Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/AGK/Statement

AGK

 * The Arbitration Committee is an important component of our project. I am willing to serve on the committee for two years, and submit myself for your consideration.


 * To summarise my experience on Wikipedia, aside from occasionally contributing to articles (when I have time), I am a former mediator (appointed to the Mediation Committee in May 2007) and I have helped to co-ordinate the MedCom as its Chair since April 2010. I've had administrator access for five years, and I currently sit on the Audit Subcommittee which regulates the use by functionaries of the checkuser and oversight tools. Additionally, I am a CheckUser, and am one of the more active users in that capacity, and I have Oversight access for my subcommittee term. Although I have had the pleasure of working with many editors and the opportunity to work in many backstage areas of Wikipedia, I do not think I have become one of its "insiders", and my role on the Audit Subcommittee requires that I maintain an amicable detachment from the other functionaries. I am also familiar with the administrative aspects of the arbitration process, having served with the arbitration clerks (the team that runs the clerical and procedural side of the committee's workload) for over 3 years.


 * In an administrative capacity, I was one of the team of administrators who regularly dealt with Requests for Arbitration Enforcement (AE). I have a great respect for the work of those administrators and for the efforts of those who contribute to our most contentious topic areas. However, one cannot stoke the fire without being burnt, and I suspect as a result of my work there, I have a lower tolerance for POV-pushing, unprofessional, and divisive editing than most. Having contributed to these areas, I nonetheless believe I have always been approachable and fair, and from anecdotal reports I understand that many contributors would agree with that assessment. As an arbitrator, I would be pleased to bring this experience and approach to ArbCom.


 * I am experienced, dedicated, and capable, and am happy to serve as an arbitrator. By way of a platform, some important issues to me are:
 * Effective resolutions to disputes: I see little use in recycling the same principles endlessly, when more time could be afforded to creating meaningful remedies
 * Intolerance for POV-pushing disputants: I will vote to topic-ban an editor who uses Wikipedia as a forum to continue a nationalist or cultural dispute
 * Creation of a usable public space for ArbCom discussions, to replace most of the unreliable and non-public mailing list
 * Liaising with the WMF: much of ArbCom's remit is partly the Foundation's as well, and there are areas in which we can work together.
 * Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected.)


 * I will not outline my views on more specific issues here, because a rambling statement is frankly tiring, but I will happily answer questions from all contributors. Thank you for your consideration.


 * Mandatory statement: Any accounts I have created are listed here, I have no undisclosed alternative accounts, and I am already identified.