User:Snowspinner~enwiki/arbcom

Note that discussion of this page, should you for some reason want even more of my opinions, can be found on its talk page

Let me start with my qualifications. In my time on Wikipedia, I have tried to mediate and resolve a number of disputes on a number of articles. I will admit that sometimes this has been unsuccessful. Other times, I think it's been very successful. This seems to me an important thing, since one of the tasks of the arbcom is to resolve disputes. Actually, that's its main task. But I'll get to that in a minute. My other major qualification, I think, is that I have substantial experience moderating online message boards, including some fairly rowdy ones. Wikipedia is not a message board, certainly, but the experience keeping an often fractious community running smoothly, and, more importantly, of handling the need to block and ban disruptive users is extremely applicable here.

I believe that the function of the arbitration committee is to minimize disruption to Wikipedia. The arbcom is not about punishing bad users, and it is not about discipline. It is, as its place in the dispute resolution process would suggest, about resolving disputes. Resolving disputes, of course, means coming up with a solution that stops dispute, stops strife and conflict, and fosters the writing of an encyclopedia.

This involves a number of balancing acts.

The main is between the community and the arbitrator's judgment. On the one hand, no dispute will be resolved by going against the desires of a large number of people. The arbitration committee needs to be populist in order to be effective. On the other hand, there are lots of good reasons why quickpolls fell from favor. The point of the arbitration commitee is to rise above immediate public desire and to apply good judgment.

To this end, I think the central question in any arbcom case is the question of what the Wikipedia's desire is. Wikipedia is made up of two aspects which can be in direct conflict - on the one hand is the policies, and, more importantly in many ways, the principles that found Wikipedia. On the other is the communal aspect of Wikipedia. This communal aspect, however, is a part of the Wikipedia principles. The way this all shakes out, for me, is that the arbitration committee should follow the desires of the ideal community - that is, a community of smart, motivated people who want to write a free encyclopedia and all get along and have some fun doing it. One of the many barometers for telling what the ideal community would want is what the real community wants, because, let's face it, on the whole Wikipedia works pretty damn well.

So the questions the arbcom needs to settle, to my mind, are ones of what will best serve the writing of an encyclopedia. That said, we are living in the real world. Not everyone who comes to Wikipedia is trying to write an encyclopedia. And the openness of Wikipedia needs to be balanced with a willingness to minimize the damage these people can do, and to minimize it before it becomes a lot of damage.

To this end, here are how I would have voted on several cases in the past of the arbcom, and one or two that are still pending.

• Irismeister: I would support a one month (Or longer - my first choice would have been three) ban of Irismeister - his behavior is problematic regardless of the article. I would also support the extension of the previous ban on editing Iridology to the talk page, but would ask Irismeister to, in six months time, appeal to the committee for a lifting of both of these bans if he has substantively reformed. My reasoning here is that Irismeister appears to be destructive but ultimately not wholly malicious - he seems to be a POV warrior. People with strong POVs can be valuable contributors if they can learn to accept and understand NPOV, and should be given a reasonable number of chances to do so. In the event that Irismeister returned from any sanction undeterred, I would support a permanant ban if this case came up again. I oppose, however, the notion of "personal attack parole." I think all users should be put on personal attack parole immediately.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mr-Natural-Health In this case, I think the arbcom got it spot on, though I, again, would not have opposed a ban of six months. Again, I think personal attack parole is silly.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wik2 At the time, it appeared that Wik was a productive Wikipedian gone bad. I would have supported the one month block of Wik, with an explicit note that this was not punishment, but rather the perception of a need for Wik to cool down. I would have supported removal of all personal attacks from Wik's userpage, and a clear note that further personal attacks and excessive reversion would be met with harsh penalties. In short, the general tone of my response would have been to give Wik one last chance. Obviously, subsequent events such as his vandalbot attack push my current position to being that Wik should be permanantly banned.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paul Vogel One year is, to me, the minimum ban here - I never saw any real evidence of productive contribution on Vogel's part. He was not a mere POV pusher, he was a POV psychotic, and should be permanantly banned - especially due to his repeated vandalism of the arbcom pages during the ruling.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mav v. 168. I would have supported desysopping 168 for a month in this case - to me, this is analagous to POV pushing and overzealous editing. He did not seem to be a bad sysop - he seems to have screwed up and lacked judgment in this case. Sanction and allow the possibility of reform.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/JRR Trollkien. This is a tough one. The role of the arbcom is not to determine policy, so the question becomes whether trolling is against the rules. Trolling, of course, is a very vaguely defined term. To me, the real question is whether it is OK for sysops to ban users who are obviously determined to disrupt Wikipedia. The answer, I think, is yes. That said, I am neutral on whether or not JRR's disruption qualified as obvious. I would have preferred an arbcom request based on his behavior, rather than on his username, which I would have gotten behind and advocated a 1-3 month ban.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cantus I would happily throw in a fourth vote for all of the solutions proposed here.

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/ChrisO and Levzur I would support the one month ban in this case, and support the demand to explain reverts. I would also note that, in this case, it appears that the arbcom allowed the ball to drop because Levzur "left" Wikipedia. It turned out that he really only went to editing anonymously, and the problem persisted. I take this as a sign that the arbcom should continue to implement rulings regardless of abandonment on the part of one of the people.

Finally, I am generally skeptical of referring to mediation, because I think mediation is doomed to failure if one participant is uninterested in pursuing it. I feel that a fair question to ask before voting, however, is "Would both parties be willing to mediate the issue." If either says no, however, that should not be a black mark against arbitration in any way.