User talk:Barkeep49/So you're thinking about running for ArbCom

Good essay
I think this is a great look into the committee. I have a few stray thoughts that your essay inspired, but may not be directly related: Best, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 19:46, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * If you're thinking of not running because it feels like unending thankless misery, I would tell you that it's not agony and there is a reason some good people do it term after term. – this is very true. The work on ArbCom is sometimes unpleasant, but I don't think it's that much more unpleasant than a lot of non-ArbCom admin/functionary work.
 * I think BK's summary of how an arb spends time is a good one. One thing I would add is that as an arb, you will find that especially outside English Wikipedia (e.g. with WMF, with meta strategy work, with developers), you get taken much more seriously as a "representative" of some kind for the community. This is a curse as well as a blessing. Much of my arb time this year wasn't strictly spent on "arb business", but rather advocating behind the scenes at UCoC, the Movement Charter process, with Trust and Safety, with Legal, etc. We can quibble about whether this is a good or bad thing (for arbs to informally serve as community advocates), but we need people to advocate for the community, and as an arb you will be one of the best placed people to do that.
 * One thing I would add to the list of good attributes for 2022 is Editors with ideas on how to improve things. Mind you, you won't accomplish all the things you set out to. I was lucky to have maybe one in five ideas taken up. But the committee only works if people are willing to bring their fresh ideas to the table and advocate for them.
 * I'll also emphasize what BK said: be prepared to potentially lose a couple friends. But it's not as bad as a lot of people imagine.


 * These are all good thoughts. For the first bullet point I agree that it's not that much more unpleasant than other non-ArbCom admin/functionary work but there is one crucial difference that I talk about later: there's not the same opportunity to opt out of a particular unpleasant situation as there is elsewhere. That does make a difference. But it truly isn't as bad as the impression I get from talking to some (generally well-informed) editors). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Good point. Also I want to note re: feel free to reach out privately to me if you'd like to talk 1:1 that I am also happy to chat with any prospective candidates about what it's like to be on the committee. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 21:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to drop a note here to say, I agree with pretty much everything you say. Every Arb is different and each will get out different stuff from being an Arb - for me, I've always felt it important to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and Arbcom has given me the opportunity to do that in places - but your essay touches on many of the points that I would if I were to write the same essay. WormTT(talk) 08:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Just read through this. I think "For instance if you're extrinsically motivated you're not going to find being an arb very satisfying because there's just not a lot of that compared to a lot of other work onwiki." adequately justifies why I would not like being an Arb, and if dragged into it would probably recuse on everything and quit after a few months, possibly after snapping at some of the arbs angrily. However, I can't help but agree with Primefac's recent response that says there needs to be more diversity and fresh faces on Arbcom, otherwise things will never change. So what am I to do? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think there are many excellent editors who find that ArbCom is not compatible with their strengths. If you think "quit after a few months" rather than "serve for two years" (and ideally "serve contentedly for two years") is the most likely scenario I would suggest you should just keep doing what you do well @Ritchie333. Part of why I wrote this is to help editors who might be interested but might ultimately find it just doesn't match with what makes them effective volunteers avoid a commitment that they'll regret. That said I obviously agree that we need fresh faces on ArbCom which is why I ended the essay that way. Obviously your thinking can evolve over the next week as you think about it and I certainly don't want anyone reading this to think I would be unhappy to serve with you. If you want to discuss things further privately or publicly you know where to find me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Since quitting isn't going to help diversity, I agree that it would be better not to run in that case. The hard question is if you think you could work effectively for two years, but it would take a toll and possibly burn you out. I don't think anyone should feel an obligation to sign up for tasks in a volunteer project such as this one that would ultimately lead to their leaving the project, but I respect those who choose to prioritize their sense of duty over continued participation. (Some people might be looking to wind down their involvement in the future anyway, and so don't mind taking on less-pleasant tasks in the interim.) isaacl (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * I think anyone who nominates themselves with <24 hours to go should automatically have their final vote count halved on principle. ——  Serial  16:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing this tongue in cheek, but I think we could provide incentives to declaring early - such as better ballot placement - or we could provide a level playingfield by not, for instance, opening questions until after the nom period. But I am a big proponent of "deadlines spur action" so I don't hold it against anyone who waits. Indeed I ended up waiting until the last 24 hours last year (after declaring earlier 2 years ago) because I was waiting to see, per my own advice, whether I thought I'd be one of the best 7 candidates. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in 2020, I think ordering the ballot based on when candidates declare would promote a land rush of skeleton declarations. I appreciate some people may not mind this. Personally, though, I feel this would be less effective for determining the best candidates. In any case, since there's a week between the close of nominations and the start of voting, plus two weeks for voting, I think there's ample time for even last-hour candidates to be appropriately discussed. isaacl (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)