I recently got pinged by a fellow administrator on Twitter about ArbCom and enforcement and wanted to copy my thread here for several reasons. One is to provide some perspective on what it was like when I was completely active on Wikipedia, and another to try to explain my thoughts further. And finally, to remind everyone that Wikipedia is made up of individuals with differing viewpoints, and a plea to remember that when collaborating with others to make Wikipedia.
Hoo Boy. AE and ArbCom. These are a few of my "favorite things". I have some opinions here, so I may have my own thread to follow up on Tznkai's thoughts here. I came into AE when I decided to stick my neck out and try to deal with a very contentious area on Wikipedia. "The Troubles", featuring Ireland/Northern Ireland. That led to one of the first real omnibus cases before the committee.
It was a thankless job. You sanctioned one editor, and all the folks on that editor's side would accuse you of being a willing dupe of the other side. Then you would have to sanction another editor, and get it from your "supposed allies", It was like being a boxing referee, or a kindergarten teacher. People would fight over what would seem to an outsider be the most petty stuff, but it was REALLY REALLY important to the partisans on both sides.
I think the best thing to compare it to is a sports referee/umpire. No matter what decision you make, one (or sometimes both!) sides are going to take personal umbrage at the decision. You feel like you don't have a friend in the whole world.
It got to the point where I was asking other administrators "Am I unconsciously favoring one side over the other?" Because quite frankly, you get told you are wrong/stupid/a dupe from everyone enough and one of two things generally happen.
Either you become a tin-pot dictator, yelling at all sides to simply SHUT UP. (not good),
Or you go to pieces mentally, and burn out (also very not good).
It was Wikipedia's version of PTSD. You go in with good intent, but the system has a tendency to chew folks up and spit them out. I got to the point where I spent multiple hours a DAY trying to work on folks to remain within Wikipedia's norms and policies. The good is.. it prepared me for being an Arbitration Committee member. The bad is you get chewed up and spit out, and you keep trying to hold on because hell, you volunteered to do it, and you don't see anyone else stepping in and doing the job because it is a VOLUNTEER position.
Wikipedia's ethos says that there will always be a flux of new editors who are willing to replace those who are unwilling or unable to do that volunteer position. What if there isn't? I do think the best way is PAID positions, then at the end of the day you at least have a tangible reminder of why you do it. So if Twitter wants to try it, I say by all means, go for it. But have an idea on what it means when you self-select volunteers for an intensely stressful position with very little backup.
I'm not saying that Wikipedia should switch to paid admins. Not hardly. But I think we always need a reminder that trying to moderate one of the most-visited sites in the world, and one that has so much value for partisan flamewars, will always have a cost. Someone asked me recently, "Foz, if I could wave a magic wand right now and make you a Committee member again, would you do it?" and I immediately said "Not only no, but HELL NO." My ethos as first an administrator in AE then as a member of ArbCom is that I wanted to always be able to have the person on the other end of the conversation say "Well, I don't agree with him, I think he's wrong, but he at least attempted to explain where he was coming from, and attempted to make logical arguments". Honestly, I don't think I could do that again, having been through what every long-term administrator in AE and ArbCom member has to go through. My well of AGF is just about dry. I would turn into the tin-pot dictator, kinda like Alice in Wonderland's Queen of Hearts. "Off with their (wiki) Heads" non-stop.