Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions

This page lists the candidates in the upcoming election to fill the two missing seats on the Arbitration committee.

If you are interested in this position, please add a brief candidate statement below. This should be no longer than 250 words and should outline your views on banning and how strict you feel the Arbitration Committee should be.

New entries to the bottom, please.

172

13:26, 25 Jul 2004 I'd like to enter myself into the race. Members of the arbitration committee should see the bigger picture and better distinguish between users mucking up Wikipedia with inane rubbish and users dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active user since December 2002 (ranked #60 on the most recent list of list of most active Wikipedians by number of edits on all namespaces), administrator since May 2003, and main author of a few featured articles, my user history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and fighting for scholarly standards on Wikipedia.

As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits. This is what I want to change. As an arbitrator, I'd favor focusing on the accuracy and constructiveness of the edits in question-- as opposed to the personalities-- to the greatest extent possible within the framework of the established norms, rules and procedures of the committee.

Wikipedia is no longer the small community it once was, but rather an increasingly complex and cumbersome, occasionally haphazard organization of thousands of users, with some users finding themselves in many different niches; unfortunately, trolls seem to understand this better than some sitting members of the arbitration committee. Too often trolls gain considerable sympathy by playing "victim." (I note in particular what happened to Wik, who used to be one of Wikipedia's best contributors until he was driven off by trolls and vandals.) I worry that the systems in place to resolve disputes, like the arbitration, are perhaps actually exacerbating them. 172 13:26, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Raul654

01:28, 26 Jul 2004

I'm running now because I think the arbcom needs dedicated, serious people to shoulder serious responsiblity. I've been here a long time (almost a year), I know most of the users, and I think most of you know me. I think I've established a reputation for fairness and good judgement. I've argued before the arbitration committee before (and as of two days ago I was about to argue another case there), and I'm very well versed in our policies - I've helped write many of them.

Unlike most of the current arbcom, I'm usually very involved in day-to-day matters on Wikipedia. I'm a lot more aware of what's going on than most other users, and this gives me better perspective than most.

I think my view on problem users is best summed up by this email I sent to the mailing list, in response to a question from Jimbo. As I said there, I feel that most problems on Wikipedia stem from a small group of well-known users who do their best to disrupt things without violating any written rules. I'd like to see common-sense applied in these cases. Contributors who are habitally told that their actions are unacceptable should not expect the arbcom to give them yet-another-warning. In cases where it's apparent that the user will not reform, I do support banning. →Raul654 01:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Snowspinner

02:31, 26 Jul 2004

I've cheated a bit and put a longer statement at User:Snowspinner/arbcom. The short form, however, is that I have a lot of past experience moderating Internet communities, and have a good understanding of how to balance the need to cater to community desire with the need to exercise good judgment. I would say that my position is probably a bit more strict than much of the arbitration committee, but I don't think I'm particularly out of line with them. (And you can read on my longer statement how I'd have ruled on several prior cases).

Generally, my goal would be to minimize disruption to Wikipedia. This involves giving problem users with hope of reforming opportunities to reform, but acting swiftly and decisively against those with actively bad intentions. It also involves moving quickly to hear cases and quickly to rule on them, and making compromises with the other arbitors to resolve deadlocks.

Past that, most of what Raul says applies just fine to me too.

Ambivalenthysteria

03:22, 26 Jul 2004

I've had an account here for over a year now, and hopefully, many of you have come to know me. I'm running because, while I appreciate the excellent job the AC have done in establishing the Committee over the last few months, I see need for improvement. I'm not talking about policy either - that's another matter entirely.

The slow speed of proceedings over the last few months is one thing that concerns me. I'm always around, and it's a rare day that I don't check into Wikipedia. If I'm elected to the AC, it will become my first priority here, and I'll do my best to keep proceedings moving along.

When it comes to disciplinary action, I suspect that my position may be slightly more strict than that of many members of the current committee, but I can also think of some recent cases where I'd have voted for lighter sanctions. I tend to have little tolerance for those who come here to disrupt Wikipedia and contribute nothing, and believe in dealing with them firmly and quickly, though of course respecting precedent and policy. However, if it seems that the behaviour of a disruptive user could be corrected, I'll try to advocate a sanction to encourage this. In addition, I would like to do my best to end the practice of sending patently unsuitable cases, that have no chance whatsoever of resolution there, back to mediation, as has happened several times recently.

Finally, as with Raul, I believe that habitual disruptors should not expect the AC to give them warning after warning. If the user shows no inclination towards reforming, I too support banning. If anyone has any further questions, please feel free to ask me.

Sam Spade

04:13, 26 Jul 2004

Sam Spade (talk · contribs)

I wouldn't have thought to list myself here, but was surprised to see such a small range of options, as well as the urgency of the matter. I am very concerned to see so many departures, and feel it is imperative that departed members return to the committee as expeditiously as possible.

I provide my edit history as example of my neutrality and judgment, and my talk page in order to contact me w any questions regarding my positions on various matters. Generally I tend to side w the consensus of other committee members, with a preference toward progressive punishment. In the case of Paul Vogel, I would have voted to ban for one month, with his return conditional on creating a user account, obeying policy, avoiding copyright violations, etc., w any violation resulting in a 2 month ban, etc. I strongly favor the doubling policy in regards to punishments, starting with a small penalty, and doubling it with each subsequent violation.

I think the arbitration committee should not be in the business of writing policy, but that individual members should be encouraged to submit policy proposals, and guide public consensus, voting often and voicing their opinions on sundry matters of importance. I think it is imperative that arbitration committee members respect and enforce policy and precedent, rather than becoming "rogue" judges. I support Wikipedia:Dealing with disruptive or antisocial editors as a policy proposal, and in general am strongly in favor of more policy enforcement.

Sam [Spade] 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)