User:David Fuchs/Thoughts on ArbCom

As of writing, I am nearing the end of a third term and six years total of being an arbitrator on En.wp's Arbitration Committee (ArbCom). Overall, I look back on it positively, both in the working relationships I had with other arbitrators, and the work we did. I would hesitate to call them "accomplishments", because way back in 2010 when I stood for election (and similarly now) I feel like the best descriptor of what the Arbitration Committee should strive for is "management". It's out there to deal with house business and hopefully reduce jams that prevent good content creation, and if most people don't necessarily know or care about it, that's likely a good thing. It's not the most eloquent passage I've ever written, but part of my statement in 2010 remains a core belief that has not wavered:

"My belief is that we should all be here to—in some way or form—create an encyclopedia, and all of ArbCom's actions should be mindful of that."

I'm not running for another term at present; with less free time than I once had, I would rather spend it on the content production and review processes that I do consider my accomplishments here. But as with some other arbs, I thought it useful to write down some of my thoughts on the Committee, arbitration, and how things have changed in the decade-plus I've served.


 * The Committee's work is an iceberg. In some ways, this was always true, but especially as the community overall has gotten better at handling disputes before they reach arbitration (or, additionally and alternatively, the Committee has simply already blanketed the controversial or problem areas of the wikis with sanctions that the community has wielded) these "unseen tasks" account for more of the Committee's business. I don't think the community writ large understands this. Block and ban appeals from editors that require evaluating checkuser or behavioral evidence, paid editing and conflict of interest questions, general help desk-related tasks that somehow end up at arbcom-en instead of anywhere else—the day-to-day workload of an arbitrator is email triage and management. I think this is much better than it was in the olden days, but especially as it seems like the traditional role of email has evaporated in many corners of the world the importance of email may be surprising to new members, and I recommend any new arbitrator think about how they plan to stay on top of things (as a Gmail user, I made heavy use of filtering, tagging, labels, and starring to keep track of items.)
 * The Committee is a school group project. I think it's plain over the time I've spent on ArbCom that there are talkers and there are doers on the Committee. While the talkers have their role, a Committee without the necessary doers is a committee that's not going to function well. The doer is the one who keeps the ban appeals list updated, who follows up on old business that has fallen off that radar, that takes point at acknowledging emails, that leads the charge on CU/OS appointments, that notes when there's an on-wiki case request that needs more attention. These people are the bureaucrats (in a good way!) that make the Committee responsive and effective. I would specifically like to highlight KrakatoaKatie and Maxim for filling those roles in recent years; I honestly can't remember the many others who have served those roles admirably over the years I've been on the committee but they will never get their due appreciation from the community at large. It's also impossible to try and fill all roles ArbCom needs with a single individual; some people will by necessity be more technically minded (experienced checkusers who can offer insight into a ban appeal) while others might have a greater grasp of the wikipolitics behind an issue. I recommend that when people vote for candidates, they keep a breadth of experience and types of editors in mind.
 * The Committee is arbitrary. There tends to be a lot of focus on the Committee as a group, rather than a constantly-rotating cast of individuals. I say that not to excuse the Committee's work as a whole, but rather that it explains why X is done in one given year, while Y is not in another. While conspiracy-minded folks will often look to the Committee as out to preserve the power of their friends, or as a shadowy cabal... the answer to any conspiracy is always the mundane. The question of "why did the Committee not act on X until now" is that no one brought it to the Committee's attention, or the email got forgotten, or someone said they would send a response and then forgot. Likewise, the people who envision the Committee as a team of rivals really miss the mark. There may have been more fractious committees or more harmonious committees, but in general my experience is that people are just trying to get stuff done, and it's frequently on-wiki and off a much more collegial environment than general Wikipedia editing. Despite having different attitudes about different issues, the people on the Committee want to see Wikipedia succeed, and I think the knowledge that they have been duly selected by people to work for the interests of the community is an expectation that arbitrators generally rise to.
 * There's much that's been said to give more insight into the day-to-day operations of the Committee (for those interested, I would point to Maxim's "Thoughts on arbitration".) With that said, the big piece of advice I would give to new arbitrators is to never prioritize appearances. In the many snafus or little controversies that have popped up on my time in the Committee, I cannot think of a single one that was made better by the Committee deciding to hide or minimize something, or be more concerned with how it might make the Committee look rather than doing what needed to be done. Arbitrators are elected to make the tough choices, and when something is in their remit, they should make them.

Good luck to future Committees and future arbs. —18:11, 27 October 2021 (UTC)