Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements

2009 Arbitration Committee Election status

General questions were submitted and available for candidates to answer.
Nominations are closed.
Voting closed at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009.
Results have been published, 18th Dec.
Feedback on the elections is solicited from participants.

This is the candidate statements page, where editors wishing to run in the 2009 Arbitration Committee elections have presented themselves and their nomination statement. Nominations are now closed.

Standing candidates

AGK

An expansion on my candidature, with more specifics about what I stand for, is at /Extended.

Wikipedia is the largest encyclopedia in history, and a collaborative project of unrivalled vastness. I am proud to be a part of its community of users, both as an editor (my encyclopedic contributions are indexed here) and also as an administrator (details). In my five years as a contributor, I have also served as a mediator (for 2.5 years) and as an arbitration clerk (for ~1.6 years).

In each of these capacities, I have served diligently, and have always tried to act with common sense, in the interests of the encyclopedia, and with fairness to our contributors. Whereas I believe I could bring the experience I have gained in these roles to the arbitration process, I volunteer for a two-year term on the committee.

I offer only three things:

First, to give my time and energies to opening an arbitration case, establishing the facts, identifying the problems, and dealing with them. My approach to arbitration would be a "problem, meet solution" one; nothing fancy, and no waffle.
Second, to be impartial when arbitrating. Problems must be evaluated without the hindrance of preconceptions. I would ignore anything that (and anybody who) threatened to undermine that goal, and recuse where I could not do so.
Third, to be fair when arbitrating. Fair to the parties to the case: that they may present all relevant material, so that the facts are presented truthfully, and may challenge falsities. Fair to the community: that they may see exactly what this bunch of people whom they elected are doing, and why they are doing so. And fair to our readers: that the encyclopedia entries that they use are well-written, neutral, verifiable, and built on reliable secondary sources.

Important to me is good communication, a responsible approach to building a compilation of knowledge (especially where living persons are concerned), and open decision-making. Otherwise, I have the same values as I do as a regular editor and average bloke. I recognise that the influence of one of fifteen is limited.

I accept that the office of arbitrator is a difficult one, and that underestimating its workload would be unwise. My candidacy is one built on realism, and I don't profess to have a magic wand to wave over the project to make it right. I just promise to be a sensible arbitrator, and to be one who will respect the community and its members.

Questions would be more than welcome.

Cla68

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Cla68

noicon

I've edited Wikipedia with an account since around January 2006. I've mainly focused on writing articles, primarily in military history. I'm currently seventh on this list of editors with successful featured nominations. To be clear, however, none of those articles would have made it without assistance, advice, or review by other editors, for which I am very grateful.

I served as an assistant coordinator for the Military History Project for six months. Other than that, I have not served in any other type of formal, elected capacity within en.Wikipedia. My one attempt as an administrator candidate in 2007 was unsuccessful.

I think the Committee made a lot of progress this year, both in making good case decisions and in improving governance over its area of responsbility in Wikipedia by organizing committees and delegating some responsibility. I hope this next year will see further progress. I look forward to your questions.

Coren

The task of writing a candidate statement for this year is made both simpler and more difficult by my experience of the past year. It is made harder because having held the position of an arbitrator necessarily means that some people will have been dismayed or angered by decisions me and my colleagues have made (or did not make) over the past year, and that some will choose to show their displeasure by campaigning or voting against me.

Yet, making those unpleasant decisions is what my duty was; I would have breached the trust the community placed in me if I skirted that responsibility for the vain hope to ease a future election. I believe my record speaks for itself, and that examining it will see that I have been diligent and conscientious during my mandate, doing everything I could for the project. Perhaps not always successfully — not all problems have a clear and infallible solution available — but always to the best of my abilities.

I believe I, and the committee as a whole, did a fairly good job during the past year — even if unarguably imperfectly so — and that I still have much to contribute. I would like the opportunity to do so for the next two years.

Fred Bauder

I served on the Arbitration Committee for several years and learned a great deal. I will apply the lessons I learned in my work should I be selected. I believe that the Arbitration Committee has developed to the point that I will be able to play a less prominent role than I did in the past. I am aware of the time and stress demands that are involved. I continue to believe in doing the work of the Arbitration Committee in a format such as the workshop which permits community input into decisions and disclosure of our decisions and discussions.

I believe in second chances, even third and fourth chances and am willing to consider the complaints of angry users. The editing, and administrative, history of a user should always be considered. We should protect and support contributors who advance the project. I support reasonable courtesy on the part of editors and administrators and will propose reasonable sanctions on those who significantly deviate from our standards. I will endeavor to use understandable language in decisions and discussions. I will endeavor to apply our policies in a way that advances the mission of Wikipedia. As I have in the past, I will use my legal training and experience to implement a dispute resolution procedure which is, so far as possible, accessible to anyone with a good complaint or defense.

Fritzpoll

What have I done on Wikipedia? I have written an FA, contributed to another, helped establish the Article Incubator and have edited various other articles, guidelines and policies.

What have I done that is relevant to this role? I have been involved in trying to resolve disputes of various types from shouting matches at certain project pages, increasingly heated disputes between users and other problems I occasionally encounter during my wanderings through Wikipedia. I was appointed as one of three referees in the recent Macedonia naming dispute and the resolution that we produced has resulted in greater stability for the editors in that part of Wikipedia.

What do I think the point of arbitration is? Arbitration should try to resolve issues to the benefit of the encyclopaedia - it is not about punishment, but should instead typically be about restoring a collegial collaborative environment so that editors can focus less on disputes and more on the production of encyclopaedic content. This will often involve sanctioning individual editors, and administrators should in particular be scrutinised if there is evidence of impropriety, but sanctions in of themselves are not a goal of arbitration. As an arbitrator, I would not hesitate to impose sanctions, but they must improve the collaborative environment that we strive to create on Wikipedia.

What would I do differently? I think some cases in the past have lacked focus – reams of evidence were produced to speak generally to the charge that some editor is “bad” or “good” and new areas of behaviour to be examined are introduced at random points throughout the arbitration process, requiring yet more evidence to be produced by the other parties. I would like to see a clear scope explicitly defined for all cases when they are accepted. Clerks would be empowered to remove evidence that does not speak directly to the scope of the case, and the scope could be expanded if necessary. This would require consent of the entire group, but it is something that I will push for to improve efficiency and accessibility, as well as removing obfuscation. I will be engaging in “active” arbitration by asking direct questions, requesting specific diffs and making sure that relevant points in a case come to light so that the Committee can determine the facts of a case rather than relying on interpretations and slants imposed on evidence by the various sides of a dispute.

Hersfold

I've been active on Wikipedia since 2007, and currently assist Wikipedia in my roles as an Administrator, Checkuser, and Arbitration Committee Clerk. I contribute more to the background of the project, not doing much editorial work (to my regret), but I have done a good amount of work with SPI through the checkuser tool, reviewing block requests as an administrator, and assisting the Arbitration Committee in my role as a clerk.

It's my opinion that while there are problems with the general Arbitration Process, what we have is better than the alternative of having nothing at all of this nature. The process is not beyond repair, though, and while it's never going to be everyone's favorite (far from it), I've got a few goals I intend to pursue if elected to help address the major concerns of the community. Unfortunately, I tend to be rather verbose in situations like this, and so my goals and explanations of them won't fit in this statement. Therefore, I'll just list the goals here, and ask everyone to review User:Hersfold/Platform for my explanations and details thereof.

Improve communication between the Committee and the Community.
Improve communication between the Committee and the Clerks.
Get stuff done faster.
Sterner sanctions.
Community de-adminship.
Balance my workload better.

Thank you all for your consideration, and best of luck to all who run.

Jehochman

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Jehochman

noicon

My name is Jonathan Hochman. I hold two degrees in computer science from Yale University. (verify) I live in Connecticut, USA and am self-employed as an Internet marketing consultant. (profile)

My wiki-philosophy is based upon three principles:

Wikipedia is for enjoying and creating quality encyclopedia articles and media. We are not a social club, nor an ideological battleground.
All editors have equal stature. Some gain access to additional tools through experience, but this does not entitle them to deferential treatment. We have no royalty.
Editors who contribute quality content should receive leniency when they make errors. Those who primarily stir up trouble should be politely yet firmly shown to the door.

During 2009 I participated in the following article milestones:

My project-space contributions in 2009 include helping to reform the process at arbitration enforcement, which has lead to an increase in administrator participation and better handling of requests. I am also trying to encourage better methods of handling administrators' noticeboard/incidents and community sanction requests. We've had some initial success by posting links to open requests for comment on the Administrators noticeboard and ANI headers. This will hopefully increase participation at user and admin conduct RfCs. Whatever we can do to strengthen our dispute resolution processes may help arbitration operate more efficiently by reducing the number and complexity of cases. I've also been involved in or commented on numerous arbitration cases this year.

I am running because two editors I respect have asked me to run. I've been on Wikipedia for nearly five years and only once took a short wikibreak. If elected I have the time, stamina, and constitution to serve. Jehochman ^Talk 18:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Lokshin

I wasn't really intending to run this year, but seeing as we have fewer candidates than expected, I suppose I might as well throw my hat into the ring.

For those that don't know me, I served on the Arbitration Committee from January 2007 to July 2009, the last six months as the coordinating arbitrator. Outside of arbitration, I'm mostly active in the Military history WikiProject, where I am a coordinator emeritus, having served as the lead coordinator from 2006 to 2008.

Over the course of my tenure as an arbitrator, I participated heavily in nearly every aspect of the job, but my main efforts were directed towards the drafting of case decisions—of which I've written a rather large number—and towards the various organizational and procedural reforms I undertook as coordinating arbitrator. I believe that I can bring extensive experience, and a proven willingness to roll up my sleeves and do the needed grunt work, to the Committee; beyond that, I'll let my record speak for itself.

Kmweber

The so-called "Arbitration Committee" has zero legitimacy. Wikipedia is a community project, which means that only institutions created by the Wikipedia community--and not by one man--have any legitimate authority. The Arbitration Committee's history makes it impossible for any action taken by it to be legitimate or worthy of being taken seriously. That many people do deal with it as if it were legitimate is no indication of its legitimacy, any more than handing over one's wallet to a mugger to avoid being beaten is an endorsement of the legitimacy of mugging.

I am running to counter this harmful influence. If elected, I would, quite simply, vote to decline any and all cases presented before the Arbitration Committee, instead referring them to community institutions and processes that actually have legitimacy and the moral authority to enforce a final decision.

KnightLago

Hello! I am KnightLago. I am third-year law student studying in the United States. I have been an editor since early 2006, an administrator since April 2008, and an Arbitration Committee Clerk since March 2009. I am also a member of the Volunteer Response Team. I have written a number of articles, including a featured article, and have a wide range of experience across the project.

In thinking about running I asked myself the following question: What change and impact would I bring to the committee?

First, and most importantly, I think we have entirely too many users whose sole purpose on, and contribution to Wikipedia is DRAMA. These are the people who appear repeatedly at Arbitration or ANI wasting the community's time and patience. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to humor people who want attention. These people also drive away constructive editors, who are Wikipedia's most valuable and important assets. This is unacceptable.

Second, cases are taking too long to reach a resolution. An example is the Eastern European mailing list case, which I am clerking. The case has dragged on and a number of target dates have been missed due to the volume of evidence all of the arbitrators have to wade through. In order to solve this, I would advocate for a system like a Court of Appeals, where a small number of judges, in our situation arbitrators, are assigned to each case. SirFozzie is advocating something similar. If this approach were adopted, there would be less people required to go through the evidence, and arbitrators could spend more time on their cases or other matters. If the case was somehow significant, then the committee could sit en banc. This would bring cases to a quicker resolution and allow users to return to editing.

Third, I would continue the reformation process the committee is currently engaged in and seek community input wherever possible. I think all too often we forget that the Arbitration Committee serves at the behest of, and are first and foremost, editors from the community. Therefore, if elected by the community, I promise to give all sides fair consideration in any dispute, promise to work diligently within Wikipedia's policies, and always bear in mind that the primary purpose of Wikipedia is to write an open and accessible encyclopedia.

Mailer diablo

With my candidacy I hope to bring some new perspective to the Committee, along with more than 5 years of editing experience I have gained. Be it Golden or Dark Ages here, I seen through it all. I have worked in many different aspects of Wikipedia, from grunt work of clearing backlogs that nobody is willing to clear, to collaboration in article-writing, to more recently dealing with sensitive issues of oversight requests.

I would like to continue the good work that has been done to streamline the day-to-day process of dispute resolution so far. One has to understand that just like the London Underground, the aging stress that has been haunting the Committee in the recent years cannot be fixed overnight. More can be done to manage, delegate and lighten up the workload of committee, which I hope to do should this opportunity be given to me.

My principles have always been for transparency and fairness; to uphold the integrity of any offices I carry. Over time I have developed a resistance against drama, which I would like to carry it on should I be elected. Rest assured that drama-mongers shall be awarded a Yellow card, trolls and troublemakers be shown the Red.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message!

MBK004

Please see User:MBK004/Platform for more on my views of the arbitration process as well as my pledges to the community.

I first started editing in July 2007, became an administrator in January 2008, and a Coordinator of the Military History WikiProject in September 2008 after an unsuccessful candidacy in February of the same year. I have since been re-elected twice (in March and September of this year) with increasing levels of support each time.

I have collaborated with fellow editors to produce several articles/lists of Good and Featured quality, and I am currently one of several editors deeply involved with Operation Majestic Titan, a MILHIST special project which was recently mentioned in the Signpost. My editing style is closer to that of a WikiGnome than a pure content producer, and in that context I am extremely strong in behind-the-scenes activities, especially those involved in the day-to-day running of the massive infrastructure of MILHIST.

I do not have any axes to grind, and try to keep an open mind about most situations until I have all the facts and taken time to study them thoroughly. While it may appear that I tend to stay largely out of the public eye, I regularly stay apprised of current events in the community along with the events surrounding the Arbitration Committee. With this in mind, I humbly offer my services to the community for the next two years as an arbitrator and I look forward to your questions.

RMHED

Huzzah! It's pantomime season again.

Oh no it isn't!

Oh yes it is!

Boo, hiss and cheer, come on boys and girls and join in the fun.

Ruslik0

I'm User:Ruslik0. I made my first edit in March 2006, although I began regular editing only a year later in March 2007. I am currently an administrator and Edit Filter manager. In the real life I am a theoretical physicist residing in Russia. However I edit mostly astronomy related articles, especially those about the Solar System (see my user page).

I am nominating myself because I believe that Wikipedia will benefit from services of a physicist. Disputes related to the science, pseudoscience and fringe science are unfortunately not rare, and I think that my expertize in the field of natural sciences may be useful for the project.

This the end of my short statement (I do not really like writing long statements). I am ready to answer your questions.

Seddon

I, nor any other candidate standing this year, can state that we can single-handedly make sweeping changes to the way the Arbitration Committee runs. We should try though.

History Rundown: For those that are interested in what experience I have on the project, I've been around since November 2007 and have contributed 5500+ edits, written a FA, a GA, contributed four featured pictures and two featured sounds. I have mediated several cases at MedCab and am on the Mediation Committee and have been an arbitration clerk since July 2009. Off wiki I am on the board of directors for Wikimedia UK and am part of the volunteer response team.

Arbitration Oversight: There have been many times when the Arbitration Committee has overstepped its remit, or have been slow to react to a serious issue, have acted without sufficient due care and attention or just have been so caught up in the huge reams of evidence that even looking at an article result in an editor at risk of a topicban. As the project matures and Jimmy's role becomes more diminished and ceremonial, the oversight role he was supposed to hold needs to be filled. This needs to be through the creation of an arbitration oversight body; small in size that it is efficient; large enough to be effective; and most importantly made up of non-arbitrator community members.

Communication: Too often the committee remains unresponsive, silent to emails and leaves problems and issues fade away into the deep, dark and dreary depths of thier archives. Simply put, the committee needs to be less of an inapproachable mass and more of an interactive group of real people.

Many people will probably raise the issue of the somewhat low level of activity I have show ever since I joined the project. All I can say is that when I commit myself to a task, I ensure it gets done. Whether it be mediation, clerking or even my chapter work, I see the job through to the end.

And as my closing comment, for those who are currently banned or blocked and refuse or do not wish to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down, I offer my own modified version of the standard offer that includes "free beer (forever)".

Shell Kinney

I'll be the first to admit that I hate trying to talk about myself, but I'll give it a go. I've been a Wikipedia editor for just shy of four and a half years, an Admin for four of those, an OTRS agent for just under that and a member of the Mediation Committee for around two. I'm mostly a wiki-gnome; I help out where I can. I have experience mentoring editors and digging in to some of the stickier disputes on Wikipedia. Sometimes I make mistakes, but I'm always willing to listen and keep an open mind. I sympathize with the community's need to have cases run more smoothly and with a bit less drama. I'd like to contribute new ideas - things that might encourage better signal to noise on evidence pages and less argumentation among case participants. Arbitration will never be a painless process, but I think it's important that it evolves to best meet the community's needs. Thank you for this opportunity.

SirFozzie

Wikipedia is a year older, and a year wiser. We face challenges, both old and new. The Arbitration Committee has made a good start to being more open, and handling things in a more reasonable manner. We must continue to elect new blood, and new ideas.

Once again, I will make the pledge that no matter what the result of the ongoing ArbCom RfC, I will limit myself to a tranche of no more then two years. Two years is all a vast majority of people can handle in this position, and for those brave few who think they can do longer then that, the two year mark is a good position for the community to see what type of job they are doing.

We must not become complacent. We must not stop looking for ways to improve. Last year, a new wave was set in motion. This year, we must ensure that wave does not peter out.

Here are some thoughts.

A) Look into additional ways in which ArbCom can streamline case handling Whether that's continuing to delegate sub-groups in the ArbCom, such as the Ban Appeal Committee, appointing 4-6 members of ArbCom per case to work as an active sub-group (rather then waiting for all 18 or however many Arbitrators to chime in), we need to be looking for additional ways to make sure ArbCom is handling their duties in an expeditious manner. ArbCom is the last stop on dispute resolution, so whenever a case gets accepted, it means that any delays will only harden the ill-will and un-collaborative editing environment, making the ArbCom job even more difficult. ArbCom must always be looking for ways to expedite their work, while making sure to do a complete job.

B) Highlight areas of Wikipedia policy that need to be looked at fully. ArbCom cannot create policy out of whole cloth.they can highlight areas where Wikipedia's policies are unclear, contradictory or can be improved. They cannot create policy, but they can lead the discussion... this is something that needs to be more aggresively pushed at the ArbCom level.

C) Continue to look at alternative remedies to manage problematic areas Topic bans, 1RR, and probation can be more fully utilized to keep users with problems editing in certain areas from disrupting, although keeping them in editing in areas where it benefits the encyclopedia. I would also be more willing to put subject areas under probationary terms.

Steve Smith

WikiVoicesArb09

A conversation with Steve Smith

noicon

For reasons that I cannot fully fathom, let alone articulate, I am offering myself for election to the Arbitration Committee. I have been an administrator since January 2008, authored eight featured articles, helped many other editors improve their articles through the Good Article, Peer Review, and Featured Article processes, answered many media copyright questions, closed several contentious deletion and article move discussions, and involved myself with the odd problem editor.

In real life, I am a 27 year old Canadian law student. Besides the obvious applicability of parts of my academic program, I have been the presiding officer of several boards and committees, some of which have included a disciplinary component. Right now, I am associate chair of the University of New Brunswick's disciplinary committee, in which capacity I hear cases of non-academic misconduct and chair the committee charged with determining guilt and meting out sentences.

Unlike with my two candidacies for the WMF Board of Trustees, I am not running for the Arbitration Committee with a revolutionary agenda. I think ArbCom has taken significant steps in the right direction, and I want to support those and do my part to prevent this election from being a backlash against those steps. I would like to see ArbCom more assertive in sanctioning content-related misconduct: stonewalling, repeatedly making arguments not framed in Wikipedia's core content policies (such as by failing to invoke sources), cherry picking sources, etc.

I cannot pledge not to disappoint, but I can promise that most of the disappointed will be those who weren't paying much attention to my record and words.

Unomi

NotTheWWArb09

A conversation with Unomi

noicon

I am running for ArbCom as an independent. I owe no favors and promise only to apply the letter and spirit of wikipedia policy to the cases coming before us. My view is that wikipedia holds incredible promise, not only as a 'paperless encyclopedia' but also as inspiration for other projects incorporating elements of direct democracy. We are here to build a collection of human knowledge, yes, but the process by which we build it will be its greater legacy. To the extent that it is within my purview and that it reflects the consensus of our community as captured by its policies I will try to defend and foster an atmosphere conducive to cooperative and constructive enhancement of our shared project.

I find it of great importance that we look at how we can retain experienced editors and ensure that new editors are not scared off from the get go. While I do not have a list of accomplishments to present I would invite all to read through my edits, earliest first.

Wehwalt

I won't bore you with a long spiel, but here's why I'm running for ArbCom:

I'm qualified and able to handle the work. I'm a lawyer in real life, so understanding of ArbCom procedures and the necessarily analysis and writing are things I can do.

As for qualifications on Wikipedia, here are my article achievements for 2009:

Woodes Rogers (and TFA)
Murray Chotiner (and TFA)
Rudolf Wolters (with two other editors, went TFA)
Franklin Knight Lane (and TFA)
Matthew Boulton (and TFA)
Jerry Voorhis
United States Senate election in California, 1950 (WP:FOUR)
California's 12th congressional district election, 1946 (WP:FOUR)
Nikita Khrushchev
Neville Chamberlain

I'm a member for over four years and an admin for 11 months, though I use my adminly powers fairly rarely. I'm an article writer, principally, and as of this writing have 15 FAs (14 of which I took through FAC, so I play well with others), 2 GAs and 50 DYKs. I have helped take WP:TFA/R from a train wreck to a smoothly running process (though honestly I was not terribly helpful when I started). Much of that credit, though, is due to the other commentators who keep what could be a very emotional process (as in FAC, everyone thinks very highly of their article) low key, and to the Featured Article Director. I've monitored the goings on at ArbCom since the Advisory Committee matter, which I'll address below.

I realize that my views will be drawn out more with the questions, so I'll keep my platform brief. ArbCom should stick to arbitrating as it has done, until and unless there is a community process to expand its role. The problem with the Advisory Committee proposal earlier this year was not so much the content, as the method. People don't like surprises. There should have been a much more gradual approach to keep the community informed and involved.

What you will see if you elect me is competence, professionalism, neutrality, and an utter lack of drama.

William M. Connolley

Brief summary: http://abstrusegoose.com/strips/ignorance.PNG

I've been around since 2003; I was an admin between 2006 and 2009. I mostly edit global warming type stuff, since I used to have a professional interest. My unique selling point for the arbcomm post is my thorough familiarity with arbcomm from the plaintiff side ([1], [2], [3], [4]) which gives me valuable insight into arbcomm's failings. I used to do lots of WP:AN3 stuff if you want evidence of dispute-familiarity.

Amongst the many failings of Arbcomm are:

Interminable unneeded delays: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern European mailing list is but the most recent example.
Opacity: too much goes on behind the scences that should be on-wiki.
Failure of engagement: evidence, and participants, should be actively questionned.
Loss of control of case pages: workshop and evidence pages routinely degenerate into unreadable mess (the 1000 word evidence limit should be enforced).
Taking on cases that should be left to the community.
Laziness: failing to disentangle the root causes of disputes, instead relying on behaviour during the case for a decision.

Arbcomm needs to sanction fools and not feed the trolls.

[Update: No-one asked but: I'd have preferred public voting.]

[Late update: I just refound this:

For the laws of nature, as justice, equity, modesty, mercy, and, in sum, doing to others as we would be done to, of themselves, without the terror of some power to cause them to be observed, are contrary to our natural passions, that carry us to partiality, pride, revenge, and the like. And covenants, without the sword, are but words and of no strength to secure a man at all. Therefore, notwithstanding the laws of nature (which every one hath then kept, when he has the will to keep them, when he can do it safely), if there be no power erected, or not great enough for our security, every man will and may lawfully rely on his own strength and art for caution against all other men [5].

Don't take it too literally.]

Xavexgoem

I'm a mediator - it's my trade on the project. I'm on the Mediation Committee and I help coordinate the Mediation Cabal. Admittedly, I'm not much of an article writer; the articles I do spend significant time on relate to current events in Central and South America.

My only proposal is this: we ought to have better communication between dispute resolution folks. The chatter between ArbCom and MedCom, for instance, is quite slim. Many of the solutions that ArbCom drafts do not take into consideration the opinion of editors who have experience mediating between parties in content disputes. As a result, we throw people back into the editing environment with a solution that may not work, causing further frustrations. Discretionary sanctions and mentorships have their place, but we should use them only when if we're confident of the result.

Drama ensues when ArbCom hedges, and it can't be in a position to hedge when there's no recourse for a bet gone bad. We have folks on the soft security side of things who know better than anyone on the project how to judge and handle disputants. We've had a lot of experience.