Fritzpoll
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.
- Fritzpoll ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
 |
Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fritzpoll
|
Fritzpoll
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.
- Fritzpoll ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
|
|
Arbitration Committee Election 2009 candidate:
Fritzpoll
|