Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Chutznik
Appearance
I have edited Wikipedia for the last four years (first edits [1] [2]). I have created or translated more than 300 new articles on chemistry, chess, Judaism and Israel. I brought endgame tablebase to GA in 2007; and in 2008-09 I reviewed ten GA applications (examples: optical properties of carbon nanotubes, Port of Albany-Rensselaer). I have participated in virtually every facet of project maintenance, including what has become "sockpuppet investigations" (example: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd)) and providing evidence on ArbCom case pages (example: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence presented by Shalom).
I propose the following changes to ArbCom policy and procedure:
- When in doubt, desysop an administrator. ArbCom hesitates to desysop admins because only a handful of former admins succeed in regaining their access at RFA. Unfortunately, ArbCom cannot fix the problems with RFA. However, if doubt exists whether an admin retains the community's trust, the default should be to desysop and refer back to the community. I see no distinction between "desysop" and "require a reconfirmation vote."
- When in doubt, do not ban users, and unban those who request it. If we are serious that "anyone can edit" this encyclopedia, we must stop handing out bans like candy. ArbCom has trended toward topic-bans instead of site-bans where possible, but it can go further. Virtually everyone should have a chance to return. Durova's Wikipedia:Standard offer would guide my approach. If a user can and wants to improve the encyclopedia, we should grant them a legitimate path.
- Eliminate the peanut gallery from ArbCom process.
- {{{2}}}