My beliefs about Wikipedia are simple: we are here to create a free encyclopedia, and policy, procedure and process are simply tools to enable us to do that most easily. I believe in a light touch; we should have the minimum quantity of rules necessary to function, and the enforcement of them should bear in mind the intended outcome—creating that encyclopedia—rather than in their mechanical application.
On the banning question, I believe it should be applied with my overriding principles above in mind—only if it is necessary for the functioning of the project. The purpose is not to punish, but to remove people who have proven they are not interested in helping the project, people whose intent is to disrupt and who will not reform.
I have a strong and abiding passion for the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and I've put in more time on it than I probably want to admit. I intend, if chosen, to apply myself to this task with equal passion. I am used to thankless jobs—I am a systems administrator, and know the rewards for good work are simply more work and nobody noticing.
Support I particularly like his less aggressive approach to banning, which seems to be escalating out of reasoned control by inexperienced or plainly ignorant admins.
Giano |
talk12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support User is
reasonable, level-headed, and possessed of sound judgement. And as someone who spent 9 years enforcing online rulesets for a living, I believe his assessment of the purpose of banning users is spot on. Bans and blocks are for prevention, not punishment.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. His statement above is exactly in line with what I hope for in a Wikipedia official of any sort. I expect he'll live up to his word.
Unfocused23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, mildly. Appears objective and level-headed. Nothing raised to show his character or behaviour to be an ArbCom liability. Platform is very idealistic though. --
Ds1323:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with his philosophy, his ideas about banning seem right on. Sounds like a great candidate.--Max (
✒ |
☏ )
06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.
Fifelfoo22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
My beliefs about Wikipedia are simple: we are here to create a free encyclopedia, and policy, procedure and process are simply tools to enable us to do that most easily. I believe in a light touch; we should have the minimum quantity of rules necessary to function, and the enforcement of them should bear in mind the intended outcome—creating that encyclopedia—rather than in their mechanical application.
On the banning question, I believe it should be applied with my overriding principles above in mind—only if it is necessary for the functioning of the project. The purpose is not to punish, but to remove people who have proven they are not interested in helping the project, people whose intent is to disrupt and who will not reform.
I have a strong and abiding passion for the ideals of the Wikipedia project, and I've put in more time on it than I probably want to admit. I intend, if chosen, to apply myself to this task with equal passion. I am used to thankless jobs—I am a systems administrator, and know the rewards for good work are simply more work and nobody noticing.
Support I particularly like his less aggressive approach to banning, which seems to be escalating out of reasoned control by inexperienced or plainly ignorant admins.
Giano |
talk12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support User is
reasonable, level-headed, and possessed of sound judgement. And as someone who spent 9 years enforcing online rulesets for a living, I believe his assessment of the purpose of banning users is spot on. Bans and blocks are for prevention, not punishment.
Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. His statement above is exactly in line with what I hope for in a Wikipedia official of any sort. I expect he'll live up to his word.
Unfocused23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, mildly. Appears objective and level-headed. Nothing raised to show his character or behaviour to be an ArbCom liability. Platform is very idealistic though. --
Ds1323:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with his philosophy, his ideas about banning seem right on. Sounds like a great candidate.--Max (
✒ |
☏ )
06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.
Fifelfoo22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply