User:JoshuaZ/ArbCom

Hi, I'm JoshuaZ. I've been involved with the English Wikipedia since January, 2006, and have been an administrator since May. 2006. I am running for 1 year and may stay further if the job isn't too burdensome. There are two points that need to be addressed: 1) why am I running? 2) Why should you vote for me?

Why am I running? There are four reasons. First, I enjoy Wikipedia. I've enjoyed editing, I've enjoyed being an administrator, and I suspect that I'll enjoy being an Arbitration committee member. Second, I believe that I am highly qualified (see the next section for more details). Third, the ArbCom system needs fixing. Some people have argued that the system is very broken. I don't agree with that, but it needs oiling and a tune-up. Since its early days, Wikipedia has had issues with scaling, and the ArbCom as it currently stands is not scalable. Some cases are taking too long, while other situations remain unresolved, causing good editors to leave in disgust. As an Arbitrator, I would take steps informally to make sure that Arbitration work is spread out among Arbitrators so that we deal with cases in a timely fashion. Furthermore, being on the ArbCom will give me the experience necessary to help shape any changes to the system for maximum results. Fourth, many of the cases that come to the ArbCom reflect fundamental breakdowns in Wikipedia policy. I consider myself a creative person when dealing with problematic situations. Therefore, I hope to help the Wikipedia community when policies and guidelines are silent or ambiguous.

So why am I qualified? I have extensive experience with the ArbCom. One of the first things with which I was involved on Wikipedia was an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which I provided evidence based on linguistic and other habits that an anonymous editor of the Jonathan Sarfati was likely Sarfati himself. The ability to analyze this sort of evidence is frequently at issue in ArbCom cases, and I have both experience and facility with it.

I also brought Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 to the committee. The details of this case were unpleasant. A long-term editor who had been involved with this project from almost the beginning was engaging in unacceptable editing, and I helped to stop that. More details are available by reading the case itself.

I've been involved in many other ArbCom cases, in some instances providing evidence and in others commenting in the workshops.

I am not just involved in the English Wikipedia, but am involved in a few other Wikimedia projects such as the English Wikinews where I've recently become an admin. Thus, I know how other Wikimedia projects are handling similar problems and can look to them for guidance and inspiration when our own procedures fail.

Wikipedia is a unique project, an idea that has never been tried before and that can only work in this time with the technology we now have. We are privileged to be part of this historic experiment. For many people, Wikipedia is the first place to which they go for information about anything. What we do on this project will reverberate long after any of our individual participation in Wikipedia is finished. Seemingly small choices, like who we select for ArbCom, might have effects that are difficult to foresee today. Let's choose carefully. Please let me serve you, the community, and as part of that community, let us together help provide free, neutral information to all humanity. Thank you. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)