Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Chutznik

Chutznik

I have edited Wikipedia for the last four years (first edits [1] [2]; prior accounts [3]). I have created more than 300 new articles on chemistry, chess, Judaism and Israel. I brought endgame tablebase to GA in 2007; and in 2008-09 I reviewed ten GA applications (examples: optical properties of carbon nanotubes, Port of Albany-Rensselaer). I have participated in virtually every facet of project maintenance, including "sockpuppet investigations" (example: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Evrik (2nd)) and providing evidence on ArbCom case pages (example: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Evidence#Evidence presented by Shalom).

I propose the following changes to ArbCom policy and procedure:

• When in doubt, desysop an administrator. If doubt exists whether an admin retains the community's trust, the default should be to desysop and refer back to the community. I see no distinction between "desysop" and "require a reconfirmation vote."
• When in doubt, do not ban users, and unban those who sincerely request it. If we are serious that "anyone can edit" this encyclopedia, we must stop handing out bans like candy. ArbCom has trended toward topic-bans instead of site-bans where possible, but it can go further. Durova's Wikipedia:Standard offer would guide my approach. If a user can and wants to improve the encyclopedia, we should grant them a legitimate return.
• Eliminate the peanut gallery. Uninvolved users routinely make statements at arbitration requests, but we should ask them to stop. ArbCom does not need fifty wasted pontifications to establish facts. Wikipedia:Requests for comment can still be used to solicit community opinion. ArbCom should work more like the Mediation Committee: if you have no business stepping into a dispute, stay away and let us handle it ourselves. Establish reasonable criteria for who belongs in a discussion, and ask everyone else to reserve their comments for talk pages.
• Stick to the facts. I will not vote for any principle or finding of fact that I don't understand and agree with.
• Resolve content disputes. ArbCom should establish a voting process when discussion deadlocks and mediation fails to resolve the issue, as with the recent vote on Ireland article names. Punishing bad behavior without resolving the underlying content dispute may encourage renewed bad behavior until we solve the root problem.

I reluctantly offer to take on part of the Committee's load. I hope more qualified candidates will step forward, but if not, I will do the job.

• Chutznik (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)