Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost/Special/2008-12/G-K

825:

would provide. Necessarily, in the five years I've been working on and around the Committee, I have given a number of people reasons to take a dislike to me, to find something I've said or done, or some position I've held, with which to disagree. Further, I can understand - and empathize with - those who think that it's time for a change, that long-serving Arbitrators are part of the problem, having habituated ourselves and our working practices to the processes as we've developed them. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the validity of those concerns; that's the community's rôle, and reasonably so. Indeed, I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions.

371:

of any legal system based on fairness and justice is the ability to face one's accuser and to hear the evidence made against one's self. That should only be suspended in extraordinary circumstances, and even then the accused should at least be given a summary of the evidence. Second, we have to look at the impression ArbCom gives to the community when handling secret evidence. The community should be made aware when secret evidence is used, and be given a summary of what the evidence contains. This would help build a measure of good faith between both the community and the Committee. The community needs to trust the Committee to only use secret evidence when privacy matters are a concern and not to become a

721:

much of it as is appropriate, and the community should be given as much of it as is reasonable. I have always sought confirmation before passing on private information/correspondence, stating who will be receiving it and why I feel it is necessary, even when I have submitted evidence privately to Arbcom. My approach will not change. I also feel that no arbitrator should ever make decisions that bind someone, based on evidence that only I have seen; I can understand if someone doesnt trust all of the committee, however a majority should agree with any conclusions, or at worst, one or two additional sets of eyes are needed. I have answered this question in more detail on the Q&A page.

27: 327:

The community is being consumed by petty differences, internal struggles and power trips. The same energy and enthusiasm that was used in Knowledge's infancy to build the best resource in the world is now feeding upon itself. We need a rudder to right the ship. We need a strong hand amidst the storm that is Knowledge's adolescence. We need something new, we need something better and we need it now. And in that respect, I want to help.

1493:

a vested interest in this corrupt status quo are so powerful as to make the bulk of the community too timid to do anything. The Revolution will come eventually, as the community develops its revolutionary courage and revolutionary consciousness, but in the meantime those of us who are brave and aware enough to speak out need to do our part to mitigate the AC's inherently dangerous influence.

1419:(ignoring for a minute the fact that one man who is not all that special and also exercises power he does not and has never legitimately possessed holds a veto over anyone he disapproves of), the Committee itself was never created by the community. It was forced upon the community, and so regardless of how its membership is chosen it remains illegitimate. 508:. I believe that arbitrators should be very open and honest about their formal education and experience in order that the community can make informed decisions about who to vote for, and so that people coming to the committee for arbitration can get a feel for the people that will be making the decisions. 1414:

My beliefs on the Arbitration Committee are fairly well-known, but if you're out of the loop...I think it's utterly illegitimate. However, I do recognize that my efforts to either formally eliminate it or, (preferably, for a variety of mostly symbolic reasons) simply convince the community to ignore

902:

I think confidentiality is a matter of great importance to the community, and something that we should all expect of the Committee; only with permission (though I would expect us to continue with our policy of outlining to the parties concerns expressed; and yes, but only if I strongly felt there was

383:

I could go on for hours about ArbCom's flaws, but fundamentally you're not voting on ArbCom - you're voting for or against me. And to be honest, there's ample reason to not vote for me and maybe even to vote against me. I've done some stupid things as an administrator. I gave Giano a cooldown block a

370:

This is an incredibly complex and multi-faceted situation, and it's almost one that should solely be decided on a case by case basis. There are two spheres we as arbitrators must consider. First, we have to look at the secret evidence as it relates to the accused. One of the most fundamental precepts

181:

decides who to appoint to the Arbcom. Mr Wales retains the right to ignore the results of this poll and appoint whomever he so desires. A vote for me will be a vote to say this situation is not right and then Mr Wales will have to decide whether to appoint me or use his powers as Knowledge's de facto

41:

The election guide is intended to be a brief overview of each candidate's beliefs and experiences. More detailed information about each candidate may be gleaned from their user pages, as well as their responses to questions from other users. Not all candidates have yet replied to our questions; their

1492:

No dispute-resolution entity in a "community project" can hope to hold any legitimacy if it was not a creation of the community in the first place. I believe the vast majority of the Knowledge community recognizes this; they only put up with it because it's "the best we have" and because those with

1487:

I am the only one running whose ultimate aim is to return power to the community, where it rightfully belongs. All the other candidates--even those who truly seek AC reform--are, at best, only treating the symptoms. AC's unreliability and corruptness and shadowiness are not the basic problems with

1422:

So why do I want to participate on an illegitimate committee? Frankly, I don't. As a member, I will vote to decline any and all cases submitted to it, politely suggesting instead that the involved parties go to a legitimate form of dispute resolution, such as RfC, mediation, or any other mechanism

913:

I think that the community is best served by a Committee with a spectrum of experiences and points of view on the various topics that surround our community, so that the widest range of responses is considered appropriately. Having helped to create Arbitration, I suppose I offer more of a reflective

720:

Confidentiality is vital for personal security and well being. It is a basic principle of humanity. However, confidentiality can also be a guise for a lack of accountability. Wherever possible and appropriate, evidence should be given as much scrutiny as possible; the other parties should see it as

276:

I've been an active contributor since October 2006 and an administrator since April 2007. I have three main issues. The first one is speediness. Like many members of the community, I am frustrated by the drawn out, time-consuming endurance feats that some of these cases have become. Last year when I

412:

I believe in this community. We wrote over 2.6 million articles and went from the doldrums of the Internets to being one of its defining features. But we've gone astray from our rightful path. On any other site, this would mark the start of an inevitable decline, but not for us. We're not afraid to

396:

test" in my candidate Q&A). I listen. Please feel free to peruse my talk pages archives and see instances in which I do so. I haven't been around here since time immemorial, so I've got no allegiances and fewer enemies. This makes me ideal for fair and neutral arbitration. At the same time, I'm

1235:

The key idea is that confidential information should never be shared without permission. I would normally want to share evidence with the accused to given them a chance to explain. If there was no permission to share, I might have to disregard the evidence because it is not fair to consider only

824:

I'm now coming to the end of my fifth year as an Arbitrator, having helped found the Committee in 2003/4. I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others

326:

Because ArbCom needs reform, and I feel I'd be good at that. We need cases deliberated in a timely manner, with judgments given that accurately reflect the situation and don't bow to external pressures or established editors. We're drifting away from our prime directive of writing an encyclopedia.

292:

The third issue is common sense. I've watched these proceedings get bogged down in legalese jargon and misleading explanations. If one editor says its raining and another editor says its snowing, ArbCom ought to be able to just look outside. ArbCom needs to move away from stirring testimonials and

1328:

I feel Knowledge's Arbcom needs a real shaking up, and I'm the one to do it. I've observed this site for years, though I generally have shied from making physical edits. In real life I'm a lawyer, and will use my legalese to work through even the most difficult cases. I feel my lack of connection

1418:

The Arbitration Committee (yes, I have a better name for it, and besides what it engages in is not "arbitration" in any sense anyway, but I digress...) operates primarily by exercising power it does not and has never legitimately possessed. Though, true, the members are elected by the community

288:

The second is boldness. There is a feeling of fear among Arbitration Committee members about overstepping perceived bounds. This has caused two negative results: first, there is a stagnation in new ideas and novel approaches to solving cases; and two, the Arbitration Committee often finds itself

148: 251: 1303: 360:

case from January demonstrated some good rulings on what many editors would shrug off as a "content dispute". I particularly appreciated the creation of the working group on ethnic/nationalist conflicts, although I do have disagreements with the findings of said group and noticeboard. The

799: 384:

month after I got the tools and was eviscerated by the community for it. I've been called "anti-science" for misinterpreting SPOV. I blocked a trolling IP for voting against me in the last ArbCom election. I'm not exactly orthodox when it comes to Knowledge policy: I've proposed an

344:

cases in particular deserved a harder look at the continued actions of all participants; ArbCom should've been more willing to hand out sanctions for disruptive and unwarranted behavior. I think the unwillingness of ArbCom to step up in those case was detrimental to its authority.

974: 914:

position to the discussions, both around individual cases and also on meta-issues like evolving and reforming the Committee to better serve the community. I do not see the inputs of "new" and "old" ("seasoned"?) in competition at all, but instead as each complementing the other.

1389: 479: 1067:

Our Arbitration Committee has performed well in a thankless and difficult job. However, we cannot take for granted that the English Knowledge community will continue to thrive. Every generation of editors must guard against the destructive forces of blight, including:

308:

I have been an administrator since April 2007. I was a candidate in the 2007 Arbitration Committee elections, where I was defeated primarily due to my relative newness at the time. I've learned a lot in the past year and feel that I'm ready for a seat on the Committee.

1244:

Users should vote for me because my experiences with arbitration, both positive and negative, would be valuable to the Committee. I can definitely empathize with the concerns of the typical user who finds themselves at arbitration. It can be a daunting experience.

1478:

See above; however, as a matter of general principle I believe all Knowledge dispute-resolution processes should be totally open. Anything else is ripe for abuse, and makes people feel (quite justifiably) that they weren't given a fair hearing. Nothing trumps that.

1460:

How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and

1207:

888:

685:

331:

397:

also not afraid of any of you. I can distinguish between the times when we need to crack some skulls, and the times in which a lighter hand is needed. I have the temperament, the experience and the judgment needed to be an effective and judicious arbitrator.

1020:

Knowledge is a tremendously useful and entertaining website. I enjoy reading articles on many different topics. I also use the encyclopedia as a reference for work, and to help my kids with their homework. My content editing interests currently include

1455:

I seek to disrupt its operations as much as possible so as to minimize its negative impact on the community while we wait for the community to develop the revolutionary courage and consciousness necessary to throw off this illegitimate body altogether

515:

for much of the first half of 2008. I resigned due to a messy affair, which has since been settled amicably. This experience, and the termination of it, was an eye opener. I am aware of the responsibility, workload and difficulty involved.

1195:, more than any other candidate. I brought four cases which resulted in bans or sanctions that I had requested. Two cases were brought against me, though there were no findings against me, and I was named as a witness in two other cases. 408:

said, "We can't go on living like this." We need to step back, reassess what we as a community and as individuals are doing - are we pursuing vendettas and feuds, or are we improving the encyclopedia? - and fix whatever we're doing wrong.

1212:

I think the Committee has done a good job, though they have sometimes failed to communicate effectively with the Community. They eventually come to the right conclusion in almost every case. One decision that I criticized heavily was

289:

unwilling or unable to punish long-time entrenched editors due to the perceived status of those editors. This is baloney, and it needs to end. The same boldness that allowed us to build this encyclopedia must now be used to police it.

388:

and once suggested we rename all positions of trust (arbitrator, administrator, bureaucrat, etc.) to Imperial Roman titles (praetor, quaestor, legate, etc.). If you wanted to vote against me, you certainly wouldn't be unjustified.

293:

stories of how so-and-so is a "valued editor" or a "longstanding member of the community", and start moving towards actually assessing an editor's actions and effects. In judging these cases, I would use what I refer to as the "

877: 1473:

What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it

1230:

897:

715:

365:

375:. The Committee needs to trust the community's ability to distinguish between secret trials and confidential evidence. These are the fundamentals I would use when assessing secret evidence and its role in a case. 285:. These kinds of delays make it more difficult for the Arbitration Committee to effectively deliver judgment. These delays undermine ArbCom's authority. They need to stop. I was right then, and I'm right now. 1221:

was a very difficult problem that was resolved well because all of the individuals involved were protected, including the user who got banned. Obviously, some cases this year dragged on far too long, such as

882:

I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others would provide.

160: 1415:

it altogether are not likely to be successful in the short term. It's a long road ahead, and while I'm traversing it I need to find a way to minimize its negative impact on the community in the meantime.

546:

experience and exposure to the culture, policies and leaders of most of the WMF projects. There are very few arbs, ex-arbs, or other candidates who have measurable experience outside of English Knowledge.

317:

I have not been in an Arbitration case as either a petitioner or the petitioned. I've weighed in on some cases I felt particularly notable, including the Durova case and the allegations of apartheid case.

263: 690:

This year has had lots of outcomes that fall on the extremities of the scale. Many of the cases were completed within reasonable times and obtained a workable outcome. While it was not a typical case,

1430:

authority that does not have its source as an express creation of the community. The Arbitration Committee is the latter, and a vote for me is a vote for restoring power to where it rightfully belongs.

1315: 811: 986: 1401: 491: 1248:

Additionally, even with my substantial volume of administrative work, I have continued working on articles. I still remember that Knowledge is for generating high quality content.

1178: 523:

I will not edit policy pages or influence policy. This is the responsibility of the community, and arbitrators should not write the policies that they will use in decisions.

673:

for six months until mid July 2008, and have submitted evidence and opinions a few times, privately in some cases where all parties were shown the bulk of my submissions.

357: 282: 526:

I will oppose any remedy that is not substantially grounded in existing policy that was written by the community, or on resolutions passed by the Wikimedia Foundation.

707:

cases were especially troubled, as I dont believe they achieved anything except pain, coupled with a lot speculation and disappointment in the process and result.

1118:

I think I can help guard against these threats, and help the Committee not only make the right decisions, but also enhance their reputation within the community.

640: 636: 611: 35: 1542: 83: 1214: 692: 648: 404:

this year, and I know many of you probably rolled your eyes upon reading it here. But it's not cliched. We need change. The old way isn't working. As

1223: 704: 341: 228: 1534: 1527: 1521: 1509: 361:

comprehensive and useful thinking, as well as the outside-the-box approach, is what I would like to see be the hallmark of all major ArbCom cases.

75: 68: 62: 50: 708: 297:

test" - does an editor's positive contributions to the encyclopedia outweigh that editor's negative impact on the community? Change is needed.

868:

Obviously, lots of cases as an Arbitrator. Also, I was mentioned in a case in 2006, reminding me of my own policy about appropriate decorum.

766: 700: 400:

But the reason you should vote for me, foremost among all others, is the need for change. I know that's a slogan that's been tossed around

353: 337: 278: 1329:

here makes me an ideal candidate, as I have no conflicts of interest. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you look past my inexperience.

711:

brought to a head many problems with the way the committee was working and communicating, both within the committee and to the community.

654: 562:

patience for long & drawn out cases. Quick and measured solutions that result in the least amount of pain and disruption are good.

1218: 1045: 951: 1203:

My goals are to improve the reputation of the Committee and to help maintain Knowledge's content at the highest possible standards.

628: 452: 1236:

one side of a story. However, there might be extraordinary circumstances when it would not be possible to share the evidence.

893:

I'm not sure it's appropriate for me to comment on my and my fellow Arbitrators' actions; that's for the community to decide.

392:

So why should you vote for me? I learn from my mistakes. I now oppose cooldown blocks and excessive civility patrols (see my "

1064:, more than any other candidate. I believe my experiences, both positive and negative, would bring value to the Committee. 417:

and channel it into self-correction. Please elect me, and help us preserve in peace what we have won in war. Thank you.

572:

wiki-friendships with the elite in the power structure here on Knowledge. It will be rare that I need to be recused.

1130:

Administrator. I find it keeps me quite busy enough. My logs show that I have used the sysop tools extensively:

1142: 540:

technical skills to automate tasks that the committee regularly performs, and improve processes where possible.

1007: 644: 1154: 1026: 632: 1551: 1172: 1160: 185:

Has not Knowledge now reached a stage where we need to be free of the whims and personal views of one man?

26: 17: 1004: 352:'s levelheaded and fair approach to cases, especially with regards to the recent IRC-related proposals in 192:

George The Dragon has not yet responded to questions. This page will be updated as answers are submitted.

1148: 385: 1333:

Justice America has not yet responded to questions. This page will be updated as answers are submitted.

1192: 1166: 1061: 1000: 857:

Also a few other things like OTRS, WMF CommsCom, IRC GC, Foundationwiki access, Wikimania team, etc.

336:

Overall, I think ArbCom was weak this year in handling its responsibilities for the community. The

413:

fix what's wrong, correct what's mistaken or improve what's broken. We now must harness that same

177:, am standing in order to give the community a chance to decide how they are governed. Currently, 1034: 585: 1022: 729:

I have clearly articulated objectives, and the skills, experience and passion to achieve them.

174: 97: 1060:. These types of cases frequently end up at arbitration, where I have been a named party in 372: 197: 1252: 1030: 8: 1136: 1010: 348:

I'm happy to say that it was not all bad news, though. In particular I was pleased with

96: 1426:

I'm not an opponent of hierarchy and authority in the abstract. I am an opponent of

1003:, had told me that Knowledge was a good place to get some free links. So I tried it, 405: 196: 504:

Hi. My name is John Vandenberg. I have provided a detailed history about myself on

1251: 1111: 1101: 1072: 1057: 733: 529:

I will be highly active and available, or I will step down and turn in my "access".

349: 178: 277:

ran, I promised a speedier and more efficient case evaluation. This year, we saw

1435: