Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates

Shortcuts

2010 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are closed. Voters were invited to review, question and discuss the candidates.
Voting is now closed. Voting ran for 10 days from 00:01 UTC Friday 26 November to 23:59 UTC Sunday 5 December.
Editors were encouraged to review the on-wiki voter log to investigate and annotate possible cases of vote fraud.
The results have been released and formally announced, and the successful candidates have assumed their seats.
Feedback is solicited from all participants in the election.

Shortcut

WP:ACE2010/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2010 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

Eligibility criteria

To stand as a candidate, an editor must have:

made at least 1,000 edits (including deleted edits) to the English Wikipedia article namespace as of 00:01 UTC on 14 November 2010.
been at least 18 years of age and of legal age in their place of residence.^[note]
been willing and able to identify to the Wikimedia Foundation before taking their seat.^[note]

Candidate statements

There are no fixed guidelines for how to write a statement, but many candidates treat this as an opportunity, in their own way, to put a cogent case as to why editors should vote for them—highlighting the strengths they would bring to the job, and convincing the community they would cope with the workload and responsibilities of being an arbitrator.

Statements must:

not exceed a limit of 400 words (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);
include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

Footnotes

^{^} From the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy:

Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

Standing candidates

Balloonman

Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will remain on the ballot.

I've been contemplating this for a week or so, I know, "I'm retired." So why subject myself to this hell? Because I like to dig into issues and have been looking for a way to stay involved with Wikipedia. I can honestly say that I am not running to put a feather in my cap, if elected, I will serve and do so to the best of my abilities. If not elected, no problem.

I used to be very active at RfA. I was one of the tougher reviewers and known for the depth to which I would investigate candidates. Over the past two years I've pulled back my involvement there, but point it more to demonstrate that I can dig into issues and histories.

I still like to delve into issues, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Gore Effect, a place where I closed a controversial AFD, but in a manner that I think both sides appreciate. I also closed debate centering on Palestine in a manner that people appreciated the close. More recently, just prior to the elections, I was called upon several times to discuss the Tea Party Movement---I think that by looking at my comments there, you should be able to see that there are places where I "sided" with both "sides" of the issue. I bring those up because I looked carefully at each issue and resolved the cases on the merits of the arguments, which is the attitude I would bring here.

I'd like to think that most people trust me to be objective and thoughtful on issues. I don't expect them to always have agreed with me or will agree with me in the future. But I do like to think that people trust me to put personal issues aside or to recluse myself where necessary. As for other names... only a period where I went by "I'm Spartacus!" and occassional IP's where I edited while logged out not realizing that I was logged out.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Casliber

Hi, my name is Cas Liber and I have decided after some thought to run for the arbitration committee. I ran successfully for the committee in the 2008 elections, and my introduction remains pretty much the same. I enjoyed the nine months I spent on the committee until my resignation, and the ensuing discussion, where although the balance was in favour of me staying, enough people whose opinions I valued were unimpressed enough for me to figure on going as the right thing to do. Furthermore I had strong feelings on socking and felt like a hypocrite. Anyway, it was one of those blunders I had wearing "friend-hat" and not "arb-hat" on.

So why am I here? Two reasons. I always felt the adminship process was not truly broken, and we were doing okay (and in fact I'd like to believe that I was one of the folks on the committee in early 2009 who helped the committee be more proactive in reviewing and taking action over admin conduct at that time), but some recent Requests for Adminship in the last month or two I felt the atmosphere had deteriorated to the point that there is a real malaise there. Since 2009, I have often commented at RfA that the committee is a safety valve, however folks have been loth to refer for admin issues. I think it is time maybe we look at broadening the AUSC to cover admin conduct, or some other process, anyway time for action/tweak the makeup of things.

The second issue was the resignation of Rlevse and subsequent discussions, where I did feel a sense of fraying of the threads of community further. I have always felt that arbs do better as active and involved members of the wikipedia community, and I was really worried about some of the us/them comments as folks' tempers frayed, by all sorts of experienced editors. As an active contributor to the Featured Article, Good Article and DYK process, I feel I am a good person to tie everyone together and get everyone moving in the same direction. I reckon we have alot more similarities in common than differences.

I just realised David Fuchs beat me to it, but the encyclopedia thing's important, and I think being elbow-deep in the processes that make or improve content gives an experience and viewpoint it is hard to duplicate.

PS: No other accounts, maybe the odd IP edit.

Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

Well, where to start? Most of you will have seen me around and recognise my username. I joined Wikipedia in 2004 as an IP, and created this account in 2005. In November 2007 I became an administrator with a 98/2/0 pass (the only serious oppose being over my username). I since became involved in OTRS, answering the Foundation's private emails and phone calls, and even more recently running the official Twitter account, @Wikicontribute, working closely with staff from the office and members of the public.

I'm running for ArbCom for one main reason: other editors have asked me to. The skills I've garnered from OTRS would help no end with the work that ArbCom does, as a lot of it involves private information and mediating between editors and sometimes contentious parties (who are often the subjects of articles). I've been involved with nearly all parts of Wikipedia, and feel confident that I have both the free time and the life experience to carry out the role to a high standard. I think my question answers should tell you how I feel about particular policies or decisions, but as always, if you have any questions, please ask!

Disclosure: I used to edit as HawkerTyphoon (talk · contribs) until I changed my username via WP:CHU in August 2007. I have not edited under any other accounts, but did once create doppelganger account Chase me ladies, I'm the Calvary (talk · contribs), which I no longer remember the password for.

Many of you will no doubt have concerns about my lack of content creation, I therefore give you RMAS Typhoon (A95) and Bird class patrol vessel, my two content creations from the previous month. Most of my absences in my editing history are directly linked to training courses I attended in the previous year, of which I need to take two weeks (minimum) per year.

David Fuchs

Many people who don't haunt WP:FAC, WP:GAN, or WP:PR probably don't know me. I joined Wikipedia sometime back in 2005, became an admin in 2007, and have been editing fairly consistently since (for those history-minded chaps out there, I was also a runner-up in the 2007 ACE). I'll keep this stuff short, because I imagine the questions are where the real action happens.

My belief is that we should all be here to—in some way or form—create an encyclopedia, and all of ArbCom's actions should be mindful of that. Fostering a site that allows editors to work diligently means having an Arbitration Committee that acts fairly, quickly, and prudently. If elected, this would be my aim.

Username business: I for a short time operated an alt account, Derklin, intending to use that as my cleanup and anti-vandalism account. I realized that this idea was a waste of time and energy and haven't used it in a long time. Other than that, I've always gone by this moniker onwiki.

Elen of the Roads

Let me introduce myself - Elen of the Roads, an Englishwoman, mother of grown up children (definitely old enough), held a named account since 2008 and edited actively since February 2009. I ran for adminship quite recently, so there is more current information on me at that link.

Wikipedia is facing a challenge. What started out as a group of people with a single vision and a shared culture has grown into a sprawling worldwide entity, with editors from around the globe and a high profile presence at the top of everyone's Google search. The challenge is to keep the enthusiasm, to keep going, while finding ways to manage this multicultural, multilingual, multi-visioned society in a way that allows all contributors to stay with us, find their place, and produce an encyclopaedia.

I think a key for a successful Arbcom is to have a mix of interests. Some of the candidates (and the sitting Arbs) are excellent content creators, some have been tireless in maintaining good order or working in the background to prevent entropy overtaking us. My interest is in governance, in how this project moves forward: how we manage and regulate ourselves to create an atmosphere in which good editors can collaborate in peace, new editors are encouraged, the young who create articles about My mate Steve for a dare have their energies harnessed, good people don't burnout or implode, and those who start from opposite corners of the ring can learn how to work together - even if it's only to express their differences better.

In the outside world, I work in local government, in a role that has involved handling complaints for a city. I do feel this has given me some experience I can bring to an arbitration role on Wikipedia. At the very least, I am used to dealing with piles of conflicting testimony and people who either don't understand the system or think they can beat it. This - all of this - is the contribution that I hope to bring.

I have recently acquired a WP:DOPPELGANGER account - User:Elen on the Roads. Amusingly, it was blocked within 30 seconds by another admin, as a precaution in case someone was trying to spoof me. I can confirm it is under my full control. I have never edited Wikipedia with any other account than these.

FT2

Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will remain on the ballot.

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

Georgewilliamherbert

I am throwing my hat in the ring and signing up as a candidate for Arbcom this round. I held off out of concern about time committments, but have decided that it's important.

I've been editing Wikipedia since July 2005, was an early unblock-en-l member (inactive), an administrator for several years, and an OTRS member (inactive). For several years now I've helped at the Wikimedia Foundation booth at the Maker Faire in San Mateo.

In real life: I am an IT consultant in UNIX, Networking, Storage, IT infrastructure such as identity management, and web services; I also conduct interviews and do internal training. I also own a small aerospace business.

I care about content - I've worked on aerospace and engineering articles, military articles, California localities among others. I think I'd be happier if I just focused on that, but there's a reason I don't.

Wikipedia isn't just an encyclopedia anyone can edit; it's an encyclopedia we all edit together. We're all human - "all" and "together" are not a harmonious combination all the time. Which is why Arbcom is here (and Admins, ANI, friendly individual contributors trying to calm disputes down, etc).

I've been called the Civility Police before; but I think that's somewhat of a mistake. I really don't care about rude language (watch me when I hurt myself welding or drop something on my toe in real life). What I care about is that the community balances "all" and "together", and all participants remember both of those words. Disrespect and personal attacks are a real problem.

I may not be able to dedicate several more hours a day to Wikipedia, but hopefully I can put in enough time to help with the above issues.

Disclosure of alternate account: So Long and Thanks for all the Gravitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created experimentally to examine sockpuppetry techniques in 2008, about 10 total edits. I have never edited Wikipedia from another account other than my main account or this one, other than not-logged-in accidents.

GiacomoReturned

I have been editing Wikipedia since 2004, and edit pages mostly concerned with classical architecture; I've also written a few pages on boxers (the fighting variety) and have touched on a few other subjects, but those other edits are mostly pretty minor, just a fact or two. I suffer from poor eyesight and dyslexia which means my edit count is pretty meaningless as I often have to post two or three times for every edit because of this I create articles in user space and then paste them over when finished. The userspace is then deleted and all my fumbling mistakes with it.

During the six years I have been here, I seem to have become known for very vocally pointing out some unwelcome truths and facts. This has made me unpopular in certain quarters of the project and as a result my block log is more interesting than my spelling. You will note that almost all of the blocks have been overturned, so that ought to tell you something.

I disagree strongly with WMF-ID, and intend to continue arguing against it during the election, this is not because I think all Foundation employees are dishonest (I don't), but that I wish to minimise all risks of being outed, I think we all have a right to that. If anyone doubts I am over 18, then take a look at my content from 2004 and decide if you think it was written by an 11 year old. Without identifying, I will have no access to CU and OS and the Arb's mailing list; I first of all thought this would be a huge impediment, but I now realise it would be liberating - meaning that for the first time we would have an Arb making decisions based purely on presented evidence, rather than secret lobbying and back channel influences. The resultant limited contact with other Arbs would leave me completely free and impartial. So if you elect me that's what you will get. I am very honest and straight forward. In Arbcases I will heavily cross examine and then make decisions of what I see before me. I am very tenacious, I hate prevarication and I'm not easily deceived. I think I will be a very good Arb and I might even surprise one or two of you.

Exceeded word length, so the election coordinators have relocated the account disclosure to the candidate's user talk page.

Harej

Wikipedia editors of all walks of life, lend me your ears.

My name is James Hare and I am seeking election to the Arbitration Committee.

I have six years of Wikipedia editing experience, as well as over four years of experience as an administrator. In that time, I have seen Wikipedia change tremendously, from a project with limited popularity to what is now a major phenomenon and cultural institution. I have seen Wikipedia's bureaucracy grow, its offerings of access levels become more nuanced and specialized, and its ruleset evolve to handle the challenges that have come as Wikipedia has become one of the most popular websites on the Internet.

During this time, I have learned that the key to surviving on Wikipedia is knowing not to take it too seriously. A website, after all, is no reason to lose sleep at night. As an arbitrator, I would help those undergoing arbitration, and even other arbitrators, put the issues in perspective and figure out how to go forward from there. After all, if something has to end up at the final stage of the dispute resolution process, with no success at the earlier stages, something's gotta give. Whether the issue is resolved with no further complication or it isn't, the goal of each Arbitration Committee action should be to create a more collegial editing environment for the number one pursuit of Wikipedia: the encyclopedia.

To the table I bring my experience as a Wikipedia editor and the personality that defines who I am, for better or worse. If you do not think that is enough, then by all means don't vote for me. But if you would like to give this veteran editor a chance, feel free to grill me with questions. I will do my best to answer them.

Disclosure: My username was User:Messedrocker before I changed it in 2009. After the name change, a vandal took over the old username. Any actions associated with that username were not made by me. Other than this past username, I have not used other usernames on this website.

Iridescent

Since we've less than 24 hours and still have a shortage of candidates, I'll throw my hat into the ring as well.

Those of you who spend much time around WP:FAC probably already know me; for those that don't, I joined Wikipedia back in 2006, and have been active more or less intermittently ever since. I became an admin in mid-2007, and temporarily resigned two years later; I firmly believe Wikipedia's "power users" should all spend at least part of their time every couple of years without advanced permissions, and wanted to demonstrate that losing advanced permissions wasn't the end of the world.

I believe that everything done on Wikipedia should be done with "does this improve the content of Wikipedia as the outside world sees it?" in mind. I also believe that too often, the internal politics of Wikipedia are side-tracking people from that, and that with an increasing administrative workload for a shrinking number of volunteers, our internal systems are coming under increasing strain. Also, as Wikipedia's huge number of policies and guidelines grows it is becoming an increasingly unwelcome place for new editors, and I'd love to see it streamlined, although I recognise there's little any one editor can to to hold back that particular tide.

Although I opposed WP:ACPD because of the way it was implemented without discussion, I agree with the thinking behind it; in the absence of a governing body Arbcom has by default picked up a lot of powers it never really wanted and isn't best qualified to use. If elected, I'd hope to further a streamlined Arbcom that goes back to its core remit of resolving problems, and help in setting up devolved bodies to take on some of these policy-making functions.

(adding) For those who want admin statistics, list of FAs and so on, I've listed them at User:Iridescent/Stats.

Accounts: I originally started editing as User:Heavenly41, and was renamed early-on to the typo of User:Iridescenti, itself swiftly renamed to the current User:Iridescent; I also have an occasional shared-terminal account of User:Iridescent 2. User:Eva Destruction is an empty-shell redirect account, registered as that's the name by which I'm known elsewhere and I wanted to avoid the confusion caused by User:One/User:Cool Hand Luke. Other than that I've no other accounts, other than the occasional logged-out edit.

Jclemens

I submit myself for consideration in the 2010 ArbCom election, because like User:Xeno, I see more empty seats than excellent candidates whom I can support wholeheartedly. I have been an administrator for two years, a contributor since 2006, and established my account before that. My user page lists my interests, major contributions, and recognitions I've received from the community.

If selected as an arbitrator, I pledge the following to the community:

Resolve issues that come to the Arbitration Committee's attention rapidly, fairly, and with the least disruptive outcomes possible.
Collaboratively learn my role with the rest of the newly elected arbs, dedicating my Wikipedia time and efforts primarily to ArbCom rather than my personal interests.
Live by the quote often attributed to Stephen Covey “The main thing is to keep the main thing the main thing.” Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and its hierarchy should be viewed as a necessary evil. Arbitrators must keep the health and progress of the encyclopedia foremost in their minds. Wikipedia's success depends on welcoming new contributors, recognizing good content work, and maintaining a positive work environment for the other two goals.

My track record shows that I am here to build an encyclopedia and that I remain civil under pressure. While I have been in a number of conflicts over the years, I have learned from each of them, and remain on collaborative working terms with all the unbanned editors with whom I have disagreed.

I have found that mediating disputes, posing policy questions, and discussing meta-issues which affect Wikipedia as a whole is interesting and rewarding. While ArbCom membership has its fair share of downsides, it is my desire to leverage my past experiences to help benefit Wikipedia as a whole.

Like User:Newyorkbrad, I would prefer to articulate views on issues of interest to the community in response to user-posed questions, rather than trying to write an all-encompassing statement.

I use User:Jclemens-public, mostly for uses where SSL is not supported, and have never edited under any other account.

John Vandenberg

I was elected to Arbcom in 2009 on this statement, and resigned in December of the same year with this statement. Due to the timing of the events that lead up to my resignation, with an Arbcom election upon us, I felt the best solution was for the community to fill my seat with someone who had more time and energy. In spite of pleas for me to stay on, I did not think it was right (or even possible) for the community to re-evaluate my seat on the committee, as the circumstances around it were still in flux, and more than a few of the key players were still fuming (myself included).

Now that the dust has settled, and since the candidate list for this election is a worry, I'd like to resume my seat if the community support still exists. My recusal pledge remains in effect.

The majority of my previous statement still stands, as there is still room for improvements. However experience has taught me that long cases are sometimes inevitable, so we need to foresee this and ensure that there are no false expectations of a quick solution.

Due to work commitments, I will be less active (or inactive) during November 2011 - July 2012.

Loosmark

Coordinator's note: This candidate was found to be operating illegitimate alternate accounts, and has been site-banned according to community consensus; their name will remain on the ballot.

Every year when the time comes for ArbCOm elections the candidates are full of promises how will they improve or change this and that but it always comes to nothing. The changes to the way the ArbCom operates are either not made or are only cosmetic in nature. The French have a saying: plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, that's very true for wikipedia's ArbCom.

To come directly to the point, in my opinion the biggest problem with the ArbCom is the way the ArbCom gathers information on which it bases its conclusions. To cut a long story short, the Arbs relay almost exclusively on statements and diffs provided by the involved parties and their friends who inevitably pil in during cases. Needless to say the involved editors have the tendency to misrepresent the events either by cherry picking the diffs or by misrepresenting them or/and putting them out of context. I am not saying all the editors do that on purpose, some are unaware of it. Others do do it on purpose (and sometimes it gets quite shocking.) What the Arbs would need to do is investigate the problem pages themselves or delegate the job to uninvolved editors who have a high trust of the community and who would then report back to the Arbs. If elected I will try to do implement such a system.

A couple of other things I will try to do if elected is:
-improve the clerking on the Arbs pages to reduce the noise
-bring more transparency to the way the ArbCom operates
-try to make wikipedia a nicer place for content creators, i'd be in favor of desyoping some admins who are here mainly to play the "wikipedia game"

Finally I never had any function on wikipedia, I don't have powerful friends on wiki and I have the will to try to improve things. Unlike most other candidates I am not just talking the talk, I mean business. If you have questions or suggestions please visit my talk page and post them there.

I have no alternative accounts, I have only ever edited under Loosmark account.

-----> click on here: LOOSMARK NOT AN ADMIN <-----

Newyorkbrad

I present myself as a candidate for reelection to the Arbitration Committee.

It is hard to believe that it has already been three years since I was elected as an arbitrator. The community was extraordinarily kind to me in the 2007 election, and I have done my best to live up to the trust that many of you placed in me. I have worked to serve our encyclopedia, the editors who create and maintain that encyclopedia, and the outside public who rely on Wikipedia millions of times every day.

My views on the issues that will face the Arbitration Committee over the next two years, and my thoughts looking back on my service during the past three years, will almost certainly come through much more clearly in responding to questions than in any lengthy statement I could prepare in advance. I look forward to answering your questions, both on the official questions page and in any other forums that may arise. Thank you for your consideration.

(I've been asked to include in my statement a confirmation regarding any use of alternate accounts. Other than a dozen or so IP edits in 2005 or 2006 before I registered, I have edited only as Newyorkbrad.)

Off2riorob

A contributor since December 2008. Presently mainly based in BLP disputes and resolution. I am committed contributor to the project and helping to keep the project running smoothly so as to allow contributors to create and refine the content towards the mission goal of the foundation to create and develop commons licensed educational content, open to all to contribute and benefit from. I have personal experience of edit warring and heated disputes and blocks, imo I have good all round experience of the wikipedia to be able to assist in judging and voting on disputes and reports within ARBCOM's remit. I have the time and and the strength of character to stand by my judgments when needed and enough understanding of both sides of the fence to understand the issues underlying disputes. I am ready to contribute to the project in any way I am able.

Accounts, this account Off2riorob is the only account I have ever edited this wikipedia with apart from two other test accounts with a half a dozen edits, these two test accounts being named, User:Diamond days and User:Tomas Jennings and a few additional edits logged out as IP addresses.

PhilKnight

Firstly, a little about me. I've been editing since 2006, originally under the username of 'Addhoc'. I've been involved in mediation, both with WP:MEDCAB and, more recently, WP:MEDCOM. I've also been an admin since 2007, and been active in arbitration enforcement. To give an example of my involvement, I recently set-up and closed this discussion, which established consensus for a 1RR restriction for the Arab-Israeli conflict articles.

Secondly, if appointed to the committee, I would try to avoid pushing the responsibility back to the community. At the moment, there are relatively few admins who are involved with arbitration enforcement, so in my humble opinion, the committee needs to be cautious about placing more disputes under discretionary sanctions.

(I've been asked to include a statement regarding any other accounts. Apart from editing as an IP prior to registering, I haven't used any other accounts.)

Sandstein

Hi, I'm Sandstein, and like other candidates I've decided to put forward my candidacy in order to provide the community with a wider range of people to choose from. I started contributing to Wikipedia in earnest in 2005 and do administrative work since 2006. I've written a number of articles, including two "good articles" and several "did you know?" entries. I'm also contributing as an amateur photographer and administrator to Wikimedia Commons, and I've made occasional contributions to the German and, lately, the French language Wikipedia. I'm a member of the WP:OTRS team as well.

In my professional life, I'm a lawyer and have previously worked as a law clerk at an appellate court. This may explain my interest in structured dispute resolution on Wikipedia: I've been active in helping to address conduct disputes on administrator noticeboards, the arbitration enforcement board and other fora for several years, and regularly process unblock requests. Among my contributions to our dispute resolution framework are the templates for arbitration enforcement requests and appeals, and the first version of the guide to appealing blocks.

I volunteer to serve on the Arbitration Committee because I've come to realize that our community-based dispute resolution system has great trouble resolving certain types of disputes, notably those involving ideologically polarized groups of editors and those involving recurring problematic conduct by otherwise valued vested contributors. I would like to make a contribution towards helping to resolve such disputes as swiftly and effectively as possible, and thereby make editing less stressful for most of my editor colleagues. And, of course, I would like to be free to complain about how bad our future ArbComs are at doing this (even though the current team is doing a pretty good job). But I can't in good conscience bitch about ArbCom until I've at least attempted to do the job myself...

My disclosure of alternative accounts can be found here.

Shell Kinney

Hi there, I'm Michelle and I'm running for reelection to ArbCom this year. I've worked in just about every area on Wikipedia since finding it in June of 2005 and gotten to be one of the few women to sit on the Committee. I've been an admin since Novemeber of 2005, worked on what used to be the Wikipedia Helpdesk before moving on to OTRS in April 2006, and even worked with the Mediation Committee for two years. My account was originally named Jareth, but otherwise, I've never edited as anything else.

While I filled out the last year of a tranche that lost some members due to attrition, I've dabbled in a bit of everything from the rather mundane administration of the mailing list or coordination of email responses and the Ban Appeals SubCommittee to drafting a case and even a few motions. Since I work from home, I'm usually available as things come up and can put in the occasional 30 hour week during complex cases - this time also means I'm able to interact a bit more on case pages with the editors who are involved. Some things this year have gone rather well, others, like the Climate Change case weren't as successful as we'd hoped and may have some background battles that still need addressing.

I'd like to see ArbCom continue to make changes and improve its processes over the next few years; with the large number of seats open this year, we have a real opportunity to bring in new ideas and perspectives. Whether it's something as simple as new ideas for restrictions or as significant as changes to the way cases are handled, the ability to change and meet more difficult challenges is going to be important.

SirFozzie

The last two years has seen a seismic shift in the nature of cases that have made it to the Arbitration Committee. Straightforward, disruptive user cases have declined sharply, and in their place rise complicated, complex cases that span multiple topic areas and many many more users then before. During my time on the Committee, I've served as a member of the Audit Subcommittee, and the Ban Appeals Subcommittee, as well as the normal duties of an Arbitrator. I am proud of my service on the Committee this year. This election will be one of unprecedented change to the Arbitration Committee, as approximately two-thirds of the Committee will be elected (or re-elected) this year.I think I have fulfilled the goals I set for my year on the Committee, that I would always try to explain my thought process behind my decisions. whether voting on proposed decisions, or drafting proposed decisions with other arbitrators. The sum of my history is available under this account, as it is the only one I have created and edited with (barring occasional logged out edits with my IP). I ask that you review my work, and then vote accordingly. SirFozzie (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Bain

Hello, I'm Stephen Bain, I'm a history PhD student from Australia. You can see a selected list of my mainspace contributions here. I was previously a member of the Committee in 2008 and 2009, having been appointed following the 2007 election to a one year term (see my 2007 candidate statement, questions page and voting page) which was extended to two years partway through 2008.

The immediate impetus for my decision to stand for election again is the relative lack of candidates this year, but underlying that decision is my feeling that I have the capability to further contribute to the work of the Committee and to bring my experience to bear on helping improve its operation.

You may wish to judge me on my prior work as an arbitrator. For that please see the case archives for my voting record, and also the relevant statistics pages (2008, 2009). I drafted a number of cases while on the Committee (including Cold fusion, Geogre-William M. Connolley, Tango and ADHD) and substantially contributed to the drafting of a number of others (including Eastern European mailing list).

I think there are a number of areas in which the operation of the Committee, particularly with regards to cases, can be improved, most notably in the management and use of evidence pages. Such pages are regularly inundated with comment and argument, and become impenetrable to uninvolved users, hindering the effectiveness of the arbitration process. If elected I would pursue greater management of evidence pages, while still respecting the rights of users to advance their position in a case, to reduce redundancy and the admixture of evidence and comment. Moreover, I would endeavour to attain greater arbitrator involvement in cases during the evidence phase, perhaps even a more inquisitorial role (through increased use of questions to the parties or otherwise) so as to better guide the process.

I should acknowledge that I have largely been inactive on wiki since leaving the Committee at the beginning of the year; I have devoted my attention to other interests, though I have kept up with current affairs on the various mailing lists. If elected, I would however be more than capable of devoting the necessary time and attention to arbitration work.

My account was formerly named thebainer, and I have a doppelganger account bainer; other than that I have not used any other accounts.

Thank you.

Xeno

2010 is shaping up to be a record year for Arbitration Committee Elections - both in terms of the high number of seats available and the low number of candidates stepping forward to fill them. I can't say I'm surprised - it seems like a dreadful job for which only a sucker for punishment would apply. And though I am not looking forward to the headaches that accompany the position, I've been encouraged to stand. And more importantly, the community deserves a selection that exceeds the number of seats available. So I'll toss my hat in (while hoping that a handful of candidates more qualified than I follow my lead).

I've been contributing here regularly since January 2008, became an administrator in June 2008, and a bureaucrat in June 2010. I've done a fair amount of work with bots/assisted editing and serve on the Bot Approvals Group. I have a decent amount of experience in dispute resolution and user conduct issues, and took a very active role in bringing the long-running dispute over the Rorschach test images and associated data to a close. I had been planning on volunteering for the Audit Subcommittee and have previously offered to assist with the Oversight queue, so I would likely contribute in these areas in addition to regular committee business.

I believe it's customary to mention alternate account usage (of which the committee is aware^[1]) - I have several alternate accounts used for different functions disclosed on my userpage and do not edit via IP save for a few accidental logged-out edits. Aside from these, I have never edited Wikipedia from another account.