminary statement - there is more here, and here are a few 'key' aspects of my thinking;

  • I am not an admin - it is a 'good thing' to have a non-administrator representative on arbcom.
  • I will stand for re-election after 1 year regardless of term lengths - if I'd like to go longer, I can stick my hand up again, and you will get to decide :-)
  • Arbcom has fallen way short of best practice on a number of levels, and in many ways we set up some of our best editors to fail... I'll be sharing more of my ideas about ways to fix some things, which I hope you may consider :-);
  • Arbcom Communications are appalling! - I will respond to emails, discuss matters on my talk page, and post actively to case pages. I will be a dynamic arb where possible!
  • The two watch words of my approach (tatooed on the backs of my weary hands) will be "De-escalate" and "Resolve" - to this end I will ask questions, offer suggestions, and where necessary apply sanctions.
  • Content is king - and the best content editors are the true kings of the wiki. This is important.
  • I will create an Arb Surgery - not as painful as it sounds, rather the concept that I will be regularly available, in real time, 'on wiki', in voice conversation, or via any practicable means to talk about anything any Wikipedian would like to. Every Sunday evening, UTC, any wiki editor can simply talk something through with me as an arb, if they'd like.
  • I don't really like the existence of 'Oppose' voting - so if you'd really really like to Oppose someone - make it me, and make me your only 'Oppose' vote - this too is important in my view, so please give it some thought. Thanks!

Vote Privatemusings!


Risker

[edit]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It’s created by people from all over the world, drawn to the opportunity to share their knowledge, skills and talent, without material benefit. From brilliant writers to wikignomes, with many in between, there is one common thread: we all have hopeful hearts. We see value and potential in freely sharing knowledge with the world, in a single, widely encompassing source.

The same thing that makes Wikipedia special is also its Achilles heel. Bringing together such a large group of people from different cultures, social skills and educational levels means there is plenty of room for normal human disagreements. Disputes are magnified and can quickly escalate as a result of the imperfection of written communication combined with strong feelings and divergent interpretations of policy, English usage, and intention. When behaviour violates our policies, we employ dispute resolution. These processes seem to have more good intention than good effect, because they often fail to change the behaviours or resolve the dispute.

Arbitration is intended to address editorial behavioural issues with the goal of removing roadblocks to the continued improvement of the encyclopedia, yet it tends to do this in a remarkably superficial way. Instead of drilling down to identify the root cause(s) of the problems, it is largely dependent on the commentary of interested parties and context-free “diffs” that give only snapshots of often complex situations. Transparency is not a priority. Well-considered commentary is drowned out by acrimonious hyperbole and self-serving rhetoric. Arbitrators frequently fail to identify the heart of the problem, and their decisions give the appearance of taking the path of least resistance rather than the path to resolution. All who are involved come away disillusioned and disheartened, regardless of the final decision. The process itself exacerbates the harm it seeks to halt.

My contribution, should I be appointed to the Arbitration Committee, will be to ask questions and expect—and give—straightforward responses; to prevent arbitration pages from becoming just another battleground; and to encourage editors uninvolved in the conflict to develop evidence that dispassionately illustrates the core issues instead of the peripheral distractions. We need to re-establish the Arbitration Committee as a place to resolve disputes in a collaborative and positive way without inflicting further harm on ourselves, our hopeful hearts. Because, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.


Rlevse

[edit]

Earlier this year, I had no intention whatsoever of running for ArbCom, ever. Then several people started telling me that they wished I’d run for Arbcom, so I carefully studied the situation, and here I am accepting this great challenge.

I have been an editor since November 2005, an administrator since February 2007, and have worked closely with ArbCom since becoming an arbitration clerk in November 2007. However, I am still grounded in what we are here for—building an encyclopedia: I have significantly contributed to 15 featured articles, 1 featured portal, and 1 featured list. Additional ArbCom-related areas I'm active in are sockpuppet investigations, checkuser requests, the incidents noticeboard, and arbitration enforcement.

I sympathize with the many concerns the community has voiced about the committee this year but also understand the frustrations and problems the arbitrators themselves face every day. Every new inductee promises that they will make the arbitration process faster, but they learn on day one just how hard it is to get fifteen people to do something, especially when it's dealing with contentious, emotion-laden situations. That being said, I totally agree that things do need to be handled more swiftly without sacrificing thoroughness and fairness. Taking over a month to vote on an arbitration case and allowing three months for evidence submission is simply way too long and unfair to all participants. I feel that the arbitrators are dedicated editors who have integrity and do endeavor to carry out their duties the best they can; I do not think they are the problem, rather, it's the system that needs to be fixed. The community needs to agree on how to do that. The transparency of the committee needs to be greater, while maintaining due concern for privacy. Their workflow management needs to be modified. As the English Wikipedia has grown so large, these problems have been exacerbated; the process needs to be adjusted in reaction. Arbitrators are inundated with work and we need to see how we can make that flow better.

Additionally, the long term ethnic wars concern me, as do the various cliques that try to control articles' content. We need to be very firm with those who refuse to by our policies and help foster a positive, collegial atmosphere for building the encyclopedia. We want Wikipedia to be known as a reputable reference work, not as a battlefield for vandals and POV-pushers; ArbCom needs to be firmer against these malefactors. I assure you that I will work to the best of my capacity and be as fair as possible.

RMHED

[edit]
The path forward is seldom clear.

I'm me, yes I can definitely confirm that. Been around Wikipedia for quite a while.
As for my statement I think this sums it up nicely " If you want to see the shit hit the fan, then vote for me ! "

I am happy to answer any and all questions, though I can't guarantee that you'll like the answers.

Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure I'd just like to categorically state that I am not an alcoholic, a drunk maybe, but definitely NOT an alcoholic.


Roger Davies

[edit]
Update (5 December 2008) - links to discussion of key issues: Secret evidence • Biographies of living people • POV-warring • Incivility • Undoing admin actions • Former arbitrators on the mailing list • Arbitrator recall • Vacating arbitrations • Reforming checkuser/oversight rights • Speeding up decisions • Tendentious editing and civil POV pushers.

With ArbCom perhaps at its lowest ebb, and attracting high levels of dissatisfaction, this incoming tranche of arbitrators will not only have to handle cases but also face reforming the way the committee works. Perhaps the most urgent priority is tackling perceptions of growing irrelevance, lack of transparency through excessive use of private space, and delay. I believe I am well-equipped for the job as I have considerable parallel experience.

Introducing me ... in a nutshell: active editor since April 2007; a Milhist coordinator since August 2007; administrator since February 2008; Milhist lead coordinator since March 2008; significant contributor to five featured articles; copy-editor for six more; dispute resolver; and intermittent wiki-gnome. See my user page for more wiki-biography stuff, article lists, languages and so on.

Otherwise, I'm calm and analytical, with no axes to grind. I try to combine civility with brevity and good humour. (Strangely, I also enjoy drafting text for simplicity and clarity, and have done a far amount of this with Milhist guidelines.) I rarely get irritated and never show it. I am used to negotiating consensus in difficult and/or innovative areas. So although I have had much to do with Wikipedian organisation in general, I have had little to do with ArbCom and thus come to this with a fresh mind.

If elected, I am likely to

  • spend the first month or so easing myself into arbitration, while I learn the ropes thoroughly and familiarise myself with what has gone before;
  • use my position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency, a minimum of secrecy, and faster decision-making;
  • prioritise winning back the support of the community;
  • seek consensus (probably through open workshops) for developing fast-track and summary procedures.

Shell Kinney

[edit]
Without pointing specific fingers there are a lot of things broke about the way ArbCom works at the moment - mailing list leaks that haven't been plugged, super secret trials and information - tons of things that seemed like silly little flea bites when they started are now out of control festering sores that no one knows how to fix. I'm afraid my style is a bit more cauterize the wounds and a bit less touchy-feely recovery, but I think some honesty, frankness and transparency might just be the things that can turn around some of these disturbing trends. More at User:Shell Kinney/ArbCom2008.

SirFozzie

[edit]

The last year has been a rough one for the Arbitration Committee. Several tough cases have come before ArbCom, and they'll be the first to admit that missteps have been made. There need to be new blood and new ideas on the Arbitration Committee, and I think that I am a good candidate to bring both to Wikipedia's last step in dispute resolution.

First, I must make a preemptive pledge. The Arbitration Committee has had a high percentage of burnout, since its inception. It takes a lot out of anyone who has to necessarily be knee deep in every major conflict on the encyclopedia. There are items being proposed that would revamp the number of users on the Arbitration Committee, as well as the length of time in a term. I have made a proposal that seemed to get good community support, that would limit ArbCom terms to two years. I will hold myself to those terms: If elected, I will inform Jimbo that I wish my "tranche" to end in December 2010, and will either finish my post at that time, or run for re-election at that time.

The Arbitration Commitee has generally served Wikipedia well, but as more and more "old-hands" on the committee have succumbed to burnout and battle fatigue, there's been stutters, a sense that sometimes, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's also been a sense that ArbCom has become a bit more like a deity sitting on high, taking pleadings from petitioners, and then issuing proclamations from above. In several cases I've been in front of ArbCom, there was a sense of the community that they wished ArbCom would help provide guidance in a case, on what evidence that they wanted to see, which was not forthcoming.

I see a more open Arbitration Committee coming. One more accountable to its users that elect it. One making wiser decisions.

Due to pure turnover, the Arbitration Committee IS changing. Now we, the users of Wikipedia have our own charge. The arbitrators that we elect, over the next two or three years, will greatly influence how ArbCom in turn influences the encyclopedia. It's in your hands. Elect the candidates that you think will be able to influence the encyclopedia the best way.

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

[edit]
Greetings, neighbors and colleagues. I am the Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I have voiced my ongoing displeasure with the Committee's performance this year, complaining that the committee as a whole is ineffectual, indecisive, uncommunicative and largely unresponsive to the demands and needs of the community. Many colleagues who share this point of view, or who otherwise tire of the "types" of candidates being perennially regurgitated, have begged me to run for a spot on the Committee. I have avoided declaring my candidacy in the hope that several bold, fresh and plausible voices from outside the crowd of AN/I and RfARB regulars would step onto the stage. For the most part, they have not materialized; the names I see on the ballot (while sometimes indicative of decent editors and administrators, impressive in their encyclopedic accomplishments) do not inspire confidence that an overhaul of the way ArbCom functions is likely, or even possible. With seven open seats, this may be the only real opportunity to radically change the composition and disposition of the Committee over the next few years.
The committee needs an injection of independence, clear communication and common sense. I support a more welcoming environment for expert content contributors and strong writers as well as an end to internal cronyism, favoritism and needless behind-the-scenes machinations. Though the Committee does not dictate editorial policy, I would not refrain from using my position on the Committee to throw considerable weight behind reforms that would help bolster Wikipedia's prestige with the outside world: greater sensitivity toward BLPs; exploring the implementation of flagged revisions; and an easy and straightforward process for demoting poorly performing administrators. Let the Fat Man help regain your trust and confidence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trojanpony

[edit]
I'm just a really nice guy. :)

Vassyana

[edit]
I have answered a candidate "vote guide" at User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Vassyana. My candidacy is based around three principles: devolution, project principles, and coherent interpretation.
Devolution is devolving responsibility to the standing administrators and broader community. This would not preclude me from supporting sanctions and other measures as part of an ArbCom case. The community generally expects action to be taken on ArbCom cases. However, I would clearly and explicitly remind the community of their options and encourage them to take the initiative and action in similar circumstances. ArbCom needs to clearly encourage and support admins and the community in resolving disruptive behavior.
Wikipedia has a number of project principles that form the foundation of our policies and guidelines. I am more likely to support decisions firmly grounded in these foundational principles and would oppose decisions outside of these principles. In cases where the principle is clear but policy is vague, I would act in favor of the underlying principle and encourage the community to clarify the policy.
Coherent interpretation is key to the healthy function of ArbCom and the community. On a number of occasions various policies, principles and ArbCom decisions are perceived to be in tension (or even contradictory). I believe that this is an erroneous approach resulting from a failure to consider the various factors in context. Rules, principles, and standing precedent should not considered individually in a vacuum. I will endeavor to interpret the rules and precedent in whatever manner results in the most complementary and coherent reading. Acting otherwise leads to inconsistent decisions and fragmented rules.

I believe most, if not all, concerns about ArbCom can be addressed by acting on these principles. In terms of process, I support transparent arbitration proceedings and decisions. All ArbCom decisions should have explicit reasonings and arbitrators should be open to elaborating on decisions to clear up any lack of understanding in the community. I am open to any and all questions that will help you make a decision on my candidacy. Vassyana (talk) 16:56, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Cat

[edit]

I want to make this statement more of a Q&A to more efficiently express why I am a candidate.

You can see it here: actual statement

The reason why it is a separate page is my statement is a mere 629 words which is "well over" the 400 word limit.


Wizardman

[edit]

Twelve months after an election that I was not yet ready for, I have kept watch on the Arbitration Committee in the past year, looking through the cases, understanding the ways and means of WP:ARBCOM, and the benefits and flaws this system entails. This year, I believe I am very qualified, willing, and ready for the responsibilities.

I've been a user since March 06, admin since January 07, WP:MEDCOM member since February 08, and have been deeply involved in WP:RFC/U since July 08. The combination of the final two has given me a strong insight into what being an arbcom member entails. Heck, I even wrote up a proposed decision for a case this year (wasn't used by arbcom obviously, but it was good practice). Though while I have my own version of experience, I can also provide change. How so? Simple. Arbcom is a body that can be good, but there's a few flaws I can fix: How fast we handle issues, how transparent our actions are, and how well we do what we're supposed to.

You see, ArbCom has had several cases go over three months, with voting going 1+ month. That won't do. It just punishes the innocent who have to wait for a ruling. Waiting a month for an arbitrator to vote is a sign they're not doing their job. As for transparency, i'm talking about arbcom makes sure that users know why they're ruling how they're ruling. This includes when voting is in place; put up many possibly FoFs and remedies and let all arbcom members vote how they see fit.

You do not have to agree with every decision I make. But if you know why I made the decision I did, why I voted the way I did, and if you can respect my decision despite disagreement, than I have done my job. I promise that I will do my job strenuously to the best of my ability, and I guarantee that I will not disappoint you if I am worthy enough for your vote. Wizardman

A quick note that my wikibreaks and time struggles were only a byproduct of this semester at university, my subsequent semesters will be far less time-consuming. Wizardman 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn candidates

[edit]
Candidates who withdrew prior to voting.

Bishzilla, Bishzilla (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 19:30, November 17, 2008.
Catherine de Burgh, Catherine de Burgh (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 23:04, November 18, 2008.
Phil Sandifer, Phil Sandifer (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 02:55, November 19, 2008.
NWA.Rep, NWA.Rep (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:47, November 24, 2008.
Hersfold, Hersfold (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 04:22, November 25, 2008.
Secret, Secret (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 16:25, November 25, 2008.

Candidates who withdrew whilst voting was underway.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements&oldid=977953073"