Edivorce

Above notice is provided to confirm edorsement status

mysandbox

email me

my vita

my candidate statement for WP ArbCom

ArbCom Candidacy Q & A

From time to time I have mentioned on WP that I am an attorney. Recently it seems a good idea to verify such claims. The State of Michigan Bars Membership Director can be found here. Enter First:"John" Last:"Robertson" P:"39744" in the appropriate boxes and you will get my listing. If you email me at the address provided with something like "WP Confirm Credential" in the subject line I will reply to that email. Be careful not to include any extra blank spaces in the textbox as the database script won't strip them and you will not get any results. Edivorce 20:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

For the past few weeks I have occassionally reviewed AfD and DRV. When I have found articles with merit and multiple editors who are not participating in the process I have undertaken to provide notice. In an effort to be fair and thorough I undertook to provide brief, polite, neutral notices inviting editors to participate in the discussion. My concern is to assure notice and an opportunity to be heard. If the editors don't know about the deletion action their work may be destroyed without their having any chance to participate. This has raised concerns by some admins. I have summarized my postion and asked that the matter be clarified in WP:AN/I. This AN/I discussion can be found here. Based on the clarification received in this AN/I when I undertake to provide notice I will not provide notice to following:

1. bots
2. editors who designate the edits as "minor"
3. editors who are listed as "disappeared wikipedians"
4. anon ips
5. editors who indicate in edit summaries that the edit is spelling
6. editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit is grammatic
7. editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit to repair a link
8. editor who indicate in the edit summaries that they are reverting vandalism
9. editors whose work has been reveted as vandalism when they have no other edits to the article.
10. editor who indicate in the edit summaries that the edit is otherwise trivial

I will provide notice to all other editors irrespective of the position they might take in the discussion. I welcome further discussion of this on my talk page.

I have recently modified my voting criteria for RfA's. In addition to the below criteria I am now voting "Opposed" in the following circumstances:

1. Nominee has self identified as a "Deletionist", and;
2. Nominee does not address the need for complete and fair process to protect the work editors who's work may be subject to deletion.

Edivorce 03:34, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I have begun voting on a couple of requests of administratorships. For now I will only vote "support" and of course only when I view it as prudent. My criteria, for users who I haven't had contact with is: 1) candidates without overwhelming support or opposition; 2) no indication of serious problems with conduct; 3) significant (although need not be overwhelming) edit history; 4) reasonable statement and answers to questions.

This criterion is intended to freely (within reason) grant requested privileges, de-emphasizes distinctions between groups of users and promote goodwill. I only started with a couple in order to see if "the heavens fall"--Edivorce 15:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I have posted Alternative Dispute Resolution as a proposed group at Wikipedia:Wikiproject/List_of_proposed_projects#Alternative_Dispute Resolution. The project would improve/create articles in the main namespace relating to negotiation, conciliation, facilitation, arbitration and other alternatives to litigation. Lets see if it gains sufficient participatants and go from there. --Edivorce 16:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I wish the very best to the prevailing ArbCom candidates. They have a difficult job in front of them and I will assist them in any way I can. I have learned a good deal about the WP community during this election. It has pushed my learning curve of many aspects of policy and authoring. In the weeks and months ahead I intend to edit articles on subjects relating to dispute resolution and offer what services the mediation committee or mediation cabal might find of service.

I stood election because I believe that experience and expertise in the process of dispute resolution is invaluable. A skillful neutral may be of service without an expertise in subject matter. This is demonstrated day in and day out in every community that has an independent judiciary and the rule of law. In fact, placing a duty of the parties to educate the neutral concerning their position is an important aspect of a fair process. A process that uses “experts” who “investigate” and render decisions from information not placed on the record by the parties (who may not even have access to the information) can be disempowering. It may even take on “star chamber” qualities.

During the selection process I have reviewed volumes of material relating to ArbCom disputes. I know that records of a community’s disputes are not a fair reflection of that community. Despite this, I was taken aback by the rancor and animosity present in many of the ArbCom cases. This needs to be addressed by providing credible and effective dispute resolution if Wikipedia is to continue to prosper.

I found a review of the voting on my candidacy encouraging. A significant number recognized the value of dispute resolution experience, even absent a extensive editing history. I am pleased to say that I made more than a “snowball” showing. Almost all who voted “opposed” based their vote on my admitted inexperience in WP. Many of those made comments encouraging future efforts. I hope that I will establish a record of edits and conduct in WP that will reassure them all.

Again, thank all of you who voted or otherwise participated in my candidacy. Edivorce 01:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)