User:Worm That Turned/Rant On/Being an arbitrator

A recent highlighted to me that I'd never actually written my thoughts on being an arbitrator down. I'd come close to doing it a few times, most notably in my election guides (eg. 2015). I'm coming up to a decade since I first joined the committee, and have actually spent 7 of the past ten years as an arbitrator, a very sobering thought.

What is an arbitrator?
When I tell people outside of Wikipedia that I'm involved in the project and how involved I am, I use the term "bigwig". Indeed, I tell them, my wig is about as big as a wig can be on Wikipedia. How else do you explain it? Wikipedia is one of the largest sites on the internet and yet, the content can be changed by anyone - every single person on the planet is more senior than almost anyone on any other website and I have no more say over the content than anyone else. I try to explain that as an admin, I do have the technical ability to delete and undelete some stuff, or block users. As a crat, I have the technical ability to make more admins. As a CU/OS, I have the technical ability to see some private data - and as an Arb... well, I... um..

It's a rather difficult to explain role. Some do refer to it as the "supreme court" of Wikipedia and there is some merit in that analogy because we do sort out disputes and the buck should stop with us. There are sometimes disputes which the community is not able to make a decision on - because the world cannot sort them out. Arbcom is also not qualified to make a decision, but a decision needs to be made. Sometimes they happen in real time, contentious issues that are all over the press - the community looks to the committee to step in and give some guidance.

The flip side is that the committee has become the back stop for everything that the community won't or shouldn't handle. When I first joined the committee, this included some awful harassment and topics such as child protection and we simply didn't have much in the way of support to handle those sorts of things. This meant that strong personalities were needed to manage the issues, and strong stances were taken, stances which I look back at and disagree with... but I digress. My point is that although the being on the committee is nominally about arbitration cases, the vast majority of my day to day arbcom role is nothing to do with that.

Arbcom's roles to the lay-wikipedian
This is paraphrased from my old ACE guide for a wanna be arb.
 * Arbcom is the final area for dispute resolution. There are sometimes disputes which the community is not able to make a decision on. Arbcom is also not qualified to make a decision, but a decision needs to be made. The community is getting better and better at this, so cases are less frequent.
 * Arbcom is the only place which is currently able to actively remove the sysop flag. The committee should be therefore prepared to do so.
 * Arbcom is the final option for some Ban Appeals. This is primarily CU appeals, because the data is necessarily private, but also Arbcom ban appeals and community ban appeals where there has been a process issue. This is one of the biggest day to day roles that we actually do.
 * Arbcom is responsible for anything else the community is not able to handle. This is generally anything privacy-related.

Who you work with
The arbitration committee is just that, a committee. There are 15 of us, all in different time zones, with different interests and different levels of activity. Many outgoing arbitrators use the term "herding cats", because it's often difficult to get enough of the 15 of us to vote on a topic. Observationally, I've seen a few different arbitrators over the years - I've been more than one: The committee works best with a mix of personalities, a mix of roles - though not all roles are good, we've had more than one arbitrator who has been severely detrimental to the committee. You should be willing to voice your opinion and explain it, but also be willing to change your mind. You are representing the community in big decisions, there's a lot of responsibility in that.
 * The keen arb, who is willing to help out and has all sorts of fresh ideas to get things done.
 * The worker arb, who makes sure that emails are replied to, that things aren't forgotten.
 * The reforming arb, who has seen problems and wants to change things for the better
 * The single purpose arb, who sees being on the committee as a means to an end
 * The devil's advocate arb, who always puts across the opposing view.
 * The quiet arb, who pops up with some very helpful thoughts every so often (often pragmatic and sometimes considering the big picture)
 * The silent arb, who doesn't.

Besides the committee, you will be working with Trust and Safety at the WMF. This includes a monthly call where we have a good working relationship with a few members of the T&S team - without naming names, they include some people who have been around on Wikipedia for a very long time, some of our best Wikipedians. Whatever your overall opinion of the WMF, these individuals have dedicated years of their lives to the project and on a personal level they are great people.

Finally, there's the community. That community that you've been a part of for so long will see you differently, for better or for worse. Many who knew you before you were an arb will treat you the same, but you will also be contacted by people you never knew and may become the target for harassment. So, be prepared to be talked about, have a thick skin for the little stuff and a good support network for the bigger stuff.

What does a typical day look like
The number of hours you put in to committee work will very much depend on the type of person (and therefore arb) you are. You will typically receive emails on a dozen threads per day, down from something like 40-50 threads per day, for Arbcom specifically, plus all the other mailing lists that go alongside Arbcom (Functionaries, CU, OS, clerks etc). This will ebb and flow, and you may have some very busy days. These emails are generally around appeals, but will also include people highlighting harassment that might be on-going on or off wiki, as well as potential issues that might be coming under our purview soon.

On wiki, there are about 3-4 cases per year. Each case lasts a little over a month, and includes a lot of text being read, and a lot of links being clicked. Be prepared to assimilate a lot of data.

There are a few other on-wiki roles to manage each month too, you'll see clarifications and amendments of old cases, plus motions, so be prepared to read over the old cases and give opinions. You are responsible for everything that has come before.

A few times a year, there are jobs that need looking after, appointing new CUOS as well as looking on CUOS activity, onboarding and offboarding old arbitrators are just two that spring to mind.

What a non-typical day looks like
Besides the business as usual, the committee has rather become the mouthpiece of the community. This means that if there is ever a schism, or a major community concern, it has become a de facto problem for the arbitration committee to deal with. That might be due to a case being raised, or it might be down to the committee simply putting out a statement, signed by its members. It only happens every few years, but be prepared to be at the centre of a storm.

The cost and benefit
Something that gets talked about a lot are the downsides of being an arbitrator. There's lots of emails, lots and lots of emails in fact (though less than there used to be). You have to deal with those situations that the community, or sometimes even the rest of the world, cannot manage. This makes for some very difficult cases, with a lot of stress and expectations on you. Equally, there are benefits - as an arbitrator, you are treated differently. You do become a bit of an ambassador for Wikipedia, people look to you for opinions. Unfortunately it also means some people will target you for harassment, possibly completely irrationally but simply because you exist.

There's also the personal cost. As an arbitrator sooner or later, you will be associated with the loss of a significant editor from the encyclopedia. You may vote against it, you may even recuse, but you will always be associated with it, even if only on a personal level. The longer you are on the committee, the more likely it is that you will lose a friend in this way.

In summary
It's hard to define what it's like to be an arbitrator, but I can tell you this. You won't see Wikipedia in the same way after being an arb.