I just wanted to take some time to write. This won't be formally posted until my term officially expires, but it's just some thoughts on three years in the job and some thoughts going forward.
First off, thank you to the community for allowing me the opportunity to serve in this role for the past years. It will always mean a lot to me that so many people trusted me in this position. I set a goal when I was first elected to the position that I would do my best to fully explain my thoughts and feelings in my role as an arbitrator, and I've mostly done that. One of the highest compliments that I could be paid was when people said "I don't agree with his position, but at least he took the time to explain his position. I still disagree, but at least I understand what he was thinking".
Regrets? Yeah, I have a few... (as the song goes). I regret that this position has cost me the regard of some people I met in my early days on Wikipedia, over disputes. I don't think I was perfect as an arbitrator. There were times when I acted that I shouldn't have, and times where I hung back when I should have acted. But in general, I think I did a decent job, even through the myriad health issues that I've had the last year or two.
I just wanted to get some thoughts.. some ideas down now.
At the time that I'm writing this, we have just gone through one of the most unpleasant stretches of couple weeks that I can remember in the Committee's history. That's the subject I want to write about rt the moment. Instead, it's one of the most distasteful things that I can imagine, involved in high level dispute resolution, and that's politics.
The root cause of these recent issues was politics. It started when one arbitrator brought politics onto the list, promising to actively campaign against fellow Committee members whose votes on a motion he disagreed with. That was unacceptable, flat out. Another arbitrator shared this information inappropriately with another editor. If you assume good faith, the arbitrator shared information because they were utterly frustrated with these actions, and needed to vent to someone. I can understand that. Believe it or not (actually, nevermind or not, believe it), this job is very stressful and difficult. But no matter the motives, be it inadvertent or deliberate, the information this arbitrator shared was then used in an anonymous whispering campaign to affect the election. Again, politics.
The Committee must be apolitical. As the old sign on the president's desk says.. "The Buck stops here". We should not let politics enter our deliberations. Our job involves highly contentious areas where we can shape Wikipedia for good or ill, in our deliberations. I'm thinking about the Scientology case. the case involving a WMUK trustee, the BLP deletions case.
This does not mean that I think the arbitrators who are at the root of the recent issues are bad people, mind you. Just that they let their actions fall short of what Wikipedia requires from this role. If it was an easy job, anyone could do it. It's not, and not everyone can.
Here's some things just to consider for future years:
A) Seek candidates who don't just have opinions on how Wikipedia should be, but who are willing to listen to others with different opinions on the issue, and more importantly, able to compromise.
I don't think it's any surprise to anyone that we've had more sharply divided decisions and motions in the past twelve months then any Committee in recent history. There was a lot of inflexibility, a lot of "This is the way it should be, full stop." and I think that attitude rubbed off in various ways that led to the issues that we just finished dealing with.
B) The only parties on Wikipedia should involve Wiki-meetups
Again, I don't think it's any surprise that my opinion of the so-called "ArbCom Reform Party" is highly negative, both on the personal and the Committee level. It was created by a gadfly who has made numerous bad judgements in obsessively reopening old arguments and arguing endlessly even after a case's closure. And the LAST thing the election process needs are political parties. When one thinks of political parties, you think of groups of people demonizing each other, and voting in lockstep with members of their political persuasion, no matter what the facts or the arguments are. This is the exact OPPOSITE of what makes a good Arbitrator.
C) Elections must become more apolitical as well as its candidates
Folks, this is one of my pet peeves. People say "Well, I only want to provide as many supports as there are positions, so my vote is maximized. I cannot disagree more with this. If you think Candidate X can do alright with the role, vote support. If you don't vote Neutral or Oppose. Tactical voting stinks. It artificially lowers the support percentages of otherwise qualified candidates, and lowers the community's confidence in them "Well, person X only got 55% of the votes.. so obviously he's marginal at best".
D) Realize that arbitrators are human too
I recently joked that "You have to be a confirmed masochist to do this job. No matter what we do, or don't do.. we're going to be whipped for our actions. All that changes is the faces wielding the whip and what they're using to abuse us". While this is probably a lot of my frustration with the whole situation talking, it's got a kernel of truth at its core. We are all volunteers. We are all here to try to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia (for our own personal definition of better). We all make missteps. Some of them are more prominent then others. But please, 'please realize that over-the-top rhetoric and denigration of others is counter productive.
In closing, let me once again state for the record it was an honor and a privilege to do this job for the past three years, and while I will probably scale back my efforts in dispute resolution, and perhaps become more of an occasional editor, I still think the core ethos behind Wikipedia is good.
So... Thank You.
David "SirFozzie" Yellope