Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:34, 5 October 2005

This page lists the candidates for the December 2005 elections to the Arbitration Committee. Candidates should be listed in alphabetical order.

All users interested in the position are invited to add brief candidate statements to this page. These should be around 250 words and outline your views on banning and how you feel the Arbitration Committee should handle disputes. Candidates who wish to make longer statements may create a page in their own user space for this purpose, which could also be used for candidates to respond to questions from the community.

Please also list yourself at /Endorsements. Statements in support of or in opposition to candidates can both be made there.

172

In a famous 1957 essay "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality," Robert Merton called attention to the possibility that an organization's rules, procedures, and hierarchy of offices—structures originally conceived as a means—could become transformed into ends themselves. When this happens, a familiar process of displacement of goals sets in, leading to an over-concern with strict adherence to regulations, legalism, inefficiency, and ineffectiveness.

When I ran for arbitrator last year, I called attention to the possibility that the excessive preoccupation of the Arbitration Committee (Arbcom) with its own rules and discipline were leading to greater and greater displacement of Wikipeida's sole goal: writing an encyclopedia. Over the past year, the committee has grown yet more cumbersome, ineffective, inefficient, and inaccessible. I fear that I was right last year.

Despite the timid attempts to revamp the increasingly myopic body, the Arbcom still focuses too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits, and too much on process instead of product. This is what I want to change; as an arbitrator, I'd favor focusing on the accuracy and constructiveness of the edits in question—as opposed to the personalities—to the greatest extent possible within the framework of the established norms, rules and procedures of the committee.

To correct this, we need an Arbcom composed of active writers and editors, not just administrators or bureaucrats who enjoy close access to the foundation. Members of the Arbcom need to see the bigger picture and better distinguish between individuals mucking up Misplaced Pages with inane rubbish and individuals dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active editor since December 2002 (with intermittent breaks) and founder of the Forum for Encyclopedic Standards, I can see this big picture; and my contributions history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for strict encyclopedic standards. 172 | Talk 05:02, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Ilyanep

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 Misplaced Pages 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. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Redwolf24

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 adding that my proudest contribution is getting the medcom on wheels during my time as acting chair. I believe in diplomacy, and communication is often one of wikipedia's biggest problems. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Jtkiefer

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 Misplaced Pages 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 ----- 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Luigi30

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)