Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Coren

Coren

 * Hello!


 * I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work.  As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement.  Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.


 * I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it.  Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.


 * I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:


 * More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment.  ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.


 * Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes.  Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.


 * Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".


 * Thank you for your consideration.


 * Questions for the candidate
 * Discuss the candidate
 * Discuss the candidate