2009
Arbitration Committee Election status
|
This is the candidate statements page, where editors wishing to run in the 2009 Arbitration Committee elections have presented themselves and their nomination statement. Nominations are now closed.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
AGK
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Cla68
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Coren
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fred Bauder
|
What have I done on Wikipedia? I have written an FA, contributed to another, helped establish the Article Incubator and have edited various other articles, guidelines and policies.
What have I done that is relevant to this role? I have been involved in trying to resolve disputes of various types from shouting matches at certain project pages, increasingly heated disputes between users and other problems I occasionally encounter during my wanderings through Wikipedia. I was appointed as one of three referees in the recent Macedonia naming dispute and the resolution that we produced has resulted in greater stability for the editors in that part of Wikipedia.
What do I think the point of arbitration is? Arbitration should try to resolve issues to the benefit of the encyclopaedia - it is not about punishment, but should instead typically be about restoring a collegial collaborative environment so that editors can focus less on disputes and more on the production of encyclopaedic content. This will often involve sanctioning individual editors, and administrators should in particular be scrutinised if there is evidence of impropriety, but sanctions in of themselves are not a goal of arbitration. As an arbitrator, I would not hesitate to impose sanctions, but they must improve the collaborative environment that we strive to create on Wikipedia.
What would I do differently? I think some cases in the past have lacked focus – reams of evidence were produced to speak generally to the charge that some editor is “bad” or “good” and new areas of behaviour to be examined are introduced at random points throughout the arbitration process, requiring yet more evidence to be produced by the other parties. I would like to see a clear scope explicitly defined for all cases when they are accepted. Clerks would be empowered to remove evidence that does not speak directly to the scope of the case, and the scope could be expanded if necessary. This would require consent of the entire group, but it is something that I will push for to improve efficiency and accessibility, as well as removing obfuscation. I will be engaging in “active” arbitration by asking direct questions, requesting specific diffs and making sure that relevant points in a case come to light so that the Committee can determine the facts of a case rather than relying on interpretations and slants imposed on evidence by the various sides of a dispute.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fritzpoll
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Hersfold
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Jehochman
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Kirill Lokshin
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Kmweber
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
KnightLago
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Mailer diablo
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
MBK004
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
RMHED
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Ruslik0
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Seddon
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Shell Kinney
|
Wikipedia is a year older, and a year wiser. We face challenges, both old and new. The Arbitration Committee has made a good start to being more open, and handling things in a more reasonable manner. We must continue to elect new blood, and new ideas.
Once again, I will make the pledge that no matter what the result of the ongoing ArbCom RfC, I will limit myself to a tranche of no more then two years. Two years is all a vast majority of people can handle in this position, and for those brave few who think they can do longer then that, the two year mark is a good position for the community to see what type of job they are doing.
We must not become complacent. We must not stop looking for ways to improve. Last year, a new wave was set in motion. This year, we must ensure that wave does not peter out.
Here are some thoughts.
A) Look into additional ways in which ArbCom can streamline case handling Whether that's continuing to delegate sub-groups in the ArbCom, such as the Ban Appeal Committee, appointing 4-6 members of ArbCom per case to work as an active sub-group (rather then waiting for all 18 or however many Arbitrators to chime in), we need to be looking for additional ways to make sure ArbCom is handling their duties in an expeditious manner. ArbCom is the last stop on dispute resolution, so whenever a case gets accepted, it means that any delays will only harden the ill-will and un-collaborative editing environment, making the ArbCom job even more difficult. ArbCom must always be looking for ways to expedite their work, while making sure to do a complete job.
B) Highlight areas of Wikipedia policy that need to be looked at fully. ArbCom cannot create policy out of whole cloth.they can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved. They cannot create policy, but they can lead the discussion... this is something that needs to be more aggresively pushed at the ArbCom level.
C) Continue to look at alternative remedies to manage problematic areas Topic bans, 1RR, and probation can be more fully utilized to keep users with problems editing in certain areas from disrupting, although keeping them in editing in areas where it benefits the encyclopedia. I would also be more willing to put subject areas under probationary terms.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
SirFozzie
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Steve Smith
|
I am running for ArbCom as an independent. I owe no favors and promise only to apply the letter and spirit of wikipedia policy to the cases coming before us. My view is that wikipedia holds incredible promise, not only as a 'paperless encyclopedia' but also as inspiration for other projects incorporating elements of direct democracy. We are here to build a collection of human knowledge, yes, but the process by which we build it will be its greater legacy. To the extent that it is within my purview and that it reflects the consensus of our community as captured by its policies I will try to defend and foster an atmosphere conducive to cooperative and constructive enhancement of our shared project.
I find it of great importance that we look at how we can retain experienced editors and ensure that new editors are not scared off from the get go. While I do not have a list of accomplishments to present I would invite all to read through my edits, earliest first.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Unomi
|
I won't bore you with a long spiel, but here's why I'm running for ArbCom:
I'm a member for over four years and an admin for 11 months, though I use my adminly powers fairly rarely. I'm an article writer, principally, and as of this writing have 15 FAs (14 of which I took through FAC, so I play well with others), 2 GAs and 50 DYKs. I have helped take WP:TFA/R from a train wreck to a smoothly running process (though honestly I was not terribly helpful when I started). Much of that credit, though, is due to the other commentators who keep what could be a very emotional process (as in FAC, everyone thinks very highly of their article) low key, and to the Featured Article Director. I've monitored the goings on at ArbCom since the Advisory Committee matter, which I'll address below.
I realize that my views will be drawn out more with the questions, so I'll keep my platform brief. ArbCom should stick to arbitrating as it has done, until and unless there is a community process to expand its role. The problem with the Advisory Committee proposal earlier this year was not so much the content, as the method. People don't like surprises. There should have been a much more gradual approach to keep the community informed and involved.
What you will see if you elect me is competence, professionalism, neutrality, and an utter lack of drama.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Wehwalt
|
Brief summary: http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/ignorance.PNG
I've been around since 2003; I was an admin between 2006 and 2009. I mostly edit global warming type stuff, since I used to have a professional interest. My unique selling point for the arbcomm post is my thorough familiarity with arbcomm from the plaintiff side ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) which gives me valuable insight into arbcomm's failings. I used to do lots of WP:AN3 stuff if you want evidence of dispute-familiarity.
Amongst the many failings of Arbcomm are:
Arbcomm needs to sanction fools and not feed the trolls.
[Update: No-one asked but: I'd have preferred public voting.]
[Late update: I just refound this:
For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men [5].
Don't take it too literally.]
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
William M. Connolley
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Xavexgoem
|
<poem> Chutznik, Chutznik ( talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:54, November 24, 2009.
Secret, Secret ( talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:19, December 7, 2009.
![]() |
2009 Arbitration Committee Elections •
Results •
Voter log •
Discuss the elections •
Give feedback on the elections Election pages: Candidate guide • Candidate statements • Questions for the candidates • Discuss the candidates • Comment on the candidates Individuals' guides: Bfigura • Casliber • Ceranthor • CT Cooper • Elonka • JayHenry • Juliancolton • Lankiveil • Lar • Majorly • MZMcBride • Riana • Rschen7754 • SandyGeorgia • Vyvyan Ade Basterd • William M. Connolley |
2009
Arbitration Committee Election status
|
This is the candidate statements page, where editors wishing to run in the 2009 Arbitration Committee elections have presented themselves and their nomination statement. Nominations are now closed.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
AGK
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Cla68
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Coren
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fred Bauder
|
What have I done on Wikipedia? I have written an FA, contributed to another, helped establish the Article Incubator and have edited various other articles, guidelines and policies.
What have I done that is relevant to this role? I have been involved in trying to resolve disputes of various types from shouting matches at certain project pages, increasingly heated disputes between users and other problems I occasionally encounter during my wanderings through Wikipedia. I was appointed as one of three referees in the recent Macedonia naming dispute and the resolution that we produced has resulted in greater stability for the editors in that part of Wikipedia.
What do I think the point of arbitration is? Arbitration should try to resolve issues to the benefit of the encyclopaedia - it is not about punishment, but should instead typically be about restoring a collegial collaborative environment so that editors can focus less on disputes and more on the production of encyclopaedic content. This will often involve sanctioning individual editors, and administrators should in particular be scrutinised if there is evidence of impropriety, but sanctions in of themselves are not a goal of arbitration. As an arbitrator, I would not hesitate to impose sanctions, but they must improve the collaborative environment that we strive to create on Wikipedia.
What would I do differently? I think some cases in the past have lacked focus – reams of evidence were produced to speak generally to the charge that some editor is “bad” or “good” and new areas of behaviour to be examined are introduced at random points throughout the arbitration process, requiring yet more evidence to be produced by the other parties. I would like to see a clear scope explicitly defined for all cases when they are accepted. Clerks would be empowered to remove evidence that does not speak directly to the scope of the case, and the scope could be expanded if necessary. This would require consent of the entire group, but it is something that I will push for to improve efficiency and accessibility, as well as removing obfuscation. I will be engaging in “active” arbitration by asking direct questions, requesting specific diffs and making sure that relevant points in a case come to light so that the Committee can determine the facts of a case rather than relying on interpretations and slants imposed on evidence by the various sides of a dispute.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fritzpoll
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Hersfold
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Jehochman
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Kirill Lokshin
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Kmweber
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
KnightLago
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Mailer diablo
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
MBK004
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
RMHED
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Ruslik0
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Seddon
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Shell Kinney
|
Wikipedia is a year older, and a year wiser. We face challenges, both old and new. The Arbitration Committee has made a good start to being more open, and handling things in a more reasonable manner. We must continue to elect new blood, and new ideas.
Once again, I will make the pledge that no matter what the result of the ongoing ArbCom RfC, I will limit myself to a tranche of no more then two years. Two years is all a vast majority of people can handle in this position, and for those brave few who think they can do longer then that, the two year mark is a good position for the community to see what type of job they are doing.
We must not become complacent. We must not stop looking for ways to improve. Last year, a new wave was set in motion. This year, we must ensure that wave does not peter out.
Here are some thoughts.
A) Look into additional ways in which ArbCom can streamline case handling Whether that's continuing to delegate sub-groups in the ArbCom, such as the Ban Appeal Committee, appointing 4-6 members of ArbCom per case to work as an active sub-group (rather then waiting for all 18 or however many Arbitrators to chime in), we need to be looking for additional ways to make sure ArbCom is handling their duties in an expeditious manner. ArbCom is the last stop on dispute resolution, so whenever a case gets accepted, it means that any delays will only harden the ill-will and un-collaborative editing environment, making the ArbCom job even more difficult. ArbCom must always be looking for ways to expedite their work, while making sure to do a complete job.
B) Highlight areas of Wikipedia policy that need to be looked at fully. ArbCom cannot create policy out of whole cloth.they can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved. They cannot create policy, but they can lead the discussion... this is something that needs to be more aggresively pushed at the ArbCom level.
C) Continue to look at alternative remedies to manage problematic areas Topic bans, 1RR, and probation can be more fully utilized to keep users with problems editing in certain areas from disrupting, although keeping them in editing in areas where it benefits the encyclopedia. I would also be more willing to put subject areas under probationary terms.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
SirFozzie
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Steve Smith
|
I am running for ArbCom as an independent. I owe no favors and promise only to apply the letter and spirit of wikipedia policy to the cases coming before us. My view is that wikipedia holds incredible promise, not only as a 'paperless encyclopedia' but also as inspiration for other projects incorporating elements of direct democracy. We are here to build a collection of human knowledge, yes, but the process by which we build it will be its greater legacy. To the extent that it is within my purview and that it reflects the consensus of our community as captured by its policies I will try to defend and foster an atmosphere conducive to cooperative and constructive enhancement of our shared project.
I find it of great importance that we look at how we can retain experienced editors and ensure that new editors are not scared off from the get go. While I do not have a list of accomplishments to present I would invite all to read through my edits, earliest first.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Unomi
|
I won't bore you with a long spiel, but here's why I'm running for ArbCom:
I'm a member for over four years and an admin for 11 months, though I use my adminly powers fairly rarely. I'm an article writer, principally, and as of this writing have 15 FAs (14 of which I took through FAC, so I play well with others), 2 GAs and 50 DYKs. I have helped take WP:TFA/R from a train wreck to a smoothly running process (though honestly I was not terribly helpful when I started). Much of that credit, though, is due to the other commentators who keep what could be a very emotional process (as in FAC, everyone thinks very highly of their article) low key, and to the Featured Article Director. I've monitored the goings on at ArbCom since the Advisory Committee matter, which I'll address below.
I realize that my views will be drawn out more with the questions, so I'll keep my platform brief. ArbCom should stick to arbitrating as it has done, until and unless there is a community process to expand its role. The problem with the Advisory Committee proposal earlier this year was not so much the content, as the method. People don't like surprises. There should have been a much more gradual approach to keep the community informed and involved.
What you will see if you elect me is competence, professionalism, neutrality, and an utter lack of drama.
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Wehwalt
|
Brief summary: http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/ignorance.PNG
I've been around since 2003; I was an admin between 2006 and 2009. I mostly edit global warming type stuff, since I used to have a professional interest. My unique selling point for the arbcomm post is my thorough familiarity with arbcomm from the plaintiff side ( [1], [2], [3], [4]) which gives me valuable insight into arbcomm's failings. I used to do lots of WP:AN3 stuff if you want evidence of dispute-familiarity.
Amongst the many failings of Arbcomm are:
Arbcomm needs to sanction fools and not feed the trolls.
[Update: No-one asked but: I'd have preferred public voting.]
[Late update: I just refound this:
For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men [5].
Don't take it too literally.]
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
William M. Connolley
|
![]() | Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Xavexgoem
|
<poem> Chutznik, Chutznik ( talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:54, November 24, 2009.
Secret, Secret ( talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:19, December 7, 2009.
![]() |
2009 Arbitration Committee Elections •
Results •
Voter log •
Discuss the elections •
Give feedback on the elections Election pages: Candidate guide • Candidate statements • Questions for the candidates • Discuss the candidates • Comment on the candidates Individuals' guides: Bfigura • Casliber • Ceranthor • CT Cooper • Elonka • JayHenry • Juliancolton • Lankiveil • Lar • Majorly • MZMcBride • Riana • Rschen7754 • SandyGeorgia • Vyvyan Ade Basterd • William M. Connolley |