Hi, I'm FT2, a past Arbitration Committee member. I've written 100+ articles and several GA's  ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. I update and author core policy, undertake cases of unusual difficulty/sensitivity and case review both at OTRS and in the wider community, and served on the Foundation's strategic taskforce (quality team)  ^[5]. As a checkuser I handled WMF's worst ever privacy access breach, involving extreme privacy/sensitivity issues and government liaison  ^{[6] [7]}. I have a long-term focus in BLP/privacy, and in making Wikipedia easier for the 99% of editors who are non-admins, dropping all tools a year ago partly to edit without them.

During my previous term on the Arbitration Committee, my work included:

• first ever publicized CheckUser statistics and compliance data  ^[8]
• first ever community involvement in CU/OS appointments
• first consistent detailed explanations provided for major desysops, blocks, unbans  ^{[9] [10] [11] [12] [13]}
• first formal apology for poor Arbcom case management, in a ruling  ^[14]
• first effective system for documenting and scrutinizing proposals and norms within the Committee
• first "report to the community"  ^[15]
• first arbcom induction manual (co-authored)
• ban appeals subcommittee (originally intended as community operated)
• process reduction (off arbcom)  ^[16]

Bringing cultural change to a committee is difficult. These were unprecedented and provided foundations for further developments in 2009 and 2010.

I was recognized as consistently careful and thorough  ^[17]. I rigorously reviewed evidence, corrected others' facts and proposals, and was helpful and approachable.

I took heat for some issues that year - my extended statement clarifies the difficult judgments involved and expresses my deep apologies. The issues were more difficult and the committee more conflicted than the community knew. I stepped down with full disclosure to and no finding of fault by Arbcom, and remained active in checkuser, oversight, and all other roles.

AC2010 is vastly improved. But RFAR cases are more complex - evidence review, wordings and communication can improve, and quicker, crystal clear, simpler handling is more essential but more remote (we're encyclopedia writers - not politicians). Arbcom can - and needs to - build on the start it has made, understand scalability is limited, reexamine processes, propose ways to safely devolve more to the community, and improve its service. It's doable.

I know the workload, succeeded in improving transparency in 2008, held myself to high standards without burnout, took the aftermath, and learned from it. If appointed I plan to maintain my past workload and these high standards.

Account disclosure - other project activities - improving arbcom