Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements

2009 Arbitration Committee Election status

General questions were submitted and available for candidates to answer.
Nominations are closed.
Voting closed at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009.
Results have been published, 18th Dec.
Feedback on the elections is solicited from participants.

This is the candidate statements page, where editors wishing to run in the 2009 Arbitration Committee elections may present themselves and their nomination statement.

Criteria for running

Editors must have 1,000 mainspace edits as of 00:00 UTC on 10 November 2009. For the purposes of this requirement, deleted edits may be counted.

Editors must be either 18 years of age or older, or of majority age in their place of residence, whichever is higher.

Editors will be required (per this thread) to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seats. (See also, WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit.)

Candidacy statements

Statements may not exceed 400 words, although you are free to link to a longer statement if you wish. You should submit your statement using the below section ("To run for this year's elections"). Statements are formatted using the {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}} template. Statements may be submitted at any point after 00:00 on 10 November 2009 and before 23:59 24 November 2009 (all times are UTC). Any statements submitted out of this period will not be accepted (and may be removed by any editor).

To run for this year's elections

Candidacies are entered into the election using the below inputbox. Append your username to "Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/", ensuring that you keep all of that text (including the "/"):

Further instructions will be given once you click "create a statement." You will be reminded of this when submitting your statement, but do note that you will need to transclude your statement, once it is saved, at #Standing candidates using the following code:

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Your username}}

Standing candidates

Chutznik

I have edited Wikipedia for the last four years (first edits [1] [2]; prior accounts [3]). I have created 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 "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. 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 sincerely 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. 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 return.
Eliminate the peanut gallery. Uninvolved users routinely make statements at arbitration requests, but we should ask them to stop. ArbCom does not need fifty wasted pontifications to establish facts. 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 talk pages.
Stick to the facts. I will not vote for any principle or finding of fact that I don't understand and agree with.
Resolve content disputes. ArbCom should establish a voting process when discussion deadlocks and mediation fails to resolve the issue, as with the recent vote on Ireland article names. 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.

Fred Bauder

I served on the Arbitration Committee for several years and learned a great deal. I will apply the lessons I learned in my work should I be selected. I believe that the Arbitration Committee has developed to the point that I will be able to play a less prominent role than I did in the past. I am aware of the time and stress demands that are involved. I continue to believe in doing the work of the Arbitration Committee in a format such as the workshop which permits community input into decisions and disclosure of our decisions and discussions.

I believe in second chances, even third and fourth chances and am willing to consider the complaints of angry users. The editing, and administrative, history of a user should always be considered. We should protect and support contributors who advance the project. I support reasonable courtesy on the part of editors and administrators and will propose reasonable sanctions on those who significantly deviate from our standards. I will endeavor to use understandable language in decisions and discussions. I will endeavor to apply our policies in a way that advances the mission of Wikipedia. As I have in the past, I will use my legal training and experience to implement a dispute resolution procedure which is, so far as possible, accessible to anyone with a good complaint or defense.

Fritzpoll

What have I done on Wikipedia? I have written an FA, contributed to another, helped establish the Article Incubator and have edited various other articles, guidelines and policies.

What have I done that is relevant to this role? I have been involved in trying to resolve disputes of various types from shouting matches at certain project pages, increasingly heated disputes between users and other problems I occasionally encounter during my wanderings through Wikipedia. I was appointed as one of three referees in the recent Macedonia naming dispute and the resolution that we produced has resulted in greater stability for the editors in that part of Wikipedia.

What do I think the point of arbitration is? Arbitration should try to resolve issues to the benefit of the encyclopaedia - it is not about punishment, but should instead typically be about restoring a collegial collaborative environment so that editors can focus less on disputes and more on the production of encyclopaedic content. This will often involve sanctioning individual editors, and administrators should in particular be scrutinised if there is evidence of impropriety, but sanctions in of themselves are not a goal of arbitration. As an arbitrator, I would not hesitate to impose sanctions, but they must improve the collaborative environment that we strive to create on Wikipedia.

What would I do differently? I think some cases in the past have lacked focus – reams of evidence were produced to speak generally to the charge that some editor is “bad” or “good” and new areas of behaviour to be examined are introduced at random points throughout the arbitration process, requiring yet more evidence to be produced by the other parties. I would like to see a clear scope explicitly defined for all cases when they are accepted. Clerks would be empowered to remove evidence that does not speak directly to the scope of the case, and the scope could be expanded if necessary. This would require consent of the entire group, but it is something that I will push for to improve efficiency and accessibility, as well as removing obfuscation. I will be engaging in “active” arbitration by asking direct questions, requesting specific diffs and making sure that relevant points in a case come to light so that the Committee can determine the facts of a case rather than relying on interpretations and slants imposed on evidence by the various sides of a dispute.

Jehochman

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Jehochman

noicon

My name is Jonathan Hochman. I hold two degrees in computer science from Yale University. (verify) I live in Connecticut, USA and am self-employed as an Internet marketing consultant. (profile)

My wiki-philosophy is based upon three principles:

Wikipedia is for enjoying and creating quality encyclopedia articles and media. We are not a social club, nor an ideological battleground.
All editors have equal stature. Some gain access to additional tools through experience, but this does not entitle them to deferential treatment. We have no royalty.
Editors who contribute quality content should receive leniency when they make errors. Those who primarily stir up trouble should be politely yet firmly shown to the door.

During 2009 I participated in the following article milestones:

My project-space contributions in 2009 include helping to reform the process at arbitration enforcement, which has lead to an increase in administrator participation and better handling of requests. I am also trying to encourage better methods of handling administrators' noticeboard/incidents and community sanction requests. We've had some initial success by posting links to open requests for comment on the Administrators noticeboard and ANI headers. This will hopefully increase participation at user and admin conduct RfCs. Whatever we can do to strengthen our dispute resolution processes may help arbitration operate more efficiently by reducing the number and complexity of cases. I've also been involved in or commented on numerous arbitration cases this year.

I am running because two editors I respect have asked me to run. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly five years and only once took a short wikibreak. If elected I have the time, stamina, and constitution to serve. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kmweber

The so-called "Arbitration Committee" has zero legitimacy. Wikipedia is a community project, which means that only institutions created by the Wikipedia community--and not by one man--have any legitimate authority. The Arbitration Committee's history makes it impossible for any action taken by it to be legitimate or worthy of being taken seriously. That many people do deal with it as if it were legitimate is no indication of its legitimacy, any more than handing over one's wallet to a mugger to avoid being beaten is an endorsement of the legitimacy of mugging.

I am running to counter this harmful influence. If elected, I would, quite simply, vote to decline any and all cases presented before the Arbitration Committee, instead referring them to community institutions and processes that actually have legitimacy and the moral authority to enforce a final decision.

KnightLago

Hello! I am KnightLago. I am third-year law student studying in the United States. I have been an editor since early 2006, an administrator since April 2008, and an Arbitration Committee Clerk since March 2009. I am also a member of the Volunteer Response Team. I have written a number of articles, including a featured article, and have a wide range of experience across the project.

In thinking about running I asked myself the following question: What change and impact would I bring to the committee?

First, and most importantly, I think we have entirely too many users whose sole purpose on, and contribution to Wikipedia is DRAMA. These are the people who appear repeatedly at Arbitration or ANI wasting the community's time and patience. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to humor people who want attention. These people also drive away constructive editors, who are Wikipedia's most valuable and important assets. This is unacceptable.

Second, cases are taking too long to reach a resolution. An example is the Eastern European mailing list case, which I am clerking. The case has dragged on and a number of target dates have been missed due to the volume of evidence all of the arbitrators have to wade through. In order to solve this, I would advocate for a system like a Court of Appeals, where a small number of judges, in our situation arbitrators, are assigned to each case. SirFozzie is advocating something similar. If this approach were adopted, there would be less people required to go through the evidence, and arbitrators could spend more time on their cases or other matters. If the case was somehow significant, then the committee could sit en banc. This would bring cases to a quicker resolution and allow users to return to editing.

Third, I would continue the reformation process the committee is currently engaged in and seek community input wherever possible. I think all too often we forget that the Arbitration Committee serves at the behest of, and are first and foremost, editors from the community. Therefore, if elected by the community, I promise to give all sides fair consideration in any dispute, promise to work diligently within Wikipedia's policies, and always bear in mind that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an open and accessible encyclopedia.

Ruslik0

I'm User:Ruslik0. I made my first edit in March 2006, although I began regular editing only a year later in March 2007. I am currently an administrator and Edit Filter manager. In the real life I am a theoretical physicist residing in Russia. However I edit mostly astronomy related articles, especially those about the Solar System (see my user page).

I am nominating myself because I believe that Wikipedia will benefit from services of a physicist. Disputes related to the science, pseudoscience and fringe science are unfortunately not rare, and I think that my expertize in the field of natural sciences may be useful for the project.

This the end of my short statement (I do not really like writing long statements). I am ready to answer your questions.

SirFozzie

Wikipedia is a year older, and a year wiser. We face challenges, both old and new. The Arbitration Committee has made a good start to being more open, and handling things in a more reasonable manner. We must continue to elect new blood, and new ideas.

Once again, I will make the pledge that no matter what the result of the ongoing ArbCom RfC, I will limit myself to a tranche of no more then two years. Two years is all a vast majority of people can handle in this position, and for those brave few who think they can do longer then that, the two year mark is a good position for the community to see what type of job they are doing.

We must not become complacent. We must not stop looking for ways to improve. Last year, a new wave was set in motion. This year, we must ensure that wave does not peter out.

Here are some thoughts.

A) Look into additional ways in which ArbCom can streamline case handling Whether that's continuing to delegate sub-groups in the ArbCom, such as the Ban Appeal Committee, appointing 4-6 members of ArbCom per case to work as an active sub-group (rather then waiting for all 18 or however many Arbitrators to chime in), we need to be looking for additional ways to make sure ArbCom is handling their duties in an expeditious manner. ArbCom is the last stop on dispute resolution, so whenever a case gets accepted, it means that any delays will only harden the ill-will and un-collaborative editing environment, making the ArbCom job even more difficult. ArbCom must always be looking for ways to expedite their work, while making sure to do a complete job.

B) Highlight areas of Wikipedia policy that need to be looked at fully. ArbCom cannot create policy out of whole cloth.they can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved. They cannot create policy, but they can lead the discussion... this is something that needs to be more aggresively pushed at the ArbCom level.

C) Continue to look at alternative remedies to manage problematic areas Topic bans, 1RR, and probation can be more fully utilized to keep users with problems editing in certain areas from disrupting, although keeping them in editing in areas where it benefits the encyclopedia. I would also be more willing to put subject areas under probationary terms.

Wehwalt

I won't bore you with a long spiel, but here's why I'm running for ArbCom:

I'm qualified and able to handle the work. I'm a lawyer in real life, so understanding of ArbCom procedures and the necessarily analysis and writing are things I can do.

As for qualifications on Wikipedia, here are my article achievements for 2009:

Woodes Rogers (and TFA)
Murray Chotiner (and TFA)
Rudolf Wolters (with two other editors, went TFA)
Franklin Knight Lane (and TFA)
Matthew Boulton (and TFA)
Jerry Voorhis
United States Senate election in California, 1950 (WP:FOUR)
California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 (WP:FOUR)
Nikita Khrushchev
Neville Chamberlain

I'm a member for over four years and an admin for 11 months, though I use my adminly powers fairly rarely. I'm an article writer, principally, and as of this writing have 15 FAs (14 of which I took through FAC, so I play well with others), 2 GAs and 50 DYKs. I have helped take WP:TFA/R from a train wreck to a smoothly running process (though honestly I was not terribly helpful when I started). Much of that credit, though, is due to the other commentators who keep what could be a very emotional process (as in FAC, everyone thinks very highly of their article) low key, and to the Featured Article Director. I've monitored the goings on at ArbCom since the Advisory Committee matter, which I'll address below.

I realize that my views will be drawn out more with the questions, so I'll keep my platform brief. ArbCom should stick to arbitrating as it has done, until and unless there is a community process to expand its role. The problem with the Advisory Committee proposal earlier this year was not so much the content, as the method. People don't like surprises. There should have been a much more gradual approach to keep the community informed and involved.

What you will see if you elect me is competence, professionalism, neutrality, and an utter lack of drama.

Withdrawn candidates

Candidates who withdrew prior to voting.

<poem> Chutznik, Chutznik (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:54, November 24, 2009.

Candidates who withdrew during the voting period.

Secret, Secret (talk · contribs). Withdrew on 13:19, December 7, 2009.