Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:04, 19 November 2004

This page lists the candidates for the December 2004 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 no more than 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.

Endorsements can be added at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements.

172

Members of the Arbitration Committee should see the bigger picture and better distinguish between users mucking up Misplaced Pages with inane rubbish and users dedicated to writing a serious, quality encyclopedia. As an active user since December 2002 (see list of list of most active on all namespaces), administrator since May 2003 (making me as of now the second most senior admin in this field of candidates behind only Sannse), and main author of a few featured articles, I can see this big picture; and my user history clearly demonstrates a commitment to making this into a viable encyclopedia and to fighting for scholarly standards on Misplaced Pages.

As of now, arbitration seems to focus too much on personality instead of the merit of the edits and too much on policy instead of process. 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.

Misplaced Pages 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, cranks and trolls seem to understand this better than some sitting members of the Arbitration Committee.

To correct this, we need to make institutions like the Arbitration Committee and the Foundation closer and more accessible to the active writers and editors. My membership will help accomplish this; I don't see myself first as a 'Wiki policy expert' or some Wiki 'committee member' but rather as someone who has volunteered a lot of time writing articles. If we don't bridge this gap as soon as possible, institutions like the Arbitration Committee are doomed to become settings for elite cabals completely detached from the purpose of the project, i.e. producing an encyclopedia.

I welcome any questions on my talk page. 172 02:29, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi

Since my arrival here sometime in 2003, I guess I've become one of the Arbitration Committee's strongest critics. So I'd like to put my hand up to actually do something about this, rather than standing on the sidelines and complaining. I've had plenty of involvement with cases (though only once as a direct participant), which has given me a fairly clear understanding of the workings of the arbitration process.

Above all, the most severe problem facing the Committee is its speed. Justice delayed is justice denied. If I'm elected, I will personally begin work on findings if no evidence has been presented in a new case in a week, and if there's problems getting arbitrators to vote, I will personally see that each arbitrator is aware that their presence is required.

I believe I shouldn't have too much trouble staying impartial. I've requested action against users that I agree with ideologically, and I've defended users I personally dislike. I firmly believe that we should give an individual every chance to reform if they have a record of legitimate (and I use this term loosely) contributions in addition to those which are problematic. At the same time, I have little sympathy for the garden variety edit warrior who comes here only to push their point of view at the expense of all others. Nevertheless, where possible, I advocate restricting such editors from areas where they cannot edit neutrally in favour of a full ban, which I believe should only be used as means of last resort.

That's what you could expect from my term if elected. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me here - I'd be happy to hear from you. Ambi 03:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze

A more detailed statement is available at User:Blankfaze/Arbcom.

I believe that one thing the Committee needs is people with copious amounts of time on their hands – enough to wade through complex disputes and evidence. Well – I spend more time on Misplaced Pages than I care to admit. That, I think, makes me ideal for the Committee. I believe I can make fair, neutral decisions, expediently.

About me: I've been registered for 7+ months, and an administrator for more than four. I feel I'm in good standing with the community, and I'll note I've never been a defendant in an Arbitration case or RfC. I spend lots of time doing maintenance-ish work: patrolling RC for vandalism, deleting speedies, categorising... I also try to keep WP:IFD maintained. I have, I think, an excellent knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies, having read most word-for-word, multiple times.

I believe clearer policies are needed, particularly re: trolling, abuse of adminship, and edit-warring. (I note that I've attempted to contribute policy, but it's hard to come to consensuses in a community as large as ours :-P)

I believe a more expedient Arbitration process is needed to keep abuse/trouble down (to their credit, however, the Committee has been more expedient recently)

I believe in stiff consequences for users who have consistently caused problems. However, I do favour offering rehabilitation to such users first.

In closing, I would like to offer the community my expediency and fair decisionmaking. I genuinely believe that I would make an exceptional Committee member, else I'd not be running. I welcome any and all questions at my talk page. Thanks. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 06:17, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

I have been a Wikipedian for about 18 months, and heavily involved, mainly in adding and editing articles, for about a year. My credo on WP would be simply stated as: (a) it must primarily be about the content; (b) the community has become a powerful force to make the Web a better place; (c) the goals of WP are in the best sense Romantic.

The ArbCom is the unromantic end of the project. I would frankly have preferred to have had someone tell me 'Charles, you should stand'; here I am anyway. On the defining questions of policy, sanctions and banning, I think that the past decisions have in general been useful in setting some precedents.

I think sysops who involve themselves in contentious areas should mostly be given the benefit of the doubt, as to their good faith; I also think that they should be held to high standards of conduct and courtesy, though this is not something the ArbCom should look at in a formal sense. On the whole I believe policy should be compatible with Assume Good Faith surviving as a principle, but that POV editing should be seen as breaching WP's charter.

To sum up, I don’t think the Arbitration Committee should become more prosecutorial; I do think it can afford a sceptical line with any editor who comes here with an agenda. Charles Matthews 09:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

Arbitration is an important step in the Misplaced Pages process. There are, at times, certain intractable individuals who must (fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your personal views) be removed from Misplaced Pages. It is, as I see it, the job of the ArbCom to deal with such situations. This is not to say that every case referred to the ArbCom involves such an issue, but that the "buck stops here" so to speak.

Mediation is a very useful precursor to Arbitration. As a current mediator (as well as a long time Misplaced Pages contributor and Admin) I recognize that fact and would use my position as an arbitrator to ensure that Mediation is given every oppurtunity to succeed. Arbitration should never be a first option. Given the severity of the results able to be levied by the ArbCom, all other options should be exhausted beforehand.

I hope my record as a Wikipedian and person committed to attempting constructive resolutions is tempered by my steadfast opposition to intentional attempts to harm the Misplaced Pages and the Misplaced Pages process and results in your support for my bid for a post on the Arbitration Committee

David Gerard

I think the AC system has proven basically sound so far; its only problem is it's paralysingly slow. The job sucks by definition, but needs to be done.

The AC is the court of last resort. Spammers or personal abuse are clear cases to be dealt with quickly and sharply. I don't consider good actions an excuse for bad ones. Temporary restraints while a decision is in progress are also frequently appropriate. This is a project with a particular mission.

I view the real problem on Misplaced Pages as being people who just don't get it socially — how to work effectively with people even when you regard them as clueless and obnoxious. Playing well with others is not that easy for some. I try very hard not to blow my top writing on Misplaced Pages, even when dealing with the deeply troublesome. Such people will be the ones ending up at the AC. I support rapid decisions aimed at minimising damage to the wiki and its social structure, secondly with hope for reform of the problem child.

I've spent many years on dealing effectively with trolls, vandals and spammers in Internet communities, particularly Usenet. I've also been on the CAUBE-AU committee since 1998 (the Australian anti-spam organisation).

I've been on Misplaced Pages since December 2003 and an administrator since June 2004. I have been involved in the Arbcom cases against Mr-Natural-Health, Irismeister and Paul Vogel. I ran in the July 2004 Arbcom Election and came third. - David Gerard 15:18, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

DG

Greetings. I've been around since late 2003 and started editing January of this year. Although I'm no wikimaniac, I love this project and have spent many hours just reading through the web of articles available. Of course whenever I see something to edit I do so. Probably my biggest contribution to Misplaced Pages is random, completely unorganised copyediting, which is something I think we should all engage in more often. See a typo, fix a typo, sort of thing.

I'm running for arbcom because I think I fill a niche. A lot of users are not happy with one candidate or another; I've seen lots of sentiments about arbcom being this or that or cabals or this or other baloney. The fact is, it's a divisive thing. There's the politics and the disagreements and the arguing.

I don't like arguing. I like information. Writing. Editing. So my platform to you is this: As arbcommer I will recuse myself from every case.

Simple. No matter how you feel on an issue, I'm not going to inflame things. The most important thing in Misplaced Pages is the work, not the disputes. The creation, not the destruction--to romanticise a bit. D. G. 03:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fennec

Hi. You may know me from the IRC channels; I also do random RC patrolling when I have some time to kill, and I adminstrate Wikien-L (that mostly means periodically emptying the moderation queue of spam). I try to insert some wry remark of some sort whenever reasonable.

Some consider the threat of "trolls" overrated. It is true that we are far from overrun, but the price of trolling is not paid in damage to articles: it is paid in the participation of some of our better contributors. I don't think it's even so much the trolling itself which drives users away so much as when a user engages in a formal dispute resolution pricess and is frustrated by inaction and ineffective solutions.

The arbcom must always approach users with excessive kindness and leniency, and should do its best to give users the benefit of the doubt whenever possible. At the same time, it must not be paralyzed into inaction by trivialities, and we should not be afraid to call a spade a spade (no offense intended to Sam :) - and we should deal with problem users quickly, effectively, and with common sense as our guide- especially so in the case of repeat offenders. This includes bans and any other restrictions.

Query me at User:Fennec/Questions and stuff, yo. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:32, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grunt

I'm one of the better known "friendly faces" on Misplaced Pages. As a generally easygoing person, and having dealt many antisocial Wikipedian as an RC patroller and a mediator. I find that I've built up a virtual immunity to Wikistress and developed the ability to converse with even the most sensitive of users. If there's one place in the 'pedia that needs that person, it is the Arbcom, where often the worst of the worst on Misplaced Pages end up as a last resort. With any luck, as an arbitrator I'll be able to make a difference in the way the 'pedia works and hopefully turn a few of the bad apples back into productive users.

In addition, I have an excellent working knowledge of the 'pedia and its policies, having had a voice in quite a few of them myself; a good grasp of policy is something that I think any arbitrator should have.

I personally think that the Arbcom's current methods work reasonably well; if there is a problem, it is that the process is too slow. I have previously discussed this with some other users, and there are some proposals in the works regarding this. Until then, I'm sure that the Arbcom could benefit with my (legendary?) speed of action.

Please direct any questions you might have of me in relation to the direction to this page. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:12, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Hephaestos

In the past I have been somewhat critical of the way the Arbitration Committee has operated. The at-large election of Wikipedians to the committee to replace appointees should be a good step in the right direction of fixing some of the problems.

The main problem as I see it is the time necessary to accept a case and make a decision on it. I think this process needs to be streamlined, and that the way to do that is to adopt a less legalistic, more common-sense approach. It is my philosophy that cases on Misplaced Pages are brought against troublemaking accounts, not against individual people per se. Therefore I see no value in pondering possible "precedents" or "extenuating circumstances" etc. If an account is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, it should be banned. If it is not, it should be cleared from arbitration as soon as possible.

I have been a Wikipedian since August 2002, and an administrator since May 2003. Not having been motivated to work much on articles much lately, if f I am elected I expect most of my time on Misplaced Pages will be spent on arbitration matters.

I'll be happy to answer any questions anyone may have on my user talk page. - Hephaestos|§ 00:53, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

James F.

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 year 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 two years that I have held an account on Misplaced Pages, 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 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 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)

jguk

I would like to stand for the arbitration committee. My views on banning, handling disputes and my qualifications follow. Please direct any questions you may have to my talk page.

Banning

Banning is contrary to the concept of having a wiki, but it is occasionally a necessary evil to protect users who read or edit in good faith from those who seek to disrupt. Where employed it should be as short as possible, and we should encourage those we ban to reform and become good Wikipedians.

How I would handle disputes

Disputes should be handled politely, quickly and in everyday English: this is a disciplinary process, not a court of law.

I will:

• ensure that I always vote quickly (within a week) unless I had previously excused myself
• restrict my considerations to the evidence brought before me
• only accept evidence and discuss cases in the publicly available forum of the Arbcom area of the Misplaced Pages namespace
• support the case or defence put forward by an unpopular editor if, in the evidence before me, that editor is in the right.

I will not:

• pre-judge (so I will not accept a case and simultaneously say that a user is troublesome).

Qualifications

I am a 30 year old chartered accountant from London, England. I am used to analysing complex positions calmly and without prejudice. I have only been at Misplaced Pages a short time and am not a sysop, so would offer a balance to others on the committee.

Johnleemk

I can't hold a candle to most of the other users listed here, but I am running anyway, mainly due to my abundant possession of free time. I have been editing Misplaced Pages since September 2003, but began full-time editing circa February this year; I was elected as a sysop in June. I have been involved in online communities since 1999, and as such, have gained much insight into the nature of individuals arguing online. I was also the main author of Preliminary Deletion.

I believe that all arbcom decisions should be made based on the effect they will have in the long term on our community, even though it would pain me to sanction or outright ban certain users. However, I believe that it is possible to reform certain troublemakers, through judicial and prudent methods, such as assigning handlers to them, such as was done in the case of Michael/Mike Garcia. It all depends on whether the user edits in good faith, like Wik, or clearly has a bone to pick.

I am against taking outrageous actions to prove a point; just because a certain decision makes sense does not give one licence to do so without consulting the community. As such, unilateral actions such as that Guanaco took in unbanning Michael without first consulting the community or some higher authority, should be condemned.

Lastly, I think the arbitration process should be sped up; for example, the case of Reithy and Chuck F is quite clearcut, yet is still in the evidence stage. I would propose and support measures that would speed up the arbitration process, including but not limited to several of the suggestions made by other candidates on this page; a long, drawn-out verdict is a disservice both to the parties involved and the community.

This is a very short introductory statement; my full platform is available at User:Johnleemk/December 2004 Arbcom Election. If you have any queries or comments related to my candidacy, please contact me at the latterly mentioned subpage's talk page. Johnleemk | Talk 16:42, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lir

The Misplaced Pages has been marred by rude and mean-spirited individuals who see themselves as the epitome of perfection, and who scorn everyone else as a "troll". As a member of the arbitration committee, I would actively seek the resignations of 172, Tim Starling, mav, Jimbo, and Angela -- I would enforce anti-cabalist legislation; and ensure that the wikipedia is run by the people, and not by the losers who have nothing better to do with their lives than dominate the irc/mailing list discussions. I would put an end to the policy of calling votes and then declaring them "settled and closed" before anyone outside of the cabal is even aware of them. My private sockpuppet army would staunchly enforce inclusionism; deletionists will be shown the door, and their user accounts shall be (ironically enough) deleted.

Mirv

I've been editing since November 2003 and have been a sysop since May 2004, so I think I have a good understanding of how things work around here, and my username ought to be a familiar one. I watch the arbitration process closely and I have found it to be both fair and helpful—its only real fault is its slowness. I am running for the position because I believe that I can devote the time and energy necessary to speed up the process of dealing with disruptive users and POV pushers—and I believe that Misplaced Pages's ever-increasing importance and visibility means that greater speed is absolutely necessary.

Regarding sanctions and punishments, I think it is better to reform users than to expel them. I think POV pushers ought to be restricted from editing the topics in which they have shown inability or unwillingness to abide by the requirements of the neutral point of view. I believe disruptive and/or abusive editors ought to be placed under strict parole and only banned outright if that fails to moderate their troublesome behavior.

I believe abusive sysops ought to be treated with special rigor due to the special problems which their misbehavior may cause. Abuse, unchecked, tends to multiply; if sysops are not held to the highest standards, if they are perceived as an elite cabal, then I worry that that perception may become reality.

Essentially, I believe arbitration should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly.

Any questions should be directed to user talk:Mirv/Arbitration election. —No-One Jones  22:45, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

I joined Misplaced Pages in early May (if memory serves me correctly) and have been extremely active in the community since then both as an editor, policy-contributor, and admin. I watch every arbitration case that the ArbCom hears and have even brought a case before the Arbitrators, so I have that experience that allows me to relate to the people who request the Arbitrators' relief.

Reforming the procedures of the ArbCom is exceptionally important to me, and I want to make it more efficient, fair, and just for all concerned. In general, I think that the ArbCom has done an excellent job and has done well in being fair and just with many users, especially in the cases of RickK v. Guanaco, RK, Wik, Irismeister, and Rex. However, the main problem–the area desperately in need of change–is the efficiency of the committee. Specifically, this is what I'd like to do:

• Establish specific prerequisites for bringing a case to the ArbCom. The ArbCom should be a court of last resort, and should not be used for advisory opinions or rulings on certain articles.
• Establish specific procedures with presenting a case to the ArbCom. Subpages for requests and quick and speedy archiving will help in the regard. There should be a standardized format that will make requests be matter-of-fact and to the point, instead of long rambling rants. There should also be separte pages for evidence and counter-evidence.
• Develop creative ways of dealing with offenders. Blanket bans tend to be ineffective and only used when reforming the user is too late. Instead, we should look toward creative solutions like a revert parole or ban on certain types of articles. I think this helped particularly in the case of Michael.
• Ban repeat offenders. There will always be users that cannot or will not reform. For those, I advocate temporary injunctions and swift banning.

To close, I say this: Like Mirv, I believe arbitration "should enforce community norms on those who will not abide by them willingly." ] 01:58, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. Example: Lir. (see above)

Plato

I've been editing as Plato since March of 2004. I am not a sysop although I was briefly one for wiktionary. I do think we should try to get tough on trolls, especially ones who break the rules repeatedly and act like there is nothing wrong (i.e. A user whose name starts with an L whom I'll not mention by name).

I feel need to really enforce the three revert rule, because currently it has no teeth. Also I think we need to speed up the arb-com process because it is very slow currently.

I have worked to try to make wikipedia a more friendly place by dealing with people whom I had problems with. Also, I capable of working with all sorts of people.

If anyone has questions for me, my talk is available. (See Also Arbitration commitee election 2004)--] 02:38, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)