Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/TonyBallioni/Statement

TonyBallioni
Hi, I’m Tony. I’ve been a CheckUser and Oversighter on the English Wikipedia since 2018, and an administrator since 2017.

In terms of what I bring to the committee: I think something that most in the community recognize is that whether or not you agree with me, I’m going to advocate for positions I believe in, and I’m willing to dissent from the majority view when I think it is headed in the wrong direction. I don’t think any of that would change. I also bring to the table several years of experience both as an active CU and OS, and for the last 18 months or so one of the primary trainers of new CUs. I also have experience handling abuse of the tool—having submitted multiple concerns to the Ombuds Commission over the last 3 years, including one complaint that led to a more standardized interpretation of the IP disclosure policy across Wikimedia Projects. This is an area the current committee has a need for experience given their role in both unblocks and oversight of the tools locally, and I think I could be a positive.

As for more controversial things: I’ll admit I’m on the stricter side when it comes to some behavioral concerns such as civil POV pushing, socking, or good faith disruption impacting editors trying to build the project. I hope I’m fair, though, and on a committee of 15 people I would listen to the views of others before voting or acting.

I’ve also been critical of this year’s committee for being more active than I think necessary. I also was critical of their handling of the Bbb23 situation, something that in retrospect I should have handled more discreetly. At one point in my time on Wikipedia I thought a more active committee being more willing to resolve disputes would be a positive thing. Post-Fram I’ve reached a more nuanced conclusion. One of the lessons that I’ve learned is that centralized bodies are not always able to improve situations in decentralized groups even if it falls within their mandate.

With this in mind my standard for action and case acceptance will be a simple one: would action by the arbitration committee be more likely to actively help the situation beyond what the community can do in addition to falling within the committee’s scope. If the answer there isn’t “yes”, I wouldn’t be inclined to act.

Disclosures: I've already signed the required WMF documents as a CU/OS. I have an alt User:TBallioni, and another account as a teenager that I disclosed to ArbCom years ago that I abandoned for privacy reasons.