Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/AGK/Extended

This page details some additional information on where I stand on various issues relating to the committee. If my views on an issue are unclear or need clarification, or I simply haven't detailed them, then please bring it up on my candidacy questions page. These points are presented in no particular order.

Transparency

• Transparency, as a canon for all arbitration work.

It is important that the community be told where things stand. If something has to be kept hidden for privacy's sake, then a simple "We can't tell you that, because XYZ" keeps everybody as in the loop as possible.

• On-wiki discussions.

The mailing list should be used sparingly. If elected, one of my first goals would be to establish some kind of discussion area for the committee to use. At present, there is no venue for the discussion of miscellaneous issues not relating to a current request (which go on WP:A/R), to general issues (which go to WT:AC), or to announcements (which go to WT:AC/N). When an arbcom-l thread is started, it should be easy to say "There is no good reason to discuss this privately. Let's transfer this to the public discussion area."

Case decisions

• Effective sanctions.

If an issue is being arbitrated, a serious problem exists. I would not support a weak or ineffective remedy. A decision should drive as close as possible to a solution to the problem the committee is considering.

• Little sympathy for those who disrupt.

An editor's conduct can be problematic if it prevents others from effectively writing articles or collaborating, or if it causes a Wikipedia article to not honour our core policies, or if it brings the project name or the reputation of a Wikipedia subject area into disrepute. If it was demonstrated to me that an editor's conduct was problematic (in these or in other ways), I would sanction that editor in a manner that neutralised their disruptive additions. (Caveat: See the next point and this remark. I am not heavy-handed. I would simply not support a sanction that would not be effective.)

• Leniency.

Inasmuch as doing so would not violate my second point (to effectively and fully neutralise all problematic conduct), I would err on the side of leniency. Being heavy-handed for the sake of being heavy-handed serves nobody.

• Second chances.

I extend to all the standard offer, and would abide by the principles of that system if elected. Those who genuinely wish to return to constructive editing are to be helped every step of the way, inasmuch as doing so would not be detrimental to the other functions of an arbitrator. If elected, I would volunteer to deal with banned editors, to allow the rest of the project to get on with writing the encyclopedia; and I would give my time to those who make a good case for returning to a subject area from which they have been banned (or indeed, to the entire project, in the case of sitebans).

• Administrator conduct.

Sysops who cannot be trusted to do a good job should be removed. If the community brings a problematic administrator to the committee whilst I am an arbitrator, I will vote to launch proceedings to scrutinise that administrator's conduct—and will support only those measures which fully neutralise any problems with that conduct.

As an arbitrator

• Biographies of living persons.

They're a big problem. A huge one, actually. I don't intend the project to get a huge lawsuit whilst I'm on the committee. If elected, I would be very aware of the importance of making special provisions for ensuring that BLPs honour our core policies. (But, I don't promise to wave my magic wand and solve the BLP problem. I simply endeavour to treat is as an important issue whilst arbitrating, no matter what the context. Cf my answer to Chaser.)

• Recall.

I would not continue to serve if I no longer had the community's trust. If elected, I would establish a method for forcibly removing me from the committee in the event that the community no longer wished for me to serve. I would also resign if a majority of my colleagues on the committee asked me to. I am here to serve the project. I could not do so if my presence is detrimental.