Why I chose not to run for ArbCom this year

This is not me...
Image via Wikimedia CommonsI have received a number of queries about why I am not running in the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections this year.

I was seriously considering it. I felt duty bound to put up or shut up, to try to effect the "change we need". But when I saw the quality of some of the candidates (whose views I by and large agree with) that were standing, I decided to stand aside. I have a lot of things to do and the last thing the project needs is another arbitrator that can't give full measure, attentionwise. I'd rather someone else were elected that could devote full attention. I hope I'm not wrong in judging their quality (and winnability) and that candidates I support and agree with do end up getting elected, and candidates I oppose don't.

But another factor is that with the SlimVirgin-Lar case so recently closed, after some analysis, I felt that the potential for drama and disruption if I ran was high enough that standing aside seemed a good thing to do for the good of the project. I'd note that the SlimVirgin motion has, even though it's been closed and SlimVirgin desysopped, been used by ElinorD to re-raise issues I feel are already well and truly settled, and by others to trumpet some of the victimization memes we've heard before.

As far as that case goes, I continue to feel constrained by privacy considerations about what I can and cannot say, and by decorum in not wishing to use the same level of vitriol as some of my opponents have employed, and by honesty in not wishing to distort matters in the way I feel some of my opponents have done... an election campaign with me in it at this juncture would possibly lead to more disharmony. Given that there are competent, generally right thinking candidates standing, why do it?

Instead I put those questions of mine together, at some considerable thought, as a summary of some of the important issues and philosophical underpinnings facing the project. Candidates have been evaluated by me (and others... I want to single out Kato for his particularly cogent and insightful work in this area) on how well they answered them. If the community nevertheless chooses candidates that fail to answer these well, so be it. But asking these questions and NOT running seemed more likely to effect the change we need than NOT asking them and running, and having the campaigns veer off into internecine warfare and drama.

So that's why.

If next year is a rerun of this year, if the candidates we elect this time, with the strongest community mandate for change we've seen yet, nevertheless give us the same arbcom we got before, or worse ... then maybe I'll run next year. Or find a different hobby. Because if there isn't a change for the better, we're in for it. And since I've been there, done that... I don't want to do it again.

ArbCom Vacancy

Wherefore "justice"?
(as if!) Image via
Wikimedia CommonsI think the little corner of the blogosphere that I (and presumably, many of my readers) hang out in has discussed the departure of Newyorkbrad from the English Wikipedia project, the events leading up to it, the events surrounding it, and so forth, quite a bit, so I'll skip the background.

But the departure leaves a hole in the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Brad was widely regarded as a very good arbitrator.

So now what. As the picture says, wherefore justice? (recall please that I feel that Wikipedia is not a government or experiment in justice or social systems, and that arbcom is designed to solve things, not dispense justice)

Traditionally, Jimbo does sometimes appoint to fill vacancies.

And speculation about who he might or might not appoint is already running at a fever pitch. Some speculate that the next people in order from the 2007 election, Rebecca and Raul654, are the most likely appointees.

Well, while they might be the most likely, and while they might not be "bad" arbitrators (both have experience), I think a better idea is to make a radical pick, one that shows some new thinking.

So obviously, I'm stumping for Giano. (you saw that coming, right? grin!) He is 3rd on the list when sorted by percentage, but first, when sorted by number of supports received. (and he got a LOT!) My reasons given at the time
are just as valid as ever, in my view.

What do you think? Am I crazy? If so, tell me! Am I spot on? If so, tell Jimbo! :)

Experts

Many systems of governance/management/administration (although not all) rely on elections to select, or partly select leaders/administrators/adjudicators. The English Wikipedia is no different, in that it has a system of elections for administrators, for bureaucrats, and for arbitrators. Some may quibble whether these are pure elections, but there is an aspect of community popular voting to all of them, to be sure.

It is important not to fall into the trap of thinking that because one won a popular vote that one is somehow more qualified on various matters than those that did not. This is an easy trap to fall into, and unfortunately, sometimes, some members of our ArbCom fall into it. The Mantanmoreland case provides some instances of this, in my view.

Here, Uninvited Company opines that the statistical analysis used in the Mantanmoreland case, developed and vetted by many other community members, lacks rigor.

Here, and here, Jpgordon opines that statistical analysis cannot (yet?) be relied upon, but that textual analysis by arbitrators can, and well should, be.

Here, FT2 is giving us a bit of "I know it when I see it..." which should give us pause.

There are many more examples but these suffice. The arbitrators, at least some of them, at least some of the time, think they know more than others about some rather esoteric topics.

Well, I don't agree... not to give the arbitrators too much of a hard time, but no, not always, not by default.

As I said here ... there is absolutely no reason to believe that arbitrators start out knowing any more about anything in particular (just because they won a modified popularity contest) than anyone else about things like evaluating checkuser results, performing and validating statistical analysis, patterns of speech analysis, jurisprudence, or even arbitration, the process, itself.

I suspect I am not the only person that feels this way. For example Alanyst answers Univited Company's opining with some vigor here, saying, in part:

The point is, for those of us who tried to do this the right way -- methodical, objective, transparent, public, open to either conclusion, willing to go where the evidence led -- the message we got back is that such attributes are not desirable in a sockpuppet investigation, and such matters ought to be handled by those with the experience and judgment to make subjective evaluations of private evidence, discuss them in opaque deliberations, and report unattributed findings of inexplicable inconclusiveness. To get that message back from people we generally trust and admire -- the several skeptical arbitrators -- is what remains so difficult to understand.

That is quite strongly worded, if you ask me. But it points to a real problem, but one that's easily fixed if people keep in mind their own limitations. We are all of us human, after all. No one should take offense at being reminded of this.

ArbCom confusion?

This request for clarification of a recent request by Everyking for changes in his remedies makes interesting reading... but only if you're sober!

If it seems very tangled, that's because it is. (Thatcher is usually pretty good at sorting things out but even he pointed out the contradiction of two motions that conflicted... ) But one good thing is that apparently some clarification on what to do in the case of conflicting motions will result.

Being an arbitrator is not easy. And there is definitely a tension there. On one hand it is good to avoid making the process and procedures too rigorous, too much like a court. But on the other hand, some structure is unavoidable if you want to avoid confusion. This is likely to see more discussion, see this possible Request for Comment.

Note to self: NEVER stand for ArbCom. It's too much like work. If anyone thinks I'm criticising ArbCom as a concept, or ArbCom members specifically, they would be reading this wrong.

Why wording matters

"Who cares what the article says, it's just a Wikipedia article, after all, and everyone knows those aren't very reliable. The exact wording doesn't really matter."

Jonathan Hochman (User:Jehochman on the English Wikipedia) writes about a number of topics, including why that's not a good view to hold in Using Wikipedia To Reveal Web Traffic Data, a posting on SearchEngineLand.com He is coming at this from the angle of using WP search/hit results to help determine how to optimize one's own website, and so forth, but the numbers revealed are telling.

Quoting the section about Waterboarding, a highly contentious article (and focus of its own ArbCom case as well as extensive checkuser investigations):

The article on waterboarding, ranking first, ran between 2.8k and 74.6k visitors per day during February 2008.

A total of 465k people viewed the article that month. Since the United States presidential election season began, editors have been fighting over the article lead that says, "Waterboarding is a form of torture." The phrase appears on the search engine results pages in a way that creates severe negative publicity for the Bush Administration. Several conservative editors have tried every which way to remove the incriminating phrase from Wikipedia. They finally became such nuisances that they were banned from editing.

What this tells us is that there ARE people out there who will try to use WP to further their own ends. We knew that already, but it's good to be reminded. Further, those of us that are active editors and care about the project really should try very hard to keep the project principles in mind, especially the Neutral Point of View. It's not easy, but it's critically important.

Wording does matter. The entire Waterboarding conflict, in essence, turned on one word, "torture", and whether that word was or wasn't an accurate thing to use in describing waterboarding. Removing that word was considered so vital that much skullduggery ensued.

The WikBack

Wikipedia has harsh critics. Some of them are not welcome on Wikipedia itself for one reason or another.

Wikipedia ArbCom member Uninvited Company has set up a discussion forum called The WikBack, at his own expense, to provide another place to discuss areas for improvement. (for various reasons, some Wikipedia editors prefer not to participate at Wikipedia Review).

This discussion forum has been a mixed success so far. Some lively discussion has ensued, but there also have been those who say it is not as successful a vehicle for discussion as Wikipedia Review. Others may feel that the posting rules at WikBack may tend to inhibit discussion, pointing to, for example, bans of a week for off topic posting (after warning) as being inhibitory.

Is the existence of WikBack good or bad? Acknowledging that since it is Uninvited Company's forum (he pays the bills) and thus UC has the right to set the rules as he chooses, are they too strict? Too lax? What do you think?

(edit: I spelt the forum name wrong, consistently. Now it's been changed :) )

NotTheWikipediaWeekly...

So... in what has to be an interesting twist, PrivateMusings, fresh off a 90 day ArbCom sanction, has started a podcast. In his first two shows he managed to have some very interesting guests. He's after me to participate. dangling that I'd be a guest with Michael Snow, who you may know was recently appointed to the expanded Wikimedia Foundation board. I'm not sure I run with that crowd, or if I have anything to say, really.

So what do you think? Should I? And if so, what would you want to hear me talk about? Let me know.

Mantanmoreland: So it has come to this?

The talk page for the Mantamoreland arbitration case proposed decision has reached 265K. (To be fair, a not inconsiderable amount of that text is from me, but I think FT2 and NewYork While this is not a record, it's a lot.

As I said there, we may be approaching a decision by exhaustion. The community and ArbCom appear to be at least in part at cross purposes. (That this case has high focus on Wikipedia Review probably does not help matters)

Given that as of this writing, no new arbitrators have voted in several days, it may be time to push arbcom to get to closure... any closure, if only so that the community can move on, and moreover, that the community can impose the remedies that ArbCom chose not to.

ArbCom is supposed to be the dispute resolution place of last resort but that seems to not always be the case, at least lately. The ArbCom acted to desysop ArchTransit, (full disclosure, I was the steward that did it) but that wasn't the end of the matter, the community subsequently banned ArchTransit. That is likely to be the case here as well. (and admins who think they can stand in the way of a community ban, like Canute¹ trying to stop the tide, might think again)

Is that a good thing? Or bad? Ultimately ArbCom serves at the pleasure of the community, and further, counts on the community itself (via the admins) to carry out the enforcement of remedies. If ArbCom gets in the habit of remanding things back, that's not bad as long as the problems spiral down to solution instead of spiraling outward and getting bigger.

Thoughts?
-------------------------

1 - Note that actually Canute was proving to his courtiers that something could NOT be done, by showing that the tide would come regardless of his wishes. This is a good reminder to admins who might think they are all powerful... they are not.

Giano stands up for Jimbo

Many of you know who Giano is, but for those of you that don't, he is one of the English Wikipedia's more prolific writers, with many Featured Articles to his credit. Giano has always been unafraid to speak his mind.

Giano stood for ArbCom in the 2007 elections and I was a strong supporter. Although he garnered a lot of votes, he was not among the candidates selected by Jimbo.

Concurrently with the election, the ArbCom IRC case came up and Giano found himself sanctioned by ArbCom, placed on a civility parole for a year, and Giano said he would not be back.

Recently, Giano returned. What brought him back? The current (ongoing?) scandal involving Jimbo, Rachael Marsden, and allegations of impropriety. So did Giano take some potshots at Jimbo in retaliation for Jimbo's chiding him? No. Instead Giano posted a long and heartfelt defense of Jimbo.

What happened next is probably predictable... there was a lot of back and forth, someone tried to take it off the page before discussion finished, harsh words were exchanged, and so forth. But that's not the point.

The point is that Giano, the candidate who detractors said held grudges, acted like a child, would be a bad influence on the project, and on and on... that candidate had the strength of character to stand up on behalf of what he believed right. Not on behalf of a friend, which is admirable, but on behalf of someone who had done him few favours.

That's the sort of person ArbCom needs. That we did not choose him is our loss.