User:Vecrumba/If nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve

My thought experiment. Perhaps next year when I am free and clear. For now, an essay.

General questions

 * 1) Skills/interests: Which of the following tasks will you be prepared and qualified to perform regularly as an arbitrator? Your responses should indicate how your professional/educational background makes you suitable to the tasks.
 * 2) *(a) reviewing cases, carefully weighing up the evidence, and voting and commenting on proposed decisions;
 * 3) *(b) drafting proposed decisions for consideration by other arbitrators;
 * 4) *(c) voting on new requests for arbitration (on the requests page) and motions for the clarification or modification of prior decisions;
 * 5) *(d) considering appeals from banned or long-term-blocked users, such as by serving on the Ban Appeals Subcommittee or considering the Subcommittee's recommendations;
 * 6) *(e) overseeing the allocation and use of checkuser and oversight permissions, including the vetting and community consultation of candidates for them, and/or serving on the Audit Subcommittee or reviewing its recommendations;
 * 7) *(f) running checkuser checks (arbitrators generally are given access to CU if they request it) in connection with arbitration cases or other appropriate requests;
 * 8) *(g) carrying out oversight or edit suppression requests (arbitrators are generally also given OS privileges);
 * 9) *(h) drafting responses to inquiries and concerns forwarded to the Committee by editors;
 * 10) *(i) interacting with the community on public pages such as arbitration and other talk pages;
 * 11) *(j) performing internal tasks such as coordinating the sometimes-overwhelming arbcom-l mailing list traffic.
 * A: I would see: (a) through (d), (h) and (i) as most prominent and conducive to my experience and temperament. Some might point to me (unfavorably) as a veteran (even instigator) of conflict. On the other hand, editors in areas of deep-seated conflict have reached out to me for mediation. More importantly, Wikipedia has offered me the opportunity, in researching content, to deepen my understanding of topics, in some cases confirming but in others putting the lie to long-held beliefs--most importantly, to never take anything at face value. If you write an article and encounter a source which makes a statement citing another source, you can stop there or follow the chain--often through multiple sources--to the origin, the AHA! The process to unraveling contentions in a dispute and who really started a chain of disruption is no different. Critical thought is the key quality required in both instances.
 * 1) Stress: How will you be able to cope with the stress of being an arbitrator, potentially including on- and off-wiki threats and abuse, and attempts to embarrass you by the public "outing" of personal information?
 * A: Well, I've suffered all of the above and far worse abuses and am still here.
 * 1) Principles: Assume the four principles linked to below are directly relevant to the facts of a new case. Would you support or oppose each should it be proposed in a case you are deciding, and why? A one- or two-sentence answer is sufficient for each. Please regard them ''in isolation rather than in the context of their original cases.
 * 2) *(a) "Private correspondence"
 * A: The "private" in private correspondence should stand for something--aside from being legally protected. Too much time is spent on allegations of collusion--the particular medium is completely irrelevant. Were private correspondence not made available, the allegations of collusion would simply take a different path to the same accusations against the same editors. Additionally, there is too much indulging of topic-involved editors filing tit-for-tat arbitration, enforcement, et al. requests, which are little more than transparent attempts to eliminate one's editorial opposition by any means possible. What matters is the spirit and substance of what is expressed in public.
 * 1) *(b) "Responsibility"
 * A: In the real world, what we create for the benefit and use of others comes with a warranty which has an associated service level agreement. Some formalization of guidelines, or at least per-individual commitments, in this regard would be useful. While I appreciate that individuals have private lives and things happen, arbitrators should commit to some reasonable deadline by which they will respond with regard to follow-up required for any actions they have taken affecting editors or articles. That does not mean rushing to respond to every block-shopper pinging them on their personal talk page.
 * 1) *(c) "Perceived legal threats"
 * A: If editor "A" calls editor "B" a "Nazi" and editor "B" responds they will not tolerate that sort of "defamation" of character, I hardly think that is a legal threat, perceived or otherwise. We spend too much time on the high drama of implications; there is enough to do where circumstances are clear: "My lawyer will be contacting Wikipedia with a legal summons for your IP and related information so I can in turn serve a summons to your ISP for your personal information so I can in turn launch a defamation of character lawsuit against you," on the other hand, is quite clear and the guidelines (contact WP's legal counsel and not make on-Wiki threats or promises) are sufficient.
 * 1) *(d) "Outing"
 * A: Once an editor has self-identified (self-outed) on Wikipedia, any reference to that editor's identity is no longer "outing." If an editor determines that there are reasons for wishing to be anonymous, they should invoke their right to disappear assuming they are an editor in good standing and start over. "I know I said I was person X, but don't repeat that anymore" is not a workable solution. You don't get to put the toothpaste back into the tube.
 * 1) Strict versus lenient: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you? Under what circumstances would you consider desysopping an admin without a prior ArbCom case?
 * A: It's not a question of second chances versus the über ban hammer. The sooner intervention takes place--with shorter but far more frequent blocks--the sooner a message is communicated regarding an editor's actions. Long bans and blocks encourage editors to seek them out against their opposition to control content at articles involving disputes. Contrary to the intuitively obvious (a parallel would be that the death sentence deters murder), the harsher the sanctions ArbCom is willing to regularly apply, the greater the level of conflict which will be encouraged in areas of dispute because it is ArbCom--not the editorial community--that is upping the ante.
 * As for desysopping, unless someone has taken an action which puts Wikipedia at legal risk or, worse, willfully takes action endangering the welfare of an individual, either of which would call for immediate action, all recalls and/or desysopping by ArbCom should go through a formal procedure. Without formal procedure, ArbCom becomes a non-transparent and unaccountable judge, jury, and executioner.
 * 1) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community". Please give reasons.
 * A: Policies are not the issue, the issue is setting precedents. I've not seen any complaints about any policies or guidelines being confusing--we are not engineering space flight. On the one hand, one must deal with each case individually on its merits. On the other, combatants rush to cite past cases which they contend apply (usually regarding punishment) and ArbCom regularly cites prior cases as justification for specific actions. The latter situation (how is this like another?) leads to sticking both situations and editors into preconceived and therefore prejudicial boxes from which there is no escape. To the original question on making policy and/or rules, I see no pressing reason for more, nor is ArbCom elected to be a proxy for the community in that regard.
 * 1) Conduct/content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
 * A: There are instances of contentions which are inadmissible as content. Holocaust denial is the most obvious, but there are less obvious ones floating about as well where some past rulings have been made. That said, no one is in the position to mandate content. If editors truly focused on fairly and accurately representing reliable sources, including reputable scholarly conflicts of opinion, and did so in a collegial manner, there would be no need for ArbCom. Expanding on my earlier comments on the waging of content control, ArbCom would do well to aspire to do less, not more. Once such a topical area of conflict is identified, I would prohibit all topic-involved editors from filing any grievances against each other: no arbitrations, no enforcement requests, no AN/Is, no RfCs (which are only more partisan pleadings), no inquiries regarding specific editors on any admin's or arbitrator's page, no solicitation of attention regarding specific editors off-Wiki,... for a period of six months, with the option to renew (or reinstate if past poor conduct returns). The only workable means to deescalate conflict is to disarm the antagonists. If the only venue for interaction is an article and its talk page, then that is where editors will expend effort. If there are at least half a dozen venues outside an article and its talk page to pursue content control, well, then that is where effort will go instead. Rewards drive behavior.
 * 1) Success in handling cases: Nominate the cases from 2010 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * A: Requires research. I watch the arbitration pages but my eyes soon glaze over.
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A: I think I've already given some indication of changes in approach from the past:
 * Get involved sooner rather than later in shorter but more frequent blocks for behavioral issues; the goal is to change an editor's conduct, not to hold out the reward of banishing an editor to control content, i.e., placing ArbCom in the position of serving a combatant's POV by eliminating their opposition
 * Deal with each case on its individual merits. Discourage the use of editors denouncing each other with labels to appeal to personal prejudices, quoting past cases, quoting unrelated cases. Don't lock yourself in by repeating the past.
 * Rather than threaten to exercise the nuclear option in deep-seated areas of conflict, realize that threat only serves those who are eager to see the nuclear option deployed against their editorial opposition. Instead, initiate nuclear disarmament in such areas of conflict. And start with short blocks, extending to longer blocks and or topic bans for those editors who continue to attempt to pursue the nuclear option in the face of a nuclear ban.
 * A: Requires research. I watch the arbitration pages but my eyes soon glaze over.
 * 1) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?
 * A: I think I've already given some indication of changes in approach from the past:
 * Get involved sooner rather than later in shorter but more frequent blocks for behavioral issues; the goal is to change an editor's conduct, not to hold out the reward of banishing an editor to control content, i.e., placing ArbCom in the position of serving a combatant's POV by eliminating their opposition
 * Deal with each case on its individual merits. Discourage the use of editors denouncing each other with labels to appeal to personal prejudices, quoting past cases, quoting unrelated cases. Don't lock yourself in by repeating the past.
 * Rather than threaten to exercise the nuclear option in deep-seated areas of conflict, realize that threat only serves those who are eager to see the nuclear option deployed against their editorial opposition. Instead, initiate nuclear disarmament in such areas of conflict. And start with short blocks, extending to longer blocks and or topic bans for those editors who continue to attempt to pursue the nuclear option in the face of a nuclear ban.
 * Rather than threaten to exercise the nuclear option in deep-seated areas of conflict, realize that threat only serves those who are eager to see the nuclear option deployed against their editorial opposition. Instead, initiate nuclear disarmament in such areas of conflict. And start with short blocks, extending to longer blocks and or topic bans for those editors who continue to attempt to pursue the nuclear option in the face of a nuclear ban.