This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!
Statement
I have been following several important ArbCom cases and I believe that I could help move things along if elected. One thing I noticed is that only a few of the same arbitrators usually make the proposed decisions, mainly Fred Bauder. After learning the ropes and being on the committee for a while, I'd like help in that aspect of Arbitration, along with final voting. I am a member of the OTRS team and well aware of
WP:LIVING/OTRS issues while maintaining
WP:PP. I clerk for
WP:RFCU and do Open Proxy checking of IPs. I am readily contactable via email and AIM, and often at IRC. While ArbCom often looks intimidating, I think I have enough experience to offer useful service to the community there.
My views of ArbCom:
The most important consideration about a possible case is not how "major" the scope of the issues are, but whether it can be resolved without ArbCom. On the other hand, if a rush of such cases are imminent, for the sake of expediency, such cases may be taken and considered so as to set a precedence to avoid the need for such future cases.
Decisions, while they have precedence in that future cases will likely end in similar result, are
pragmatic and focus on resolving a dispute, not on interpreting the "wiki-constitution". It is not a "supreme court"
Mass probations that hurt many unrelated users are harmful if prolonged, such things should be kept to a minimum.
Arbcom is elected to act as a last-resort dispute resolution committee, and that is its main purpose. Other, special purposes, like rights assignments, should be done carefully and consider the will of the community. Nevertheless, until a new system is created, then ArbCom has the right to determine who is trusted enough for a special right.
Things I'd bring to ArbCom:
More proposed decisions, allowing for rulings that perhaps better fit the situation
More expedience in rejecting/accepting cases
Possible methods for dealing with Shared IP/AOL socks (see
User:VoABot II)
Oppose Active in discussions of policy on process, guidelines, and technical issues, but inactive on main namespace edits
[1] More content editing is necessary for maintaining a clear vision of what the goal of the project is, and how to use the arbcom to advance that goal.
172 |
Talk14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Answers to AnonEMouse's challenge questions do not demonstrate the clarity and purpose that I feel ArbCom requires. An otherwise qualified candidate who I could readily support in a later election given improvement in the presentation of his ideas.
Serpent's Choice03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Given the importance and role of an arbcom member, I can not support someone who believes community membership should be "weighted" in favor of "strong" users:
User:Voice of All/Consensus. I would hate to see that sort of two-tier mentality permeate arbcom. --
JJay23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Nothing personal. I think Arbs need to have a better knowledge of mainspace that is best achieved by experience in mainspace editing --
Samir धर्म04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. VoA made some serious errors of judgment in his
mediation of the
Neuro-Linguistic Programming article that enabled problems to persist unchecked for months, at which point others (mentors and admins) intervened. The root problem was a
long term abuser (ultimately
banned) who was dominating the discussion with literally dozens of socks. VoA failed to accurately assess the problem, and may have inadvertently prolonged it. Consider his
comments on December 9, months into mediation: "If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account" and "I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least." This approach received consistent praise from the puppet accounts, who regularly cited him to bully other editors. Whether the praise influenced his judgment or not, a track record of flattery by a malicious user does not reflect well on his role in the mediation. In February, in the wake of the arbcom, he finally realized what
other editors had noted as early as August: "Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here",
he wrote. The day before he had written, "If I was not mediating, people would have been blocked a long time ago." It seems he meant that as a good thing. Perhaps he's learned from his mistakes. I see many editors vote their good experience with him; this, unfortunately, is mine. --
Shunpiker06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose as per JJay. I otherwise think this is a good candidate, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; we're about consensus, not voting, and the idea that anyone's vote or opinion is more important than someone else's because they contributed more / have been around for longer / ... runs counter to Wikipedia's principles. It's the message that counts, not the messenger. --
Schnee (cheeks clone)
17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Answer to Mailer Diablo's question shows a lack of understanding of why it is important that the community trust those with extra permissions. Total lack of mainspace edits for 10+ months is troubling also.
GRBerry18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!
Statement
I have been following several important ArbCom cases and I believe that I could help move things along if elected. One thing I noticed is that only a few of the same arbitrators usually make the proposed decisions, mainly Fred Bauder. After learning the ropes and being on the committee for a while, I'd like help in that aspect of Arbitration, along with final voting. I am a member of the OTRS team and well aware of
WP:LIVING/OTRS issues while maintaining
WP:PP. I clerk for
WP:RFCU and do Open Proxy checking of IPs. I am readily contactable via email and AIM, and often at IRC. While ArbCom often looks intimidating, I think I have enough experience to offer useful service to the community there.
My views of ArbCom:
The most important consideration about a possible case is not how "major" the scope of the issues are, but whether it can be resolved without ArbCom. On the other hand, if a rush of such cases are imminent, for the sake of expediency, such cases may be taken and considered so as to set a precedence to avoid the need for such future cases.
Decisions, while they have precedence in that future cases will likely end in similar result, are
pragmatic and focus on resolving a dispute, not on interpreting the "wiki-constitution". It is not a "supreme court"
Mass probations that hurt many unrelated users are harmful if prolonged, such things should be kept to a minimum.
Arbcom is elected to act as a last-resort dispute resolution committee, and that is its main purpose. Other, special purposes, like rights assignments, should be done carefully and consider the will of the community. Nevertheless, until a new system is created, then ArbCom has the right to determine who is trusted enough for a special right.
Things I'd bring to ArbCom:
More proposed decisions, allowing for rulings that perhaps better fit the situation
More expedience in rejecting/accepting cases
Possible methods for dealing with Shared IP/AOL socks (see
User:VoABot II)
Oppose Active in discussions of policy on process, guidelines, and technical issues, but inactive on main namespace edits
[1] More content editing is necessary for maintaining a clear vision of what the goal of the project is, and how to use the arbcom to advance that goal.
172 |
Talk14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Answers to AnonEMouse's challenge questions do not demonstrate the clarity and purpose that I feel ArbCom requires. An otherwise qualified candidate who I could readily support in a later election given improvement in the presentation of his ideas.
Serpent's Choice03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Given the importance and role of an arbcom member, I can not support someone who believes community membership should be "weighted" in favor of "strong" users:
User:Voice of All/Consensus. I would hate to see that sort of two-tier mentality permeate arbcom. --
JJay23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Nothing personal. I think Arbs need to have a better knowledge of mainspace that is best achieved by experience in mainspace editing --
Samir धर्म04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. VoA made some serious errors of judgment in his
mediation of the
Neuro-Linguistic Programming article that enabled problems to persist unchecked for months, at which point others (mentors and admins) intervened. The root problem was a
long term abuser (ultimately
banned) who was dominating the discussion with literally dozens of socks. VoA failed to accurately assess the problem, and may have inadvertently prolonged it. Consider his
comments on December 9, months into mediation: "If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account" and "I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least." This approach received consistent praise from the puppet accounts, who regularly cited him to bully other editors. Whether the praise influenced his judgment or not, a track record of flattery by a malicious user does not reflect well on his role in the mediation. In February, in the wake of the arbcom, he finally realized what
other editors had noted as early as August: "Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here",
he wrote. The day before he had written, "If I was not mediating, people would have been blocked a long time ago." It seems he meant that as a good thing. Perhaps he's learned from his mistakes. I see many editors vote their good experience with him; this, unfortunately, is mine. --
Shunpiker06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose as per JJay. I otherwise think this is a good candidate, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; we're about consensus, not voting, and the idea that anyone's vote or opinion is more important than someone else's because they contributed more / have been around for longer / ... runs counter to Wikipedia's principles. It's the message that counts, not the messenger. --
Schnee (cheeks clone)
17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Answer to Mailer Diablo's question shows a lack of understanding of why it is important that the community trust those with extra permissions. Total lack of mainspace edits for 10+ months is troubling also.
GRBerry18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)reply