Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WJBscribe
- Note: A fuller copy of this statement is at /Full version
I confess that I have always been a little astounded by the trust the community has shown in me but it seems I find myself asking once again if I have your confidence. I have been a bureaucrat for roughly a year and an administrator for just under two. I have also been chairing Wikipedia's Mediation Committee since January. I am proud of what I have achieved in those capacities and now I am offering to serve on the Arbitration Committee.
A lot of mistakes have been made by the Committee- especially in the past year - and there is often little sign of it learning from them. The Wikipedia community is now looking for a change of direction from the Committee and there are several areas in particular where I believe learning from past failures is a priority:
- Transparency. Whilst some deliberations may have to occur privately, there is much that could be brought into the open. I think it important that ArbCom give more thought to whether an issue truly needs to be discussed in private and, if not, move the discussion to the wiki.
- Clarity. Clear wording and certainty of interpretation is essential in ArbCom decisions.
- Appropriate sanctions. If a problem is such that ArbCom is being asked to intervene, targeted sanctions are needed. The overuse of article probation is becoming problematic - whilst it can be useful in some circumstances, it is not a magic solution to all content disputes – and frustration with “general amnesty” and “hugs all round” decisions is understandable.
- Speed. This year there were comparatively few cases and yet some have taken months to resolve. It is crucial that cases do not languish unresolved for months.
- Block reviews. Often blocked users are told that they should email ArbCom to appeal their block. The Committee should be providing a public log of what appeals it has received and what has been done in respect of them. Who has reviewed them, who have they asked for evidence and what was their conclusion?
Throughout my time at Wikipedia I have always been open to questions and willing to explain my actions. I don't promise you'll always agree me but, were I to be elected, I will make myself available to discuss any stance I take which you find problematic and I will listen carefully to your opinion. For me the ArbCom of the future is one less defensive and more open, willing to make difficult decisions even where these may be unpopular, and able to respond constructively when challenged.