Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements
This is the page for candidate statements from those wishing to run in the December 2006 arbcom elections. Anyone with over 1000 edits as of 01-October-2006 on en.wikipedia may run.
- Statements should be less than 400 words although candidates are free to link to a longer statement should they so wish.
- Statements will be accepted until 23:59 1st of December 2006 (UTC).
- Statements should be listed in alphabetical order by username and in the following format (sed lingua latina non necessaria est):
===[[User:Arbcom Candidate|Arbcom Candidate]]=== Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. [[/Questions for Arbcom Candidate/]]
Candidate statements
Hi I am saifullah khan(chairmen Pushton Action community ,To removed the Durand line & Pushtuns should decided that "in a free referendum if they wish to stay in Pakistan, to create a new and independent state, or to unite with Afghanistan." Wikipedia Administration allways woke for Volunteerly and free encyclcopedia to proved information on a civilazed people in the wolrd.I wellcome to Wikipedia Administration to come Afghanistan and implemente a independent projects. " Durand line is the key problem es of centrals Asia,with out slowing the Durand line issues that's in possible to peace in a Centrals Asia,in epically in Afghanistan & NWFP(North-West Frontier Province) and pushton Areas in Baluchistan"
the Brife information about the Durand line AFGHANISTAN PAKISTAN BORDER The roots of the Afghanistan-Pakistan conflict liein the past, prior tothe existence of Pakistan.In 1901, during the Vice-Royalty of Lord Curzon, the Pushtun inhabited territories under British rule were taken under separate administration – up to this time they had been a part of Punjab province. The new province was named North-West Frontier Province. Internally, North-West Frontier Province was divided into two parts: the eastern part was called the Settled Districts, while the area to the north-west was named the Tribal Areas. The Tribal Areas were divided into five Agencies – Malakand, Chaibar, Kurram, North Waziristan and South Waziristan.23 In practice, this internal division meant that North-West Frontier Province had two borders – an internal one, designated by British administration, and an external one, which was the limit of British control. Generally, North-West Frontier Province was referred to as Pushtunistan. In theory, the Tribal Areas were a British protectorate although the tribes living there did not necessarily accept this dependence. What is more, the British promised to accept their independence. A British officer described this situation thus: "Although included in India, [the] Tribal Areas weren’t a part of British India."4 The tribes living in the Tribal Areas were subject to British authority through treaties and unwritten agreements, which guaranteed that they could live in peace under British authority and with Afghanistan. In return they received subsidies from Britain and the British authorities did not interfere with internal tribal problems.The tribes rebelled against British authority from time to time. These insurrections were quite often stirred, and supported, by the Afghan government.7 Maintaining peace in this territory represented quite a burden for the British treasury which by the 1920s and 30s was spending two million pounds a year for this purpose. During the Second World War Pushtunistan became very valuable for Afghanistan, Germany and Italy. The Axis states tried to win the support of Afghanistan but it declared its neutrality on 6 September 1939. The Germans had hopes of stirring up a rebellion among the tribes living on both sides of the Durand Line, counting on collaboration with Haji Mirza Ali Khan alias the Fakir of Ipi.9 However, despite German attempts at espionage they failed to achieve their goal. The only rebellion of border tribes during the Second World War was a short-term revolt of the Afridis at the end of 1939.10 Prior to the partition of India, the Afghan Government, on 3 July 1947, sent a note to Delhi and London, in which it demanded that the people living in Pushtunistan be given the right to choose their own future – to be part of Pakistan, Afghanistan or became an independent state. In August 1947 just before Partition, the Afghan Prime Minister received an assurance from the British Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, that the "Cultural brotherhood of Afghans and Pathans of North-West Frontier Province will be not disturbed." The Afghanistan-Pakistan border dispute arose out of differing interpretations of the 1893 agreement. In Abdur Rahman Khan’s opinion, the agreement did not designate a boundary between Afghanistan and British India in the meaning of international law, but only a frontier of influence of both states. Up to his death, this was Abdur Rahman Khan’s point of view. The British point of view was similar at this time. In 1896 the Viceroy of India, Lord Elgin, wrote to G. Hamilton, Secretary of State for India: "The Durand agreement was an agreement to define the respective sphere of influence of the British Government and the Amir."12 Later British statements were also similar. In 1925, an official British Army publication, the Military Report on Afghanistan, stated that "The [Durand] line was not described in the 1893 treaty as the HISTORICAL DIMENSIONS THE BORDER DISPUTE Although included in India, [the] Tribal Areas weren’t a part of British India..the"Cultural brotherhood of Afghans and Pathans of North-West Frontier Province will be not disturbed." boundary of India, but as the eastern and southern frontiers of the Amir’s dominions and the limits of the respective sphere of influence of the two governments, the object being the extension of British authority and not that of the Indian frontier."13 Many British were, in later years, of the same opinion that the Durand Line and the administrative border between the Settled Districts and the Tribal Agencies were delineating zones of influence and responsibility – "…the tribes between the administrative border and the Durand Line were a buffer to a buffer, and the line had none of the rigidity of other international frontiers."14 The Simon Commission repeated the same point of view in 1928: "British India stops at the boundary15 of the administered area."16 All these statements made it clear that the British had no intention of annexing the territory up to the Durand Line, rather its goal was to administer this territory and treat it as a sphere of influence. Subsequent treaties between British India and Afghanistan of 1905, 1919, and 1921 did not confirm the Durand Line as an international boundary as such, but instead merely stated that the Afghans accepted the obligations of previous emirs. In consequence, the validity of the reaffirmation in later treaties depends in every case on the validity and nature of the obligations incurred in the Durand agreement of 1893, which created spheres of influence, but not an international boundary.17 One further problem complicated the situation from the point of view of international law – Point 14. The Afghan-British treaty of 1921 stated that both states had the right to repudiate the treaty within three years after a one-year notice.18 What is more, this treaty contained a supplementary letter specifically recognising Afghan interest in the trans-border tribes.19 Sometime at the end of the Second World War, the British changed their policy and officially stated that the Durand Line was an international boundary of India, a position inherited by Pakistan on its independence. Unofficially, the British themselves were not sure how to proceed in this case. Perhaps the best illustration of their confusion is a secret document, dated 28 April 1949, which stated that in the light of law, the situation was not clear as to the status of the Tribal Areas. According to this document these areas neither belonged to Pakistan nor to Afghanistan, but at the same time this new situation did not give Afghanistan any rights to extend its territory up to Tribal Areas without the approval of the latter’s population, and the same applied to Pakistan.20 Despite these doubts, British politicians publicly supported Pakistan’s point of view. On 30 June 1950 P. Noel-Becker, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, stated in the House of Commons that: "In His Majesty’s Government opinion Pakistan is, in the light of international law, the successor of rights and duties of the former Government of India and His Majesty’s Government towards those territories, and the Durand Line is an international boundary. In the face of British policy the Afghans tried to make a deal with Pakistan. Talks were held in December 1947 in Karachi during which Afghanistan demanded that the Durand Line be scrapped. According to Najibullah Khan, the Afghan representative, Afghanistan wanted to persuade Pakistan to allow the establishment of Pushtunistan; to allow Afghanistan free access to the sea; and, to guarantee mutual neutrality in case of attack on either party. Zafarulla Khan, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, made Pakistan’s stand on the Durand Line clear when he stated that Afghanistan had not understood the constitutional position of the provinces and that the tribes of the North-West Frontier Province had contributed in a great measure to the achievement of Pakistan. He did however, offer assurances that the Pushtuns of the frontier would enjoy equal and autonomous status within Pakistan.22 Many British were, in later years, of the same opinion that the Durand Line and the administrative border between the Settled Districts and the Tribal Agencies were delineating zones of influence and responsibility. The situation was not clear as to the status of the Tribal Areas...these areas neither belonged to Pakistan nor to Afghanistan.Afghanistan wanted to persuade Pakistan to allow the establishment of Pushtunistan.
In March 1949, Governor-General Khawaja Nazimuddin of North-West Frontier Province announced, that the Province was an integral part of Pakistan. The Afghan authorities protested. They stated that people living in the North- West Frontier Province should have a chance to choose. On 26 July 1949 the Afghan National Assembly nullified all treaties signed with Great Britain including the Durand Line.23 In this instance they based their actions on Point 14 of the Afghan-British treaty of 1921, which gave both states the right to repudiate treaties. The attitudes of Afghanistan and Pakistan allowed virtually no room for dialogue. From almost the first day of Pakistan’s existence as an independent country, relations between the two states were strained. The first sign of this was a vote in the United Nations on 30 September 1947. The Afghan mission voted against Pakistan’s membership, on the grounds of Pakistan’s refusal to Hosayn Aziz, the Afghan representative in the UN at the time stated that: "We cannot recognise the North-West Frontier Province as part of Pakistan so long as the people of North-West Frontier have not been given an opportunity, free from any kind of influence, to determine for themselves whether they wish to be independent or to become part of Pakistan."24 At the end of 1949 and the beginning of 1950 the situation worsened. Pakistan decided to stop Afghan trade going through Karachi and closed the border for oil products going to Afghanistan. These restrictions cut Afghanistan off from the outside world and created great difficulties in the country because of the economic dependence on imported goods, especially oil. The Soviet Union immediately took advantage of the situation and supplied Afghanistan with the most urgently needed goods.25 This led to the trade agreement, signed on 17 July 1950,26 which contained provisions for the import by Afghanistan of oil products, sugar, steel and iron goods, and the export to the Soviet Union of wool and cotton. Furthermore this trade was duty free. The volume of the trade grew swiftly, doubling over the next two years. At the same time the trade agreement gave the Soviets the means with which to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. For example, the Soviet Union successfully protested against American and Western European specialists working in Afghanistan, especially in the northern part of the country.27 In 1953 relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan improved slightly. The United States played a very important role in this improvement, connected with an American plan to build up a Middle East Defence Organisation. But cordial relations did not last long. On 27 March 1955 Pakistan decided to introduce administrative reform – the so-called "One-Unit Act", which involved the reorganisation of West Pakistan into a centralised state.28 This led to protests by Afghanistan fearing that Pushtuns in Pakistan would be assimilated into that state. This led to the so-called "flag incident",29 and in effect to the breaking off of diplomatic relations and the closing of the border between the two countries. This latter consequence was the worst, because it again cut Afghanistan off from the outside world,30 and pushed Afghanistan into the arms of the Soviet Union once more. On 28 July 1955 Afghanistan and the USSR signed a transit agreement.31 On 15-19 December 1955 Nikita Khrushchev and Niko³aj Bulganin visited Afghanistan during their trip to India and Burma. One of the effects of this visit was a US$100 million loan from the Soviet Union to Afghanistan on very favourable terms, the first of many.32 Another marked effect of the breakdown in bilateral relations was a growing Afghan dependency on Russian military supplies. In July 1956 the USSR granted Afghanistan a loan of US$32.4 million for military purchases.33 From 1956 on Russian became the technical language of the Afghan Army and most of its armaments came from the Soviet Union and other communist bloc countries. These close ties were also the result of America’s refusal to sell arms to Afghanistan.34 Soviet support in relation to the Pushtunistan case was also very important for Kabul. On 15 December 1955 Soviet Prime Minister Bulganin stated that the USSR supported the Afghan point of view and that a plebiscite should be conducted in the area where the Pushtuns live: "…The demand of Afghanistan that the population of neighbouring Pakhtunistan should be given an opportunity of freely expressing their will is justified as well ground. The people of this region have the same right of self-determination as any other people."35 ...the trade agreement gave the Russians the means with which to interfere in Afghanistan’s internal affairs. The leaders of the Soviet Union publicly stated, that: "Pushtuns should decide in a free referendum if they wish to stay in Pakistan, to create a new and independent state, or to unite with Afghanistan."36 In the late 1950s, Egyptian, Iranian, Saudi Arabian and United States mediation led to improved relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to the reopening of the border. It also led to many high level meetings – for example in August 1956 Pakistani President, Iskander Mirza, visited Afghanistan, and in February 1958 King Zahir Shah visited Pakistan. In May 1958 Afghanistan and Pakistan signed a transit agreement which provided for improved access for a range of imports to Afghanistan.37 Yet again however, this period of good relations did not last. There were two basic reasons for the breakdown in bilateral relations. One was the change, in 1960, in Pakistani government policy towards the Pushtun tribes. This was connected with the fact that some of these tribes disregarded state authority. A second reason was related to the fact that American U-2 aircraft were based in Pakistan and that two Pakistani aircrafts violated Afghan air space. On 18 May 1960 the Afghan Minister of Foreign Affairs, Naim, protested about this and warned that if Pakistan did not change its policy, Afghanistan would divert the Kabul River. On 13 May 1960 two Pakistani aircraft again violated Afghan air space and were forced to land in Afghanistan. Diplomatic notes were exchanged and on 17 September the pilots and aircraft were returned.38 In September 1960 some friction occurred on the border. Lashkars and detachments of the regular Afghan Army invaded some six miles into Pakistan territory, but were subsequently ejected by the Pakistani Army. Between March and May 1961 many more such border skirmishes took place.39 Continuing frictions and tensions caused the Afghan-Pakistan border to be closed once again in September 1961. During this crisis the Soviet Union gave moral support to Afghanistan. On 2-5 March 1960, Nikita Khrushchev paid a visit to Kabul, and after his return to Moscow stated, that: "…Pushtunistan always was a part of Afghanistan". A bilateral statement was also published which stated that Pushtuns in Pakistan have the right to self-determination.40 Once again the Soviet Union took advantage of Afghanistan’s difficult situation, and under Soviet pressure Afghanistan signed three agreements – in October 1961, January and April 1962,41 further strengthening the ties between the two countries. The Soviet Union went so far as to offer to finance the entire second five-year development plan, for 1960-1965, albeit with one condition attached, that Soviet advisers be placed at the highest level in all Afghan ministries. This time Prime Minister Daoud turned down the Soviet offer.42 The border between Afghanistan and Pakistan was re-opened in May 1963, when the Shah of Iran mediated between the two states.43 A new agreement was made possible because of changes in the Afghan government. After 10 years as Prime Minister, Daoud lost this post. He was well known for his irreconcilable standpoint on the Pushtunistan case. For him there were only two options – Pushtunistan should be a free and independent country or should unite with Afghanistan. An improvement in relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan led to the preservation of neutrality by Afghanistan during the second Indo- Pakistani conflict in Kashmir in 1965, and in 1971 when Bangladesh gained independence. A rapid deterioration in relations between Afghanistan and Pakistan occurred in 1973, after Afghanistan became a republic, with Daoud as its President. He tried to convince China to support Afghanistan’s point of view in the Pushtunistan case, while at the same time Pakistan tried to convince other countries that The leaders of the Soviet Union publicly stated, that: "Pushtuns should decide in a free referendum if they wish to stay in Pakistan, to create a new and independent state, or to unite with Afghanistan."Nikita Khrushchev paid a visit to Kabul, and after his return to Moscow stated, that: "…Pushtunistan always was a part of Afghanistan." Afghanistan, in alliance with the Soviet Union and India, was going to crush Pakistan. In the winter of 1974/1975 both countries started to mobilise troops in the border area. The situation appeared to be very serious and it was commonly believed that war was imminent. But Daoud, seeing that Pakistan was ready to fight over Pushtunistan, decided that his forces were too weak and started talks with Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. By the end of 1975 the situation had gradually improved. It seems that Daoud felt that Soviet influences in his country had become too strong for his liking and that he was not prepared to play the part of a Soviet puppet. Therefore, he was quite eager to reach some sort of understanding with Pakistan. Dialogue between Bhutto and Daoud was cordial and brought some benefits such as the restoration of air communications and renewed transit of consumer goods. Even the coup d’etat in Pakistan in 1977 did not disturb these positive trends in mutual relations. The new head of Pakistan, Zia ul-Haq paid a visit to Afghanistan in October 1977 and met with Daoud. In turn Daoud went to Pakistan in March 1978. As a result of these visits, Daoud abandoned his vision of an independent Pushtunistan, and Zia ul-Haq offered some form of autonomy for Pushtunistan. However, due to the coup d’etat in Afghanistan in 197845 these proposals never materialised. The communist coup d’etat complicated the situation, because the new regime tried to use the Pushtunistan case as a diversion to distract Afghan public opinion. The new regime used the old arguments: "Pushtunistan’s problem should be resolved with regard to the historical facts ."46 President Hafizullah Amin47 claimed "…unity [for] all Afghans from [the] Oxus to [the] Indus."48 What is more, he stated, "We cannot leave our brothers on the opposite side of Khajbar." After he became President, Amin’s stand in respect to the Pushtunistan question became much more decisive. In his opinion Pushtunistan belonged to "Great Afghanistan". Similarly Amin’s successor Babrak Karmal50 called for the re-unification of all Pushtuns under Afghanistan’s guidance. He named the North-West Frontier Province, which had been under British colonial and its successors rule, as the "the sacred land."51 At the same time the status of Pushtunistan changed – from being territory lost to Afghanistan to a destination for emigration. Migration from Afghanistan to Pakistan increased considerably after the Soviet intervention in December 1979. Most of the emigrants found a place to live in North-West Frontier Province. For example, in Baluchistan there were 500,000, in Punjab 100,000, and in North-West Frontier Province 1.8 million refugees from Afghanistan.52 This caused many side effects, notably in demographic composition with changes to the proportion of different ethnic groups in the area and it also influenced the local economy – emigrants from Afghanistan monopolised transport in the northern part of Pakistan, and formed the largest group in the carpet industry.53 The border problem between Afghanistan and Pakistan returned to prominence during the Geneva negotiation54 following the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan at the end of the 1980s. The subject continued to cause discussion and controversy. The solution adopted at this time did not resolve any of the problems – the Durand Line was not confirmed as the international border between the two countries – and the questions remained open for further discussion. Article II, point 3 of the Accords arising from the negotiations stated that both countries were "to refrain from the threat or use of force in any form whatsoever so as not to violate the boundaries of each other, to disrupt the political, social or economic order of the other High Contracting Party, to overthrow or change the political system of the other High Contracting Party or its Government, or to cause tension between the High Contracting Parties."55 The new regime used the old arguments:"Pushtunistan’sproblem should beresolved with regard to the historical facts." President Hafizullah Amin1 claimed "…unity [for] all Afghans from [the] Oxus to [the] Indus. What ismore, he stated,"We can not leave our brothers on the opposite side of Khajbar." After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, civil war erupted between different groups of Mujahideen. Unexpectedly, nearly all groups of Mujahideen were defeated by a new power the Taleban. What was the connection between the Taleban and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border dispute? Pakistan hoped, among other things, that it would be easier to reach an understanding on Pushtunistan with a Taleban government. They also hoped for the repatriation of Afghan refugees in Pakistan, which had caused a great deal of trouble for their administration to date,56 and that the Taleban would finally acknowledge the Durand Line as the international boundary between the two states. But as it transpired they were mistaken in their hopes, despite the close ties between these two regimes, the Taleban was not ready to acknowledge the validity of the Durand Line.57 At the present time (December 2001), after the fall of the Taleban regime the question of Pushtunistan remains in limbo. The new Afghan interim government has more pressing responsibilities than the border controversy with Pakistan. First of all, there is a question of rebuilding the state, achieving peaceful reconciliation between various ethnic and tribal groups, and the creation of a new political order. The interim government is by definition shortlived, and whatever its ideas concerning Pushtunistan, it does not have scope for them. What is more, Pakistan’s friendly neutrality is vital for the success of this new government. Secondly, the recent events in Afghanistan – the struggle with al-Qaeda and the hunt for Osama bin Laden – have led to the deployment of Pakistani regular forces in the Pushtun Tribal Areas, for the first time in fifty years (certainly in such strength). In this situation it may be assumed that the Pakistani hold on Pushtunistan is strengthened. Therefore it is likely that, for time being, the whole question of Pushtunistan will be put aside. To summarise the consequences of the border dispute several points should be stressed. Firstly, every time the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was closed the Soviet Union gained an opportunity to extend its presence and interests in Afghanistan, influencing government policy, the economy and the army. This border became, metaphorically speaking, a Soviet gateway to Afghanistan. Up to the beginnings of the conflict with Pakistan, one of the main goals of Afghan policy had been to keep Soviet influences as far as possible from Afghanistan and to maintain equal distance with the two powers bordering Afghanistan. What is more, every crisis in Afghan-Pakistani relations meant further estrangement between Afghanistan and Western Europe and the United States. This in turn inhibited access to Afghanistan by specialists and technicians from international organisations and agencies such as the UNHCR and fostered the conviction in the United States and Western Europe that Afghanistan was not a stable country, resulting, it could be argued in stronger US support for Pakistan. Afghanistan’s ties with the Soviet Union were seen as a proof that the country, in theory neutral, was in fact pro-Soviet. As to the future of the dispute, it should be borne in mind that formally the question remains unsolved. It is still possible that in future, after rebuilding of the state, that Afghanistan can return to the Pushtunistan debate. It might then be used, once again, to divert Afghan public opinion from internal problems – the struggle for power between different political groups. Equally some other player might emerge who will try to use this dispute for his own goals.
Sir I will be weating for youres responsed as soon, by Email.
with beast reagards
Hi, I have been editing since July 2005 and have been an admin since February 2006. I was a reasonable editor (my brag list is on my user page) a reasonable P:RUS gnome and a reasonable admin. I did many small mistakes but I believe I have not yet made unforgivable ones (I think this is because of my good understanding of wiki policies and a common sense).
Having some experience in many wiki-roles I realized that Arbcom is very important for the project. Wikipedia is done by volunteers; if it is a comfortable place for productive work - people will come here to do productive works, if it is a comfortable place for trolling, vandalizing and disruptive editing - trolls, vandals and tendentious editors will be in and productive people out. If it will be a comfortable place for abusing administrative tools and biting newbies then again power hungry megalomaniacs will be in and workers out.
Administrators handle obvious vandalism. Since the introduction of the community blocks some cases could be solved by the admins acting as a large committee, the new Wikipedia:Community sanction may increase their number even more. Still many complicated cases could only be solved by Arbcom. There is a domino effect here - one wrong decision will lead to much more of the same. Good decisions create precedents and diminish future conflicts. Since the small Arbcom committee manage to handle their load despite the growth of wiki they must be doing the right thing most of the time. I believe I could help to separate rights of wrongs.
I am an admin open for recall, I intend to be an arbitrator open for recall as well, so it should be feasible to recall me if you want it.
Thank you for your attention, I am happy to answer questions.
The Arbitration Committee is an integral part of the smooth running of the wikipedia community. I have always done my absolute best to be fair and accurate, both while editing, in discourse with other editors, and in performance of my administrative duties. I understand that we all have a point-of-view, and that is one of the main elements that makes wikipedia so special. The other element, however, is the agreement we all make with each other to function within the policies and guidelines of wikipedia, as fluid or rigid as they may be. One of the main purposes of ArbCom is to act as the arbitors of last resort (barring Jimbo, of course) who handle cases which have exhausted all prior mediation means, while maintaining a professional view of the situation—personal views notwithstanding. It is a difficult, and often thankless, position but one without which our community and encyclopædia would crash and burn in an inferno of flamewars and trolling. Applying a measured sense of reason, a desire to be fair and equitable to all participants, and a liberal smattering of humor, I feel that my background, temperament, wikiediting history, and administrative activities, together with some deep-breathing exercises, would allow me to contribute to the community as a whole in this fashion, and it would be an honor and a privilege to continue to give back to the community and the project in this way.
Thank you.
Hello. I registered in September 2005, becomin an administrator this May. I try to be active across a wide variety of activities, due to my enjoyment of the project, trying to become a more complete editor, as it is clear that I am very far from such a state. I have written extensively across a variety of topics with featured contributions, as well as janitorial duties, clearing backlogs, mediating disputes, and stuff in between. I feel that as Wikipedians tend to specialise more, a wide experience gives a good view of the issues facing Wikipedia , so that good faith contributors of all trades get the respect and fair treatment that they deserve.
Every arbcom decision must be geared towards advancing our fundamental goal of advancing the encyclopedia, by creating an environment which allows for maximum growth and productivity of quality content. The Arbcom intervenes when dispute resolution fails, to break deadlocks so that human resources are redirected to their ideal use, when users who persistently misbehave in a manner preventing the encyclopedia's progress, cannot be dealt with through the blocking policy.
As Wikipedia grows, the attention it receives from people with strong ethno- political and religious ideologies has exploded, and content improvement is stifled due to attempted advocacy, propaganda or rewriting of history. High levels of tendentious and disruptive behaviour persist for months before sanctions are put in place, resulting in many high profile and complex articles being in an embarrassingly poor state. This benefits detrimental editors whilst hardworking productive editors, often our best, who maintain delicate articles are forced out, sometimes simply due to the stigma of being in a protracted dispute. I strongly believe in the use of tailored remedies, as everybody has different strengths, in order to retain the productive facets of editing, whilst restricting negative activity, with banning as a last resort. I also favour maximum transparency.
I have a commitment to attention to detail (shown here in RfA nominations) , to maximise the likelihood of making correct decisions which give the encyclopedia the optimal opportunity to continue growing. I will attempt to make arbcom become more visible, by helping to formulate the findings and remedies so that problems are resolved faster. I have a thick skin, neutral, analytical and objective style and approachable and willing to respond to requests for assistance in detail, as shown by my talk archives.
I've been around since May 2005. In that timespan, I've made around 3100 edits, and I believe I've upheld civility and NPA. I try to look at both sides of a dispute. I feel I was pretty civil, for example, in the Esperanza MfD, where I saw civility lacking. I try also to be polite in my discussions. I feel that it would be a great privilege to give back to Wikipedia in this capacity and server in the best interest of the community. ~ crazytales-talk- 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Wikipedia. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Wikipedia's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.
Hello! The Arbitration Committee, the final step in our dispute resolution process, is a critical and integral part of Wikipedia, and I humbly offer myself as a candidate for these elections. I’ve been here since May 2005, and was promoted to admin in August of that year. My contributions to Wikipedia (currently at 14,000 edits, although I give little value to edit counts) span a breadth of topics: from writing and contributing to the encyclopedia to helping newcomers to performing administrative tasks, I’ve always been dedicated to this wonderful project.
I’ve also had significant experience in our dispute resolution processes. I’ve been a member of the Mediation Committee, one of the key steps prior to arbitration, since September 2005 and am now one of the longest-serving active mediators. Seeing disputes firsthand and attempting to mediate the cases has provided me with invaluable experience, and will allow me to serve as Arbitrator more efficiently and with more judgment. I’ve also followed the activities of the Arbitration Committee closely, providing evidence in several cases. I also wrote the entire series about the Arbitration Committee and the elections for the Wikipedia Signpost’s series on the January 2006 ArbCom elections; articles covered everything from the history of the ArbCom, criticism of the committee, reform attempts, to duties and requirements of ArbCom members. During the series I also interviewed most of the ArbCom members. Conducting these interviews, along with researching and writing the series, has provided me with a keen and unique perspective about the ArbCom.
My experience is not limited to dispute resolution, though. I’ve nominated several featured articles and pictures, and created and improved countless others. I’ve also served the community in other capacities: I’ve written nearly 100 articles for the Signpost since August 2005, am on the OTRS team, am a Meta admin, and also am on the Communication Committee’s Internal Subcommittee, responsible for being a liaison for the community to the Foundation and vice versa. I’ve always been of the community, and will always be for the community.
My platform is simple: I will always listen closely to everyone, carefully consider all the options, and do whatever is best for the encyclopedia. Ultimately, the duty of the ArbCom is to improve the encyclopedia, and I will always keep that priority first.
It has been a great honor and privilege serving the community, and I look forward to continuing to serve.
Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:13, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee exists to settle disputes that the community can not resolve on its own. For this reason the Arbitration Committee is essential for helping the Wikipedia community achieve its purpose of creating a free encyclopedia.
I would like the opportunity to assist the community towards meeting this goal by working as an Arbitrator. I've been an editor since September 2005, an Administrator since May 2006, and an Arbitration Committee Clerk since August 2006. I also answer OTRS queries for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have knowledge of Wikipedia culture and policy as well as time to do the job well. I am easily approachable, will listen to all sides of the dispute, and will strive to find the best solution for the Wikipedia community. FloNight 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm about as apolitical a Wikipedian as most of you will ever meet. I'm not an expert on any topic, nor am I affiliated with any person or organization that is the subject of a Wikipedia article.
In terms of potential conflicts of interest, I'm going to put things quite simply: I don't have any.
In case you're about to ask, I've never written a featured article, nor do I currently have any aspirations of doing so.
Despite these factors, and despite having never successfully getting AWB to run on my machine, I've somehow managed to accrue over 33,000 edits. I'm also older than I give myself credit for, having been an administrator since December 2005. I've tallied about 11,500 blocks (2nd to the legendary User:Curps), 7000 deletions, and several hundred page protections.
If elected, I pledge to thoroughly familiarize myself all sides of every issue. If time does not permit me to fully understand the dynamics of all open cases, I may limit the number of cases I participate in, rather than spreading myself thinly, taking shots in the dark, or risking an eeny, meeny, miny, moe charade.
Our contributors deserve better. If they weren't acting in good faith at least part of the time, the dispute would never have come to arbcom's attention, right?
I will seek the decisions that I feel, based on the available evidence, will most benefit (or least harm) the project as a whole, without regard to precedent, reputation, popular opinion, or article content.
It's not a complex strategy. It's not a complex process either. It doesn't involve making rules, or enforcing them, just determining whether or not existing ones have been broken, and whether the project has suffered as a result of said infractions. If both of these conditions aren't met, there's probably no case to be heard.
Use common sense. Weigh the pros and cons and do what's best overall. There's no manual to read, and maybe that's why it doesn't come easy to some people.
But then, I'm a pretty simple guy. —freak(talk) 06:27, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)
I am one of the longer-time members of Wikipedia, arriving in 2003 and becoming an administrator in 2004, and I hope to bring with me some breadth of experience with the project. I remain convinced that Wikipedia should be, as it was, a flat hierarchy, for we are all volunteers, and we are all equals. Each gives as her or his abilities and interests dictate, and the best arbitrators are those who are most articulate and conversant with the policies of Wikipedia. Thus, being on ArbCom is a job rather than an honor, and arbitrators are judges of policy infractions rather than legislators. I hope that my long history of article writing (I keep a brag list at my user page), involvement at XfD (user:Geogre/AfD has some of the material that led to the "notability" guideline, and Wikipedia:Managed Deletion was possibly the first shot at what would become prod and the expanded CSD (although those were the result of the hard work of many, many others, and I claim no credit except for working)), the various noticeboards, and DRV testifies to my experience and to my temperament. My one interest is in transparency, respect, and subordinating all other concerns to the maintenance of a sound editing atmosphere for our volunteers -- the people who made Wikipedia one of the most used and visited sites on the entire web. I welcome questions and hope to help the community understand the positions ArbCom takes, as well as to help the other members of ArbCom respond to the needs of the general community.
The process of arbitration is a positive way to resolve conflicts where negotiation and mediation failed. Arbitrators have to be impartial, meaning that they won't help or oppose any of the disputing parties on a personal basis : their opinion has to be based, more than upon the facts, upon the better dispute resolving means.
A party that has shown bad faith in his declarations, ways and means may be ultimately right when his goals are proved to be included in the community’s one. A sanction may be necessary ; the goals must be supported.
As a community, Wikipedia’s goals are extensively, if not clearly, defined. Too much policy can only bring more disputes. There is not one and only one solution, there is a way to bring forth knowledge. This has to be done by following a defined process where raw information is first brought upon, then refined.
Conflicts arise when the quality of information declines ; they must not begin just because it is poor. Larry Sanger criticises WP and wants a bunch of experts to have the final word : that is not our actual policy.
I'm a French IT consultant who gnomily contributes to WP articles and RD answers, quite recently proofreading Gutemberg project's books. An arbitrator is not free for the customer : I may spend less time for articles.
Addendum -- "My mood in a nutshell" is added here, please read it before asking questions --
WP says that it is not a democracy. In such a state, three independent powers are required. Here, it looks as if it was a little similar, as anyone proposes policies and votes for them ; various empowered users try to protect articles and users ; arbitrators give decisions (those should not use any more superpowers than requiring sensible information.)
The activities of each category of Wpian is clear and distinct. Arbs are allowed to know nothing of encyclopedia subjects, the same for admins. Editors may ignore all rules, except when it protects them or they lack respect to others. WP is fine.
Problems arise with people's temper, as they put their heart in what they write. This may be treated quite easily.
Problems arise with visibility. Google any word and ask why the WP's article is not n°1 by now. WP is no more fine with such a situation, as more and more energy is directed towards good order and taken off good editing.
Problems are sometimes linked with fandom and creed (political or else). These subjects are, or are not, encyclopedical. Fandom about notable memes (TV series, music or film heroes, games, the glory of the place you were haphazard born in) may be understood.
Creeds are a part of human experience and are welcome too. The first French encyclopedia dealt with powers and creeds in a perfect POV manner, according to its own agenda. There may not be any agenda, even a politically correct one, here : go and create your own 'pedia elsewhere.
May editors remember what they used to search for, find and like in an old style encyclopedia. WP is not that, but its contents must respect the reader searching anything in it. -- DLL .. T 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Arbitration is the final step in ruling on user behaviour, and as such, is important to keep the project (and community) running smoothly. It takes a lot of time and devotion - I am willing to devote my energies to it if elected. Arbitration, like some other activities on our projects, takes a good grasp of policy and of the good of the project -- there are many different styles of judgment possible for an arbiter. If you like mine, then vote for me. I've been involved with Wikipedia since late 2002. I have been a mediator, and have also settled disputes through other, less formal means, before, during, and after my time as an active member of MedCom. I've been involved in various projects over the years, from OTRS to the India-related-topics Wikipedians Notice Board (check my userpage for the full list), and care a lot about the project. I know Arbitration is an exhausting, thankless task - I won't claim to be different or better than the other people who have served on the committee (many of whom I know), I'm just willing to serve.
I'm a bit disappointed to see questions repeat. Where's the tough grilling? Here's a summary of the main lines of questioning. You're welcome to look over the entire session, of course. Previous statement.
- Q: 1. What good are you around here? Won't it be bad if you sit on ArbCom instead of working (or at all)?
- A: I don't do much in articlespace; I do some graphics. See Brag. Mostly, I'm active in policy matters; I'm most proud of my work at Wikipedia:Wheel war and of my maintenance of {{cent}}.
- You don't vote for me because I'm a good editor. You vote for me because you want to see ArbCom limited to issues of user conduct. I'm committed to this position.
- Q: 2. Why should we trust you?
- A: You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust anybody. Before you vote, check my contribs. Like anyone else, I make mistakes and most of my edits are trivial. Look for the ones where I speak about ArbCom. Here's Google. See what stands I've taken. After elections, watch members very carefully. If we fail to measure up to your standards, protest. Petition for removal in extreme cases; vote them out at the first opportunity. Trust must be earned, not given.
- Q: 3. If we elect you, are you going to be a worker, a sleeper, or a tyrant?
- A: I'll work. I understand it's frustrating to wait for cases to conclude. I don't know why ArbCom takes so long to close; it deliberates in secret. If you elect me, I'll do my best to move things along.
- I don't think an individual arbitrator wields any sort of broad power; all decisions are joint. I will uniformly be available at length to explain my reasoning on any point. I uphold frank transparency at all times.
- Q: 4. What do you think about Policy XYZ?
- A: I may have an opinion but it really doesn't matter. ArbCom must restrict itself to a purely judicial role of arbitrating user conduct issues, chiefly to terminate wheel wars. You make policy. A level playing field and orderly process matters more than any particular policy issue.
I'm here to be of service, as I was when I ran last time. I've been an editor since September of 2004 and an admin since November of that year. I feel I am particularly suited for participation on the Arbitration Committee due to my experience here, as well as my many years of experience with online community, first as sysop of my own BBS, and later as moderator of several high-traffic, high-profile conferences on The WELL. My strongest point, I think, is my ability to make impartial analyses of complicated situations; though I certainly have strong opinions in some areas, I'm able to set those opinions aside to work to help find solutions to human problems. I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.
Registered as Just zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs) in 2004, active since September 2005, changed my account to JzG (talk · contribs) to make my sig shorter in talk pages, sysop since January 2006. The handle dates back a long ways, real name and contact details are no secret and never have been. I am a 42-year-old Englishman, married, kids, electrical engineering degree, working as a sysadmin for a Fortune 500 company. In other words, I'm a geek but not a teenager. I try to spend time every week actually building the encyclopaedia, but often fail due to the distractions of adminship.
I have two favourite quotes: from H. L. Mencken, "for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong"; and from Bertrand Russell, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts." I am constantly plagued by doubts and the question I most often ask myself is "what if I'm wrong?"
This is an encyclopaedia. Everything should be traceable back to core policy and justified by benefit to the encyclopaedia. My inclusion standards are pretty high and biased towards actual research and subjects outside of popular culture; it seems to me that the benefit of all this hard work should be to provide verifiable information which a thirty-second Google search will not reveal.
I support community-based solutions to problems of disruptive editing, but wish more of the community were involved in those discussions. As a top ten site, we are now the number one target for people promoting an agenda. ArbCom is our final line of defence, and by the time ArbCom deliberates (which it must, to ensure fairness) we may have had months of disruption and wasted editor effort. I like temporary injunctions, but these should of course not give an advantage to one side in a good-faith dispute.
I put in a fair bit of effort on Wikipedia, and I do my best to be fair, open to criticism, and to explain my actions and the thoughts which underly them. I am not perfect, and certainly not always right, but I do my best.
I've been a Wikipedian since June 2005 and an admin since October of the same year; at one point or another, I think I've tried my hand at most of the more interesting activities on Wikipedia. (Most of my time is spent working here, if anyone is curious.) I've participated in a handful of ArbCom cases, both as an involved party and as a not-entirely-mute member of the peanut gallery.
Broadly speaking, I think the current ArbCom setup is more-or-less successful (aside, of course, from what seems to be a chronic lack of time on the part of the Arbitrators, and the resulting slow process). There has been a certain tendency, in some cases, to dodge the underlying problem in favor of a simpler superficial one, thus not really resolving the fundamental dispute; but this has been limited enough that it does not necessarily indicate a harmful trend.
Aside from that, I won't descend into any obscenely long ruminations on wiki-philosophical issues here; if anyone is interested in my opinion on something in particular, please don't hesitate to ask!
I'm going for simplicity: I'll try to be reasonable, and remember to keep the best interests of Wikipedia first in my mind. If I think that I'm prejudiced regarding a case, I'll recuse. If you want to know my definitions of reasonableness, I'd ask you look to my actions, not my statements, but I'm willing to answer almost any questions you have. Thanks! :)
One of the annoying things about the Arbcom Committee (there aren't many, I think they tend to do a very, very good job) is how they're all "insiders" (e.g. they favor their "friends", or at least they often give that impression... they don't recuse NEARLY as much as they should... administrators are basically never punished with more than a slap on the wrist, etc). I'd provide an outsider's point of view in deliberations.
I don't expect to win this nomination, or to even come close; however, I'm at the point, blissfully, where I don't care all that much about how the higher-ups in the Wikipedia community think of me. I think that'd actually be a pretty good trait for an arbcom member to have, come to think of it. I haven't edited WP much in the past couple months (marching band sucks up one's life, tragically), but it's ended, so I would be able to serve if I happened to win.
Enjoy life. 
After being involved in having arbitration being brought up against me and my involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions, I know I am well versed in the process and procedures of arbitration. My biggest concern is a desire to see an improvement in the decision making timeline. I don't see anything as broken with the system, but will always be open to changes suggested by anyone, and will be more than happy to forward all reasonable requests to fellow arbitrators and the foundation. I have over 20,000 edits with 11,000 or so of those in wiki article space, four featured articles I either started or assisted on as well as another 200 plus other article starts. I am a strong defender of precedent and policy, demand heavily on the use of reliable sources and oppose attempts to misuse Wikipedia as a platform for advocacy. I will always recuse myself in cases I have a conflict of interest in, will be completely open to recall/review and demonstrate complete transparency in my edits, as I always have. Most of all, I want to ensure that those editors and issues which are problematic to ensuring we create the world's most reliable encyclopedic source are dealt with swiftly and fairly. Thank you for your time.
As Wikipedia expands, it continues to suffer growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As janitors, admins have more options, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are most stressful, administrators can confuse their hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues. In my view, the most difficult problems Arbcom had to deal with this year concerned exactly this issue.
It's the nature of any semi-judicial body that at least one party will be unhappy about their decision. Arbcom can't avoid that sort of criticism. What they can do, however, is to zealously guard the principle of transparency, so that when they make a decision its underlying principles are clear. This means favoring open process over closed process, avoiding secret appeals and secret evidence except as a last resort (for example, when required by law), and explaining the rationales behind their decisions in clear and simple language.
People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned. But every editor has the right to be treated civilly, even during disagreements. It is never appropriate to ignore civility.
I have been editing for several years now, and strive diligently to strike a balance between caution and common sense as both an editor and an administrator. If selected as an arbitrator, I will continue to do the same for that role. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency and efficacy to the process as I can. Thanks.
One more thing that's probably worth mentioning: I'm very unlikely to use IRC, because I think the dynamics of communication there are terrible. I prefer on-wiki communications whenever possible, or email.
My main reason for running is that I enjoy trying to help people work things out, and I want to help keep Wikipedia an open and fair place to which to contribute. I've had an official account here since 2005, though I used Wikipedia (and did some minor editing) fairly regularly for about a year before that. I've been generally easy to work with and I'm a generally balanced, civil, and respectful editor. I've worked on a wide range of articles, though my main focus has been articles somehow related to WikiProject Japan, which I set up in March of this year to help organize the work on that part of the encyclopedia. While I have made some mistakes along the way, I believe I have learned from them, and am a better person for the experience. By becoming a member of the Arbitration Committee, I hope to continue being balanced and improving the Wikipedia project as a whole. Working on Wikipedia has been one of the most enjoyable things I have ever done (for the most part), and I look forward to helping to make the project even better in the years to come. Thanks for your time.
I was born in 1950, received a PhD in mathematics in 1980. I live in Cambridge, MA.
I have been a Wikipedian since Jul 2004, and an admin since May 2005. I have over 26,000 edits. I have participated in a wide range of activities on WP. My writing has been mainly in the areas of mathematics and classical history. I have written one FA and contributed to a few others. I'm an active participant in the Mathematics Project. I've performed maintenance and fought vandalism. I'm familiar with the policy and procedures of Wikipedia. I've never opened or been the subject of an RfC or ArbCom case, but I've closely followed and contributed to several.
I care deeply about our encyclopedia.
Since I now have the luxury of no longer needing to work for a living (I married well and invested wisely ;-), Wikipedia has become my life's work. And it is more fulfilling than any work I've done before.
For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.
However Wikipedia is not a perfect world. There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.
The job of the ArbCom, then, is to serve the writers of the encyclopedia by helping to maintain a positive and productive working environment. This is an important job. I would like to help.
On the other hand, it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.
I am cool headed. I can say without exaggeration that I have never typed a word in anger on Wikipedia. Filiocht (perhaps the editor I've most respected and admired) once told me that I was the most considered editor he knew. I think it might have been a polite way of saying I was slow, but I do think before I type. I also consider myself able to be objective and impartial (but then don't we all).
There are several excellent editors volunteering for ArbCom, at least two of whom deserve your vote more than I do, Geogre and UninvitedCompany.
Being something of a glutton for punishment (An essential skill), I offer myself up again. If elected, I intend to focus on the task of writing proposed decisions - something that currently is done by one person. While Fred is quite capable of the task, a second pair of eyes in decision proposing is important, and will lend balance to the decisions.
I also think it is increasingly inevitable that the arbcom is going to have to get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content, and cases that involve trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep that increasingly leads to messes. The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation.
Beyond that, I would apply the philosophy that I've demonstrated in my actions on Wikipedia - a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.
Edit:I've been asked to point out that I got a username change in January away from Snowspinner and to Phil Sandifer.
If elected, I intend to focus on the task of arbitration as much as I can - i feel that my almost five years here have given me a pretty good insight into situations that might arise.
Questions for PMA (I will be away until Monday for medical treatment so i will answer then)
Hello. I registered as a Wikipedia user on 31 March 2005 and received administrator status in 5 April 2006 (my RFA)
What have I done on Wikipedia? I’ve just short of 10,000 edits, and about another 4000 admin actions - I get involved. I've dabbled in just about everything one can in Wikipedia, from translations to mediation to AFD to wikifying, and everything in between, so I have a broad knowledge. I am not a specialist in any one area. I've contributed around 300 new articles (a selected list is on my user page). I have been involved in deletion policy, as well as working on policies such as WP:NOT – this has lent me a solid grip of Wikipedia policy, and firmly believe that policy, applied sensibly and with a dash of common sense, is what is required for Wikipedia to proceed.
What do I believe? I dislike 'backchannel' politics, and believe everything in Wikipedia should be done out in the open, hence I don’t use IRC, nor do I take part in the mailing list. These are conscious decisions. I’d strive to ensure that were I to become an arbitration committee member, all my decisions (and discussions) will made in the open.
So am I qualified to make these kinds of decisions? I believe I am; I am reasonable, bright, succinct, clear, and think carefully. I care. I don’t like overcomplicating simple issues. I take responsibility for my mistakes. I’m never quick to block, preferring warnings (especially if none have previously been received), but I don’t shy away from it when it’s necessary to prevent further abuse.
People feel strongly about Wikipedia, and about what happens to their contributions. They should – if you put effort in to something, it’s disheartening to see others take that work away. Often, this is due to a lack of understanding, or a failure on the part of the more experienced user to explain to the newbie, in a civil manner, ‘’why’’ their work was removed. Frayed tempers and brusqueness are, regrettably (but, often, understandably) common. It’s the role of the Arbitration Committee to be detached. To be calm. To not get involved. Content resolution isn’t, and must never be, the role of the Arbitration Committee – correctly applying current policy to contentious cases of conduct is.
I strongly believe I would be a worthy member of this group, and I would not let you down.
I’ve been active since December 2004, registered after a few months, and have been an admin since June 2005. My motto is that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. Thus, I have done my best to make Wikipedia run more smoothly. I have never shied away from examining controversial issues, and use careful reasoning to cut to the heart of them. Indeed, I have been called a voice of reason and progress many times, even by those who disagree with me.
I've written an essay on my wikiphilosophy, or how Wikipedia should work. In my view, the ArbCom walks a fine line between guarding the encyclopedia by being lenient to good contributors, and guarding the morale of our volunteer editors by being even-handed. The aim is to be stern where necessary, fair where possible.
Together with a variety of other editors, I have been instrumental in solving or alleviating a number of issues in Wikipedia. The most well-known of these solutions is probably Proposed Deletion. Other frequently-cited ones include the present definition of policy and guideline, Centralized Discussion, Wikipedia is Not a Bureaucracy, and n u m e r o u s others.
Problematic users I have dealt with include Zen-master, Gabrichidze, and to some extent, Willy on Wheels. I've given my thoughts on the Giano case; a recent dispute I have dealt with is TV episode naming, which I looked into after a request for neutral opinion. I have attempted to defuse the situation, mainly using debate, but I felt it necessary to remove an inappropriate poll about one editor's personality, and to temporarily protect the page to stop a revert war over the disputedpolicy tag. I believe there is now a consensus with still some opposition, with the compromise of redirecting the minority name to the consensual name.
I believe I would make a capable arbiter, and if the community so desires I will aid the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.
I've been on Wikipedia since September 2005, and an administrator since March 2006. I hope that in the year or so I've been here I've demonstrated the good judgment and calm head necessary to be on the Arbitration Committee.
My experience spans editing, vandalism prevention and dispute resolution. Closing Articles for deletion discussions is one of my preferred areas, where I try to give as much explanation as is necessary and desirable, particularly when consensus isn't obvious, and not shy away from making judgements on evidence and policy. While I'm not perfect - two of my closes have been overturned that I can remember - feedback on my talk page and the fact that most of the few that are reviewed have been endorsed have given me the impression that I take the right approach.
There are two important issues surrounding the Arbcom that influence why I'm running. The first is that we need more visible Arbitrators. The fact that of four cases in the voting stage, in three of them, Fred Bauder is behind the initial remedies, is not a bad thing, as Fred's judgment is sound; but it would be better if more arbitrators could reach this level of visibility. We know that much Arbcom discussion takes place "behind the scenes", but nonetheless, some more varied activity would be helpful and unlikely to make Arbcom judgments less effective.
The second bit is what Phil Sandifer aptly calls the inevitability of the Arbcom "getting its hands dirty". The recent decision banning Encyclopaedia Dramatica links and material was the sort of clear and unambiguous decision which will become increasingly necessary if Arbcom is to be able to resolve disputes, as Wikipedia's editors, articles and its maze of WP: pages increase like rabbits. I know that some editors were unhappy with that particular decision, but the Arbcom, like editors, must be bold to be effective. I remain convinced that Arbcom should not directly rule on what content should be included in an article, but if it restricts itself to saying when editors are edit warring or incivil, it's going to be seeing an awful lot more cases relating to the same editors and articles when probations and bans on single editors prove ineffective. We should empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes.
Thanks for reading; I look forward to answering your questions.
Note: Most know me as Jareth, my account name for much of the time here
I'm afraid I'm not the best speech writer, but I'll have a go. I'm a closet wikignome - I work on many tasks with the best interests of the project in mind. This, my experiences with a couple of ArbCom cases and my work with OTRS have led me to interact with many different facets of the project and hopefully I've learned from them. The work I do also leads itself to mediation and negotiating resolutions, whether its internal or with an external party through the ticketing system.
The community lays the foundation for precedents; policy itself should not come from the committee. ArbCom is an important part of keeping the editing environment healthy and I would be honored to devote my experience and skills to that cause. I have considerable time I can apply which I would hope might help resolve cases in a more timely fashion and allow Fred to cool his fingers now and again.
Further info based on questions:
- I have the time to work with ArbCom and still do other things to help out the project. Neither becoming an admin nor starting work on OTRS changed my enjoyment of dabbling in areas of the project that need assistance.
- Its possible I will make mistakes, however, I will also learn from them and whenever possible, fix them. My ego is infinitely less important than the well-being of the project.
- Don't vote based just on what you see here, stroll through my contributions and decide for yourself if I'm qualified/sane. Be comfortable with the contributors chosen to represent the community on ArbCom and don't be afraid to ask for recall if someone doesn't work out.
- ArbCom should limit itself to conduct disputes and rule based on existing community consensus. What I think about a particular policy doesn't change that mandate and I don't intend to try legislating from the bench.
Thank you for your time; I will be happy answer any questions.
Hiya, I'm Andrew Lenahan, known to some as Starblind. I've been around since 2004 and have been an administrator since July 2005. In my time I've written articles on urologists, koala puppets, soul music, medieval cookbooks, nudist sci-fi, Victorian crime, novelty cakes, wargames, deer that get pumpkins stuck on their heads, and everything in-between. I've been a VFD regular, gotten a bunch of barnstars, and had a hand in creating policies and guidelines. I'd like to try being on arbcom, not with the goal of "fixing" it or shaking things up, but because I see it as a logical progression of how I can further give back to a community and project which has given quite a lot to me.
I can't really say too much about myself. I deal with these sorts of issues quite a lot here (I almost exclusively dabble in behavior stuff, to be honest), and I'm willing to give this a shot as well.
Questions for The prophet wizard of the crayon cake
It has now been some years since I resigned my membership in the arbitration committee, and I think I'm ready to return. I have followed most of the arbitration cases brought in the meantime, and believe I can therefore provide consistency and continuity of decisionmaking. Most of my recent work (last six months or so) has been related to answering the Foundation's email, which has given me a new appreciation for the impact our articles make on the real world.
In general, I'm hoping that Wikipedians will offer their support to potential arbcom members based on their dedication to the project, judgment, and ability to keep cool -- not based on a platform. To the extent I can be said to have a platform, it is made up of these planks:
- The arbcom should not be involved in legislating policy - that's for the community alone
- Any reasonable means of speeding up the process should be adopted. Justice delayed is justice denied.
- I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.
- While I believe that partial remedies such as "probation" and article bans do have a place, I think they are overused and detract from the sense of fairness for people who go to the trouble to bring a case.
Questions for UninvitedCompany
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)
In my time here at Wikipedia, I have discovered that a lot of the heated discussions, arguments, and personal attacks are handled, and resolved through the work of the Arbitration Committee. I feel that I would be a good addition to this committee, as I have dealt with issues I have seen with even-handedness, keeping my cool when accusations are thrown my way, and my ability to listen to all sides before passing judgment. I welcome any and all questions, and I will do my best to answer them in a timely fashion. I also respect the opinion of my fellow Wikipedians as to my worth in an ArbCom position, be it good or bad.
The Arbcom should provide predictable and prompt decisions that further the mission of writing a free encylopedia. Along with the AN/I, mediation committees, community forums, etc, the ArbCom exists to keep disputes and other problems from impeding the project. The ArbCom needs members who are fair, trusted, active, and solution-oriented.
To the ArbCom I'd bring the dedication that I've demonstrated over the past two years. I've edited more than 8,000 unique pages across a broad range of topics, including some of the least popular, and am among the 50 most active editors. Through it all I've maintained good humor and focus. I'm offering to devote all of that time and energy to ArbCom matters.
Other candidates are more qualified to be ArbCom members than me and I'm honored to run with them. It's great that there are so many good applicants for this job and that's a credit to the project. I'm running only because I may possibly be the fifth-most qualified editor.
ArbCom agenda:
- Transparency, integrity, and accountability.
- Prompt responses
- Shared decision drafting
- Effective, enforceable remedies
ArbCom decisions should be:
- Rare - a last resort.
- Carefully decided - ArbCom decisions have major short- and long-term consequences.
- Timely - some cases have dragged on so long that they seemed to prolong their disputes rather than settle them.
- Modest - focused on individual behavioral problems as mch as possible.
|
Experience:
Relevant qualities:
|
Notable problem users with whom I've engaged significantly:}}
Some areas of involvement:
|