Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Barkeep49/Questions

Individual questions

Add your questions below the line using the following markup:

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

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 Red-tailed hawk

2. Hello. Thank you for volunteering to serve on the Arbitration Committee. Would you please explain your understanding of WP:INVOLVED, and would you summarize the extent to which you agree and/or disagree with how the Arbitration Committee has applied the principles of involvement with respect to administrator conduct in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block, Manning naming dispute, and Climate change? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think the principle at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block captures a lot of my thinking. The rest is something I wrote about at WP:HERO in that there are times that policy permits you to do something but the wisest course of action is to instead let someone else do it. I think ArbCom got it wright at Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block which is why I voted accordingly. I think the admin in Manning had the substance right - and am glad that's what our policies and guidelines would have us do today - but was correctly identified as running afoul of INVOLVEMENT. There's a LOT going on at Climate Change and I feel like I'd need to dive fairly deep into the case to have an informed opinion about the actions there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   Edit:I realized I should perhaps have noted my answer about my own INVOLVEment in Reversal and reinstatement of Athaenara's block. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. El_C, an admin who frequently handles requests at WP:AE, wrote:

   Even though the DS reforms may help simplify and untangle WP:ACDS, there seems to be a disconnect between ArbCom and AE admins / AE work. Returning to accessibility, I've criticized you on a couple of occasions recently for your stance that appealing AE sanctions directly to the Committee be muted as an option. I said something like: '99 percent of appeals go to WP:AN or WP:AE, anyway, so why not let folks know that appealing to ArbCom is fully viable?' So, the actual question, finally: wouldn't it be good for ArbCom to handle the occasional AE appeal, if only so they get a sense of how their authorized sanctions regimes are used? (The point is that appellants would need to know that these would be welcomed by ArbCom, in the first place.)

   My question to you is this: to what extent should the arbitration committee handle or be willing to handle appeals of sanctions meted out at WP:AE? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   I occasionally would work AE before I was elected to ArbCom. At which point I promptly stopped because I became one of only 15 people who could hear appeals. In contrast there is a larger pool of admin who at least periodically work AE - I count 17 admins in November alone (plus 1 edit by me in answer to a question about a sanction I levied). That said I do think the committee should be supportive of the admins who work AE which is why their feedback was essential in the about to pass DS reform and includes an option I championed to send filing which are beyond AE's ability to handle directly to ArbCom for consideration. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions from TheresNoTime

2. How do you foresee the role of the Arbitration Committee changing with regard to the adoption of the Universal Code of Conduct (namely, due to the enforcement guidelines, and the introduction of the global Coordinating Committee)? — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I discuss the answer to that in my platform which I'll quote here:

   "...my biggest concern with the UCoC from the time the UCoC concept was announced has been that it would interfere with large projects who were already enforcing conduct. I remain concerned. I think on the whole the EG does a good job of putting in adequate safeguards. At least in theory. Much of how the EG ultimately plays out will depend on the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). It was important to me that we not have a Global ArbCom and as written in the EG they are not one. But much remains up in the air about the U4C because the EG committee deferred most details to a U4C Building Committee. So it is still possible that the U4C could turn into a global body that would overrule projects like ours. If elected, I plan to volunteer for the Building Committee in an attempt to represent English Wikipedia, English Wikipedia ArbCom, and ArbComs more generally. The devil is in the details and there are many details left to be worked out. Given my experience to date I think I am well positioned to help work them out." Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Is ANI pronounced A-N-I or Annie? Thank you for standing, and good luck. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 05:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   I say Annie in my head but I recognize that this is a minority viewpoint and have, when speaking it aloud among Wikipedians, started to default to saying A N I out of respect for that consensus. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 06:06, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Joe Roe

2. Last year you organised the RFA2021 RfC. This year you were one of the drafters of Conduct in deletion-related editing, which spawned two more large-scale RfCs on article creation at scale (recently concluded) and article deletion at scale (yet to start). Looking back on these, do you think the "mega-RfC" is a productive format? Do you see a role for it in future ArbCom decisions? – Joe (talk) 08:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   So I think RFA2021 failed. If someone had tried to bring forward eithe of the proposals that were noted as having strong support it could have redeemed it but it didn't happen. However, while I regret certain choices I made with RFA2021 I don't regret having tried. We all know RFA is broken and my attempt to fix it candidate by candidate isn't scalable. I strongly believe this from my candidate statement: strive to improve the project. If something isn't working, I like to try to find ways to improve it... I am open to trying new things, and equally open to admitting when those new things haven't worked. Fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better. So yes I was open to trying something new with the at scale case. I would not have supported splitting the RfC during the case and didn't support it when it came up as an amendment. However, because I wanted to give it a fair chance to succeed I simply didn't vote knowing a majority of the committee did support giving the mods discretion to make that change (and because I did support the change around appeals). I think it's too soon to tell if this will do much to help with the conflict it was aimed at solving an so I don't know whether I think it should or shouldn't be in the ArbCom toolkit yet. I will continue to monitor it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Gerda Arendt

2. Do you believe that we still have infobox wars? If yes, do you have better ideas than the 2013 arb ruling to end them?

   I have seen no indication of anything serious in the past 12-18 months. I think the war is largely over and it might enter the realm of "normal" content dispute within the next couple of years. On a personal note, I so appeciate everything you do for the encyclopedia especially around editor retention. It seems like the infobox wars left a lasting impression on you. I hope as the intensity fades you can find some peace about this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

4. Thank you, and I agree that the "war" is largely over. I just have waited for normal content dispute already for a couple of years, 7 to be precise, since 2015 when all arbcom restrictions for those who prefer articles with infobox were lifted. - Follow-up question, the same for all who answered the first: Where does the recently closed RfC for Laurence Olivier sit in your perspective?

   It strikes mas afairly normal content dispute. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:45, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So you think "How sad to see the same old faces mischievously hanging around the same old articles to take part in the same old infobox debates ..." is normal for a content dispute? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes it's hardly unusual for there to be one or two people who write a statement that is a bit much in an RfC with that many participants. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

One candidate has asked for more time due to a health emergency. To give you all the same chances: please look at Olivier talk again, and feel free to modify your answers. (This is not an answer to your comment, just info for fairness.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Spicy

2. In August of this year you initiated a recall process against yourself based on comments made by TheresNoTime. You stated that Based on the standards I have for myself, this would suggest I am not fit to be admin and My having a poor, deliberate, bad faith (all words of hers and all unretracted) action on a situation is, in my mind, completely incompatible with the standards I have for myself as a member of this project, especially as an an admin. You blanked the page a few days later [1]. Since you're now running for re-election as an arb, I assume you don't stand by these statements. In hindsight, do you think you would have handled this situation differently? Spicy (talk) 18:18, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

   You assume wrong. I continue to hold myself to very high standards - higher than the standard I use when voting to desysop others. I disagreed with TNT's characterization of what I said at the time and I disagree with it now. If I agreed with it I'd have just resigned. The whole point of the recall for me is to have other people whose opinions I trust act as a check on my self-judgement. So if some other functionary, especially one I hold in high regard, tells me that I have poor, deliberate, bad faith or the equivilent in the future I think it should trigger my recall process. What I would consider doing differently in the future is I'd be inclined to wait 24 hours in an indirect case (i.e. one where they don't say "I want to see you recalled" but instead characterize my actions in a way that falls short of my standard for myself) and see if they stand by the comments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from DanCherek

2. Thanks for volunteering. With this part of your statement in mind, I'm curious about your retrospective thoughts on your symbolic vote to close the deletion-related conduct case. When you voted to close, 1 out of 13 proposed remedies were passing, and when the case was actually closed six days later, 7 out of 15 proposed remedies passed. It seems to be a situation where the decision was being discussed and deliberated, but you weren't pleased with the speed – or lack thereof – at which it was happening. Looking back, do you think that symbolic vote effectively conveyed the point you were trying to make and is there anything you would have changed about it? DanCherek (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

   I would suggest that's exactly an example of ArbCom being slow rather than deliberate. It was around that time where I sketched out what became the section in my platform you linked. As I noted in that vote to close cases were closed faster in 2020 and 2021 and I don't think quality suffered. There was 1 proposed remedy after that point - which did not pass. So everything that was going to pass was posted and crucially the Principles and FoF were passing. I had made some comments privately about how long things were taking to close and didn't get anywhere so I decided to go that course of action. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from BilledMammal

2. Would you ever support a principle or finding of fact that is based on the Universal Code of Conduct?

   I have supported principles modified from essays or that I wrote from scratch so sure I would support based on the UCoC. I am not sure what supporting an FoF on the UCoC would look like. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Addendum: I think from a real politik perspective Robert is right when he writes Citing the UCoC when applicable may help to ensure that we are left alone by the U4C. and this is something the committee should keep in mind especially once the U4C comes into existence. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from Kudpung

2. Findings of Fact: Should the Committee have a duty to investigate the veracity of the de facto evidence presented by the complainant(s) and/or uninvolved commenters?

   Yes I think the Committee has a duty to investigate. I spend a lot of time looking not only at diffs but the context in which they were made because it's what I expect of myself as an arb. However I don't know that every arb needs to do this; it is instead one of the roles I see the drafters playing for the committee going deep into the evidence of the case allowing arbs to focus on other things (including off-wiki things). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

4. In your opinion, are sitting arbitrators exempt from due process if and when they commit an indiscretion that would get a normal editor blocked or sanctioned?

   I probably should just copy Primefac's answer: No. However I will note just how much work I see normal doing in that question. Arbs are not "normal" editors in that they have lots of social connections and editors (arb or not, admin or not) with lots of social connections don't get blocked for things that those without social connections do get blocked for. So in that sense arbs aren't in some special protected class or benefiting from some SUPER SUPER MARIO unavailable to others not elected as arbs. There are some good reasons that it plays out this way but I do in general prefer a more equal Wikipedia and so even this kind of distinction is one we shoulnd't be encouraging. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for these answers Barkeep49. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Nosebagbear

2. Currently, outgoing arbs retain their CUOS rights indefinitely (subject to the normal). Would you be open to a change of process so that outgoing arbs only retained their CUOS rights until the next CUOS application round, where they would have to request and be granted them in order to retain them?

   Thanks for asking this question of me because I have pretty strong feelings on it. I would not be open to such a change. ACE gathers the most participants of any process we have which is appropriate because election to ArbCom is pretty much the biggest grant of trust we have in editors. Trust being the key word in that sentence. I agree with those who might support such a proposal that the community isn't evaluating the technical proficiency of candidates, it's evaluating their trust in those candidates. However, I would also suggest that trust is the most important factor in this equation and the community needn't be doing an analysis of technical proficiency to be making good choices with CUOS. The community has repeatedly shown that it trusts Newyorkbrad to make good decisions. And NYB shows that this trust is warranted because he knows that those aren't the right roles for him by giving the permissions back every time he steps off the committee.

   This idea becomes particularly absurd, for me, when factoring in that ArbCom are the people who appoint CUOS. The resulting message of this idea, if eneacted, would be "We trust you to hold these permissions for two years, we trust you to appoint others to hold these permissions for a lifetime, but we don't trust you to hold these permissions for longer than two years without waiting 10 months and going through a hiring process." Besides the absurdity I see in this, I also feel such an outcome spits at the spirit of WP:NOTBURO and is against the general Wikipedian idea of a flat hierarchy. Why should CUOS be only granted by 15 people rather than the hundreds of people who participate in ACE? Especially because ACE acts as a CUOS check on those 15 people.

   Speaking for myself, I think I am a skilled Oversighter and am a competent Checkuser. With more work I could probably become a skilled Checkuser but that kind of work isn't my favorite to do. So when I was planning on not running for another term I anticipated keeping OS but giving back CU. This would have been my way of repaying the trust the community placed in me when they elected me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

2. Above, you write "We all know RFA is broken". Can you say in what ways it is broken, in your opinion? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

   I think the community did a pretty good job of identifying the issues. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

question from lettherebedarklight

2. why do you edit wikipedia? → lettherebedarklight → 晚安 → おやすみ → 13:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

   As I say on my user page, I edit Wikipedia because I believe in the mission of spreading the world's knowledge - for free! As I noted in my candidate statement I am running for ArbCom because of my deep belief in Wikipedia and the role it plays in the world. Providing high quality information, for free, has always been important but feels more so in today's world. As an Arbitrator, I want to continue doing what I can to ensure our community has the environment and space to advance our mission. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from AndewNguyen

2. As an administrator before you joined ArbCom, you enacted a sourcing restriction on a controversial article to prevent misrepresentation of sources. But it never was enforced, and when that matter was raised with you as an arbitrator, your suggested solution was to make an AE request to undo the restriction. This was not done, so the restriction has remained in place with nobody enforcing it. Later, the problem of misrepresented sources on that article was one of a few related issues that received negative media coverage, including from prominent figures such as Jerry Coyne [2] and Ed West. [3] Considering this eventual coverage, do you still feel that not enforcing your restriction was the right decision?

   There's a lot going on in this question, some of which is split into your next question so if I don't touch on some part you think important ask a follow-up. When I placed the restriction I was actively monitoring the article and there hadn't seemed to be a need for it to be enforced. Over time my attention went into other directions and by the time there was an ask for enforcement I would have had to spend considerable time evaluating the diffs in order to enforce the restriction. In that ArbCom talk page discussion I offered a very real way for someone who felt it needed more restrictions to do so - file a case request laying out, simply, misconduct. That was not what we had been given in that ARCA where we were not being presented misconduct we were instead being asked to change FoF for a closed case. That was backwards looking and wasn't going to happen. But forwards looking changes and enforcement was (and is) on the table. But again it would have to start from the misconduct. Alternatively AE was and is a place that a request for enforcement could be asked for. By the end of that thread I got the sense that Ferahgo wanted the restriction to go away - which seems to opposite of what you want here - and so I told them how to get that to happen. They didn't take me up on it so the restriction remains in place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

4. In general, when an administrator enacts restrictions on a Wikipedia article, what responsibility (if any) do you think that administrator has to make sure those restrictions are enforced? --AndewNguyen (talk) 22:07, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

   A small amount of responsibility, is what I think my answer is. Administrators continue to be volunteers and should be free to do the kinds of work that is interesting to them and which fits into the time they have to give to Wikipedia. Often times an admin who places a restriction is going to be the one who can best do enforcement because they have the required background knowledge to respond more efficiently. But also an admin getting into a WP:HERO mindset isn't good either. If something needs enforcing there are ways to get the attention of any number of admin, not just the one who placed the restriction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Questions from El_C

2. When you were first elected, you were my top choice, but now for the first time I'm leaning oppose. Say you were interested in regaining my support (not a given), what would you do to increase rather than decrease accessibility to ArbCom processes and procedures for rank and file editors (not just insiders like myself)? See also my question to Kevin about the role of clerks. El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   To answer the substance of your question, I remain intrigued by the idea that you've brought up of making our template for filing ARCAs easier. I personally don't have the template chops to do it myself, but as a concept I've brought it up and will continue to do so. While I am not currently a drafter on it, much of the work I did on DS reform remains basically unchanged, including writing instructions for administrators and much of the policy text for what has abolished AWARENESS (though to give credit Kevin did much of the foundational thinking on that topic). I also spend real time as an arb working 1-on-1 with people to understand our systems and procedures - you can see an example of that from the GSoW case and also in a couple of examples at WP:AN ex 1 ex 2. I should also note that accessibility to process in the extreme would be a bad thing. For instance, we could make filing a case request easier by not requiring notifications of the parties listed or examples of past dispute resolution. I don't think either of those would actually improve ArbCom as a whole even if they would make filing a case more accessible.So when making these kinds of process improvements there's a balance to be had. To be clear I though I think we should make improvement because as I say in my candidate statement, fundamentally I believe it is important for us to try to do better because we can be better. In terms of your vote itself, I absolutely want to earn your vote in the same way I hope to earn everyone's vote while knowing (and being comfortable with) the fact that 100% support isn't actually possible. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

4. And secondly, would you be willing to stand up to WMF overreach (UCoC and beyond)? Like, for real? Thanks. P.S. Yes, I've read your platform El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Since I'm not sure what real means, I'm going to do my best job of answering but please do let me know if I miss the mark. El C you are the kind of editor who has Che Guevara as a picture on their user page and I am not. If you are a revolutionary, I am more of an institutionalist. I think our movement needs both of us to be successful. This does mean that I do not think we need a revolution against the Wikimedia Foundation. And my vision for what it should do is more expansive than some on enwiki. For instance, besides keeping the servers running, I also have seen the real and necessary work that the disinformation team has done and am glad that the disinformation team exists. But I am absolutely willing to tell the Foundation that they have it all wrong and/or that they are stepping on the toes of the community.

   You've read my platform (thanks!) but for those reading this answer who haven't, in it I note some failings of the Foundation around budget. You can see how that plays out on-wiki in comments like this. In line with my general style, I tend to be more forceful in private rather than public comments and that has been true in this situation and others. However, I am also willing to take action when it's possible. For instance during my term ArbCom asked the foundation to do something, the Foundation formally declined, so we appealed that decision and had it overturned. I was the one who wrote that appeal and had indicated I was planning to move forward as an individual if ArbCom didn't want to as a body though ArbCom did. I'm proud of this work - it's one of the 3 examples of standing up to the foundation I mention in my platform. I'm just sorry that I can give more details about it because I'm quite confident that you and others reading this would also agree with our action and that what we did was genuinely standing up to the Foundation.

   Finally, I want to note that If I'm willing to stand-up to you during the time voting is open for an election, and I am [4] [5] even knowing that it could jeopardize your vote as you indicate I have in Q1, I would hope that would show that I'm willing to stand up to the Foundation even when doing so is not easy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   @El C: what do mean by standing up for real? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

   Well, I wouldn't say that standing up to voter-me is on par with standing up to the WMF (though, I'm humbled), and my sense is that you'll be elected regardless of anything I might say. But unlike real world politics, when it comes to EN's relationship with the WMF, I might be more of an institutionalist than you realize — in the sense that I'm more immediately concerned with an erosion of independence, here, at EN by the WMF. Rather than looking to wage some kind of 'revolution' against them, which I'm not and is not a thing. But thank you for answering in detail. I'll perhaps leave you with the advise to not neglect the public sphere (i.e. at the very least to avoid the perception of reflexively defending the WMF). Because even if efforts in the private sphere might work to offset this, knowledge of it is inherently, well, more private. El_C 17:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

6. Uh, for real for real. Similarly to my question to Guerillero: "The sense (my sense) lately is that you've been quick to praise the WMF — but criticize them, not so much." Anyway, a follow up to my first question. Even though the DS reforms may help simplify and untangle WP:ACDS, there seems to be a disconnect between ArbCom and AE admins / AE work. Returning to acessibility, I've criticized you on a couple of occasions recently for your stance that appealing AE sanctions directly to the Committee be muted as an option. I said something like: '99 percent of appeals go to WP:AN or WP:AE, anyway, so why not let folks know that appealing to ArbCom is fully viable?' So, the actual question, finally: wouldn't it be good for ArbCom to handle the occasional AE appeal, if only so they get a sense of how their authorized sanctions regimes are used? (The point is that appellants would need to know that these would be welcomed by ArbCom, in the first place.) El_C 13:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

 Electoral Commission comment: @El C: Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions, one responsibility of the Electoral Commission is having "the final say at what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question". Unfortunately, after discussing this with the other electoral commissioners (AmandaNP and Cyberpower678), we believe that your question exceeds the two-question limit. I know that you labelled the question as a follow-up to your first question—in our view, a "follow-up question" needs to be very closely related to the previous question or the answer given by the candidate to the previous question, and in this case, we believe that your third question here was not closely related enough. (Q1 was a broad question about accessibility to ArbCom while Q3 was a much more specific question about ArbCom's role in AE appeals.) Mz7 (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry for the trouble. Thanks. El_C 02:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from Anythingyouwant

2. Have you read both WP:MANDY and WP:NOTMANDY, and if so which is a more correct interpretation of Wikipedia policy? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry for the slow reply - I missed that I had new questions. I am of the opinion, that as with so much else, we should take our lead from reliable sources, particularly in this case reliable secondary sources. So if the reliable secondary sources include a denial we should include it as well with appropriate WEIGHT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Question from NewsAndEventsGuy

2. As you consider your reply to User:Anythingyouwant above, (A) are you aware that the essay WP:NOTMANDY is almost entirely their own work, and (B) does that fact, if true, influence any of your opinions on anything in the universe? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:02, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

   Sorry for the slow reply. I was not aware who wrote either essay but it doesn't change my thinking about the underlying issue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 5 December 2022 (UTC)