v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2020 candidate: Barkeep49 Candidate statement Questions for the candidate Discuss this candidate

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

 Note: Per WP:ACERFC2020, starting this year there is a limit of two questions per editor for each candidate. You may also ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions relevant to questions you have already asked.

Questions from George Ho

2. Which ArbCom cases have affected you the most personally as a Wikipedian, even when you agree or disagree with the decisions made, and why?

   The obvious answer is Medicine where I was the filing party. I spent a lot of time last December and January as an uninvolved administrator trying to help nudge that dispute towards a productive outcome and after quite a few moments of despair I thought we'd gotten there after the RfC. However, the RfC didn't initially stick and I felt that ArbCom was the only place left which was disappointing because of the immense respect I had and continue to have for many of the main players on both sides of that dispute.

   Another case that I seem to have revisited a whole bunch is German war effort. I think it's a sneakily interesting case. You have an issue that is on the edge of whether ArbCom should accept or not. You have a conduct dispute but one that is closely intertwined with content which is a difficult situation for ArbCom (this content with conduct was also true to a degree in Medicine). Plus there were Nazis. I wrote more about that case in response to a question in last year's election so you can also see that for more of my thinking. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Hopefully different question, which ArbCom cases do you think have affected the English Wikipedia community as a whole the most (and, if applicable, the WMF)?

   The two cases that jump to mind here for me are Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe. Eastern Europe because I believe that is the first time ArbCom authorized what we now call discretionary sanctions. DS and GS are important tools in helping to calm disputes and was also a massive change to individual administrator power (at least in DS/GS areas). It is also a system, as a few sitting arbs have pointed out, likely needs a top down rethink. While the issue of DS reform isn't one of my top priorities, it is something I would eagerly participate in given that it might be a priority of other arbs and/or the community. This is an example of what I mean when I say I'm willing to do the work. As for GamersGate it was a massive and difficult case. It was also an important and necessary one for affirming the type of community that we want. Neither of these decisions were perfect (one only needs to look at the number of amendments to Eastern Europe to see that) but are two examples of how I think that ArbCom, on the whole, has done more good work than it gets credit for. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Gerda

2. In 2013, we had WP:ARBINFOBOX. In 2018, Voceditenore commented this. Would you agree?

   My introduction to active participation in ARBINFOBOX came when I closed the most recent RfC on Stanley Kubrick in September 2019 so I can't speak to what it was like in 2018. As you know, I ended up at ARCA this year because of an infobox related dispute. I think Infobox disagreements are mostly stable, that is the ArbCom case has been overall successful. However, the strength of feelings about them still runs deep. So there are periodic issues. If Schrocat and Cassianto hadn't exercised their option to vanish, I think we were headed towards a more in depth examination of the topic, but their doing that (rightly) lowered the energy around doing that. What that means going forward, I hesitate to speculate about. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:42, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Follow-up discussion moved to discussion page per new rules this year. Mz7 ( talk) 19:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Kudpung

I'm asking all candidates the same questions.

2. The Arbitration Committee is not a court of law, but it has often been suggested that it is 'judge, jury, and executioner'. I'm not asking you to comment on that, but my related question is: Should the Committee base its Findings of Fact and Proposed Remedy(ies) purely on the prima facie evidence presented by the complainant(s), or should its members have a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Thanks for your questions Kudpung. For what it's worth, in other Wikipedia contexts, including in a real arb case I would have asked a question in return to make sure I understood what you mean by a duty to thoroughly investigate the validity, accuracy, and/or veracity of those complaints before answering. However, that's not really the spirit of this forum, so let me go ahead with my answer.

   All volunteer editing time is precious and arbs have an obligation to spend time on Wikipedia in a way that no other Wikipedia volunteer editor does. However, that is not an unlimited obligation. As an arbitrator I will take the time to read what is written in the case and to examine the diffs that support it. This is how I approach serious content reviews and I see no reason to act to a lower standard at ArbCom. And I am naturally curious and desire to be empathetic, and so I want to make sure I truly understand the context of what I'm reading. So sometimes, for me, it will require going beyond just the diff presented to grasp the situation. When I am drafting a case that obligation to really understand the totality of the situation would be even more. If that constitutes a thorough investigation for you then yes I think arbs have a duty. If that doesn't seem like enough to meet the standard you're suggesting then no. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 01:42, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Wikipedia's drama board at WP:ANI is open to comment by any and all users. This could possibly affect the judgement of the closing administrator or even reveal a consensus that might not always be the most equitable. On Arbcom cases participation (sometimes throw-away comments) from uninvolved users who do not proffer additional evidence might also colour the objectivity of members of the Committee and their decision to decline or accept a case or evaluate the Findings of Fact. My question is: In your opinion, how valid is such participation? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 01:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   We have a system where we can elect fewer than the number of seats for a reason. If the community doesn't trust enough people to have an open mind to all comments but also the good judgement about what to give real weight to and what to dismiss out of hand then a seat remains vacant. So I trust the arbs, in the moment, to have the good judgement not to be swayed by the kinds of comments you're suggesting. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:02, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Barkeep49: Thank you for your answers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 09:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Newslinger

2. Under what circumstances would a dispute over the use of unreliable sources be considered a conduct dispute?

   It would become a conduct dispute when it spirals in other directions, for instance it has become about personal attacks or refusing to accept consensus. On the whole, however, this is the kind of issue that the community has proven itself quite capable of handling so it would be a very special set of circumstances indeed where it became appropriate for ArbCom to intervene in such a dispute. One such case was, as I mentioned in my answer to George Ho, German War Effort. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Calidum

2. The recent anti-harassment RFC was closed with several findings related to "unblockable" users. Do you agree with those findings and how would you address them?

   I think the key finding, which I definitely agree with is that there is no clear definition or easy solution to "unblockables"...and we should all be treated equally. I try to live the idea of treating all editors with respect. I also try to talk honestly and publicly about the ways that we, as a project, don't always live up to the ideal of treating all editors equally ( example). As an arb, taking a case of someone with a long block log can be consistent with the principles I laid out about when ArbCom should accept a case, as is taking more administrator misconduct cases. A key piece of that, however, is for people to open case requests in the first place, which is not something that ArbCom collectively, or individual arbitrators, could control. I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the RfC, whether here, on my talk page, or in some other appropriate forum. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:29, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Why wait until the last day to enter the election?

   Good on you for asking this question. I waited because I wanted to see what the candidate pool was going to be. If I didn't think I was going to be one of the 7 best candidates I was going to be happy to not run. When it became clear that this election was going to have fewer candidates I decided to run. I also waited, because, quite honestly, there aren't a lot of incentives to go earlier. I have written elsewhere ( [1], [2]) about the lack of incentives to go early and how that could be changed. I said good on you at the start because this kind of questioning/social pressure is another way of changing the incentives which I hadn't considered. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from A7V2

I am asking the same questions to all candidates.

2. How do you feel about this statement from the WMF, in particular the line "On these issues, there is no neutral stance"? Should there be topics on Wikipedia which are except from WP:NPOV? A7V2 ( talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   NPOV is a core content policy and there is no getting around it when crafting content. Maybe there is some ignore all rules exception to it but I haven't found it in my experience. It is a bedrock of my content work. As to the foundation, in my platform I discuss my thoughts about them. Ultimately they should not be getting involved in content decisions. If they do that's a problem and ArbCom is the group best situated to push back on that. However, I have enough good faith in the foundation that I don't quite read the statement in a content sense, I read it in a community sense. Yes the foundation should also not be interfering in how our community runs but I also don't have a problem with the foundation engaging in some advovcacy to try to influence our community. Each editor can then choose whether that idea rings true for them, or not, and act accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:53, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. There is at least a perception of left-wing bias on Wikipedia, both regarding content and internally (for context see [3]. One of the examples given is that for matters relating to Donald Trump, the 2016 US election and Brett Kavanaugh, editors making broadly "pro-Trump" edits were disciplined 6 times more than those making broadly "anti-Trump" edits, but this is not to say this was or wasn't justified). Do you believe this perception to be true, and whether you believe it is true or not, what, if anything, should be done to address it? A7V2 ( talk) 06:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Yes I am aware of that perception. I'm not sure how widely its held by our readers but it's one I've definitely seen expressed on wiki. So I agree it's part of the discourse. I saw that research as well and I have also seen editors criticize that research. I think right now we're ultimately at the "discussion" phase of things. For instance, what left-wing are we talking about? Is it just the US left wing or is it a more international left wing? If it's just a US thing that might have to be something we think carefully about but accept as an international encyclopedia. If it's a more international left wing bias then it would likely need to be addressed in the same ways we address other forms of bias because of our pool of editors, namely conscious work to try and bring in editors with those life experiences. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from AmandaNP

2. Each and every year issues of systemic oppression become louder and louder in society. In 3 major countries that our contributors come from have been dealing with increasing public pressure to address such issues. (US: [4], UK: [5], Canada: [6] [7]) Given this and the increased political attention this is getting, it's bound to be a dispute that spills into many different sectors of Wikipedia (race, class, gender, sexuality, disability, etc.). I would argue that cases where these issues could pop-up already have been litigated through previous committees ( AMPOL 2, MoS through ATC, and Gender through GamerGate) and will continue to do so. My question is, as an Arbitrator, do you think you have a role in preventing systemic oppression from happening on Wikipedia, and what would that role look like?

   I think Wikipedia works best when we have editors with a diverse set of editors and topics. Limiting myself to being an arbitrator, as opposed to more generally as an editor, I think I would have a role in preventing systemic oppression. This takes two forms. First in the types of cases we accept and the decision we issue. You'll note that when I was asked about the most important ArbCom cases by George Ho above, I listed GamerGate. As an arb I would have the opportunity to help nudge the community. This also speaks to the second way I would work on this and that is by using my status as a community leader to talk about these topics. For instance, in a recent discussion on a foundation reply tool, I brought up the needs of users who use screen readers. I am not an expert here, but I am committed to learning. Just this morning Izno contacted me off wiki about the format of my candidate statement, the knowledge which I'll use going forward. I try to be conscious of my status and to intentionally and thoughtfully use that status to help our community and that would only be doubly true as a current or former arbitrator. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. The role of CheckUser and Oversight are given to every arbitrator on request. CheckUser regularly requires experience to interpret results. Given you have a vote in how proceedings involving the overturning of checkuser blocks, the enforcement of the CU/OS policies including the privacy policy, and the appointment of new functionaries, how does your experience show that you can place independent thought into such decisions? I'm not asking about how you defer to others as that is not showing independent discretion and thought. (Cases relevant: {{ checkuserblock-account}} blocks where the behavior doesn't match but technical evidence does, accusations of violations of the privacy policies by two former functionaries, and the lack of appropriate staffing of venues - OTRS oversight, checkuser and paid editing queues, ACC CheckUser queue, and IRC Checkuser and oversight requests)

   Great question. I talk some about this in my platform so I won't repeat what I've written there (too much). One thing I do is ask questions. I've tried to do that on this page, even though the format isn't super conducive to it. I am also not afraid to be the first to express an opinion, even if it goes against the grain. You can see both these qualities in the yet to be closed RfC on a change to our banning policy. First I asked a question to make sure I understood what was being proposed. And then when it turns out I did, I cast only the second oppose with 9 supports. This oppose was then cited by several other editors so I think it made a difference. I am also pleased and grateful that several editors have taken the time to leave a comment on my discussion page that speaks to your question as well. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from IP user 2600:1004:*

2. A7V2's question above linked to this article, and asked whether ArbCom candidates agree with the perception that Arbitration Enforcement has a left-wing bias. Expanding upon that question, another argument made by the article is that when a controversial topic comes to be dominated by editors with single viewpoint, this creates a situation where violations of BLP policy or other content policies may be overlooked for months or years if the violations are favorable to the dominant viewpoint, because editors are less likely to fix policy violations that support a viewpoint they agree with. (See the section of the article titled, "How administrative bias affects articles".) Do you consider this tendency to be a problem, and if so, what role (if any) should ArbCom have in addressing it?

   Thanks for your question 2600:1004. All lesser trafficked articles are susceptible to bias towards the people who edit them. We have seen numerous examples of the years of that bias being promotional, thanks to UPE. So it would not surprise me if articles in controversial areas end up being titled one way or another. I won't repeat my general thoughts about the article which I already noted in response to A7V2. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Atsme

2. Adminstrators who oversee DS-AE in highly controversial areas are authorized by ArbCom to act unilaterally using their sole discretion, and that has raised some justifiable concerns because indef t-bans have been imposed in an ambush-style action at a single admin's sole discretion at the start of a case, be it ARCA or ANI. AE actions cannot be overturned by another admin; therefore, doing so at the start of a case denies the accused the opportunity to defend themselves, but assures the acting admin (who may or may not knowingly be prejudiced) that the editor will be indef t-banned without risking a lesser action being imposed by the community at ANI, or by arbitrators at ARCA. Such an action actually gives a single admin more authority than ArbCom itself which must act as a committee. Do you consider such an AE action under those circumstances I described to be an out-of-process action worthy of desysopping, or simply unconventional but worthy of your continued support if you became an arbitrator?

   Well the good news for you Atsme is that DS is a major issue in this year's election so you're not the only one with concerns. DS reform is something I am excited to embark on, but it is an example where I am going to defer drafting of proposals to other candidates for whom DS reform is a major campaign issue. I do have experience with the first mover advantage issue you outline here and think it needs some change. I think we're at a point where DS, at least at AE, can productively be done in a format that encourages consensus formation among administrators, just as with our other decision making processes, and that is the one piece of reform I would most like to see. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. There have been some issues involving long term surveillance/analysis of veteran editors by the same few admins who oversee controversial topic areas. Some concern has also been expressed regarding the modification of DS by a single administrator to custom-fit the surveilled/analyzed behaviors of targeted editors. Do you think such activity makes the admin involved and possibly even prejudiced against the targeted editor(s)?

   I don't think it makes an administrator WP:INVOLVED in a policy sense but I do think it can cause some troubles. Speaking personally, I try to be careful in the number of actions that I do in a given place. So during the Kyiv move discussion I was regularly monitoring the discussion (with others) for possible enforcement. I did not consider being the closer for that discussion. More recently, I decided to close a follow-up RfC, which means I will likely step back, for a bit, from any sort of enforcement. There are plenty of admins around and multiple admin acting in similar ways sends a far clearer message than a single "cop on the beat". I do have experience being the main admin in a heated area, as this was my status for several months around the issues that eventually led to the MEDICINE case. There are some advantages to knowing all the players and them all knowing you, but it can make life hard, as when a prejudice develops or the appearance of a prejudice develops. Administrators need to have the sense to know when their stepping away from a particular editor or conflict for a time, leaving it for another admin or a community process, is going to be the best for them, the editors in conflict, and thus the project.

   However, despite this being the way I operate I would have a good deal of discomfort in codifying it. I worry, despite the pool of admins I referenced earlier in this answer thinking more about AP2 where I know you to be active Atsme, about the number of editor-hours (not just admin-hours, but all editor-hours) to support our systems and processes. We have six-million articles (and growing), our encyclopedia becomes ever more professional in our operation, and yet we have a fairly stable number of editors who participate behind the scenes. Having new standard operating procedures that increase the number of editor hours involved is something that I think needs to be done carefully and only when the circumstances truly warrant; this is why, for instance, I frequently question calls for closes by a panel of administrators (especially for some RfCs where not only does it not need an admin panel, it might be appropriate for a non-admin to close). So I am biased towards lightweight operations where we can and only codifying processes that mandate more editor involvement in places like AE, where that involvement already occurs and where it is truly needed. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:56, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from StraussInTheHouse

While retention of productive editors and administrators is rightly considered important for the continuation of the project, the conduct of all editors, especially trusted users such as administrators is also rightly considered important for the retention of other users. I consider these two issues which are, unfortunately, often intertwined to be the most pressing types of issues to the project which ArbCom tends to deal with. I am therefore asking all of the candidates the same questions irrespective of whether they are a former Arbitrator. Many thanks and all the best with the election! SITH (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2. In the first three months of this year, three administrators were desysopped following three separate cases ( 1, 2, 3). Did ArbCom decide each of these cases correctly and why?

   I presented evidence at RHaworth's case and that evidence led me to the conclusion that my own incredibly unsatisfactory experience with him (which mind you was admin to admin) was typical and not OK for an admin. I feel that ArbCom definitely got that one correct. I'd have been inclined to recuse for Kudpung's case owing to the work we've done together. PORTALS was a massive case but I'm just going to focus on the BHG elements since that is what you're asking about. I think BHG had numerous chances to stop that before it reached the point that it did and, unfortunately, she didn't take them. In a couple of the AN/ANI threads I even wrote suggestions to her in the hope that she'd take them on board and head off what came to pass. I'm sympathetic to the idea, which I most associate with Beeblebrox, that adminship is incompatible with certain kinds of restrictions, though as I'm about to note in my answer to NBB I'm open to other options than warning/admonishment, nothing, and deysop. I have not reviewed all the diffs (and perhaps didn't even read all the evidence, I can't remember now) which would obviously not be the case if I was an arb, and so I while I'm inclined to believe I'd have voted with the 9 who voted to desyop rather than the 6 who opposed I can't say for certain. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Last year, there was a substantial dispute regarding the WMF ban of Fram. When, if at all, should a conduct issue (aside from emergencies, legal threats, child protection etc.) be dealt with by the WMF and was ArbCom's response to the WMF reasonable?

   I talk about this a fair amount in my platform and also wrote a lot about FRAM in last year's questions but I think the Foundation should play to its strengths and should respect our internal conduct dispute processes. What they did in FRAM was an overreach and they need to not do that again. I supported the letter at the time and think of the opportunity of ArbCom being community advocated to the foundation as an important element of why I'm running. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:37, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your comprehensive answers Barkeep49, no follow-ups SITH (talk) 00:24, 27 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Nosebagbear

2. In a number of edge de-sysop cases, intermediate sanctions (e.g. TBANs, rate limits) have been proposed, but are usually declined on the basis that any admin who receives a significant sanction (that is, more than an admonishment) has lost too much trust and should lose the bit. Desysop cases are therefore usually rather all or nothing. The Medicine case was a significant exception to this. Where do you stand on this somewhat ideological split - can admins receive significant sanctions but retain the bit? Would that be normally considered in edge cases or only in the most nuanced of scenarios?

   I'm copying over what I wrote in my platform since I think it answers the question. Does ArbCom have any options besides warnings/reminders/admonishments, and permanent desysops? I hesitate to write this section because I will pose a question for which my answer is, "I don't know." There is basically no "modern" track record of an editor being desyoped and then gaining the administrative toolkit back at RfA means that a desyoping is a far more severe penalty than if there was a viable path to community restoration. But I also think that warnings/reminders/admonishments are not worth the editor time in many instances of administrator misconduct. It's time poorly spent not just of arbs, but the community at large who think and comment on them. In many cases, there have already been hundreds of words spilled at noticeboards. If those didn't work, I am skeptical that ArbCom saying it would suddenly achieve a different outcome. So I don't know if there are any viable options besides those two options. Still, I write this section to say that I would, if elected, at least be open to exploring other options in certain administrator misconduct cases. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Fæ

Question from Mrwoogi010

2. Since Wikipedia's policies and guidelines can sometimes be seen as pretty confusing, especially for new members, how do you plan on approaching problems in which a new editor is involved in a case with the Arbitration Committee? _Mrwoogi010 ^✉ 20:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   Wikipedia can be a confusing place. Not only do you have policies and guidelines but you have explanatory supplements and even essays that can be as important, if not more important, than the official policies and guidelines. As someone who does New Page Patrol and as a member of the Volunteer Response Team I have experience helping new editors or even people who are not editors navigate through Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

   The good news is that because of how it's setup ArbCom should only rarely be handling issues that involve new or inexperienced editors. In most instances, the community is setup to help new editors (through places like the Teahhouse or to respond to new editors who cause disruption. This means that ArbCom never has to get involved.The only recent case I can think of where a new or inexperienced editor was involved in a case was where an experienced editor inappropriately reached out to a new editor. And that case was about the experienced editor not the new one. ArbCom has many practices and procedures that are unique to it and in my mind the clerk team is there to help editors navigate all that. This would be doubly true of an editor who is still trying to find their footing on wiki. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:32, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from The Land

2. D you support the proposed statement in m:Universal Code of Conduct/Draft review of Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns? Regards, The Land ( talk) 21:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I'll choose to repeat what I said from the hatted question. I believe in respecting my fellow editors and that includes respecting their gender identity. I endeavor to do so and wince with regret and embarrassment when I miss the mark. Those mistakes have led me to be more careful, such as by using Template:them and checking userpages to get it right. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:09, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2. What is your view of the WMF's Draft Universal Code of Conduct. Do you believe the WMF has followed an appropriate process to develop this document? If this or something similar is adopted by the WMF, then what do you believe will need to change in terms of English Wikipedia policies and the role of ARBCOM? Regards, The Land ( talk) 21:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I think the UCoC has moved at too brisk a pace given the scope of its changes but otherwise I don't have procedural concerns with how it has been handled. As for what it means for enwiki and ArbCom, I'll copy what I wrote in my platform. I think that if the UCoC comes anywhere close to doing what it’s supposed to, it will fundamentally reshape the global movement. That can be a good thing for those of us on English Wikipedia, a bad thing, or not a substantial change at all. Which one of those things it will be isn’t clear to me, but I hope it will be not a substantial change at all if not a good thing. English Wikipedia has advanced policies and guidelines around behavior that go above and beyond what the UCoC, as drafted, suggests. I would like a body that can deal with things like the far-right takeover of Croatian Wikipedia and if that’s a Global ArbCom, great. My hope is that whatever enforcing body comes into existence, and I imagine it will be a Global ArbCom, that it will tend to act in a way similar to Stewards. They will have technical authority, but will act with great deference to local processes, namely our own ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 22:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Epiphyllumlover

2. Could you do a written version of the Dolly Parton challenge for the first answer you provided to The Land in the section just above this one? Imagine you are now running for ArbCom in:

1. Rationalwiki 2. Conservapedia 3. Encyclopedia Dramatica 4. Wikipedia (already written)

1. No I couldn't because I've never, to the best of my recollection, visited Rationalwiki, Conservapedia, or Encyclopedia Dramatica so I have no idea what such an answer would look like for those communities. I am running for ArbCom on enwiki because I think I do understand our community and norms and think I can be appropriate representative to that in ArbCom cases and also other contexts (such as with the foundation as discussed above). Sorry I can't partake in the Dolly Parton challenge because we all know Dolly is just an awesome woman. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:14, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you for considering it.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

2. Imagine the governance of Wikipedia became unjust. Should anyone subvert the governance whenever and wherever it is irrational, or is resistance only justifiable when led by a lesser magistrate?-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 00:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I believe in Wikipedia's decision making process and I'm running for ArbCom to promote and protect what I see as a powerful (and imperfect) force for good in promoting knowledge. I think a way that you attract and keep good editors is by having a system that is seen (and is) just. However, no editor (including me) has a right to edit here. The power of the state, in all its many forms, is much greater than a ban from a website. So the need to keep the state in check to prevent tyranny against its citizens is not comparable to whatever danger Wikipedia as an institution has for its editors. In fact I think the greatest danger of Wikipedia is for those people we cover encyclopedicly, BLP is often named as the most important policy by people at WP:RFA for a reason, given how we're used (and misused) by journalists and others. To the extent that Wikipedian editors are in danger its from trolls and those who engage in long term abuse and again not the institution itself. That said civil disobedience is a way of protesting unjust systems especially by those without formal power. And I would suggest this is what Floquenbeam did during FRAM and which I noted with approval during his re-RFA. That is obviously someone who meets your magistrate definition but its an on wiki case I can point to showing I mean what I say.

   Let me just conclude with a personal observation from me to you Epiphyllumlover. I see, like me, that you registered a while ago but only became active more recently. I hope you're enjoying your editing. I'm not sure what your intention has been behind these questions but let me share what impression you've made with me. I've been left wondering are you a good faith editor or are you just engaging in some trolling? How, I ask myself, would an editor usefully compare a Dolly Parton challenge to whether Primefac dreams about Wikipedia, to pick just two of your assortment of questions? And I just can't come up with a great answer, to be honest, which is why I start thinking about whether or not this is trolling. This is also why, I believe, some candidates are giving you the most minimal of answers or are ignoring your questions altogether. I work hard to assume good faith so I have, as I'm able to, answered your questions and that's also why I write this. I'm assuming you're legitimately trying to decide how to participate in the election but whatever information you're trying to seek from us potential arbs this is not, from my point of view and my read of other candidate's points of view, a productive way of having gone about it. In the future (especially in an election I'm not running), know I would be happy to brainstorm with you an approach that might get you the information you're seeking without leaving the impression you have here, just stop on by my user talk. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:09, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Thank you, I will.-- Epiphyllumlover ( talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Instant Comma

2. What is the biggest challenge or problem facing Wikipedia? Instant Comma ( talk) 23:38, 24 November 2020 (UTC) reply

   I think our biggest challenge and problem is our systemic under-representation of certain topics. However, the challenge or problem that I want to talk about in the context of an ArbCom election, is what I perceive to be our shortage of editors compared to the systems and processes we've put into place. We have six million articles, and are growing; if we're going to address the system under-representation I talked about the first sentence we're going to need a lot more articles. Since I first joined in 2005, Wikipedia has grown up a lot. We've had to because we exist in the real world, our articles have consequences, and we are a hugely popular website. Yet we don't have, in my estimation, substantially more editor hours either to support this expanded article pool. More articles means a bigger attack surface for vandals and a softer target for them if they are smart enough to do harder to spot forms of vandalism that some bot or huggler isn't going to immediately flag. More professionalism, and that's how I'd describe us today compared to our past, means that we have more processes and expectations and those take more time to do but we don't necessarily have an increased number of editors, or editor time, available to do it. So backlogs grow and some processes are perpetually backlogged. Other processes are hugely dependent on a handful, or even 1 or 2, key editors and when one steps away for any reason (and they can - I can't overstate how much I love that we're a volunteer project) there aren't always enough editors able to step in to fill the gap.

   It's a real problem. It's also not one that I think has an easy answer. I want more articles (I've written a couple this week). Our increasingly professional systems and processes are appropriate responses to mistakes we've made and to the responsibility we have as an encyclopedia of our size and influence. What it does mean is that I look skeptically upon proposals that create an increased bureaucracy without a commensurate benefit. I talked about one such place regarding the close of RfCs in my answer to Atsme's Q2. I'm also going to look for ways that we can improve the efficiency of our systems. The discussed DS reform might be such a place. And of course I am going to take opportunities, like this, to publicize this problem in the hopes that smarter minds, or, as is often the case on Wikipedia, our collective mind can provide solutions I can't. Thanks Instant Comma for giving me a chance to weigh-in on this. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 00:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

• Thank you! Instant Comma ( talk) 01:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Genericusername57

2. The proposed Universal Code of Conduct states Respect the way that contributors name and describe themselves [...] As a sign of respect, use these terms when communicating with or about these people. Should this principle extend to religious names, titles, and honorifics?

   We try to not have formal social ranks on Wikipedia and do not, with any regularity, use any names, titles, or honorifics beyond our usernames and pronouns. I would be upset if the UCoC changed that social structure. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 23:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Question from Grillofrances

2. Could you compare the 2020 ArbCom with the previous years? In which aspects does it work better currently and in which aspects does it work worse?

   On the whole I think ArbCom has improved with time mainly because trickiest/worst material is now handled by professionals at the foundation which is a healthy division of labor. Several current arbs have talked about the good feeling among the committee this year. They've done that despite what I still see as a healthy amount of debate and discussion in their onwiki deliberations. Some of the rumors/stories I've heard of really nasty behavior between arbs suggests that's not always the case and on that level it's a success. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:54, 29 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from Robert McClenon

Being asked of all candidates

2. Sometimes when a dispute is described either in a Request for Arbitration or in a report to WP:ANI, an arbitrator or administrator says that it appears to be a content dispute. Many cases that are dealt with by ArbCom are fundamentally content disputes, except that conduct interferes with orderly resolution of the content issue. How would you assess when a dispute requires arbitration due to conduct issues? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   I think this is a place where it's more an art than a science. I certainly agree with you that content discussions can become conduct problems when those discussions go sideways. As I attempted to mediate the disputes that lead to the Medicine case, I would regularly try and keep conduct complaints separate from content discussions which was, largely, successful but there are grey areas. In terms of making sure I'm making a good assessment this comes from doing the work; not just reading the statements on the case request page but reading through the diffs. More information will help me make a better decision because I don't think the community desires ArbCom to take on content problems. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

4. Another type of case that is sometimes heard by ArbCom that is not a content dispute may be a case about an editor who has a long block log, but who is also a content creator, and another editor requests arbitration because they state that the subject editor is a net negative to the encyclopedia. (Such a situation will almost always involve an editor who has a combination of positive and negative contributions, because a difficult editor who is not also a content creator will be indeffed as not here constructively). Do you have views on when ArbCom should accept cases involving difficult editors? Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   ArbCom should take a case when there is convincing evidence that the community, which is capable of handling even for many challenging cases, has shown it has exhausted reasonable attempts to resolve the issue. In my experience it becomes pretty clear in the ANI threads/closes when we've reached this stage. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Questions from David Tornheim

2. Do you believe there should be a deadline for ArbCom to rule on appeals filed at WP:ARCA per these ( [9], [10]) ArbCom policies? Do you feel it would be beneficial to have more process deadlines for ArbCom action in cases where there currently are none? -- David Tornheim ( talk) 10:14, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   I do think deadlines are helpful with decision making. I have written more about this in my candidate statement and platform. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply

4. According to our article, Encyclopædia Britannica has a "critical reputation for general excellence". (See reputation). If so, can you explain why Britannica's article on acupuncture bears almost no resemblance to our article on acupuncture? Britannica suggests that it is useful alleviating pain. Our article casts a negative cloud, describing it as a pseudoscience, leaving the impression there is little reason to believe it is effective for treating even pain. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 11:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply

   I'm not going to sit here as an arb candidate and criticize the content of an article, especially an article under discretionary sanctions for a topic I don't edit. I do think your larger point is one we should consider as part of the overhaul of DS that it seems like the new committee will be undertaking (judging from the statements of numerous candidates), namely does DS, in ways that are contra NPOV, end up favoring certain points of view? But to answer yes we would need more data, even if just about acupuncture, than a strict comparison between us and Britannica in one way. If the answer is yes we need to change that. If the answer is no (remembering that NPOV doesn't require all points of view to be given equal coverage) then we need to know that too so we don't change that. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply