Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Candidate statements/Phil Sandifer

Phil Sandifer
I lack a particular or burning desire to be an arbitrator (my plate being reasonably full as it stands), but I am willing to do the job, and thus feel obliged to put my name forward.

Recent events have changed my mind on the above sentence. As it stands, I would like to be an arbitrator fairly actively.

I tend to think that I am, by this point, a known quantity. I've been an administrator for something resembling three years now, was one of the first arbcom clerks, am an OTRS volunteer, helped author a number of policy pages and processes, am an active participant on wikien-l, etc. If elected to arbcom, I would, I imagine, change virtually nothing. The arbcom generally makes sound decisions, and I have no desire to radically reshape the process.

In response to the inevitable question of how I would find the time to be an arbitrator, I would intend to scale back my OTRS involvement in favor of arbitration, and would probably resign after one year to prevent burnout.

There is also, finally, the obvious issue that I've left Wikipedia. But it's not unreasonable to ask, why would I support a candidate who's left Wikipedia? Obviously, if elected, I'd ask brion for a password reset and come back. But that's clearly not the only issue. I left Wikipedia because I was frustrated at the mechanisms for policy formation. In the article space the anarchic and free-for-all nature of our editing is counterbalanced by clear principles that guide our editing. No counterbalance exists in the policy space. This has led to the ludicrous situation whereby we've had an easier time sorting out articles on the Middle East than we have had sorting out notability guidelines for webcomics.

It is no secret that the arbitration committee assumes de facto roles beyond those on WP:RFAr, becoming among the people that Jimbo and others consult for advice on matters. If elected, I would seek to use those additional roles to encourage both Jimbo and the community to find a way to reform policy formation - one that retains the benefits of the anarchic, free-for-all editing, but that is also more accountable, more controlled, and more capable of looking at the project in a programmatic way instead of a way based on solving individual problems and applying, often blindly, those solutions in a broader way.

Let me note, I consider this encouragement SEPARATE from the business of ruling on individual cases. WP:RFAr is not an instrument of policy formation, and I promise that I would not use it as one. Arbitration cases are decided according to current Wikipedia policy. But arbitration is also a social role. I believe I would be a fair, capable, active, and effective arbitrator. I also believe that I would use the larger position for good.


 * Questions for the candidate
 * Support or Oppose this candidate
 * Support or Oppose this candidate