Thanks for coming. Below you'll find my candidate statement and thoughts on a variety of other topics related to ArbCom. I also plan to add my answers to selected questions asked by the community. There’s a lot written below so you can use the box below for the nutshells of my thoughts.
Platform summary
|
|---|
|
If you click on a summary statement you can read my full thoughts on the topic.
|
Introduction
Hi, I'm Barkeep49, and I'm running for ArbCom, after just missing being elected last year, because I believe in Wikipedia. Since joining in 2005, I have believed in our mission to provide high-quality information to the world. For free! I believe in our community, the ways people from different cultures come together, work out differences through discussion, and successfully write informative encyclopedic material.
Work
I'm proud of the work I've done on Wikipedia. Both through content, with more than 20 good articles and 2 featured lists, and the community where, as an administrator, I try to be a thoughtful helpful presence. One accomplishment from this past year was having been the second most frequent nominator of potential administrators (all successful).
Why I’m running and what I’ll do
I'm running because of a commitment to service to the community and I'm drawn to tackling challenging problems. I don't think the issues that come before ArbCom are "fun." I also know that the increased scrutiny and the accompanying decrease in good faith extended to arbs can make editing less enjoyable. Despite these challenges, I will, if elected, be an effective arbitrator and because I...
- am committed to the community, trusting it to handle difficult issues, with ArbCom only acting as a last resort
- will bring a fresh set of eyes, complementing the experience of re-elected Arbs
- will do the work, knowing how much work this is required after discussions with current and former arbs
- can manage heavy email loads, like the kind experienced by ArbCom. This will also include checking the undeclared paid editing email address regularly.
- will, depending on the situation, listen, be willing to speak first, express a unique viewpoint to avoid groupthink, and find consensus
- approach what I say and do with thought and care for others
Ideas
I think ArbCom does a good job on the whole, especially since they're handling issues too hard for a competent community to solve on its own. However, I don't think ArbCom is perfect, and I would like to help as a committee member. For instance, Appeals and Amendments can linger. To help here, I would do things like try to provide periodic updates to interested editors in public and behind the scenes to (nicely) ask my colleagues to respond. I hope I’ve earned your support.
What makes an effective arb edit
Here are many of the qualities that I think make an effective arb and which I hope to bring to the committee:
- Committed to the community, trusting it to handle difficult issues, which it has shown itself capable of doing in many circumstances, with ArbCom only acting as a last resort.
- Editing experience, which I think I have demonstrated through my more than 25,000 edits.
- Does the work. You owe it to the community and the other arbs to take on your fair share and not hold up the committee as a whole. I think I've shown my ability to do this, whether it's been coordinating new page patrol or helping to run a good article backlog drive.
- Ability to stick with it for the long haul. Some arbs who were doing an excellent job ended up burning out, so I will take care to continue to find meaning and joy outside of Wikipedia.
- Depending on the situation, will listen, speak first, express a unique viewpoint to avoid groupthink, and work with colleagues and the community to find consensus
- Approach what they say and do with thought and care. When you're an arbitrator, you're always an arbitrator, even in non-ArbCom contexts. Wisely carrying that responsibility and privilege is essential.
- Accessible and responsive to the community. I write more about this in Communication and community engagement.
- Good ambassadors. Arbs can serve as community representatives to the media and the Wikimedia Foundation. We want people who will advocate for our interests and clearly convey our processes and procedures. (See more in Talking with the Wikimedia Foundation)
- Some technical proficiency. Arbs must evaluate the use of the checkuser tool, both in case of checkuser misconduct and unblock requests. Therefore, an arb needs to have enough technical literacy to understand how the tool works and its correct use.
Appeals and amendments (ARCA) edit
As I noted in my candidate statement, I think ArbCom could improve ARCA. Right now, when you file a case request, there's a pretty clear timeline that more or less is adhered to by the committee. A timeline is also present during an open case. However, there's no such equivalence at ARCA. Some appeals can sit there for months, while ArbCom handles others in a shorter timeframe. Of course, some appeals are more complicated than others, so this isn't, on its own, an issue. However, I do think the lack of clarity for interested editors is a disservice. If elected to ArbCom, I would like to work with clerks to provide more clarity on what is or isn't happening. Not being on ArbCom, I don't know with certainty what the hang-up is, but I suspect it's sometimes just arbitrator capacity. If this is true, I would, behind the scenes, give friendly nudges to my colleagues.
Functionary appointing process edit
One area that I think is incredibly important that doesn't get talked about much during the election is ArbCom's appointment of new functionaries through the granting of Checkuser and Oversight. That's too bad because this is an incredibly important function of ArbCom. Functionaries are community leaders and representatives. It is the only position of such responsibility and leadership achievable without a community vote to a position with no set term. I feel like I bring some experience evaluating editors for permissions. I am active at the permission noticeboard, and with the work I do scouting for new admins. I am very proud to have nominated the second most people (all successful) this year for adminship.
After a functionary process that didn't serve anyone well in 2018, I think things have swung too far in the other direction. There has been minimal public comment is given the last two years. I would like to see existing functionaries participate more in the public process. They can offer comments about potential new functionaries during an initial screen. Still, a few remarks from them would also be helpful in the public phase. Since successful candidates can already see what has been said about them, this shouldn't even have too much of a dampening effect on what is written. But it would, hopefully, help to re-engage the community in this critical function.
Administrator Conduct/What kind of cases to accept edit
In general, ArbCom should only be accepting cases that the community has proven itself incapable of handling. Usually, this will have meant several threads attempting several different kinds of dispute resolution and involving a number of editors. I think the last couple of ArbComs has done a reasonably good job with this, so I would act with that mindset.
There is a second category of case requests, however. For better or worse, and to be honest, I think it's more for the worst, ArbCom is the only option to remove the administrator's toolkit for cause. This responsibility means that the bar for accepting cases should be much lower than for other types of case requests. Pretty much all candidates say that for a reason. And this is how I think about those requests in the abstract myself.
And yet, what does this really mean? Does it mean that an Arb should accept a case even when, in their view, the evidence isn't there? Or take a case when it is old (eight problems over 15 years feels different than eight concerns over one year, as I'll discuss more in the subsection below)? I just can't see myself putting someone through a full case on the chance that enough evidence to merit a sanction appears through the ArbCom process. Instead, the questions I'll ask myself are:
- Are the allegations if proven right enough to merit a sanction?
- Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven correct?
If the answer to both those questions is yes, I would likely vote to accept. If the answer to either is no, I'll vote to decline. These questions do end up being a lower standard than for other kinds of case requests. Generally, in addition to wanting to see the community unable to resolve an issue, I would also expect reasonable evidence of the dispute/misconduct provided at the time of the case request.
Number of mistakes vs percentage of mistakes edit
There has been a fair amount of commentary during ArbCom cases around administrators this year about evaluating an administrator's record, whether to look at issues as a percentage of overall work or focus on the number of mistakes made. My answer to this question is both have their place, depending on the circumstance.
For some categories of errors, the issue is how many times it has happened. Arguably 1 wheel war might be enough for a sanction (up to and including deysopping). Other kinds of errors do need examination in a context. If you're doing hundreds of page protections, 1 or 2 that are more borderline, or even wrong, is not a problem. An important overall frame to this is whether or not the problems have been ongoing and there have been honest opportunities for the administrator to change their ways. When there has been lots of discussions, especially formal community discussion, about a particular problem, the percentage of mistakes made might look different.
Does ArbCom have any options besides warnings/reminders/admonishments, and permanent desysops? edit
I hesitate to write this section because I will pose a question for which my answer is, "I don't know." There is basically no "modern" track record of an editor being desyoped and then gaining the administrative toolkit back at RfA means that a desyoping is a far more severe penalty than if there was a viable path to community restoration. But I also think that warnings/reminders/admonishments are not worth the editor time in many instances of administrator misconduct. It's time poorly spent not just of arbs, but the community at large who think and comment on them. In many cases, there have already been hundreds of words spilled at noticeboards. If those didn't work, I am skeptical that ArbCom saying it would suddenly achieve a different outcome. So I don't know if there are any viable options besides those two options. Still, I write this section to say that I would, if elected, at least be open to exploring other options in certain administrator misconduct cases.
Communication and community engagement edit
Arbs have to deal with many unfair accusations thrown at them, even, at times, from prominent members of the community. At times, even from prominent members of the community who dislike, in the abstract, the way arbs are treated. That's part and parcel of the job and something I can accept. However, it doesn't, for me, change the obligation to engage with members of the community in public discussions. There isn't any obligation for any arb to respond to everyone. Still, hopefully, as a group, the committee acknowledges, in some way, editors who put time and thought into contributing to the progress of a public discussion and will sometimes try to work with editors. Just as we expect admins and editors to do in other contexts.
Talking with the Wikimedia Foundation edit
Ultimately I believe the Wikimedia Foundation to be well-intentioned collaborators to what we're trying to do in building Wikipedia. However, just because they are well-intentioned does not mean that they always get things right. It's this mindset I would bring to the discussions arbitrators often get to have with employees of all sorts at the Wikimedia Foundation. While I work full time, I have some flexibility in how I work, and so I would do my best to attend as many of these conversations as possible. I would do this for three reasons. I would take the trust placed in me by this community seriously and feel an obligation to represent it to the foundation as best I can. Second, I think many foundation employees are well-intentioned but might not understand how English Wikipedia works. The reasons for this state of affairs are complex, and some of which I feel are defensible and some of which are less great. Regardless it is our reality, and I have an interest, and, I hope, skill as I show while doing New Page Patrol School, in helping people understand how we work. A final reason is that the information also flows from the foundation to the committee. It's essential to have as many ears on that as possible so that ArbCom can stop problems before they happen.
IP Masking edit
One area that I think it’s vital for ArbCom, individually and collectively, to talk with the foundation about is the impending masking of IP addresses. When this is implemented I suspect it will massively disrupt our work because its implementation is moving on a timetable that makes that inevitable. I would like ArbCom to advocate for solutions and implementations that disrupt our current processes as little as possible. Ultimately a fairly unaccountable group of people - WMF Legal - is pushing this project so while I think ArbCom needs to advocate vociferously, I expect any improvements will be marginal. If that’s what happens, it would not surprise me for our community to act in a large manner, perhaps going as far as Portugese Wikipedia has in banning IP edits. That’s not something I support today. Yet, I acknowledge solutions like that have to at least be on the table if IP masking is implemented in a way that impedes our ability to counter vandalism and ensure the best possible encyclopedia for our readers.
Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) edit
I think that if the UCoC comes anywhere close to doing what it’s supposed to, it will fundamentally reshape the global movement. That can be a good thing for those of us on English Wikipedia, a bad thing, or not a substantial change at all. Which one of those things it will be isn’t clear to me, but I hope it will be not a substantial change at all if not a good thing. English Wikipedia has advanced policies and guidelines around behavior that go above and beyond what the UCoC, as drafted, suggests. I would like a body that can deal with things like the far-right takeover of Croatian Wikipedia and if that’s a Global ArbCom, great. My hope is that whatever enforcing body comes into existence, and I imagine it will be a Global ArbCom, that it will tend to act in a way similar to Stewards. They will have technical authority, but will act with great deference to local processes, namely our own ArbCom.
In terms of the current [1] draft, I have not read through all the feedback but it seems fine. I am a little concerned about the draft language around “Content vandalism and abuse of the projects” as I like our model of ArbCom that stays focused on conduct and not content. The clarification from the drafting committee that this is about “hampering progress on projects and promoting hate speech” is a little better but not reflected in the language I was looking at. Finally, can I say that I find the acronym here particularly unfortunate for English speakers. Not really important in the grand scheme of things but I can’t help but note it.
Timeliness edit
ArbCom missing deadlines is a bit of a running joke. It has too many smart and accomplished people in their professional lives for me to think that I could change this. However, I will endeavor not to be the one to hold up things behind the scenes. When possible, I will also attempt to update the community on where things stand, even if it's only "no firm date but soon." Given how strict ArbCom's deadlines are for others, that feels like the least I could do as an individual arb.
Email management edit
One of the most common comments I've heard arbs make, in private conversations and public statements, is just how many emails you can expect to get. I know it might be a weird thing to say, but I think I handle emails well. While I don't ever quite seem to achieve inbox zero, I have systems that effectively ensure I see the most important emails first and make sure threads don't get lost.