User:FT2/ACE2010 extended statement

This page provides any disclosure and expands briefly my main statement.


 * {| width="70%" style="border:darkgrey solid 1px;font-size:90%"


 * Registered: July 2004;
 * Admin: January 2007 (prior rfa withdrawn at 80%, June 2006);
 * OTRS: September 2007;
 * Arbcom: December 2007;
 * Wiki contribution areas: See user page.
 * }
 * }


 * 1. Alternate accounts

Content:
 * 2. As an editor and Wikipedian
 * 100+ articles (the tool understates the number - many other articles were effective rewrites or significant improvements to existing pages)
 * 2010 GA's: Berghuis v. Thompkins (SCOTUS law), Ave Imperator, morituri te salutant (Latin/history), Deepwater Horizon and Tiber oilfield (oil industry).

Policy and process. Note - I stopped tracking these after 2008 (Older):
 * Rewrite of user pages guideline and clean start, and community documentation for IP block exemption, RevisionDelete, and Pending Changes. Older items include the stable versions of WP:CHECKUSER, WP:NPOV, WP:ABOUT, WP:ADMIN, WP:RFO, WP:DELPOL, WP:GAME, WP:RFC, WP:RFAR/G, and redesign of the copyright section. Current work (under discussion).
 * Added expectation of a high conduct standard for arbitrators in the proposed Arbitration policy stance proposal.

Process reduction:
 * Up until 2009 we had two processes and two dissimilar archiving systems for sock-puppetry - WP:SSP for non Checkuser cases and WP:RFCU for checkuser cases. Merged these [1&#93;.

Privacy and BLP:
 * Added warnings - in account creation pages about real-name accounts [2&#93;[3&#93;, on internal emails that reply is optional and may cause breach of privacy [4&#93;, in sock policy about possible real-world impact of sockpuppetry [5&#93;.
 * Wrote the help page for BLP subjects. Set up a WP:BLPWATCH process (now defunct) to allow tagging and additional scrutiny of vulnerable BLPs.
 * Obtained footer on wiki-email [6&#93;, and drafted footnote [7&#93; and WP:EMAIL to provide information in email abuse and harassment cases.

Difficult and public interest cases on- and off-wiki:
 * Ad-hoc help to admins and users. This OTRS ticket is one such example (both responses 7 and 9). Dialog with banned users post-ban such as User:DavidAppletree (3 way with Jimbo CC'ed) is another.
 * On-wiki information on contentious cases: 1/ Law-Undertow oversighting drama post resp1 resp2, 2/ admin who appeared to be taking actions but was non-responsive and the situation was unclear [8&#93;, 3/ admin who may have edit warred and canvassed a 3RR unblock off-wiki [9 (line 394+)&#93;

Dispute resolution (from 2007 statement):
 * Commended for "possibly the wordiest, best thought through AFD close in the history of the project" [10&#93;, and "probably the most comprehensive and balanced dispute resolution I've ever read on Wikipedia" [11&#93;. Routinely considered fair [12&#93;, even by those I've declined [13&#93; or who initially disagreed [14&#93;[15&#93;.

Other:
 * Usability - regular contributor at Wikimedia's website for enhancements and bug fixes [16&#93;, and on Wikipedia's user interface [17&#93;.
 * IRC - Obtained consensus on introducing formal conduct norms
 * Strategy taskforce quality team (2009 - 2010), commended for "really amazing stuff that obviously took a ton of work" [18&#93;


 * 3. 2008 Arbcom matters
 * This background explains how and why a couple of widely discussed matters unfolded later in the 2008 year. For those unfamiliar with the events - as these events largely took place on Arbcom's mailing lists and long ago, I have also asked for a quick check by Arbitrators that they are thorough, neutral, and accurate.


 * I feel that these are matters that had good cause to be answered and 2008-09 is now "old" - it will not be harmful to do so. I profoundly apologize to the community and to everyone on and off-wiki, if there is any way I could have handled either of these cases better at the time. It was not clear how to do so, despite consulting other Arbitrators.


 * I have referred one other query to Arbcom at the same time, but it may or may not be relevant.


 * 4. Improving the Committee in 2011
 * Arbcom does not scale in a sustainable manner. The workload and burnout levels show failure to scale even now and a certain ruthlessness is needed to identify matters that can be devolved in a way that maintains quality. Long term, I see Arbcom's role as primarily a supervisory and privacy body, and its various other functions devolved to a handful of subcommittees populated by seasoned users of high caliber jointly endorsed by the Committee and the community, with one to three Arbitrator members to provide any input, liaison, or supervision, or identify any matters which must be committee-handled due to sensitivity or privacy or where handling is inadequate.


 * We already know that users can be found who are trusted by Committee and community. I have had since 2008 to consider improving workload handling and I sincerely believe that around 60% of both Ban Appeals and RFAR itself can be selectively devolved with no risk whatsoever, no increase in user access to private data, and visible improvement to quality, speed and fairness.


 * On a personal level I expect to routinely check list decisions and proposals as being well-founded and for omissions/miscommunications - crucial at Arbcom and still room for improvement. The need to look for issues is important - over time I'd like to see it inculcated in the committee even more. For example even after repeated scrutiny, the third version of Arbcom Draft Policy (August 2010) still had several points agreed as "good catches" [19&#93; and the question of "what if the CUOS election doesn't supply enough candidates" which was not seen as likely by many when discussed, happened for real in May 2010 [20&#93;.


 * I would also aim for at least these two improvements in addition to normal activity:
 * Make Ban Appeals a community driven and Arbitrator supervised process, and
 * Trial the devolution of a large but non-core part of RFAR on 3 or 4 cases, followed by an RFC to discuss whether this has improved the known issues at arbitration.


 * 5. Other community matters


 * I am deeply interested in making Wikipedia easier for new editors, improving dispute handling, and reducing our systemic problems with content wars. During 2011 I aim to seek community help with proposals on the following areas. If elected this will be as an editor, not as an Arbitrator.


 * Finally, policies and guidelines are horribly hard for newcomers. It is a testimony that so many persist. We need to take this seriously. Sitting "inside" Wikipedia it's incredibly easy to not see how forbidding and sometimes unfair our norms and policies can be. How users experience our community is a crucial aspect of project success. It flows over into areas such as block and ban notices and help, and privacy issues. It would be a major endeavor requiring a shift of perspective to ask "how can this be made easier for users without diluting policy or norms that help the project". I would like to see a drive to making these easier if we can.

Please feel free to leave any comments on the talk page or ask questions. Thank you.

FT2 (Talk 21:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)