Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/WJBscribe/Full version
- Extended statement
I confess to having always been rather astounded by the trust the community has shown in me - perhaps this is a good time to thank all of those who have encouraged me to run in this election, your words have truly humbled me - and yet it seems I find myself once again asking 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, a role from which I will stepping down in December. I am proud of what I have achieved in those capacities and now I am offering to put some of what I have learned into practice in a new arena by serving on the Arbitration Committee.
There is no denying that the role of an Arbitrator is a hard one. I gave long and serious thought to whether it was one that I was able to fulfil. I have a tremendous amount of respect for those who have taken on this difficult responsibility. To them it must often have felt like they were navigating a minefield without the help of a map. Often users are all to ready to declare that they have lost faith in an Arbitrator or the Committee as a whole when they find themselves disagreeing with a decision. Nevertheless the Committee’s work is important and it is essential that the best candidates are appointed to it. And whilst I do respect those who have served on ArbCom, a lot of mistakes have been made - especially in the past year - and there is often little sign of the Committee learning from those mistakes. I believe that the Wikipedia community would now like to see a real change of direction from the Arbitration Committee. In particular, there are several areas in particular where I believe it is a priority that ArbCom learn from past failures:
- Transparency. Whilst some deliberations may have to occur privately, there is much that could be brought into the open. There is no need for Arbitrators to have a proposed decision entirely worked out between them before it is posted. In my opinion, it does the community good to see that arbitrators have a spectrum of opinions that reflects the base that elected them. Trying to present a "unified face" leads to the appearance of cliquishness, especially to those who disagree with the ultimate decision. Sometimes difficult decisions need to be made in public for people to fully understand them. As a bureaucrat, I have always advocated that discussions as to RfA/RfB outcomes should happen on the wiki and have opposed the creation of a bureaucrat mailing list or IRC channel. 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 (or at least provide a public summary of it). This should hopefully create greater understanding of what exactly it is that the Committee does.
- Clarity. Clear wording and certainty of interpretation is essential in ArbCom decisions. Too often has there been need to clarify the scope of decisions or the means by which the desysopped can regain their access. These things should be spelled out clearly at the outset. There is little as frustrating as asking ArbCom to clarify a decision to be met with the response that they regard the decision to perfectly clear. With respect to current arbitrators, if it were indeed clear people would not need to seek clarification.
- Appropriate sanctions. ArbCom sanctions should not be imposed to silence dissent or for the sake of editors being sanctioned. There is no point in imposing a sanction which merely restates a user’s existing conduct obligations – I hope we have seen the last of “civility parole” style remedies. I am also concerned at the overuse of article probation - whilst it can be useful in some circumstances, it is not a magic solution to all content disputes. Where administrators have been unable to agree how to deal with user conduct issues in a given area, and have turned to ArbCom for a ruling, a blanket increase in the sanctions that can be imposed risks escalating the problem. The issue was not that admins lacked the tools to deal with the problem already, it was that they couldn't reach a consensus on how to use their existing tools. It is important that disruptive editors are specifically sanctioned, rather than passing the buck back down to administrators. I understand the frustration with “general amnesty” and “hugs all round” type decisions which pretty much guarantee that another case will arise in a few months.
- Speed. Frustration with the amount of time it takes ArbCom to decide cases can be found throughout candidate statements in each election. This year there were comparatively few cases and yet some have taken months to resolve. Delays increase the tension surrounding cases and tend to amplify existing conflicts. At the very least, if a decision cannot yet been reached, it is important that ArbCom gives the community an idea of how deliberations are proceedings and what is causing the holdup rather than give the impression that a case is simply being allowed to stagnate. That said, it is also important not to show undue haste: A proposed decision should not be posted hours after a case is opened when parties have not had an adequate opportunity to present evidence. Such prejudging of issues is highly problematic and I support the practice of waiting at least a week before voting on a decision begins. If something needs to be done more urgently, a temporary injunction can be used.
- Block reviews. Often blocked users are told that they should email ArbCom to appeal their block. Sadly an all too common experience is that emailing the ArbCom list is like throwing correspondence into a black hole. Block reviews do not have to happen in a vacuum - I would argue that ArbCom should provide a 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? If arbitrators cannot find the time to review the blocks themselves, they need to delegate these reviews to others and request from them an independent report on the merits of the block in question.
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 with 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.
WJBscribe (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)