Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates/L235/Statement

L235

Hi, I'm Kevin. I've been an active editor since 2014, an arbitration clerk since 2015, an administrator since 2018, and a CheckUser and Oversighter since 2019. In real life, I study public policy and computer science at Stanford University.

I'm running for ArbCom because I've spent the last five years as a clerk observing ArbCom work (and occasionally not work), and I'd like to bring some of those insights to the committee. Our encyclopedia is a wonderful place where we work together to build one of the most ambitious, impactful, and inspiring volunteer-driven projects in human history, and how well ArbCom functions can make a big difference in Wikipedia's success.

ArbCom today fills two somewhat distinct roles. The first is its original purpose: to hear and resolve serious conduct disputes in the form of a standard arbitration case. While over the years fewer and fewer cases are brought before ArbCom because they are (satisfactorily or unsatisfactorily) resolved prior to arbitration, this role is still of critical importance because it acts as a safety valve. The effectiveness of this safety valve varies: if editors are afraid that everyone who touches arbitration will be sanctioned, if the rules at arbitration are unclear or overly complicated, if arbitration is simply too unpleasant, disputes will fester because the safety valve has broken. I pledge to bring to this role empathy, thoughtfulness, and care, and to seek to maintain only as much bureaucracy as necessary to function, knowing that anyone at arbitration is there not because they want to be but rather as a last resort.

The second role consists of the responsibilities that fall outside the core dispute resolution function but are structurally filled by ArbCom. In many ways most editors feel ArbCom's influence far more directly here: from dealing with undisclosed paid editing to managing the discretionary sanctions system, ArbCom's actions can have application far beyond the specific parties to a particular dispute before it. Discretionary sanctions in particular can use reform; I'm open-minded about the specifics and am happy to answer questions at length, but there are at least three broad things I hope we can address:

• We need to make it easier for non-expert Wikipedians to understand discretionary sanctions.
• The patchwork of DS templates is confusing to navigate even for AE admins and ought to be completely revisited.
• By design DS has a first-mover advantage, but perhaps it's too strong. Admins shouldn't invoke DS just to make it hard to overturn their actions, especially page restrictions that no one will appeal.

Disclosures: As a functionary I am identified to the Wikimedia Foundation and will continue to comply with the nonpublic information policy. On occasion I edit using L236 (talk · contribs) or (rarely) L235 on the road (talk · contribs); I also have some non-editing accounts.

• L235 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)