User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates

I was a member of the Arbitration Committee from January 2009 to December 2013. During that time, I've answered a lot of questions from prospective Arbitration Committee candidates, and observed which elected candidates carried out their responsibilities most effectively. These are some points for future candidates to consider.


 * Know why you want to run. You should believe that you have some useful ideas on how to improve the arbitration process, or at least think you have a knack for assessing contentious situations and developing solutions that will provide an optimal result for the encyclopedia. That last bit is important—arbitration is intended to address disputes that are in some way harmful to the encyclopedia, and it's important that the encyclopedia be the "winner", not any particular side of the dispute. Putting your name forward for Arbcom shouldn't be done on a whim, or without being willing to make Arbcom work (in particular, cases) your primary Wikipedia objective for the next two years. For the sake of the rest of the committee, don't run because of external pressure, or because someone dared you; do it only if you personally feel you are willing to make the commitment.
 * Understand how you work best on Wikipedia. Are you someone who works largely on your own, or do you prefer to work in concert with others on a shared goal? The Committee needs team players who will help each other out and who will work collaboratively toward shared goals. Are you willing to allow other non-committee work to take a back seat when committee objectives fall behind, and to pitch in?
 * Know what you'll do if you don't win a seat. This is an important test. Will you continue participating in the building of the encyclopedia? In what areas do you plan on working? Some people have considerable difficulty resuming normal editing life after an unsuccessful run.
 * Know what your strengths and weaknesses are. Consider whether you have the skill set to handle reading long (and often tedious) evidence submissions and extracting the key points, and whether you are able to identify the gaps in evidence and whether or not they should also be addressed as part of the case. Consider your views on banned/indefinitely blocked users; such reviews are a significant part of the workload. How well do you handle large amounts of email? Have you had success working with a large and very diverse group of people in the past? Are you able to stand behind group decisions that have not gone in your favour? Can you write clearly and precisely, and differentiate your own opinions from that of a larger group?
 * Don't expect to "fix" everything. Read over several cases from the last few years and then look at whether the results are what was anticipated by the decision, and what you think might have improved the outcome. There will always be old cases being revisited, usually because the hoped-for outcome wasn't realised, or a new twist has arisen that wasn't contemplated in the original case. There are also some other activities that need to be reviewed and realigned. How would you improve handling of unban requests? Is there more to do in managing access and use of checkuser and oversight permissions? Are there Committee practices that should be revisited? The window of opportunity for making changes is relatively limited, usually the first 4-6 months of the year; after that, momentum slows significantly.
 * Expect people to connect your Wikipedia identity to your real-world identity. This isn't just a possibility, it is extremely likely to occur, and the linkages between your on- and off-wiki lives may or may not be revealed publicly. The role of arbitrator is high profile in this project (some were even identified by username on The Colbert Report), and the Arbitration Committee as an entity has been discussed in scholarly and news sources in the recent past. Becoming an arbitrator is a poor choice if you feel strongly that you wish to keep your personal and Wikipedia profiles completely separate.
 * Be prepared for little praise and a lot of negative feedback. Negative feedback outweighs positive by about a 10:1 factor. Truth is, not all that many people pay attention to the daily activities of the Arbitration Committee; those who do are predisposed, because of current or past decisions that adversely affect them, to respond negatively. Even actions that are taken in a timely way will be considered "too slow", while those that *are* overdue will be considered insufficient given the lengthy delay. Not all of the negative feedback will be public, though. Some will be via email, in posts at external sites, and some of it can be intensely personal. Many people find this the most difficult aspect of the job.
 * Recognize that Arbcom will be your major Wikipedia activity if you are elected. Arbcom activities consume far more hours than meets the eye, at least in part because of time zone differences and short- or long-term inactivity on the part of its members. Accepting responsibilities and seeing them through is an important part of the role, and being able to prioritize (and advising the rest of the committee you will not be participating in X, Y or Z activity) is respectful to both the community and your arbitrator colleagues.

Original: Risker (talk) 03:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC) Updated: Risker (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2014 (UTC)