Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Netoholic

Statement

Arbitration, in the context of law, is a form of alternative dispute resolution — specifically, a legal alternative to litigation whereby the parties to a dispute agree to submit their respective positions (through agreement or hearing) to a neutral third party (the arbitrator(s) or arbiter(s)) for resolution.

Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.

I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors will end.

I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.

I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally resolving conflicts, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.

This last platform item is probably the most controversial, so I'll expand on it and show how it works with the others. If someone feels they are unduly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process. If they do so, they and the administrator (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. In this way, a troublesome user can be handled by administrator consensus alone -- so many of the past and present cases could have been handled this way and gave us better results. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. A troublesome user can either accept that adminstrator's ruling, or appeal and possibly face more stern restrictions. On the other hand, if someone is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while protect against the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions/Comments

I welcome your questions and comments. If you're asking multiple questions, please number them so I can reply more easily. -- Netoholic @ 22:35, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Snowspinner

In regards to the first part of your platform, if one must be party to a dispute to submit an arbitration case, how do you propose to deal with cases such as Anthony, Xed, and Netoholic where the dispute spanned multiple pages and multiple people? There would be no single user with the standing to raise these cases, leading the problems to go unresolved. Phil Sandifer 00:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If these disputes were so wide-spread as you imply, then a suitable requestor should be available. Also, I would have rejected these cases unless the subject and the requestor both agreed to the arbitration. If all parties agreed, then the arbitration team would review the arguments and decide a firm course of action. Under my platform, individual disputes are handled as they arise. The present process seems to encourage blanket witchhunts where all disputes involving a user are laid out. It's my feeling that if users A, B, and C have a problem with a user, then three separate and narrowly focused arbitrations are more fair and can be handled very quickly. There is no reason an average arbitration can't be resolved in a few days if both sides are motivated.

I think your stance on these users is that they were so troublesome that it took a special prosecutor to handle them. This just isn't the case. Users who are simply troublesome should be warned, restricted, and then ultimately blocked by some neutral administrator(s). If that user feels that treatment is unfair, they themselves can request arbitration to resolve the dispute. This information should be communicated clearly to the user, but I trust the admin community to establish appropriate protocols. -- Netoholic @ 02:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC) (edited)[reply]

It's more an issue of nobody being involved in the case to the point where they were party to the bulk of it - anyone who filed the case would necessarily be filing it regarding a large amount of behavior they weren't involved with one way or another. Phil Sandifer 04:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point entirely, though I can't tell if that is deliberate. There should not be a "case" -- this isn't some pseudo-courtroom. Arbitration, true arbitration, needs to be returned to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what would you propose to leave open to deal with users such as those? I mean, if you're returning "true" arbitration to Wikipedia, what is going to replace the existing systems of handling problem users with widespread effects? Phil Sandifer 23:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stop things from getting so "bad" in the first place. By employing a true arbitration process, we can hopefully provide a means to deal with disputes before they get very large. A user who wants to act in good faith will recognize that they had their say in the arbitration and abide by the decision. "Problem users" are presumably those who act in bad faith or perhaps just cannot consistently work well with others. The really obvious ones are already handled by the admin community. What I say is that the admin community should also be able to handle the somewhat ambigious ones also, perhaps with something as simple as a WP:AN notice or an RFC. Recent cases brought against Rainbowwarrior1977, DotSix, Plautus satire, LevelCheck, and a few others were "no-brainers". The obvious bad-faith nature of these users means that any delay due to the back-logged arbitration process was detrimental to Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 04:03, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2: Seeing as you are fully banned from the Wikipedia namespace until May, how do you expect to be an active arbitrator for the first four months of the year when you are prohibited from making edits to any arbitration pages? Phil Sandifer 04:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you should ask is why that is of any relevance? I think if I were to be elected, that implicitely would show the community consensus for me to fulfill the roll of Arbitrator. I'm also confident that Jimbo would formally suspend that ban, at least on the ArbCom pages, if that sort of acknowledgement is needed. What I want to ask you is - are you going to continue to poison the well by ad hominem comments like that, or can we actually discuss my platform like rational, educated adults? -- Netoholic @ 06:33, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions like this. -- Netoholic @ 17:57, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I love that answer. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 19:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Form Question from karmafist

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]