User:Idont Havaname/Arbcom Elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006[edit]

I will also use these criteria for the 2007 elections, since I think they still apply even though I have not participated in any arbcom cases this year. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 12:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

My involvement with the arbcom[edit]

I participated in the December 2005 arbcom elections but had little experience with Arbcom at the time. I was a party in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Leyasu and was also extensively involved with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Deathrocker. I have also filed numerous checkuser requests related to those cases. Incidentally, I also posted some evidence (not as extensive) in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/-Ril- 2.


From my exposure to the arbcom in the first half of this year (2006), I got several ideas for how I would improve it, were I able to serve. However, my activity on Wikipedia has not been as high as usual since I graduated in May (2006) and started working full-time. My availability to edit Wikipedia more often next year is still up in the air, and I think it would not be good if I were to be elected to the Arbcom and then not have enough time to give sufficient attention to each case. Thus, I may run next year; but I am not running this year.

Things I want to see in next year's arbcom[edit]

  • Faster processing of cases. This is essentially a given and an inherent problem for the arbcom, given their load of cases and finite time to spend hearing them. I encourage the expansion of the arbcom in order to handle this better. As the number of users on Wikipedia grows, so do the number of disputes which require arbcom attention... similar to how articles for deletion nominations have increased greatly from the number they had two years ago.
  • More individual attention to each case. This became more apparent to me after I became involved in two cases. Due to my lack of time and continuing developments in the cases after they opened, I could not present all of my evidence before the case opened, and I could not present all of my proposed remedies before they reached the voting phase.
  • Equal authority to all arbitrators. What I am not questioning here is the initiative Fred Bauder has taken in writing many of the arbcom remedies this year. What I am questioning is the fact that he writes nearly all of them and isn't challenged. I want to see more arbitrators actively involved in the decision-making process.
  • More emphasis on findings of fact. Users who are subject to arbcom sanctions occasionally like to bring up arbcom cases; I frequently found this in my dealings with the now-banned Leyasu, who frequently taunted Deathrocker by bringing up arbcom rulings against him. I want to see the arbcom formalize more of the records brought up in the evidence so that Wikipedia has a more concise, agreed-upon history of the disputes brought before the arbcom.
  • Remedies that are easier to enforce. In the first case in which I was involved, standard remedies were given out; personal attack parole, 1RR revert parole, probation. These are easy to enforce. In Deathrocker's case, both users who were placed on revert parole got, and I quote, "If he reverts any article more than once per 24 hour period or more than 2 times in any 7 day period or more than 3 times in any 30 day period he may be blocked for up to a year." Aside from the 1RR part, this is very hard to enforce, particularly on high-traffic articles. Admins don't usually havve time to look through 30 days' worth of page history and figure out which edits (sometimes not clearly marked as reverts) from a given user violate revert parole. When you throw sockpuppets into the equation, this gets even more complicated.
  • More adaptability to what happens during a case. If people present some strong evidence one way or another after a case opens, and the case has not reached a motion to close yet, look into it, and add or modify corresponding principles, findings of fact, and remedies.

Voting criteria[edit]

I am more likely to support candidates with these characteristics:

  • Is an editor who hasn't gotten in any major trouble themselves. Isn't a highly controversial editor/admin.
  • Has well thought-out answers to the questions.
  • Has a platform that fits well with the goals for the arbcom that I stated above.
  • Follows their platform; is not hypocritical regarding their stances.
  • Has had only positive interactions with me, if any.
  • Will become more involved in the arbcom's decision-making; is interested in all arbitrators' playing a role in this, and making the Wikipedia community aware of that through postings in case-related pages.
  • Is interested in advancing Wikipedia as an encyclopedia; e.g. shares my interests in using reliable sources for verifiable information and making sure that content is written from a neutral point of view, and has a clear picture of what Wikipedia is and is not.
  • Manages wikistress well without needing to take extended wikibreaks; will spend as much of the year serving on the arbcom as possible, even if they're not there all day and all night, just to do their part in making sure that cases get at least some input from as many arbitrators as possible.
  • Knows when to recuse; won't rule in cases where they have a special interest in the debate at hand, even if giving up their decision-making power drives them crazy.
  • Doesn't ignore all rules, but instead makes a good-faith effort to interpret rules when they are unclear.
  • Isn't afraid to ban users who just make no good contributions at all.
  • Age / education level: At least 18 years old or in college. I don't have a problem with younger users who are especially mature, but the fact is... when we're younger, our interests can tend to change quite frequently. With only 15 people on the arbcom, and elections only once a year, we can't afford to have an arbitrator lose interest and leave.
  • Has an outside real life but will still have time to serve all year without taking any extended absences (e.g. more than a few weeks at a time). With only 9-10 active arbitrators at some points of this year, it took longer for cases to be accepted.