Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Ambi

Arbitration is quite possibly the most thankless task on Wikipedia. I know, because I've been there. I was one of the arbitration committee's major critics in the early days, and successfully lobbied for changes in quite a number of decisions. I was then elected to the committee last December, and for six months was one of its most active members, before stepping down some months ago after becoming burned out, and subsequently spending several months doing little else but writing new articles.

In the months since I stepped down, things have grinded to a near-complete halt, so it is with some trepidation that I throw my hand into the ring once again. My votes as an arbitrator are on the record for interested parties, as is my general philosophy with arbitration matters - what is best for the encyclopedia? If elected, I will once again try to stand by those who, whatever their beliefs, want to write a neutral encyclopedia in good faith, and see that those who want to disrupt the project don't continue their behaviour unchecked. I will support alternatives to banning users where possible, and over time I've come to have a fairly good understanding of which measures actually solve issues and which are a waste of time. I would also like to hope I've been as neutral as possible in the past and can continue to be in the future - I have never hesitated to recuse myself from a case if there was a perception of a conflict of interest.

Above all else, I want to make sure that the arbitration process starts moving again. If re-elected, I will be back voting nearly every day, and making sure that new cases don't sit on the requests page for a month waiting for someone to formally accept them. I'm also prepared to give some time to the one thing I didn't do enough of as an arbitrator - writing out proposed decisions, which has become a major bottleneck in the process. Finally, if I'm re-elected to my open position, I will only serve a one-year term, and most probably not stand again. Ambi 04:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ambi, with all due respect for your burning outs (i myself moved to wiki.pt because of one), why do you feel it will be diferent this time? I ask this because, as far as i can tell, the role of ArbCom is not becoming simpler. Thanks, muriel@pt 12:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes everyone needs a break - I certainly did, and the few months since have done me some good. After the break, I feel better prepared than ever to step back into the breach (particularly now that I know what I'm getting into). Moreover, I'm making a commitment that I will serve out the year, and I have every intention of fulfilling that commitment if re-elected. Ambi 04:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk[edit]

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I'm 19, and I'm currently studying law, politics and gender studies at university. Ambi 04:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: I don't think this is a question that can be given an arbitrary figure. If you're going to do as a good arbitrator, you really need to be around at least every couple of days, but the time commitment can vary from five minutes (if only a vote or two is needed) through to a few hours (if there's an urgent problem demanding a group response). I did this right up until the day I stepped down, and if re-elected, I will be back doing it again. Ambi 04:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I've always been one to prefer writing articles to diving into meta matters, and have written countless articles throughout my time here. I've been involved with many a WikiProject, and I created much of the collaborative infrastructure (the noticeboard, the new articles list and the ACOTW) which has pushed the quality of Australian articles up over the last year.

However, I don't think any of this is necessarily much of a guide to how anyone will fare as an arbitrator; while having a fairly good experience of co-operative editing is necessary to wrap your head around disputes, being neutral, relatively level-headed and having had some success in resolving disputes is more important. To this extent, I have served a stint on the mediation committee, had a fairly effective record in having decisions changed as an unofficial advocate, and have served as an arbitrator before. Ambi 04:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: Ambivalenthysteria (long since renamed to Ambi)

Questions by Bggoldie[edit]

• Q1: In your statement you have mentioned both your resignation and a conclusion about the halt of arbitration process. What leads you to the latter, and do you imply there is relation between them (if yes, why)? What will be your contribution to the Committee which you consider may revert such trend? -- Goldie (tell me) 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As people started to burn out in the middle of this year, Grunt and I remained the two most active members of the committee, voting on cases nearly every day despite also being burnt out ourselves. Both of us were also driving forces behind the scenes; making sure the bureaucratic work was done and haranguing the other arbitrators to go vote to stop cases from stalling. When we resigned simultaneously, no one else really stepped in to fill the gap. Things have improved since the appointment of four new arbitrators, but they're still not voting every day, and they're not doing the behind the scenes stuff. If I'm given the opportunity to step back into my old position, I'll resume the same role and hopefully be able to get things moving again.

• Q2: Do you have experience in resolving disputes outside the virtual reality? Can you describe it. -- Goldie (tell me) 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. I really don't think this has anything to do with whether someone will be a good arbitrator, either. Probably the best arbitrator we've ever had, Jwrozenzweig, had no prior dispute resolution experience to my knowledge, and neither did anyone else in the committee's history, with the possible exception of lawyer Fred Bauder. Experience on here is enough for our purpose. Ambi 14:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Q3: Please describe your level of knowledge in multi-cultural environments, level of involvement in such environments, and experience of resolving dusputes on highly controversial topics (religious, political, racial). -- Goldie (tell me) 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to have quite a few articles in so-called "systemic bias" areas on my watchlist, and keep an eye on them; I do, however, detest being involved in edit wars myself, so I tend to leave the truly controversial articles alone. In terms of resolving disputes in these areas, I handled a few of these as a mediator before becoming an arbitrator, and I handled many a case as an arbitrator; my votes there are on the record for all to see. Ambi 14:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Q4: Which is the most important qualification to be arbitrator (according to you), and how can it be measured? What is your score in this metric? -- Goldie (tell me) 02:14, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Most important qualifications? Firstly, being reasonably neutral and unbiased, then being able to sort through mountains of often nonsensical evidence to work out what is actually going on in a particular dispute. A good arbitrator then needs to be able to come to a solution which will solve the problem and work in the interests of a Wikipedia as a whole. None of these, however, can be measured on some scale. It's simply something that requires judgement. Did I live up to those expectations? Feel free to judge for yourself. Ambi 14:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1][2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 07:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're exactly right that the committee is overworked. However, solving these issues will be a complicated process, and - with respect - I think your suggested solutions on the mailing list are somewhat oversimplistic and overoptimistic. We've had a lot of trouble finding decent candidates that have been willing to run in the past, and if you look at the results from the last election, you'll find that only a few more available spots would have seen several users being elected to the committee who have since been severely thwapped by the same committee. On the surface it may seem like a quick fix, but it would be a disaster if implemented.

My personal suggestion is that in the short-term, it would be useful to expand the committee by two or three, and to have better means of handling the inevitable high turnover of arbitrators. The long-term, however, is going to require much more substantial changes, and I'm not sure this is the venue to discuss it - this is an election to get people to serve under the current system, not a constitutional convention. However, since you asked, my preferred system would be to maintain the current committee as a form of "Supreme Court", and siphon off as many cases as possible to a series of smaller committees with lower standards for election (perhaps along the lines of RfA in order to filter out the bad eggs). Ambi 12:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ambi, if elected, under what conditions would you resign before a year is up? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:38, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

While none of us can be sure that something unforeseen won't come up that may force us to quit, at this point I'd have to say none. Ambi 00:41, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]