Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Barkeep49/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

#{{ACE Question |Q=Your question |A=}}

Question from Peacemaker67

What do you think about the decision to accept Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort? In particular, considering the lack of prior dispute resolution attempts or attempt to use ANI to deal with the behavioural issues. Why or why not?
I read through that case request diff by diff. I am very sympathetic to your statement and pretty surprised that the potential issues of ArbCom dipping into content resolution wasn't better discussed among the Arbs prior to accepting. If I had been an arbitrator I would have at least tried to ask those questions. As my candidacy statement notes I think our community quite capable on the whole and jumping straight to ArbCom is counter-productive in general (e.g. outside of areas only ArbCom can handle like off wiki evidence, and, at least for now, allegations of administrative misconduct). In this request there were two mitigating factors here - allegations of possible off-wiki misconduct by Ke and the clean start by LR. While I would have had questions, and would have hoped for some more discussion between arbs, I'm not sure I'd have ended up declining the case either. The fact that pretty uniformly the people coming to the case outside of MillHist felt it necessitated a case, especially as some of those editors are the ones who'd have been likely to participate and help try and find consensus at a place like ANI, merits consideration especially in light of the elements ArbCom is best positioned to handle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that the banning was a walk-up start and should have been handled at ANI, but the rest has had little effect on either side of what was basically a content dispute. It was a huge time sink and the benefits were minimal because it was almost entirely about content, not conduct, and ArbCom isn't here to look at content. It has also been weaponised against good-faith editors, with a recent attempt to re-litigate it. I hope ArbCom will steer clear of these sorts of cases in the future, unless behavioural problems have proved intractable and unable to be dealt with at ANI. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis that it might not have been worth the amount of time invested could well be right. This is a big worry of mine - we don't have enough editor hours to do all we need doing on Wikipedia. It's why I mentioned elsewhere on this page I would like ArbCom to explore responding with motions rather than cases in some instances. So I want to acknowledge that up front - your analysis of the cost/benefits stands a good chance of being correct. That said, I don't agree that LR gets handled at ANI easily. Maybe handled at ANI, but not easily. And maybe not even at all. Again, ArbCom had a full set of facts that ANI wouldn't and so the case against LR would have just been about the account being created to harass another editor. I don't think that's a slam dunk in the way that an 11-0 finding was (and if I recall correctly there weren't any dissents even before LR came increasingly off the rails as it was clear the motion would pass). Does that justify an ArbCom case especially because it might have happened at ANI? No it doesn't. But what I find troubling, is that some number of members of the MilHist project would not have said that the person at the heart of the case was a good faith editor. And further, to use your language, that the mechanisms of the project had been weaponized against that editor. And I agree with you ArbCom shouldn't be ruling on content. I agree 100%. But since this isn't ArbCom, and I'm not an arbitrator (yet) let me comment on content and say that I think that as an encyclopedia we were not accurately reflecting high quality sourcing in some of our German War effort articles and that the mechanisms of the project were hindering efforts to achieve those ends collaboratively. Does all that justify an ArbCom case? Maybe not. Were there enough facts in evidence to support having taken the case in the first place? That's a bit dicey as I wrote before. But I also think, based on the evidence in play and based on the scope of what ArbCom could get involved in, as I remember it at the time, and in re-reading it now, that the findings of facts and proposed remedies were fair and were a legitimate effort at creating the conditions for collaborative high-quality content to be produced. And that is with-in their remit. This is the kind of case I am talking about in my candidate statement that leads me to believe that ArbCom is not a necessary evil and that considering what it faces ArbCom does a good job, on the whole. I hope my worry about the time sink of ArbCom is enough to win your vote, but also understand if the sentiment I just expressed is a deal breaker for you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Nosebagbear

Once the new ARBCOM is in we'll be seeing an "RfC [with] focus on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future.". Personally, what particular questions/aspects would you want to see discussed? Any particular concerns?
I have thought a fair amount about this since Fram's case was closed. I see three main topics: to what extent do we allow private complaints and evidence about harassment, how do we protect those who want to report harassment from further harassment, and how do we ensure that those accused of harassment have an opportunity to defend themselves? These aren't easy questions and finding the right format will be important as we need discussion of this topic but it's also an emotional one for many members of our community and editors who fall on a wide spectrum of answers for those three questions have expressed discomfort about participating at times. Finding a format that allows widespread brainstorming and even wider participation is important. For instance I could see us having a workshop phase - using something similar to how we do RfCs for ACE - advertised on prominent noticeboards and CENT, followed by a discussion/voting phase with wider notifications including watchlist notifications and perhaps even talk page messaging. But there could be some superior format already partially crafted - I would hope that the sitting arbitrators and the clerks team, to whom this RfC was initially assigned to be managed, have spent even more time thinking about this and have done so with the benefit of being able to bounce ideas off each other. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think Discretionary Sanctions are overly/underly authorised (and utilised, which is distinct)? How would you want to change it if you became an Arb?
I have done very little with DS (and outside of Crypto the same is true of GS) and so, despite reading AE regularly, I am not the right person to say whether it's being over or under utilised. For this same reason I would be entering ArbCom without any preconceived notions of change or reform. I think the discussion from May was a good one. Some degree of reform is also possible with what happens in PIA4. If other editors have ideas to further enhance what proves to be an unwieldy process at times well that's something I would be open to.
As for overly/underly authorised (this British spelling is so fun to do) one could make the argument that they're overly authorised and we should look at rescinding more of them and you one make the argument that they're under authorised and we should have nationalism (and/or modern day politics) authorised globally rather than for the numerous places we've already done so. This latter idea would be better accomplished by the community through GS than the Arbitration Committee as the community could better undertake an assessment of the impact of doing this implementation widely. Capacity committing I wouldn't mind the committee examining whether some (like Shakespeare authorship question) are still necessary. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Carrite

What's the biggest problem with Arbcom? Is it fixable or inherent?
The biggest problem with ArbCom is that it's handling Wikipedia's thorniest behavior problems and so it's going to make imperfect decisions simply because even the best decisions in these cases will normally be imperfect. This to me is an inherent problem. Beyond that every ArbCom committee has things they do well and ways that they fall short of potential. Trying to fix the ways a committee falls short, while maintaining what it does well, is something I would hope all Arbs would think about as they go about their responsibilities. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Carrite (talk) 13:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Banedon

Were there any votes in the last few years which you would have voted against what turned out to be the majority decision? If so, which, and why?
I appreciate this question because I too would want to know that an ArbCom candidate has courage of conviction and further would want to know what kind of minority viewpoints the candidates hold. So let me apologize now for the rest of the answer I'm about to give. I'm sure there would have been but I am not going to be able to give you a specific one. If elected my votes would be based on careful consideration of the evidence presented both written directly and the diffs presented and also the thinking expressed by the community in the workshop phase. Going through the GWE case request alone took me substantial time (I did it in two chunks but it probably totaled between 90 and 120 minutes). This is manageable to do so as the evidence comes in but becomes less manageable in retrospect so I am sorry I can't give you a specific example and why. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:54, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the answer to the above is no, how would you have voted on certain remedies that split the current committee? Feel free to pick your own remedies; otherwise you can also choose from these: [1], [2], [3]. (Feel free to answer this question as well even if the answer to the above is "yes", although it likely won't be necessary.)
Let me write about Rama's case for a moment. I have no reason to believe that the committee got this case wrong - again to really weigh in fully would require the hours of reading and consideration I would expect of myself as an Arb and isn't practical in the time frame of providing you an answer in a reasonable time (along with others below) to your question. A worry of mine is that we don't have enough editor hours for all that we need to do on wiki. Some of this is OK - articles can be useful to our readers even if incomplete. However, given the scope of our work we have relatively few people who do many maintenance areas. As a volunteer project, sometimes we spend more time on Wikpedia and sometimes less, but on the whole there is an opportunity cost to how we spend time in many cases. Time spent in one area can mean other work isn't done. An ArbCom case is a huge time investment by the community as a whole and an even greater for parties involved. At the end of Rama's full case was there evidence to justify a desysop? 2/3 of the committee thought so after examining the evidence and I'm not prepared to argue with that.
However, I do think it's an example where the community as a whole might have been better off if an admonishment was passed by motion when the case request came in. As I recall the evidence that was presented in the Evidence phase was basically all present in the case request. It was formatted really nicely in the evidence phase by several editors which no doubt took time and effort to do so, time and effort that I believe in at least some of the editor's cases would have been spent on other positive work if it hadn't been spent there. Rama was already a low output sysop and the admonishment could have been enough to keep them in-line with community expectations. To make clear I think Rama misstepped in their actions and failed to meet community expectations on more than one occasion and in more than one way about how a sysop should act. Did the community benefit enough by limiting future damage by Rama as a sysop to justify all the time it took to get there? That's a harder question for me to answer yes to. If elected I would expect at times to push the committee to considering - even at the risk of doing so by lesser sanction than a full case would show is justified - certain problems by motion rather than a full case. Hopefully that gives you the sort of thinking and context you've been looking for with these two questions. If not feel free to follow-up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:22, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this doesn't give me enough context. I'd like to see something more precise, e.g. in the Rama case, given the proposed remedy "For misuse of administrative tools and generally failing to meet community expectations and responsibilities as outlined in WP:ADMINACCT, Rama is desysopped. He may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship." - if you were an arbitrator then, how would you vote? If you would've supported, why? If you would've opposed, why? The arbitrators who voted on it gave their reasons ; I'd like to see yours. I understand that getting familiar with the facts of the case is time-consuming, so 1) feel free to take your time, 2) feel free to pick a different example/case if you like, and 3) feel free to say something to the tune of "I don't have the time to examine the full case, but based on the findings of fact ...". Banedon (talk) 00:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Newslinger

When, if ever, would discretionary sanctions be an appropriate countermeasure against paid editing?
When would it be appropriate? If a case was brought before the committee where evidence showed issues with paid editing that discretionary sanctions would be the right remedy to address. Bigger picture, having taken part in a few discussions about issues the community has with policy compliant paid editing this would be a different standard than what the community might need to enact GS or to enact a change of policy about what kind of paid editing we do and don't allow. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To what extent, if any, should the Arbitration Committee endorse the adoption of two-factor authentication on Wikipedia?
Administrators who fail to take reasonable measures to adequately secure their accounts put the project at risk. 2FA is one way that editors can choose to safeguard their account. I think ArbCom would be wrong to mandate administrators do this (though if put up at an RfC as a policy change I'd be likely to personally support it). I don't think it wrong, however, to remind administrators that they need to take care to secure their account - such as by using a long password that is unique to Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gerda

I commented in the Fram case, decision talk, like this. Imagine you had been an arb, what would you have written in reply?
Well your comment was the 69th section so despite the fact that I always enjoy seeing your thinking there's no guarantee if I had been an Arb that I would have responded. I certainly would have read it. And considered it. However, there's a good chance I wouldn't have written anything in reply - that's just the honest reality for that case where I would have certainly engaged in some discussion but would have found it impossible to engage in discussion with every thoughtful editor. However, since we're here let me address the substance of your comment. I agree Fram was desysopped out of order and inappropriately - and have weighed in along those lines at the meta discussion about partial and time limited Foundation sanctions. However, I disagree with your idea that it should have required misconduct following that out of order action for the committee to consider desysopping Fram. Whether Fram should or shouldn't be an administrator should always have been left to community processes, including ArbCom (and RfA if ArbCom choose to remove the bit). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, but I am not quite sure if I got it (because to my understanding, Fram was desysoped by T&S, so it wasn't to the committee to do that). Could you just say which remedy you would have supported in the 2 section?
Fram was deysopped by office action (by T&S). This was what was out of order and done inappropriately in my view. What I read you as saying in that comment is because of this illegitimate starting point no past evidence of misconduct should have been considered by ArbCom. Fram should have just automatically gotten the bit back. Some Arbs and other candidates definitely agree with that sentiment. I do not. As to whether I would have then voted to desysop or not, I can't give you an answer now. Despite having paid close attention to FRAM through-out, I am not sure I read everything nor did I give everything I did read the consideration of thought I would expect of an arbitrator and would expect of myself if elected. As such I cannot say what remedy I would have supported. Sorry. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:37, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, understand better now. I tried to spare you the second step, but ... - The name of my friend LouisAlain came up on meta, I suspect as a problematic area, while I noticed nothing wrong. My problem with the complaint here is that it seems based on a broad impression, but nothing I could nail looking closer. Or do you see anything worthy of desysop? Same case, same thread: subheader LouisAlain.
I agree with you that a bit more good faith would have been helpful. Including from Fram. Of course, I don't see anything that screams "must be desysopped" from Fram's interactions with your friend LouisAlain or the subsequent and related block of Martinevans. And according to finding of fact 6 netiher did ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. If this is so, could you imagine to have followed Worm That Turned, Opabinia regalis and GorillaWarfare to remedy 2e?
I would not have supported 2e. I think the idea that the Foundation could request ArbCom take on a case and ArbCom agreeing to do so is with-in WP:ARBPOL. WP:AC/P could use some tweaking about the mechanics of this. Fundamentally, if we're saying ArbCom represents the community, and I certainly am, then I think it's appropriate for the Foundation to approach ArbCom with concerns and for ArbCom to decide to open a case based on that request. If the Foundation has private evidence that private evidence should be considered in the same way all other private evidence is considered. How, if at all, should private evidence be considered? Well that's one of the three general topics I see the RfC needing to decide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cassianto

Last year, I was the named party in the ham-fisted Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions, that was brought about as a result of a biased committee not being impartial. The case should've been entitled Infobox 3, but the committee considered it to be too difficult to deal with the infobox problem and instead, made the case exclusively about me - suffice to say, the problem with infobox discussions still exist. I wondered whether, in future cases, not exclusive to IB discussions, you would consider it more important to deal with the cause rather than just the symptom?
I think this year's committee has shown itself very willing to try and get at causes and not just symptoms and I think that's to their credit. Capacity has meant that sometimes they weren't able to follow through, but I give this committee a lot of credit for their willingness to tackle thorny lingering issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, were you answering another question? I think you may've posted in the wrong box. Cassianto^Talk 17:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I was answering you, but not as clearly as I'd have desired. You asked should the committee deal with the cause rather than just the symptom. To which I said I think this year's committee has tried to do that with the cases they've accepted but didn't always have the capacity to follow that through to the end of the case. I guess I didn't give a straight answer to whether this is good or not - I think it is. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So on the IB link I provided above, do you think the previous committee dealt with the issue head on? Let me be more specific: The disruption is caused when an individual notices an article without an infobox, in this case Stanley Kubrick. They ask why there isn't one, on the talk page, and are told to check the archives as the current consensus is that the article does not carry an IB. Not satisfied with this, they then become uncivil by throwing around OWN accusations, which only goes some way to putting people's backs up. They then start another RfC in the hope of overturning consensus. When that fails, someone else comes along and starts another RfC, which again fails. Then someone else comes along and starts another RfC... I'm sure you get the message. The byproduct of this repeated disruption is incivility by those who were quietly minding their own business. That was what the incivility in IB discussions was all about. The case solved nothing, as since then there has been yet another RfC on Kubrick, literally as recent as month or two ago. I've lost count with how many infobox discussions have taken place on Kubrick. Yet according to the last committee, it was the fault of the people who became frustrated by this disruptive behaviour, and not the disruptors themselves. In this scenario, is it better to deal with the cause or the symptom? Cassianto^Talk 12:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. I would expect that works both ways though - consensus for inclusion of an infobox could turn into consensus to remove it. Revisiting a discussion is part of having a collaborative encyclopedia. However, that's not what happened at Kubrick. I am very familiar with Kubrick's infobox history as I read all the RfCs (a couple of them more than once) before closing the most recent one. As I noted there, people continually looking to restart the discussion about adding an infobox had become disruptive and I support the DS Bish enacted. ArbCom should not be deciding content issues. ArbCom should be creating situations where those who wish to engage in a content discussion can do so and I think Infobox probation is a reasonable attempt to do that, though I will note that it does favor those who wish to include them in an article as they can do so when creating) rather than those who don't (since if one isn't included when created and is added later, someone on probation would be unable to challenge that). That said outside of Kubrick I'm unaware of how, if at all, there has been conflict around infoboxes and if there's evidence that ArbCom has failed to create conditions where editors can make content decisions effectively I think that evidence should be presented at WP:ARCA. I also think that case would have been aided had you chosen to participate (though on a personal level understand why you didn't). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, sure, but should we be testing it every few months? Can you imagine having an article where changes were contested every few months, on either side of the argument? That is simply a recipe for ill-feeling and resentment, and doesn't do anything to build collaborative relationships. Re-running the same discussion every few months will just grind people down and the article would simply be removed from people's watchlists. The last committee failed to meet the problem head on and it was up to a lone administrator, in this case Bishonen, to solve the problem. It rather begs the question: why have a committee at all? Anyway, this isn't Infobox3, so I'll leave you to concentrate on other people's questions. Thanks for your time. Cassianto^Talk 00:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Kudpung

Within a very short space of time, the community accorded you the admin tools and and unanimously accepted you as coordinator of the New Page Review system. As the only gateway and firewall for new articles, NPR is possibly the most important single maintenance task on Wikipedia and demands a lot of time, skill, and knowledge. Arbcom, from what I have been told, is a huge time sink but also requires skill, knowledge, and dedication to the task. If accepted for Arbcom, how will you reconcile the two 'duties?
Short answer is I don't know but NPP is really important to me. Longer answer is that if elected I would be agreeing to spend additional time on Wikipedia - for instance on Sunday mornings I'm not normally around doing substantial work, but here I am answering questions. So some of the time needed to serve as an Arbitrator would come out of time that is newly devoted to Wikipedia. Some of the time would come out of time that I would have spent engaging in other community discussions. Some of it will, unfortunately, come from time I'd have otherwise been spending on content creation or NPP. However, some of the time I spend on NPP now isn't really the kind that could just be transferred to ArbCom including a fair chunk of the time I spend on Wikipedia at work. This time would remain devoted to non-ArbCom wiki work including NPP. I made the commitment to NPP first and I would expect that NPP would remain a core component of what I would do on Wiki after a year or two year term on ArbCom so not letting down the people who've given me trust at NPP would be a top priority. I considered the impact my serving on ArbCom (and also the impact of my running for ArbCom) would have on NPP and I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I could do right to both roles. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Leaky caldron

There have been occasional, some might say frequent instances, of a perceived bias in the way that prolific content creators are treated compared to members of the community who support the en-WP in other ways. Is this something you recognise? When these contributors end up at AC - how should they be treated?
I certainly recognise that those who contribute more to Wikipedia are going to get more leniency when they misstep (as we all misstep on occasion) than those for whom the misstep is a bigger portion of their total work. Writing good content carries its own challenges and rewards and I am sympathetic to those who do the work - knowing as I do some of what that takes through my own content creation. And I will admit that I think good content underlies all that we do and is what creates the reputation among our readers that we have. However, to pick an area that I don't engage in, fighting spam bots also carries its own challenges and rewards and I am sympathetic to those who do that work - knowing what I do from reading about their experiences and talking with those who engage in it. And I also firmly believe their work too helps to maintain the reputation we have among our readers. Good work deserves to be honored and frankly as human beings we all deserve respect especially anyone who is in good faith trying to contribute to Wikipedia. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of balance in your answer, which many will regard as commendable. But my question was intentionally not balanced and you haven't really answered it, unless when you say that those who contribute more are the content creators?
What I recognise is that those who contibute more to Wikipedia - whether content creation, spam fighting, or something else - get treated differently than those who contribute less. I also recognise that there is ill will from some editors about how content creators are treated; some feel they get treated poorly while others think they are given a pass. That's not a debate I'm interested in having. Instead I am interested in being respectful of all who participate in ArbCom and see it as a responsibility, should I be elected, to try and understand the points of view of all who end up as a party to a case. That's part and parcel of the respect I think they're owed as human beings. It doesn't mean I'll agree with them or not sanction them but it does mean I will try to understand them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:41, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Joe Roe

Criticism of arbitration decisions is inevitable. This criticism is often expressed in strong and personal terms. As an arbitrator, how will you respond to criticism, either of you personally or the committee as a whole? Do you think it will it affect your ability to remain objective?
I addressed criticism some in my candidate statement and agree it is inevitable. As I wrote there I think some criticism should be taken on board and cause the committee to do better, some criticism should be an invitation to start a discussion to improve mutual understanding, some should be ignored (for any number of reasons including it's poorly formed or is an understandable need to release feelings about matters of high emotion), and some confronted as toxic to the overall atmosphere of the project. Having the wisdom to know when to do each is the trick. If I am trusted by the community and elected to ArbCom I am sure there will be some criticism leveled at me that stings. I am human. I would hope through appropriate coping mechanism and self-care that it would never accumulate to the point where I lose objectivity. If I had lost perspective I would hope my on-wiki friends or fellow arbitrators would tell me in the same way that I would try to tell them were I to see it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WereSpielChequers

Are there any circumstances where you would think it acceptable to give an editor a fixed term block without telling them why or what you expect them to desist from when they return? (Yes, this is a Fram related question).
No. And while I'm here let me say that I don't think the Foundation should be handing out en-wiki oriented bans. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm very happy with that answer. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Collect

Ought Arbitrators who have been personally involved in any way concerning the facts of a case recuse themselves from any related cases?
Anyway is a really broad standard. When the committee is functioning around full strength, I think arbitrators need to err on the side of recusal. I think this protects both the committee as a whole and the individual arbitrator - from accusations of bias or from working so hard to show that they aren't biased one way that they swing themselves to being biased the other way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Realized I needed to make an addendum here - in cases where the Rule of necessity would come into play recusal would be less appropriate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry realized as I was finishing my answer to three I have a second addendum. I think there are two different kinds of recusal. There is a recusal where the arbitrator sits out the case completely. I think there is a second kind of recusal where they step down as arbitrator but participate as a member of the community. Conceptually I think this is OK and would defend the right of an arbitrator to do this (and might have even done so in the past). I think the idea that arbitrators lose their rights to be members of the community is harmful but seems to be the attitude, if only implicitly, of some. However, I would personally need to think really hard about doing this second kind of recusal before embarking on it. I would need to be convinced that the value I would add as a participant would be greater than the concern it might cause that my participation was being favored or otherwise given extra weight by people who are normally my colleagues. That's a tough hurdle for me to clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ought the persons named in a case be given sufficient time to answer charges made by others, rather than have each be given the same time limits?
I think this is a really intriguing idea. Conceptually the idea of closing the evidence phase for the community on one date and the parties at a later date feels right. I would be interested in having that conversation. I also think that the committee should exercise judgement in some places. For instance, if one of the parties dumps significant evidence shortly before the deadline, giving another party some way of responding, whether through a formal extension or some other process, also seems important.
I do think it important to note that "the process was flawed and I (or Editor Q) got the short end of the stick because of it" can be a natural human reaction when a case goes against an editor. It can be easier to criticize the process than the facts. Additionally, sometimes the best process will still be a flawed process because perfection isn't attainable (though I would argue perfection should always be what we're striving to achieve). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an arbitrator proffers specific evidence on their own, ought the accused be permitted to actually reply to such "new evidence" as though it were timely presented, with the same time allowed for such a response?
Fundamentally I believe someone should be able to respond. I believe that deeply, but the form of that response could vary depending on circumstances and could have reasonable constraints (e.g. around length of time someone has to respond).
I want to take a moment while on this topic to discuss the broader concept of arbs submitting evidence. I think this is one of those places I mentioned in my answer to Q2 where perfect isn't attainable. I will admit I find it a little silly that if an Arbitrator witnessed something but no one else submitted a diff that this evidence need to have zero weight. Going back to Q1 does that then mean the arbitrator is forced to recuse from the case because they want to submit a single piece of evidence? If so I think that creates bizarre incentives for Arbs to be less involved with the community and to otherwise obfusciate what has lead them to a conclusion. That doesn't seem like what we want either. Of course at a certain point the arbitrator truly does lose their ability to be arbitrate as they've made themselves into a participant. So I think there is a fairly constrained space where arbs can submit evidence while still acting in their role as an arbitrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Caker18

Can you provide an example of you mediating a conflict where both parties were mutually hostile?
I have closed some contentious RfCs, including two that had been part of a case at ArbCom and have done some WP:3PO work. While I am proud of that work, and understand why you ask it, I also don't think those parties asked to be brought into this high trafficked venue. I'm sorry that discretion doesn't allow me to give you a data point on what is a very legitimate request of a potential arbitrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SQL

Which recent unblock discussion (anywhere, AN/ANI/CAT:RFU/UTRS/etc) are you most proud of your contribution to, and why?
I have limited experience in unblock discussions. Obviously if elected to arbcom I will suddenly be working extensively in it and I recognize that this is an area where I simply lack experience. My interests are, and I predict will remain, focused in other areas and absent election to ArbCom I think unlikely to evolve in the direction of unblock work. By running for ArbCom I am volunteering to do all the work, not just that which most interests me so I would take this responsibility seriously, learn from my colleagues (and probably do some onwiki work to get my feet wet), but also make my main contribution to the committee's overall workload in other ways. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Praxidicae

What are your thoughts about functionaries and other advanced permission holders discussing Wikipedia and other Wikimedians (in otherwise good standing) with WMF banned editors, specifically those who have a history of doxing and harassment?
Ahh the question of WPO and Sucks. I think criticism worth considering can come from all corners and so I read those sites - sucks in particular has one critic whose perspective regularly makes me think. There are times at WPO where there will be a good discussion happening and I'll be tempted to join the discussion. But then someone will throw-off a casual doxxing speculation (or worse actually dox someone casually) or some LTA will engage in the kind of long-term abusive behavior that got them banned and I'll be reminded why I keep it at arms length. Heck the critic at sucks who makes me think (because of a strong perspective I agree with in theory and a willingness to really think things through) has been kicked off WPO and now finds themselves in trouble with the mods at sucks - just goes to show why these places need to be treated cautiously. Even though it is not for me, I am glad some experienced editors in good standing participate at WPO. I've seen them inject some sanity into insane discussions and ensure that even when a discussion stays sane that a wider variety of viewpoints are considered. However, I have also seen some theories - theories which the WPO community doesn't treat as theories but as fact - be brought back on-wiki by those experienced editors. In an arbitrator that could be really troubling and lead to bad places.
To circle back to my candidate statement, some of WPO and Sucks should be considered, some of it ignored, and some of it confronted as toxic. I think being a regular at Sucks or WPO means, based on normal social pressure, that an editor simply can't confront all that is toxic. That is not okay with me in an Arbitrator. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from SN54129

How would you contextualise Peacemaker67's question on the 2018 GWE arbitration case with the more recent suggestion by one sitting arbitrator, who advised Peacemaker...Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree, and another that MILHIST was counsel[ed]...to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden?
@Serial Number 54129: I'm sorry but I worry that I don't understand your question. Could you clarify what you want a comment about so I don't write what I think you want me to write about but rather what you actually do? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Piotrus

Two years ago I did a study of ArbCom, available at [4]. in which I concldued that "A practical recommendation for Wikipedia in particular, and for other communities with collegiate courts in general, is that when electing members to their dispute resolution bodies, those communities would do well to pay attention to how much time the prospective future judges can devote to this volunteering task." In other words, may Arbitrators become inactive due to real world reasons (family, job) and this is not an exception but a rule, repeated time and again throughout ArbCom history. Do you think there is any practical way to deal with this, such as, for example, asking Arbitrators to obligatorily describe, in their election process, how they plan to ensure they have sufficient free time to devote to this activity?
I'm sorry the paywall prevents me from reading the whole study. For me personally it would mean changes to my near-term professional plans in order to have the capacity to do the job I was chosen to do. Hopefully that, and knowing some amount of time I spend doing other leisure activities would not be spent on Wikipedia would be enough. Bigger picture I don't think there's any controlling for this. We had multiple Arbs who had successfully completed a term resign this year because of changes in their lives outside of Wikipedia. These people should have known better than most what was expected and further had already done that juggling act successfully and with enough community approval that they were elected again. So if they had described how they were going to do it we (the community) would have no doubt bought the explanations. And then the community and the arbs would have been wrong. This is why I'm glad snap elections are going to be easier to call as I hope it improves this situation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Gadfium

In User:Risker/Thoughts for Arbitration Committee Candidates, she says "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." What will you do if you're not elected?
I will continue doing New Page Patrol. I will likely enter next year's WikiCup, because I found it a good commitment mechanism for doing content work. I will consider some doors professionally that I wouldn't if I were to win which might have effects on my availability to do Wikipedia work at work. I really didn't expect to be running this year and only started to consider it after Risker (among others) suggested I seriously consider it (and for the record, I think I check-off the "Know why you want to run" bullet and it's not because Risker and others said I should do it). So my 2020 (and 2021) would look a lot like I had thought they would rather than on this very different path I've now started down. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WBG

Over this page, all of the arbitrators (sans PMC, who responded a single time) refused to engage a multitude of queries and concerns from multiple longstanding members of the community, despite the case being entirely situated on public evidence. I note this ATCN thread, as well.
Do you feel that the displayed behavior abides by general community expectations of arbitrator conduct? Some have since stated that the concurrently running FRAMGATE meant that they had to be less devoted to this case; in such a situation, how would you have tackled this case (if anything different, at all)?
I think ArbCom mishandled that case. It was apparent from the case request it was going to be as knotty and thorny of a case as they come and needed the depeest level of attention ArbCom has to give (like the somewhat analogous AP2). It didn't get it. Of course no one could have predicted FRAM. But once FRAM happened the committee should have found a moment to take a step back - especially given that the people who were charged with drafting the decision kept leaving the committee - to figure out what the right approach was and to communicate clearly and respectfully with the named parties and with the community as a whole about what that would be.
Since Volunteer Marek didn't ask me the question (example) he asked several other candidates let me take this moment to answer it. Conceptually I think the idea of the committee producing reports to the community is an intriguing one and one that I am conceptually behind completely and remain largely behind even when I start to think of the thorniness and potential drawbacks to implementation. I also think the committee should consider splitting their intracommittee and external communications. The internal communications should be an email address only sitting Arbs are on. This would handle discussions which require private deliberations (e.g. unblock requests) and the coordination of cases, which should be minimal, that needs to happen on-list rather than on-wiki. I think external communications should go to an OTRS like system. This would enable an automatic response that it was received. It could also allow for some level of templates to be available to acknowledge - whether by a designated secretary, a rotating assigned arb, or the committee as a whole pitching in - emails so that the person sending knows at least one arbitrator read it. Of course it could also allow for personalized messages in response as well. Further, if the community is truly concerned about this, and it has every right to be, I think the idea of how clerks are used in communications should be considered by the community. Would it make sense to appoint some number of highly trusted people (a la CUOS) to do more than the mechanical formatting that clerks specialize in currently? Maybe. Could this provide the sort of ramp-up to full-fledged service to ArbCom that someone like has suggested the community needs? Maybe that too. And if the community rejects it - which would not be hard to imagine or even a decision I would necessarily disagree with - then the community is also accepting some of the current drawbacks that we face. There are any number of places where the community has decided that the problems of the status quo are better than the potential problems of a solution. This could be (though I hope it isn't) one of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your fellow candidate, Gadfium writes:- Arbs should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases and that anyone who expresses an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. Do you agree with the premises of these statements? Comment.
I agree that anyone who has expressed an honest and constructive opinion should be taken seriously. I think Arbs should seek wisdom near and far. And while I think it should take seriously and consider all sentiment that doesn't mean they need to be swayed by it. ArbCom is dealing with problems too difficult for the community to handle (or should be outside of administrator misconduct) and so the loudest voices might not be the ones that need listening to. Along these lines, I also noted in my candidate statement that I think the tone and tenor of WT:ACN doesn't always reflect the tone and tenor of the community as a whole or even the part of the community that is attuned to ArbCom/WT:ACN. In the question above I included ways I think ArbCom should improve communication. However, a communicative ArbCom is not one that responds to every comment. Arbitrators remain volunteers and the increased obligations of ArbCom does not mean that they need, individually or collectively, to engage with every interested party to every ArbCom case. The community elects Arbitrators who it thinks are fit - this is why our system of requiring majority and super majority support is important - if there aren't enough candidates the community trusts in an election then those seats go vacant. As such the judgement of when and where and how, as volunteers, to engage is a prerogative I think the committee as a whole and individual arbs retain. Someone wanting to yell at you for doing a bad job has that right and has the right to have their point considered - you might have done a bad job. They do not have the right to an ongoing dialogue. The committee is neither above or beneath the community as a whole, simply entrusted to make certain decisions. Both arbs and the community need to keep this in mind by expecting that much from Arbs and ArbCom; no more and no less. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, in advance, for your answers. ∯WBG^converse 08:58, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Uanfala

This is not directly relevant to the Arbcom, so feel free to ignore this question. On two occasions earlier this year you were adamant that editors without the reviewer user right should not be making substantial changes to WP:NPP, and any such changes can/should be reverted on the grounds of them not having this user right. What are your thoughts about this, and how do you think this relates to the broader philosophy of the project?
I certainly don't think this question should be ignored. You write "on two occasions" but if I recall what happened correctly it was really in two different places with-in a short time that you'd made changes. If there really was a second incident some time later (or involving a different editor) please do point me towards it. Bigger picture, I think there is inherent tension between the "anyone can edit" ethos we have - and which I believe in - and the fact that we're a collaborative encyclopedia that operates on consensus - something I also believe in. When someone comes in with a large change - one way of being BOLD - there is a substantial chance that the response will be for the change to be undone and discussion started. That's collaborative. In this particular instance, you decided to BOLDLY change the process of New Page Patrol by adding in a new task and reorganizing the page and to do so without discussion. I think anyone deciding to BOLDLY change NPP procedure without discussion - me included - should expect to be reverted as changes to procedures generally need some level of consensus in a collaborative project. Further with this change, as you were not a part of New Page Patrol, you were in effect imposing a heap of work on other people to do. I would suggest that too was not collaborative. The consensus of the whole community, not any individual or holders of any particular PERM or any particular project, is what matters and frequently (though not always) changes to procedures, policies, and guidelines (that is changes in Wikipedia space) will require consensus achieved through discussion rather than merely BOLD editing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time. – Uanfala (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Robert McClenon

Some of the most important decisions by arbitrators are whether to accept or decline cases. What principles will you follow on voting on whether to accept cases that may be within the scope of arbitration, as opposed to declining the cases and leaving them for the community?
My first question will be "How likely, without ArbCom intervention, is it that the community solves this on its own?" In the case of potential administrator misconduct it's obvious much less likely the community can solve it on its own than with other kinds of behavior issues. If the community has tried and failed to handle an issue that too points to it being unlikely that the community will suddenly make headway. I just re-read your comments from March requesting ArbCom tackle portals. I agreed at the time, and this has only been proven true in retrospect, when you write, "It will be overly optimistic for ArbCom to decline this case by thinking that the community is a few days or weeks away from solving it." However, the reasoning behind the declines offered by the Arbs (the other thing I just re-read) also tracks. This leads me to my second principle (third really but you already granted the first one in the premise of your question) for deciding whether or not to accept a case.
After deciding it's in ArbCom's remit, and the community is unlikely enough to solve this on their own, I would ask myself what is how much benefit are we to see from a full case? As I write elsewhere on this page, a full case is a huge time sink for not all the arbs and the parties but for the community as a whole. If a full case gets us to a 100% solution (and we all know in honesty that a 100% solution is frequently impossible), I think there are times where a 75% solution done by motion might be a better result. For instance in the Rama case I support the end result. But given how low activity Rama was as an admin, could there have been some motion passed at the case accept phase that would have stopped short of full desysop but also stopped the worse of the behavior Rama was engaged in? All without the huge investment of time that I know went into that case by some editors preparing timelines and otherwise accumulating diffs? I suspect the answer to that is probably yes.
So to circle back to PORTALS, I agree with the Arbs that the timing wasn't right then for a case. But having watched developments since then I think the 7 months that have gone by means the case is now well past the the point where a full case is needed. I think there can be cases like this where ArbCom votes to suspend at the case request phase for two months, four months, whatever and then after that time elapses put back the comments at WP:ARC and invites further discussion from the community about whether a case is needed. If elected I would be curious what the reaction of my fellow Arbs and the community as a whole would be to such a motion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that the initial T&S action in banning Fram was a valid exercise of responsibility by Trust and Safety, a completely unjustified overreach by T&S, or something in between, such as an over-reaction by T&S to an existing weakness in the English Wikipedia's sanctions regime?
I think it was an unjustified overreach by T&S. I think this even though I also think en's harassment problem is real. But a real harassment problem is still completely improper justification for how T&S acted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In recent years the ArbCom has almost always been significantly late in issuing proposed decisions. The current PIA4 case is an example. Do you propose any action to reduce these delays, such as either shortening the delay between closing of the workshop and posting of the proposed decision, or providing a longer target date?
Under promise, over deliver is a good motto so if longer deadlines worked that would be great. Yet, I am a believer that deadlines spur action so I'm not sure stretching it out would really solve the problem. It might, but this is a place where as an outsider I feel comfortable saying that missed deadlines are unfair to the parties of a case and are not a great look for the Committee and I also don't feel comfortable offering solutions without having experienced things myself. I have to believe that the members of ArbCom, all competent and frequently excellent Wikipedians, know that that missed deadlines are unfair and a bad look. The fact that it keeps happening feels like something deeper and I just don't think I have the information to get at that deeper yet. I look forward to reading the answers offered by other candidates who are sitting and recent former Arbs to gain insights from them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:08, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Pharaoh of the Wizards

What is your position on undisclosed paid editing and what do you see as arbcom's role in enforcement of the WP:TOU?
UPE is that it's one of the two or three most serious content issues we face. I view it a a pernicious threat to Wikipedia and is something that needs to be fought carefully, but vigilantly. I can, capacity permitting (ha ha ha) see myself helping out at the UPE email queue that has been setup. It's something I think this committee did that's really right and I have already seen its existence pay-off in catching issues while still protecting the privacy of our editors - good faith and otherwise. ArbCom's enforcement of the TOU is trickier for me. I feel on much firmer grounds when I say I think ArbCom should be relying on local policies which are at least as stringent, and sometimes more so, than the TOU. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Grillofrances

What is the single thing you'd like to improve the most in ArbCom?
I would like to improve the discourse around ArbCom. This will involve, as I mention in my candidacy statement, of listening to some criticism, such as that offered in other questions around communication and timely handling of cases, ignoring some criticism, such as those merely needing to let off steam, and confronting that criticism which is toxic. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]