Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/RegentsPark/Questions

Moved comments from #Question from Begoon
I posted most of this to the discussion on the failed motion to "suspend" Elen, and if you find it phrased oddly as a question, that's why - the page was archived almost immediately afterwards. It occurs to me that maybe some voters might be interested in candidates' reactions to a question like this, so I'm asking it of each of you. It's a very open question, so feel free to ignore it or to comment on it in any way at all.

Is it an arbitration body we want? Do you think that's what we have? It doesn't seem to arbitrate at all, most of the time, it sits in judgement and hands down sanctions from on high. That's not the same thing at all. Do you think, instead, we've ended up with GOVCOM, complete with all the lovely political trimmings that brings along. If you think that's true - how did we get here, and is this where we want to be?
 * Hi Begoon, that is an interesting question. Consensus is our primary decision making process and the role of ArbCom is to step in where the community is unable to reach consensus through our normal procedures. Therefore, yes, ArbCom primarily exists for arbitration and it should generally work within the framework of the questions put to it. Other things being equal, I would prefer to see arbitrators take a narrow view of questions put to it rather than a broader one. But, do note my other things being equal caveat because sometimes expanding the scope makes for better decisions that last longer and cause less pain. So, I guess the simple answer is that some situations may call for a 'judgement' though most should be arbitration oriented. Overly narrow, and we have a weak and ineffective process. Too broad, and we have a process that circumvents consensus and governs rather than arbitrates. Balance is everything.


 * Whether our current arbitration mechanism has reached a point where it sits more in judgement and less in arbitration is an empirical question that I'm not qualified to answer. I, as I'm sure is the case with most editors, tend to follow mainly those cases where I have some prior interest or on cases that seem interesting (usually when I'm bemused by all the fuss!). Speaking (writing?) purely subjectively, and along with all the biases that come from following only a few cases, I think we're currently trending toward more a more active Arb process but doing so within the boundaries of reasonableness. In all probability, this is just the normal process expected of any system with a subjective steady state and I'm not overly concerned, for now anyway. --regentspark (comment) 03:55, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's very helpful, and very detailed. Just one follow up, if I may. You've explained very clearly that you think the balance is about right with regard to "arbitration", and "judgement", and I agree that it's inescapable that in some scenarios someone will have to "judge", and that sometimes it's better to do that early on, and avoid repeated similar issues. I don't think we'll solve the ins and outs of that here, but I do think your response is very valuable. It's helped me to understand your position.
 * I'd also be interested if you have any views to share on the problems (if any) that the politicisation of arbcom causes. Obviously I'm influenced by the recent "in-fighting" in posing this question. Do you think there are ways we could avoid this, or is it an inevitable consequence of the evolution and growth of the community and arbcom? It happens in every political system I've ever seen, so I'm far from implying it's unique here - but I guess, encapsulated in the question, is this: does it have to be a political system, or are there alternatives, less likely to result in this kind of damaging polarisation? It's fine to say you don't know - because I don't either...  Begoon &thinsp; talk  04:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My take on this is that in any system which actively selects people into positions of responsibility and authority you're going to get some amount of politicking and that's only natural. A person has to want to get selected and being political, by trying to say the right thing and by actively increasing visibility, is one manifestation of that want. If we had a system where people applied for arb seats and Jimbo selected the set of arbs, then being political would mean moulding yourself to make yourself attractive to Jimbo. In our current system, being political means getting the maximum number of people to vote for you and, preferably, the maximum number of people to vote against the others. (The politicization could spread beyond the candidates - c.f. this.)


 * Nothing is inevitable and I can definitely think of better systems. For example, we could set up a minimum criteria for becoming an arb (min edits, min percents in article space and wikispace, no blocks or no recent blocks, etc.), let editors add their names to a candidate list, and then pick a set of arbs from that list at random. We'll get some mavericks into the committee but that may not be a bad thing. Another possibility is to have a long list of potential arbs (based on a set of eligibility criteria) and then pick, again at random and subject to availability, a subset for each case that shows up. That, actually, may be the best way to go. --regentspark (comment) 14:06, 30 November 2012 (UTC)