User:Johnleemk/December 2004 Arbcom Election
I'm not as well-known as many of the users standing for election, but I have thrown my hat into the ring anyway, as I feel my excess free time should not be going to waste. I have been editing Wikipedia since September 2003, but began full-time editing circa February this year; I was elected as a sysop in June. I have been involved in online communities since 1999, and as such, have gained much insight into the nature of individuals arguing online. I was also the main author of Preliminary Deletion.
172 has noted most of the arbcom are so involved with the foundation or in editing the Wikipedia namespace that they have lost touch with "those on the ground" that edit the main namespace. Although I find the connection tenuous (indeed, I'd rather be judged by people familiar with the rules than people who just spend a lot of time editing), I do believe it is unhealthy to have too many armchair generals on the arbcom. I have been involved in the writing of many articles that are featured-level (or close to it; for a full list, see my user page) — one was even featured on the front page.
I have been involved in several disputes, though I don't think any of them were resolved naturally, as the discussion and edits from those I was debating with just suddenly petered out. I have not been involved in any arbitration case as a participant, but I have provided evidence in the case of Reithy and Chuck F, and often browse through current arbitration cases for fun (however weird that seems).
As an arbitrator, I would do my best to speed up the arbitration process. I have seen several proposals from other users in their candidacy statements for increasing the speed of dispute resolutions, and would support them and even propose them if these other users were not elected. The biggest problem with arbitration, I think we all can agree, is that it's just far too long. As another candidate has declared, justice delayed is justice denied.
Ideally, temporary injunctions would not be necessary, but some users are so troublesome that they must be confined. A contentious case has been that of Reithy's and Chuck F's; Chuck has argued with me on IRC about his temporary injunction banning him and Reithy from editing all pages except those in their individual userspaces and those relating to their arbitration case, as he did not create as big a mess as Reithy did. Regardless, having studied his actions, I think he deserved the temporary injunction. The right thing to do now is to speed up the process so that these temporary injunctions don't last three months.
I believe that all arbcom decisions should be made based on the effect they will have in the long term on our community, even though it would pain me to sanction or outright ban certain users. However, I believe that it is possible to reform certain troublemakers, through judicial and prudent methods, such as assigning handlers to them, such as was done in the case of Michael/Mike Garcia. It all depends on whether the user edits in good faith, like Wik, or clearly has a bone to pick.
I am against taking outrageous actions to prove a point; just because a certain decision makes sense does not give one licence to do so without consulting the community. As such, unilateral actions such as that Guanaco took in unbanning Michael without first consulting the community or some higher authority, should be condemned.
I am not against being bold. However, there is a limit on everything. I believe that the policy of being bold generally applies only to the main namespace, but I also believe it applies somewhat limitedly to other namespaces as well. When an action flies in the face of accepted community norms, existing policy, or even direct orders from the Arbcom or Jimbo, however, is when such daring cannot be tolerated.
Although this talk of rehabilitation may make me sound like a softie, I have no qualms about banishment — having spent eight years on the internet and five actively involved in online communities, I know very well how unreasonable people can be; it's borderline cases where users contribute material in good faith but can't get along with others that trouble me. In cases such as those, I believe we should strive for a solution whereby the user(s) in question can moderate their actions appropriately.
And if they can't? Then tough measures would have to be considered. It's great we've got talented folks editing, but if Stephen Hawking wrote a couple of dozen featured articles on physics for us and repeatedly made personal attacks even after steps to reform him had been taken, then I would seriously consider a ban. It's one thing to edit articles in good faith. It's another to discuss in bad faith. If users cannot discourse in good faith and refuse to reform despite continued efforts by concerned users, I do feel a ban would be necessary.
I understand I'm not quite some policy bigwig, but I do believe an appropriate understanding of our policy is crucial to uphold the arbitration process. I have read most of our policies several times, especially those which I believe are keystones of Wikipedia such as the NPOV policy.
Reiterating the points of my platform as a candidate, I will:
- Increase the efficiency of the arbitration process;
- Do my best to reform users who edit in good faith,
- And not tolerate users who clearly have no good intentions;
- Oppose the disruption of Wikipedia to prove a particular point.
I can't hold a candle to most of the people running in terms of fame — how could I even try? — but I'm contesting a seat anyway, because I believe I can help Wikipedia just as well as they can. Thank you for your time; if you have any questions, this subpage's talk page is always available.