Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Phroziac

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Candidate statements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Computerjoe (talk | contribs) at 13:58, 6 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I've been a wikipedian since June 2, 2005, and an administrator since September 6, 2005. I initially wanted to run for arbcom, then decided not to, and now (at the last minute), I've decided to go for it.

I've been around arbcom for a while. I've never been very involved in it, but I helped file the first Ed Poor case, which I withdrew from after mediation. I don't really like the decision they made on that case, since they basically closed the case almost instantly after opening it, and hardly any of the dispute was about his bureaucrat powers. I also was fairly active in the Pigsonthewing case, but I agree with the decisions made there, even though they seem to have failed, at this point.

I have strong opinions on lots of things, and will recuse myself from anything I don't feel I can handle neutrally. I can feel my biases, and have never let them get in the way of editing. Of course, most of my editing is minor anyway...

I think that arbitration should be a relatively quick and straight forward process, but it should never be rushed. I generally do not agree with banning users who regularly contribute to writing an encyclopedia, in the first case they appear in. They should be sanctioned appropriately, depending on what they did, and given a chance to correct their behaviour. If they should show up in another arbcom case in a reasonable time, doing the same thing, stronger sanctions or maybe even a ban should be strongly considered. I especially support bans if the user does not appear to be interested in writing an encyclopedia.

ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always.

--Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question

What are your views of the proposed Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and User Bill of Rights? --HK 22:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the user bill of rights, I agree on 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 8. I sorta disagree with 3, because precedents are good, and there will always be loopholes and such in policy. I'd still prefer to avoid creating entirely new rules. #5 is kinda confusing, and I'm not sure what it means. It looks like it means that admins are bound to enforce rulings, which I don't completely agree with. We have 700 admins, it's impossible for all of them to completely ignore arbitration rulings. Therefore, if a few don't want to bother enforcing them, then there will always be someone who will. Especially since, as of now, all arbcom members are admins. Otherwise, it mostly appears to be a simple, sensical document, which would be a useful guideline. For the arbcom code of conduct, it's lengthy and seems overly bureaucratic. I still mostly agree with what it says, but would prefer not to be bound to it. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Rob Church

  1. What is Wikipedia supposed to be?
  2. What is Wikipedia, now?
  3. What needs to change?
  4. Does ArbCom have anything to do with this change?

Ta. Rob Church Talk 13:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Will You Bring?

What will you bring to the arbcom? ComputerJoe 13:58, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Phroziac&oldid=34108929"