I am fine with most of the candidates, so I'm mostly looking at their thoughts on the upcoming Universal Code of Conduct, which I believe (and hope) will normalize conduct expectations and enforcement across the Wikimedia projects. For better or worse, I expect ArbCom to play a significant role in the integration of the UCoC into English Wikipedia processes within the next two years. Thanks to TheresNoTime and BilledMammal for asking candidates these questions.
I am evaluating candidates on roughly the following:
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
I don't believe the UCoC should lead to single-issue voting, so I'm not providing explicit support/oppose statements for candidates, but it should be clear how I assess each of the candidates' responses.
Guerillero
Link to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect change, claims UCoC and enforcement guidelines were "mostly cribbed" from the English Wikipedia. Notes that the U4C could intervene if there is a systematic failure of UCoC enforcement, but that such an action would trigger a "constitutional crisis". Can't think of why ArbCom would cite UCoC in a principle/FoF but doesn't rule it out.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Mixed. I'm skeptical about the claim that the UCoC was cribbed from the English Wikipedia - if that were the case I don't think there would've been much of an uproar when it was announced.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that it seems unlikely that much will change.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not addressed, other than that the U4C shouldn't be intervening.
GeneralNotability
Link to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect change, ArbCom already deals with most UCoC topics. Concerned that people will want to send all UCoC violations to ArbCom cases. U4C isn't super-ArbCom, which people were worried about, but depends on how it works in practice. ArbCom should be an active stakeholder in rollout. Fine with citing UCoC in principles/FoF if it makes sense to do so.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that it seems unlikely that much will change.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, wants ArbCom to take an active role to advocate for English Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon
Links to TNT question, BM question
Depends on how U4C interprets and implements their role. There should be slight changes to ArbCom, like working with U4C on cross-wiki abuse cases. If U4C tries to intervene, ArbCom will need to advocate for autonomy. Would cite UCoC in principles/FoF, as it's consistent with our guidelines. Plus, "Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C."
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed on slight changes. Specifically like the suggestion to cite the UCoC when applicable to make it clear to the U4C and others that the UCoC is being implemented.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, that ArbCom should work together with the U4C.
CaptainEek
Links to TNT question, BM question
Worried that U4C will be a global ArbCom, and that our ArbCom is supposed to be final, shouldn't be appealable. Already have UCoC enforcement mechanisms, don't need a separate body. Revised guidelines focus on local governance, except for systematic failures, which is ill defined. Community needs to have "frank internal discussion" on how to handle UCoC, needs brainstorming and RfC. Would only cite UCoC if there was no local policy or to ensure English Wikipedia independence.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Not really. Understanding of role of U4C doesn't seem in line with what the revised guidelines are. For example, says "...we don't need a seperate body for UCOC enforcement", which is is exactly the case, the UCoC says to use local dispute resolution mechanisms, and that a local ArbCom can be the "high-level decision making bodies", for which there is no further appeal.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- It feels more FUD than I think is appropriate. Yes, things are not fully defined, which leaves some uncertainty, but it feels like this is the least charitable expectation of what could happen.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified, implies fearing an adversarial role, which I think is the opposite of what is needed.
BoldLuis
Didn't answer any questions
Moneytrees
Links to TNT question, BM question
Opposed guidelines in ratification vote, sees as redundant to existing guidelines and ToU. There is a "real concern" that the U4C will be a global ArbCom that harms community independence, will work to prevent that. "half of the mind" that U4C won't have an effect on English Wikipedia. Revised guidelines are vague and ill-defined. Concerned that WMF is not always in touch with the community, and global bodies like Ombuds are "ambiguous and obtuse in their actions". In a principle/FoF it would be usually unecessary to cite the UCoC, but it could make sense in the future.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Not really. Understanding of role of U4C doesn't seem in line with what the revised guidelines are. The U4C isn't supposed to intervene if there is local governance enforcing it (aka ArbCom) except for "systematic issues", which wasn't brought up. Notes that the U4C is under-specified, but defining how the committee works is the next step for the U4C Building Committee to figure out.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- A bit FUD-y, but does say they somewhat don't expect it to have a "real effect". The comparison to the Ombuds commission is interesting, because that's typically a body that people have criticized for being ineffective by doing nothing, which tends to be the opposite fear of the U4C, that it would overreach.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Primefac
Links to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect much change, ArbCom will still be in charge, U4C will only be needed for "systematic failure". Some cases will end up there anyways. Will need another meeting with U4C. Can't see a reason not to cite the UCoC in princples/FoF.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that little will change on a day-to-day basis.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Cooperative, setting up regular meetings. Good.
L235
Link to TNT question, didn't get asked by BM
UCoC is intended for other projects, minimal impact for English Wikipedia. Will see how it turns out in practice, though good to see ArbCom is co-equal with U4C. Wants high bar for "systematic failure" intervention. Wishes U4C good luck.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed on minimal impact.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Tamzin
Link to TNT question, BM question
ArbCom becomes de facto court of last resort, U4C seems unlikely to intervene, even for "systematic failure", would be lots of drama if it did. ArbCom should continue relationship with WMF and establish new ones, including meetings, with U4C. Community should discuss if Arbs can sit on U4C. For principles and FoF, wouldn't support it if it was solely invoking UCoC, it should invoke local policy (if it's a good provision in the UCoC, it should be part of local policy).
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed, seems unlikely U4C will intervene.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, should establish working relationship. I like the note about whether Arbs can sit on the U4C because I think many people imagine the U4C as this distant global body, when it seems likely to me that at least one English Wikipedian will end up sitting on it.
SilkTork
Link to TNT question, BM question
UCoC is step in right direction, will see how it works in practice. Some issues are for the community, others are for ArbCom, and others are for U4C and/or WMF to handle. There are bright lines separating those areas, but also fuzzy areas, can't know what will come up. Address difficulties with "positive frame of mind and positive communication".
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Unclear, didn't really give any specifics either way. Maybe I'm reading in between the lines too much, but it feels like they are conflating the U4C/UCoC with the WMF, which, depending on your perspective, could be reasonable.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Not really stated, but expects that it will work out. I couldn't make any sense of the answer to BM, felt like it dodged the question.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Wants a positive relationship. Good.
Sdrqaz
Link to TNT question, BM question
UCoC is redundant to English Wikipedia policies. Now have 2 bodies doing the same thing, fear that U4C will infringe upon ArbCom's autonomy. Notes that U4C is co-equal except in cases of "systematic failures". Would support principle/FoF based on UCoC, but would prefer if it cited English Wikipedia policy.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Mixed. The interpretation of having two bodies investigating issues seems wrong, U4C is only supposed to step in for "systematic failures".
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- A bit FUD-y, otherwise doesn't really specify.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Barkeep49
Link to TNT question, BM question
New guidelines have safeguards on protecting large projects, but concerned about how it will be implemented by U4C. As written, U4C is not a global ArbCom, but the next U4C Building Committee could implement that. Plans to volunteer for Building Committee. Would support principle/FoF based on UCoC.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes. I will specifically highlight here that they were on the committee that revised the enforcement guidelines and probably has the best understanding of the UCoC of anyone standing.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Their reply might appear to be inline with others that I described as "FUD-y", but I think the crucial distinction here is that they explained what the current policy is, what it could be perverted into by the next building committee, and how they plan to address it by volunteering for said committee. So I'm in full agreement with them.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
I am fine with most of the candidates, so I'm mostly looking at their thoughts on the upcoming Universal Code of Conduct, which I believe (and hope) will normalize conduct expectations and enforcement across the Wikimedia projects. For better or worse, I expect ArbCom to play a significant role in the integration of the UCoC into English Wikipedia processes within the next two years. Thanks to TheresNoTime and BilledMammal for asking candidates these questions.
I am evaluating candidates on roughly the following:
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
I don't believe the UCoC should lead to single-issue voting, so I'm not providing explicit support/oppose statements for candidates, but it should be clear how I assess each of the candidates' responses.
Guerillero
Link to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect change, claims UCoC and enforcement guidelines were "mostly cribbed" from the English Wikipedia. Notes that the U4C could intervene if there is a systematic failure of UCoC enforcement, but that such an action would trigger a "constitutional crisis". Can't think of why ArbCom would cite UCoC in a principle/FoF but doesn't rule it out.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Mixed. I'm skeptical about the claim that the UCoC was cribbed from the English Wikipedia - if that were the case I don't think there would've been much of an uproar when it was announced.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that it seems unlikely that much will change.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not addressed, other than that the U4C shouldn't be intervening.
GeneralNotability
Link to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect change, ArbCom already deals with most UCoC topics. Concerned that people will want to send all UCoC violations to ArbCom cases. U4C isn't super-ArbCom, which people were worried about, but depends on how it works in practice. ArbCom should be an active stakeholder in rollout. Fine with citing UCoC in principles/FoF if it makes sense to do so.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that it seems unlikely that much will change.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, wants ArbCom to take an active role to advocate for English Wikipedia.
Robert McClenon
Links to TNT question, BM question
Depends on how U4C interprets and implements their role. There should be slight changes to ArbCom, like working with U4C on cross-wiki abuse cases. If U4C tries to intervene, ArbCom will need to advocate for autonomy. Would cite UCoC in principles/FoF, as it's consistent with our guidelines. Plus, "Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C."
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed on slight changes. Specifically like the suggestion to cite the UCoC when applicable to make it clear to the U4C and others that the UCoC is being implemented.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, that ArbCom should work together with the U4C.
CaptainEek
Links to TNT question, BM question
Worried that U4C will be a global ArbCom, and that our ArbCom is supposed to be final, shouldn't be appealable. Already have UCoC enforcement mechanisms, don't need a separate body. Revised guidelines focus on local governance, except for systematic failures, which is ill defined. Community needs to have "frank internal discussion" on how to handle UCoC, needs brainstorming and RfC. Would only cite UCoC if there was no local policy or to ensure English Wikipedia independence.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Not really. Understanding of role of U4C doesn't seem in line with what the revised guidelines are. For example, says "...we don't need a seperate body for UCOC enforcement", which is is exactly the case, the UCoC says to use local dispute resolution mechanisms, and that a local ArbCom can be the "high-level decision making bodies", for which there is no further appeal.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- It feels more FUD than I think is appropriate. Yes, things are not fully defined, which leaves some uncertainty, but it feels like this is the least charitable expectation of what could happen.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified, implies fearing an adversarial role, which I think is the opposite of what is needed.
BoldLuis
Didn't answer any questions
Moneytrees
Links to TNT question, BM question
Opposed guidelines in ratification vote, sees as redundant to existing guidelines and ToU. There is a "real concern" that the U4C will be a global ArbCom that harms community independence, will work to prevent that. "half of the mind" that U4C won't have an effect on English Wikipedia. Revised guidelines are vague and ill-defined. Concerned that WMF is not always in touch with the community, and global bodies like Ombuds are "ambiguous and obtuse in their actions". In a principle/FoF it would be usually unecessary to cite the UCoC, but it could make sense in the future.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Not really. Understanding of role of U4C doesn't seem in line with what the revised guidelines are. The U4C isn't supposed to intervene if there is local governance enforcing it (aka ArbCom) except for "systematic issues", which wasn't brought up. Notes that the U4C is under-specified, but defining how the committee works is the next step for the U4C Building Committee to figure out.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- A bit FUD-y, but does say they somewhat don't expect it to have a "real effect". The comparison to the Ombuds commission is interesting, because that's typically a body that people have criticized for being ineffective by doing nothing, which tends to be the opposite fear of the U4C, that it would overreach.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Primefac
Links to TNT question, BM question
Doesn't expect much change, ArbCom will still be in charge, U4C will only be needed for "systematic failure". Some cases will end up there anyways. Will need another meeting with U4C. Can't see a reason not to cite the UCoC in princples/FoF.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed that little will change on a day-to-day basis.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Cooperative, setting up regular meetings. Good.
L235
Link to TNT question, didn't get asked by BM
UCoC is intended for other projects, minimal impact for English Wikipedia. Will see how it turns out in practice, though good to see ArbCom is co-equal with U4C. Wants high bar for "systematic failure" intervention. Wishes U4C good luck.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed on minimal impact.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Tamzin
Link to TNT question, BM question
ArbCom becomes de facto court of last resort, U4C seems unlikely to intervene, even for "systematic failure", would be lots of drama if it did. ArbCom should continue relationship with WMF and establish new ones, including meetings, with U4C. Community should discuss if Arbs can sit on U4C. For principles and FoF, wouldn't support it if it was solely invoking UCoC, it should invoke local policy (if it's a good provision in the UCoC, it should be part of local policy).
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Agreed, seems unlikely U4C will intervene.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Good, should establish working relationship. I like the note about whether Arbs can sit on the U4C because I think many people imagine the U4C as this distant global body, when it seems likely to me that at least one English Wikipedian will end up sitting on it.
SilkTork
Link to TNT question, BM question
UCoC is step in right direction, will see how it works in practice. Some issues are for the community, others are for ArbCom, and others are for U4C and/or WMF to handle. There are bright lines separating those areas, but also fuzzy areas, can't know what will come up. Address difficulties with "positive frame of mind and positive communication".
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Unclear, didn't really give any specifics either way. Maybe I'm reading in between the lines too much, but it feels like they are conflating the U4C/UCoC with the WMF, which, depending on your perspective, could be reasonable.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Not really stated, but expects that it will work out. I couldn't make any sense of the answer to BM, felt like it dodged the question.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Wants a positive relationship. Good.
Sdrqaz
Link to TNT question, BM question
UCoC is redundant to English Wikipedia policies. Now have 2 bodies doing the same thing, fear that U4C will infringe upon ArbCom's autonomy. Notes that U4C is co-equal except in cases of "systematic failures". Would support principle/FoF based on UCoC, but would prefer if it cited English Wikipedia policy.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Mixed. The interpretation of having two bodies investigating issues seems wrong, U4C is only supposed to step in for "systematic failures".
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- A bit FUD-y, otherwise doesn't really specify.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.
Barkeep49
Link to TNT question, BM question
New guidelines have safeguards on protecting large projects, but concerned about how it will be implemented by U4C. As written, U4C is not a global ArbCom, but the next U4C Building Committee could implement that. Plans to volunteer for Building Committee. Would support principle/FoF based on UCoC.
- Is it clear they have read and understand the UCoC:
- Yes. I will specifically highlight here that they were on the committee that revised the enforcement guidelines and probably has the best understanding of the UCoC of anyone standing.
- Is their expections/analysis on how the UCoC will change things (if at all) reasonable:
- Their reply might appear to be inline with others that I described as "FUD-y", but I think the crucial distinction here is that they explained what the current policy is, what it could be perverted into by the next building committee, and how they plan to address it by volunteering for said committee. So I'm in full agreement with them.
- What do they expect/want ArbCom's role with respect to the U4C to be:
- Not specified.