User:Robert McClenon/ArbCom Nov18 Statement

Introduction

I have been an editor of the English Wikipedia since 2005. The areas in which I have been providing volunteer support include content dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, draft article review at Articles for Creation, and new page review at New Page Patrol.

The English Wikipedia, with nearly six million articles, is a success story, one of the great success stories of the collaborative use of the Internet to provide convenient access to human knowledge via the Internet. It is essential that the Wikipedia community and the Arbitration Committee preserve and maintain the quality of Wikipedia, primarily against two problems. The first problem, older and more obvious, is troublesome or uncivil editors, who disrupt the electronic workplace, impeding the maintenance of the encyclopedia. The second problem is more recent, the result of Wikipedia’s success and respect, and less obvious and more subtle, and is editors with conflicts of interest. Now that the English Wikipedia has nearly six million articles, maintaining quality is more important than any expansion of the encyclopedia. As an elected member of the ArbCom, I will work with the other arbitrators and the community to reduce conflicts and to preserve the quality of the encyclopedia.

In recent years the ArbCom has heard fewer cases than in earlier years, because many cases are resolved by the community or by Arbitration Enforcement. I think that the ArbCom should follow a middle-ground approach, more than recently but fewer than in the past, as to how many cases to hear, and would suggest a “three-trip rule” under which issues, either content issues or contentious editors, that have already been considered twice by the community and come back a third time are ready for the deliberate quasi-judicial process of arbitration.

Clarification on Three-Trip Rule

I am not proposing that the ArbCom should proactively accept cases on editors or issues that have taken a third trip to a noticeboard. I am proposing that the ArbCom should, first, accept cases that have been brought to it in the usual way after a third trip to a noticeboard, and, second, let the community know that it is ready to accept such cases. This may involve either contentious editors or contentious issues where there is a content dispute that has been complicated by conduct issues. The ArbCom will not be implying any advance decision to impose sanctions, but the ArbCom will be making a decision that it is appropriate to consider whether to impose sanctions.

Paid Editing

The WMF rules about paid editing are clear. Paid editing must be declared, and undisclosed paid editing is prohibited. It has been said that the rules about undisclosed paid editing are weak, but that is incorrect. The rule is clear, and is straightforward, but its enforcement is weak.

The ArbCom has an important role in suppressing undisclosed paid editing. Arbitrators are highly trusted functionaries with access to non-public information, so that identifying information about undisclosed paid editing can be reported to the arbitrators without violating the policy against doxing, and the arbitrators should ban editors who engage in undisclosed paid editing. Undisclosed paid editing by administrators, which is rare, is intolerable, and should result not only in a desysop but in a ban.

The ArbCom should adopt a duck test about paid editing. If it walks, swims, and flies like paid editing, and quacks, it is an undisclosed paid duck. This will be similar to the standard used by lawyers of preponderance of the evidence. It may be harsh, but is needed to deter undisclosed paid editing.

So-Called Civil POV-pushing

So-called civil POV pushing is a frequent and sometimes serious problem. It is often not actually civil, in that sometimes the POV-pusher, while avoiding the use of profanity, can be so aggressive as to be insulting. (Profanity should be avoided, but civility is more than the avoidance of profanity.) If a case alleges civil POV-pushing, it is important that the arbitrators ask the parties to provide adequate diffs to demonstrate the pattern. The ArbCom has not always handled POV-pushing well. It is important that the arbitrators take sufficient time to review the record in cases involving POV-pushing.