User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes

ArbCom General Summary • VOTE here • Alternate results page

After 2008 proved to be ArbCom's annus horribilis, this year's ArbCom elections present the Wikipedia community at least some potential to name seven new arbs to seats currently occupied by thirteen members. I had personal experience with ArbCom after admins short-circuited normal dispute resolution processes, and I later contributed evidence about the effects of being targeted by a group of admins in a related case that highlighted ArbCom weaknesses. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV, ArbCom deadlocked for four months when they combined two cases into an unnecessarily unwieldy conglomeration and then found themselves unable to reach or articulate conclusions long apparent to the community. The IRC, Mantmoreland, and implementation of the Homeopathy and other "fringe" or "pseudoscience" cases illustrate just a few other examples of ArbCom's increasing distance from the Wikipedia community and the community concern over influence wielded through backchannel or off-Wiki communication.

Time spent in these ArbCom cases is not only very unpleasant, but is time lost to productive editing, and 2008 ArbCom deliberations and decisions highlight the need for reform. It takes ArbCom months to years to reach conclusions already understood by editors who are daily "in the trenches" of article writing. A first step on the reform path is balancing the composition of ArbCom towards less bureaucratic policy wonkery and more common sense editors who are on Wiki to write an encyclopedia.

After spending too much of 2008 dealing with the impact of Wiki's broken dispute resolution processes in general, and ArbCom in particular, this year, I will generally (allowing for the rare exception) consider the following factors as important towards restoring needed balance to ArbCom:

1. Transparency. On several occasions, I've been exposed to several backchannel groups or "cliques" and their methods. Concerns about confidentiality of ArbCom communications caused me to limit evidence submitted in one case, so I will be looking for a proven commitment to on-Wiki transparency. If I have indications that a candidate frequently operates backchannel or as part of a group, I'm unlikely to Support, and may Oppose.
2. Community contact. Three years on ArbCom is a very long time in internet years, and can lead to a loss of contact with the editors who are "in the trenches", daily contributing quality content and dealing with issues that affect good faith editors. As the community evolves and changes, and ArbCom members see the worst of the worst in nasty cases, they can lose contact with the issues facing the community and a sense of the importance of expediency and how disruptive it can be to spend time before ArbCom. This effect can be compounded if a member never had extensive contact to begin with "in the trenches" of article writing, so I am looking for candidates who have significant time spent in article contributions or demonstrated leadership and involvement at, for example, the WikiProject level.
3. Policy wonkery. How effective a candidate is at policy wonkery is exactly what I'm not looking for this year. ArbCom has lost contact with the community. This year, I don't think we need candidates who spend most of their time at AN/I: I'm looking for extensive community involvement and content contributions.
4. Writing skills. There were several indications during 2008 that ArbCom Proposed decisions were held up because, simply, no one could effectively articulate the proposals, and most of the writing fell to two arbs: another reason to consider a proven ability to write.
5. Respect for contributors and sourcing. A lamentable and arrogant tone has taken over some corners of ArbCom and AN/I. I've seen arbs write demeaning, dismissive and derisive responses that deliver a clear message of "Do Not Pursue This Line of Questioning Or You Will Be Dealt With". I've seen arbs drop F-bombs into conversations. Recently, ArbCom decisions have had the effect of extending their influence over article editing in ways that impact top contributors and may place them on equal footing with tendentious editors. I've seen too many instances at WP:AN/I where admins were dismissive of concerns of top content contributors or disrespectful and unconcerned about the impact that admin decisions, sometimes delivered without prudent consideration of all factors, may have on editors or articles. That the question of what constitutes a "solid editor" even has to be raised in relationship to prior ArbCom cases is troubling. That the blindingly apparent answer had to provided by someone who isn't even an admin highlights why I'm looking for candidates this year who are in the trenches, contributing content at the highest levels.