User:Barkeep49/ACE2022

Thanks for coming. Below you'll find my candidate statement, what I feel I accomplished during my first term, 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 Platform summary box below for the nutshells of my thoughts.

Candidate statement

 * Introduction

I'm Barkeep49, and I'm running for a second term on the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). I am running because of my deep belief in Wikipedia and the role it plays in the world. Providing high quality information, for free, has always been important but feels more so in today's world. As an Arbitrator, I want to continue doing what I can to ensure our community has the environment and space to advance our mission.


 * Work

My primary work, when not on ArbCom, is


 * writing articles, I have a couple dozen good articles and 2 featured lists,
 * closing difficult Requests for Comment and Article for Deletion discussions, and
 * being a part of New Page Patrol.

The health of the community is never far from mind. That is why I served on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines drafting committee and have been a frequent nominator of administrators.


 * Why I’m running and what I’ll do

I'm running because I find the work of being an Arb challenging and rewarding and because it's a way for me to give back to a project and community that's incredibly important to me.

I set out an ambitious platform when I last ran and am proud of what I accomplished as an Arb. If elected again you can be confident that I will…


 * do the work. I try to actively engage in all elements of ArbCom work and to be there to help and support my colleagues.
 * remain accessible and responsive. Sometimes when communicating with ArbCom it's hard to know if anyone is listening. I try to show we are by sending confirmation emails, participating in Workshop discussions during a case, and responding to talk page messages.
 * listen carefully. To make good decisions it's vital to learn from others, understand their perspectives, and consider their thinking.
 * strive to improve the project. If something isn't working, I like to try to find ways to improve it with-in the scope of ArbCom. I am open to trying new things, and equally open to admitting when those new things haven't worked. Fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better.


 * Platform

For more on my accomplishments, my approach, and ideas for upcoming work, I encourage you to visit my complete platform.


 * Requirements

I am over 18, have thousands of mainspace edits, have no bans or blocks, no alternative accounts, and have and will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

I hope I’ve earned your support.

Accomplishments during my first term

 * During the appointment of functionaries I helped to encourage existing functionaries to participate more in the public discussion rather than just give private feedback
 * Relatedly during the first year on the committee I helped provide some informal feedback to candidates who were unsuccessful in a part of their application. During the second year on the committee I advocated that the committee provide official feedback to unsuccessful candidate(s) and wrote the draft of the official feedback the committee gave to an unsuccessful candidate.
 * Advocated for English Wikipedia with the Wikimedia Trust & Safety team
 * Regularly drafted decisions, motions, and correspondence
 * Improved committee transparency by
 * Creating and updating Arbitration Committee/Appeals
 * Co-creating the method to allow for parties to an Arbcom case to be able to see all on-wiki evidence against them in ArbCom cases. This method allows for private evidence of information not allowed onwiki under policy while still maintaining an on-wiki transparent case.
 * This one is far more minor than the others listed above but I'm proud of initiating the RfD discussion which targeted WP:ARM to Arbitration/Requests/Motions

Platform summary
If you click on a summary statement you can read my full thoughts on the topic.


 * A wide range of skills, many of them organizational or behind the scenes, are necessary to be a good arb (this one doesn't summarize well so I'd encourage you to read the full list)
 * I believe in participating in Arbitration business and interacting with community members
 * Communication with the community during formal processes is an important trait for arbitrators.
 * ArbCom should be deliberate in it's decision making, not slow.
 * When there's not going to be a vote, Arbs should be able to close ARCAs similar to how Admin close AE threads.
 * The people who provide feedback to ArbCom are often driven by strong feelings. These feelings aren't always representative of the broader community, so it's important for Arbs to take this feedback seriously but also use their judgment about how much weight to give it.
 * In general ArbCom should only accept cases the community can’t handle and shouldn't place too much weight on the framing of the filer
 * By policy the community can’t handle administrator misconduct cases so ArbCom should accept those with a lower standard than other cases.
 * I don't know what options ArbCom has besides deysops and warnings, but I disagree with Arbs who only vote to accept Admin cases if they think there will be a desysop
 * ArbCom is an underutilized as a dispute resolution mechanism by the community
 * Arbs end up being community ambassadors to the Wikimedia Foundation and I enjoy this work
 * The Foundation has grown a lot but hasn't allocated enough of that growth to community priorities, especially in technical areas
 * Despite any issues we have with the Foundation, our community needs to do a better job of treating Foundation employees with respect
 * Appointing Functionaries is one of the most important jobs ArbCom has and so it's important ArbCom gets it right
 * I effectively handle the volume of emails ArbCom receives
 * OUTING is a behavioral policy and does not trump all of our content policies
 * The UCoC Enforcement Guidelines were OK, the new version is an improvement but work remains to make sure that the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee doesn't become a Global ArbCom.

What makes an effective arb
Here are many of the qualities that I think make an effective arb and what I believe I 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 when the community is having trouble doing so.
 * Editing experience, which I think I have demonstrated through my more than 25,000 edits.
 * Does the work. Arbs owe it to the community and the other arbs to take on a fair share and also not hold up the work of the committee. I think I've shown my ability to do this as an Arb.
 * 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. I obviously am volunteering for another term so I think I have found ways of avoiding burnout.
 * 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 all actions and edits with thought and care. When you're an arbitrator people will think of you as an arbitrator, even in non-ArbCom contexts. That can limit an arb's ability to participate in some discussions they would otherwise. 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. I am among the more active oversighters and while I am not an expert checkuser I have endeavored to become a competent user of the tool
 * An open mind and sense of teamwork. While I normally don't lack for thoughts (see the fact that this platform exists), I do try to ask questions and keep an open mind to the perspectives of others before taking some kind of firmer stance. And even then I believe it important to respect the views of my fellow arbs and find ways we can build consensus and come together as a committee.

Responsiveness
I believe in engaging with the community on Arbitration matters. I feel proud of the track record I had during my first term and will endeavor to do the same if elected again. When there is public business before the committee I try to give thoughts and try to respond to a number of community members who give input as well. I also try to answer questions about Arbitration processes both in Arb space and in emails to the committee but also when I see questions in other spaces (including off wiki, like on IRC).

Communication and community engagement
Arbs have to deal with many unfair accusations thrown at them, even, at times, from prominent members of the community. Even 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. Just as we expect admins and editors to do in other contexts.

Deliberate, not slow
ArbCom should be a deliberate decision making body. This does not mean ArbCom should be slow. So if a decision continues to be talked about in an effort to find the best outcome that's great. If a decision isn't being made and there is no discussion happening, that's ArbCom just being slow. As an arb I do my best to help us be deliberate and not slow.

Fixing ARCAs
When I ran last time I noted how long ARCAs can just sit around. I have come to the conclusion that the problem isn't that a decision is getting made, it's just that no one is acting on the decision. With-in a week it is basically clear if there is going to be enthusiasm for some kind of vote/motion or not. When there is enthusiasm for a vote, the votes tend to happen reasonably fast (less than a week after opening this past year). When there's not going to be a vote, and it's going to be more advisory, that's when they linger.

So if elected I would propose a new procedure that would allow any arb to summarize and close an ARCA after a week, similar to how AE threads get closed at a reasonable time by some administrator after enough discussion has happened. Right now no one is empowered to do anything so they just sit there. Let's change that so Arbs at ARCA can act more like admins at AE.

Feedback to ArbCom
ArbCom regularly attracts editors expressing strongly held opinions in passionate and often forceful manners. My experience as an arb is that it's important to take these people seriously and try not to take it personally (even when they're wrong or calling you out by name). With-in limits. It's my belief that editors expressing strong opinions often have a point worth considering or a lesson to be learned.

It's also my experience that on decisions where ArbCom was pretty united that most Wikipedians will support the decision even if the decision attracts some loud critics. This makes sense. The community works to vote a diverse and fairly large group of experienced people to the committee. This means both that a lot of kinds of thinking that is present in the community will be represented and that there is going to be trust in the committee's decision making.

There's just not a lot of incentive for people mildly supportive of a decision to speak up in the face of editors who care so much more about something. Having a place for people to express strong feelings about difficult topics is useful for those people, for the community, and as I noted above for the Committee. The Arbitration noticeboard talk page serves this purpose as do other places ArbCom gets feedback, including talk pages at cases and via e-mail. And it often will let us make better decisions, if only to know that the topic is one where there's a range of opinions in the community.

What kind of cases to accept
My thinking on this topic has evolved slightly during my time on the committee. The questions I continue to ask myself when considering a case request are:


 * 1) Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case?
 * 2) Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction?
 * 3) Is there enough evidence to suggest the allegations have a reasonable chance to be proven true?

For "Is there some reason ArbCom needs to handle this case?" can refer to the situations above where the community has been unable to reach resolution. It also refers to cases that have come up in the past couple of years there have been cases which mix public and private evidence of misconduct (e.g. Skepticism and coordinated editing). While the community could normally handle a dispute of this level and nature, the need to consider off-wiki evidence made it appropriate for ArbCom to accept the case request. The other reason for ArbCom to handle a case is because 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 also think it important to consider the evidence of all community members when figuring out if there is enough to support a case. Many arbs will give undue weight to (or even only consider) the scope and evidence presented by the filer of a case. Once we're past the stage where it's a spurious case request that can be procedurally closed by clerks, I'm going to give equal weight to evidence presented by all community members and have, and will, advocate for other arbs to do the same.

Administrator Conduct
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, the community has regularly affirmed that it wants ArbCom as 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 some supporting evidence 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. It does mean when I apply my 3 questions that "Are the allegations, if proven true, enough to merit a sanction?" is more likely to come to "yes" as an answer because Admins have additional standards of conduct expected of them that non-admins don't.

Does ArbCom have any options besides reminders/warnings/admonishments, and permanent desysops?
I hesitate to write this section. When I wrote about this in my last platform my answer was "I don't know" and now after a term on the committee, my answer is still "I don't know but I'd like there to be". There is basically no "modern" track record of an editor being desysoped and then gaining the administrative toolkit back at RfA. This 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 reminders/warnings/admonishments may not be worth the editor time necessary to do a full case 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.

That said I know some Arbs won't vote to accepted Administrator cases unless they're likely to vote to desysop. I think that does a disservice to our community as it means ArbCom loses the chance to show where the standards of behavior are for admins in a wider range of situations. Admins thus have less chance to course correct before they find themselves desysoped. And this is a place where reminders/warnings/admonishments can be useful because it allows other admins to see what is and isn't OK and course correct prior to a case.

ArbCom is underutilized by the community
I do think there's a kind of dispute that leads to a sprawling dispute noticeboard thread where the community can maybe handle it also maybe not. I think the Community could be underutilizing the Arbitration Committee as a resource here as if there's a "maybe" the community has been reluctant to send it to ArbCom and if there is a case request has given mixed feedback about the topic to the committee. To give a specific example of what I am talking about, I think the committee should have accepted this case request which would have saved several painful ANI threads afterwards and perhaps headed off the rather painful case we ended up accepting 7 months later.

Talking with the Wikimedia Foundation
From my experience working with the Wikimedia Foundation across a number of projects and divisions (and having had the opportunity to meet quite a few staff members in person or on video calls), 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 bring to the discussions I get to have employees of all sorts at the Wikimedia Foundation. While I work full time, I have some flexibility in how I work, and so I attend as many of these conversations as possible.

I do this for three reasons. I 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. 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.

I list advocacy with the Trust & Safety team as one of my accomplishments above. During my term as an Arb there were 3 major issues where I feel I was an important voice (though certainly not the only voice) in helping guide the Foundation to an outcome that better reflected the views of the English Wikipedia community.

The Failure of the Foundation to allocate money to community priorities
I have taken every reasonable opportunity to advocate for the WMF to spend more money on community priorities rather than expanding the scope and mission of the Foundation. But I can't put it in my list of accomplishments because to date my efforts have been of marginal help at best. Truthfully they could just as easily be deemed unsuccessful.This is just too important not to get right and so I view this as "not yet successful" rather than a reason to give up.. If elected as an arb I am going to continue to take the opportunities afforded to me to make those comments and have those conversations.

Because the current budget is just unbelievably frustrating as a (at minimum) reasonably well informed person. Somehow there is never good news when it comes to community technical priorities. When COVID hit, the Foundation worried donations were going to dry up and so they cut back on expenses. Reasonable action in my opinion. But when fundraising goals were met despite the pandemic this wasn't a chance to do more the following year. No. It was just a chance to pad the endowment.

I respect why the Foundation engaged in budget practices that it has to know will result in surplus. Having to fire people because there's not enough money is corrosive to employee morale and counterproductive to attracting and retaining the high quality people I want a non-profit like the Wikimedia Foundation to have working for it. And I respect why the Foundation has chosen to build its endowment so that fundraising won't have to be such a large percentage of the budget in the future - maybe they won't feel pressured to have quite so many awful fundraising banners.

But now the Foundation has announced that growth is not in the budget and so those budget practices feel more clever than wise. I'm not entirely sure how much the English community benefited from the years that were in growth mode. The examples I would expect a foundation employee to counter this with would include the reply tool - which is swell - and the growth team's efforts at helping new editors contribute productively - which is a success. Yet only the reply tool really addresses a long term community need - and that took years of development to finally achieve.

Instead of expanding the chance to increase engineering talent to address the technical debt identified by the community, most of the funds seem to have gone to expanding headcount elsewhere. When I collectively look at the people who've assumed roles that didn't exist a couple years ago at the Foundation I ask, "were these the talented people we, the Wikimedia movement, needed or were these talented people what the Wikimedia Foundation Board needed for its own goals?" And my answer is mostly "it's what the board needed". Which on the one hand is fair enough because the employees are indirectly responsible to the board. But on the other hand it doesn't change that these decisions are, on the whole, disappointing. Now I will say that I've had the chance to interact with people who assumed some of those new positions. They're talented people I like so I'm not going to call out the positions (see also the next section) by name. However, for every position I see as being reasonably responsive to a community need, I see two, three, four people who are responsive to a self-imposed need of the foundation and its board.

Failure of the Community to treat staff with respect
All too often English Wikipedians fail to treat foundation staff with respect. In fairness, too often English Wikipedians fail to treat other English Wikipedians with respect too. However precisely because of the Foundation's collective institutional power any individual staff member is at a disadvantage when someone crosses the line. This is basically the same way that individual arbs, because of the collective institutional power of Arb Com, end up having to accept insults thrown at us that other editors (even admins) wouldn't be expected by the community to tolerate. Calling the Foundation a cancer isn't rhetoric I would choose (though I do agree with large chunks of that essay) but feels in bounds. Calling individual staff a cancer is wrong. While I can't recall that specific word used towards staff equally charged other words have been used. Whether or not I'm elected as an arb, I will take the opportunity to remind my fellow editors to show respect - even, perhaps especially, when the Foundation is getting it the most wrong.

Functionary appointing process
I think ArbCom's ability to appoint Checkusers and Oversighters (who are collectively known as Functionaries) is often ignored during this election but it's actually one of ArbCom's most important jobs. Public participation in the process is still a little less than my ideal given how Functionaries become community leaders and representatives. It is also the only position of such responsibility and leadership achievable with no set term without a community vote. However, I think this year's process benefited from more public participation by existing functionaries. The Committee over the past couple of years has been reluctant to appoint new oversighters. I have strongly been in favor of this decision because there hasn't been a large need gap in work - outside of a timeframe between when most of the US has signed off for the night and when the UK logs on for the day. In fact some existing oversighters report difficulties in getting enough checks to meet the activity requirements because of how quickly requests are handled. That said I was somewhat surprised to see only 3 people apply for Checkuser this year - an area where we do have need for additional capacity. I hope that's a one year blip and not a longterm trend. I will admit to worry that it will be the start of a trend given how few new administrators get appointed.

Email management
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. As an Arb I feel like I was one to bring an email thread back-up with a plan for action after discussion had died down. (See also Deliberate, not slow)

OUTING is a behavioral policy
I take OUTING quite seriously and am thankful for the protection it offers me as an anonymous editor. In the past couple of years there have been a few times where concerns about OUTING have come up against content policies after a reliable source has published information about a Wikipedia editor. For me OUTING is a behavioral consideration which is why it's part of our harassment policy. If a reliable source is taking note of a Wikipedia editor's identity that becomes a content consideration and, for me, that content consideration must trump the behavioral considerations. In such situations it may be appropriate to include information or it may not. Content policies and guidelines - including Biographies of Living People - should guide that decision rather than our OUTING policy. It also may not be appropriate to include in the article, but the discussion itself is not inappropriate. Put another way: if a reliable source is publishing information about an editor it's not harassment to consider inclusion of that information in an article and so the information should not be oversighted.

It is entirely possible that non-reliable sources, including Deprecated or Blacklisted sources could attempt to harass editors. In this kind of situation oversight could absolutely be appropriate and is something I have done myself.

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines
For most of 2021 and 2022 I served on a committee to write the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement (UCoC) Guidelines (EG) and then, following a vote that was nominally successful but which still had a lot of complaints, to revise them. I was very happy that we got a chance to revise the guidelines because I was among those who voted against it at the first ratification vote (something that I am revealing publicly here for the first time). The revised draft that is likely to be released publicly either during this election or shortly after does address many of the largest concerns I had. I plan to support it.

However, my biggest concern with the UCoC from the time the UCoC concept was announced has been that it would interfere with large projects who were already enforcing conduct. I remain concerned. I think on the whole the EG does a good job of putting in adequate safeguards. At least in theory. Much of how the EG ultimately plays out will depend on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). It was important to me that we not have a Global ArbCom and as written in the EG they are not one. But much remains up in the air about the U4C because the EG committee deferred most details to a U4C Building Committee. So it is still possible that the U4C could turn into a global body that would overrule projects like ours. If elected, I plan to volunteer for the Building Committee in an attempt to represent English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia ArbCom, and ArbComs more generally. The devil is in the details and there are many details left to be worked out. Given my experience to date I think I am well positioned to help work them out.