User:Risker/FAQ for Arbcom Candidates

Some information for candidates
Election coordinators: Please feel free to move this to where you think is best. If possible, you could notify existing candidates of this "fact sheet".

As the election nears and some potential candidates are debating whether or not to join the fray, I have taken this opportunity to compile responses to several of the questions that I have been asked in the past few weeks. Please note that this is written under my own signature and is not in any way an official Arbitration Committee statement.


 * What is the volume of email received by arbitrators?
 * This varies by which mailing lists arbitrators subscribe to, and whether or not they are also mailing list administrators. Most Arbcom members set up various "folders" in their email systems so that only certain lists go into the "main" mailbox and others are read as time permits.
 * The two main mailing lists are Arbcom-L and Functionaries-en-L. Between the two, they average out at about 40-60 mails/day, or about 10-20 email threads. This average is wildly variable.
 * Update 2013: Mailing list activity has dropped about 30-40% since 2009. Higher activity can be expected in December and January (orientation for new arbitrators, and getting to know each other). About 50-60% of emails relate to workflow ("there's a motion up on Arbwiki", "two new requests at Clarifications", "who wants to draft the case?", "I'm away on vacation for two weeks", "Arbs A B and C still have to complete voting on Y case" etc).
 * Arbitrators who are also on AUSC or choose to follow the checkuser-L list will subscribe to that list and will have another 10-15 emails/day
 * Arbitrators who are also on AUSC or choose to follow/participate in oversight requests will set up an OTRS account and select whether or not to receive email notifications of new requests. In addition, they are subscribed to Oversight-L. Since moving the request emails to OTRS, there are usually no more than 10 emails/month on the Oversight-L list, usually requests for others to review or other group messages.
 * Arbitrators who are on AUSC are subscribed to that mailing list, and all subscribers are automatically made list admins. Activity is widely variable; some months it is busy (50-60 messages/month plus junk mail) with actual requests, but when there are no requests, the only messages are junk mail, which still needs to be cleared from the active queue.
 * Update 2013: AUSC activity and requests have dropped precipitously over the last 4 years, to the point that 95% of emails to this list are spam.
 * Update 2013: Arbitrators who are on BASC are subscribed and made list admins for the BASC list; all other arbitrators are subscribed by default but may drop their subscriptions. This mailing list receives almost as much "real" correspondence as the Arbcom-L main mailing list, and very heavy spam load.
 * Arbitrators are granted non-moderated write-access to the Clerks-L mailing list, and may also request full subscription. Activity on this list is also widely variable.
 * List administrators for any list can count on receiving about 30% more in addition to the above numbers.
 * Update 2013: Spam now makes up the majority of emails to almost all mailing lists except Arbcom-en-B and Arbcom-en-C, which are used only as backup. The spam does not affect the majority of subscribers, but each request to the moderation queues results in an email to the list administrators (either advising that there is a new email awaiting moderation, or that an email has been auto-discarded).  Spam to Arbcom-L, Functionaries-en-L, BASC and AUSC runs between 10 and 70 messages/day.


 * I don't plan on getting checkuser or oversight permissions, so why do I need to identify?
 * Checkuser and oversightable data, as well as other even more private information provided directly to Arbcom, is regularly discussed on the mailing list as part of our normal responsibilities. As well, the Arbitration Committee is responsible for overseeing the appropriate use of these tools. It is the WMF policy that those who have access to this data must identify to the WMF.
 * AUSC members *must* have both checkuser and oversight permissions.
 * Checkuser and Oversight permissions are not dependent on administrator permissions; thus, this is not a direct bar for non-administrators to become arbitrators.
 * Update 2013: While Checkuser and Oversight permissions are now dependent on administrator permissions, whether or not election to Arbcom is considered equivalent to passing RFA is an unanswered question; I've asked Philippe Beaudette of the WMF to seek clarification, and he anticipates a response before nominations close for this election. arbitrators may indeed hold Checkuser and/or Oversight permissions whether or not they are administrators.
 * My personal recommendation is for all arbitrators to accept these permissions, even if they do not intend to carry out checkusers or suppressions personally; that way, they are added to the list of people who have access at WP:CHECK and WP:OVERSIGHT, perhaps with a tag saying that they are used only for Arbcom duties. This makes it clear to any user exactly who has access to CU/OS information. It also provides the arbitrator with his or her own direct access to the information, which is usually posted in the form of links.
 * The description of the identification process is here, along with some commentary on the likelihood of being "outed".


 * Could I be sued for being an arbitrator?
 * It's a theoretical possibility, but it's also a theoretical possibility for every editor. There have not, to date, been any lawsuits launched against arbitrators of which the current committee is aware. Each person must make his or her own assessment of whether or not this is something that is particularly worrisome. There are those who say that, because arbitrators deal with disgruntled users, the risk is higher. Some real-world data shows that lawsuits are less likely to occur when there is continued discussion, something that the committee has worked hard on improving over the last two years.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation does not indemnify (insure or otherwise protect) arbitrators from lawsuits. Nor does the WMF have any control over the actions of the Arbitration Committee.
 * Update 2013: In October 2012, the WMF Board of Trustees approved the Legal Fees Assistance Program that is intended to provide legal support to arbitrators and other specified volunteers in case of lawsuits or other legal threats. This is a very significant and positive change.


 * What should I expect if I get elected?
 * In the period between the announcement of appointments and January 1, we will work with successful candidates to get everyone through the identification process, set up email accounts, and work through some of the practicalities. New arbitrators must identify with the WMF prior to being given access to mailing lists or to checkuser or oversight permissions.
 * Oversight and Checkuser permissions are assigned on January 1.
 * New arbitrators may begin participating effective January 1, including active participation on open requests for arbitration, clarification and amendment. It's recommended that, if new arbitrators wish to participate in any or all of these activities, they prepare themselves by reading the relevant material/evidence/submissions/previous cases as applicable. New arbitrators will be shown how to notify the clerks that they are now active on a case, so that clerks are better able to calculate majorities for voting and case acceptance purposes.
 * If currently sitting arbitrators are re-appointed, there is no change in the calculation of majority; their status with respect to open matters remains unchanged. Remember that retiring arbitrators may elect to remain active on cases that are open at December 31.

Please feel free to ask any other questions that come to mind, on-wiki or privately. Risker (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Updates added November 16-17, 2013, because of references to this page on various election guides. Risker (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2013 (UTC)