Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Chutznik

Chutznik

I have edited Wikipedia for the last four years (first edits [1] [2]; prior accounts [). 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. ArbCom solicits opinions from uninvolved members of the community. Sometimes these observers provide insights; I have played this role myself. Too often, however, their effort is wasted in a blaze of disruptive drama creep. Wikipedia:Requests for comment can still be used to solicit community opinion. ArbCom should work more like the Mediation Committee: if you have no business stepping into a dispute, stay away and let us handle it ourselves. Establish reasonable criteria for who belongs in a discussion, and ask everyone else to reserve their comments for the case talk pages. This will reduce wasted expenditure of time and effort by well-intentioned community members who are not really helping much. For example, the repeated solicitations for comment on User:Betacommand's status strike me as a colossal waste of time.
Stick to the facts. I have seen some dubious findings of fact in past ArbCom cases. I will not vote for any finding of fact that I don't understand and agree with.
Resolve content disputes. ArbCom should not rule directly on content, but they should create a standard voting procedure for high-level naming disputes if discussion deadlocks. Punishing bad behavior without resolving the underlying content dispute may encourage renewed bad behavior until we solve the root problem.

I reluctantly offer to take on part of the Committee's load. I hope more qualified candidates will step forward, but if not, I will do the job.

{{{2}}}