Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Cool Hand Luke/Statement

Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.


 * In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases.  ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve.  ArbCom needs reform.


 * I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all.  We must put it back on track.  I intend to do so.


 * As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.


 * Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it.  We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia.  Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations.  Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status.  Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.


 * Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence.  Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted.  Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.


 * Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims.  I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.


 * Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies.  Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.


 * To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.


 * Thank you. Cool Hand Luke