Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates

2012 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

Thank you for participating in the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2012 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

Eligibility criteria

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

(i) has a registered account and has had at least 500 mainspace edits by 1 November 2012.

(ii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data or confirms in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria.^[note]

(iii) has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed).

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 11 November 2012 and before 23:59 UTC on 20 November 2012;

(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words^[note] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);

(iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;

(iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;

(v) be created using the inputbox below, by appending your username to the existing text, clicking the button, and following the instructions.

The nominating period is now over

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.

^{^} The mandatory disclosure of alternate accounts and declaration of intent to comply with the WMF identification policy are exempt from the 400-word limit, although candidates are encouraged to be concise.

Standing candidates

Beeblebrox

Hello all. I go by Beeblebrox, and have been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007. I was made an administrator in 2009 and an oversighter in 2010. When I ran at RFB earlier this year many users commented that I was not "boring" enough to be a crat. Several of them suggested that the same qualities that made me unsuitable for that role would be valued qualities in an arbitrator, specifically willingness to take on tough issues and to find innovative solutions to resolve them. After much thought on the issue have decided they may have been right and am therefore putting myself forward to serve on the committee. As an oversighter I have already identified myself to the foundation. I have never used any other account to edit Wikipedia, although I did make a few edits as an IP before registering an account. Thanks for your consideration.

Carcharoth

My user name is Carcharoth. I've been here since January 2005, editing regularly since January 2006. I became an administrator in October 2007 and was appointed to the arbitration committee following the elections in December 2008. I served a two-year term and chose not to stand again in December 2010 as I firmly believe that taking a break from intensive roles such as arbitration, and returning to other areas of the encyclopedia, is necessary to regain perspective.

I've spent the past 23 months focusing more on content and reviewing, including some very enjoyable volunteer outreach work at events held at the Geological Society of London and the British Library. When Newyorkbrad asked me in September of this year if I would consider running again my response at the time encapsulated my thoughts on the matter (including my initial reluctance). I have followed arbitration matters for the past two years and disagreed with some of the decisions made and how they were made. Being concerned at the relative lack of current and former arbitrators standing in this election, I've decided to stand myself to offer a degree of past experience and with the aim of bringing some stability to the committee.

Though some of my views have changed since I last stood for election four years ago, what you will get from me as an arbitrator is someone who has extensive familiarity with the site policies and guidelines, who has prior experience of the work involved in arbitration, and who is able to take the long view. More than six years of seeing editors come and go, and disputes rage and fade away (or become completely intractable and deadlocked), gives a more nuanced perspective on matters around here and how best to handle certain types of disputes.

Details of my article work and reviewing work are here and here. I will provide more details on my background, and my past arbitration work in my responses to the general questions over the coming days, aiming to have the questions answered before voting begins. Please ask if you have any specific questions.

As a former arbitrator, I've identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. Aside from some stray IP edits, I've only ever had this one account.

Coren

Hello. I'm Coren, a regular Wikipedian since 2006, administrator since 2007, and I have served on the committee from 2009 to 2011 and as a checkuser since.

Why choose to run again? The first reason – and I suppose the most important one – is that I know I can do the job. I spent my year of "vacation" occupying myself mostly with SPI, normal administrative work, and implication at the Foundation level and find myself again with the energy I no longer had at the end of my previous terms.

Some people have described me as a "baseline candidate", and that's probably not far from the truth. I'm not the most flamboyant or revolutionary of candidates, but I have a solid track record of getting the job done. I think this is something the committee needs at this time: the past year has seen a bit too much shooting from the hip, and I think the more measured approach of 2010-2011 is desirable.

Finally, I think that this year has a regrettable paucity of candidates for the job (despite the impressively high quality of the selection). I'd be lying if I said the job was easy, or that I didn't understand why many would hesitate to step forward to so much scrutiny in order to get a seat that seems to bring so much aggravation. Nevertheless, I believe it's important that the voters have a meaningful choice between several good candidates in order to keep the committee healthy; it works best when it is diverse and representative.

I am already identified with the foundation[1] and have no undisclosed user accounts. I have a few bot accounts, only one of which is nominally active: CorenBlockMonBot, CorenANIBot, CorenSearchBot, CorenGoogleBot, and one doppelgänger that never edited to protect my real name. — Coren ^(talk) 23:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count Iblis

I'm Count Iblis and I'm running together with YOLO Swag on behalf of the ArbCom Reform party. If my statement, my answers to the questions, and the ArbCom Reform Party's platform appeals to you, please vote for YOLO Swag and me.

Of all the candidates, I'm the most experienced Wikipedian, as I've been editing here since 2004. This is the only account I have ever had. While I've always opposed to identifying to the WMF, I'll make an exception should I be elected. It is a stupid policy anyway, because only physically presenting yourself to a WMF official, identifying yourself and demonstrating that you have control over your account would amount to a meaningful identification.

The problem with ArbCom is its flawed structure, not that the Arbs are so bad. If elected, I would push for a number of changes, the most important ones are:

Only a few Arbs should hear cases. Most cases can be handled by 3 or 4 Arbs. They can divide up the task of looking at all the evidence and come to a consensus view on a way forward to make the topic area healthy again. Compared to the present system, the decisions are then made by those Arbs who have actually looked at all of the evidence in detail. The Arbs that look at a case will have been selected based on their availability, so this would speed things up. This also frees up manpower, allowing a few cases to be handled simultaneously.

After accepting a case, the Arbs will first determine if the content issues have been dealt with sufficiently. If not, then ArbCom will refer the case to compulsory mediation. If that mediation fails, then the case will come back at ArbCom. It is then a lot easier for ArbCom to determine the proper remedies. A good example where this would have helped a lot is the climate change case. While the ArbCom Reform party calls for more radical changes (e.g. a jury system), these two changes can be directly implemented.

Final remark. Parties will not cause factional behavior in ArbCom. There are already "hidden parties", this just makes things more explicit and one can then have more effective community discussions. If this idea were so bad that we shouldn't use it here on Wikipedia, then why on Earth do we have political parties in the real world where far more important decisions have to be made?

David Fuchs

In the interests of giving everyone a broad field of candidates to support/ponder/tear apart, I'm putting myself out there... again. I'm David Fuchs, an editor since 2005, admin since 2007, and arbitrator since 2010. I don't have much to say beyond that, but I encourage interested parties to ask me questions.

(Postscript: I've obviously identified to the WMF, and I have no active alt accounts; inactive is User:Derklin, same as my previous statement.)

Elen of the Roads

Hello, I'm Elen of the Roads, and I've been a member of the Arbitration Committee for the past two years. I'm not going to post a long statement - you'll probably have seen me around and maybe already formed a view. The project is going through interesting times (as in that old Chinese proverb) - although a relative newcomer myself, I very much get the sense that those who were here from the early days are struggling with what probably seems like a new world order, while those arriving fresh to the project are struggling to adapt to its ways. To my mind, it is very important to keep our established editors - as with churches and voluntary organisations, they are the backbone of the project. At the same time, we must welcome new editors who will go on to become the backbone of the project in the future.

I don't think the committee is working as well as it might. Its role too is changing - the community is better at solving many issues, and the need for arbitration has reduced: at the same time, the disputes that are arbitrated on have become very complex, sometimes extend outside Wikipedia, and are not easily solved just with blocks and bans. Suggestions I have seen range from replacing the committee with a couple of psychotherapists to tripling the size of Arbcom and creating 'lower courts' so I don't think a consensus solution has presented itself yet.

Since civility seems to be something of a trope in this election, people might be interested in User:Elen of the Roads/On editing in a collaborative project

Add: non tooled-up alt account User:Elen on the Roads. No other accounts and I don't think I've ever edited as an IP.

Guerillero

Hey there. I am Tom, aka Guerillero. I have been an editor on wikipedia since 2009 and an admin since 2011. I have helped out by working on a few articles, acting as an arbcom clerk and handling routine admin tasks as well as the occasional OTRS request. As I have said before, I am a jack of all trades who has done work in a variety of areas.

I wanted to put my hat in the ring this year because I have watched several cases unfold in the past year and I would like play a larger role in them. I would push for editing restrictions or shorter bans as remedies of cases instead of the indefinite ban that can be appealed to the BASC after a certain amount of time. In addition, I support expanding the BASC to include non-arbs as a check and balance on arbcom.

I have one other account In actu (talk · contribs) that was created to act as my "on the road" account when I am on a public computer, when I used Huggle, or a few other select reasons. I already identified to the foundation (diff).

Personal statements are not my strong suit and I am sure that that there will be a multitude of questions asked that will cover some of the ground I should have covered here.

Jc37

Hello and Good Day : )

As you can tell by the header, I am jc37, and I have been an editor since February 2006 (and was a reader long before that), and an admin since December of the same year. Mainly I'm throwing my hat into the ring to help out.

Be aware, those of you looking for dramatic change to Wikipedia through Arbcom, I'm not your person. I'm a firm believer in much of the foundation of Wikipedia, so in voting for me, you won't be voting for someone who will "buck the system".

I've been an editor to Wikipedia a long time (though to me it doesn't seem that long), and have "been around" to witness and/or participate in many of the discussions which by consensus have become part of the policy and process that many take for granted as "set in stone". I'm a believer that Wikipedia policy is a living thing, is not "set in stone", and as such can be changed through clear community consensus at any time.

I think campaign promises are pointless, and, if anything does, my contribution history should probably speak well enough to the kind of editor I may be considered to be. I entreat you to go through my contributions and discern for yourself.

And with that in mind, I welcome questions and discussion. (I find that discussion and clarification is a way of life on Wikipedia : )

Thank you for your time and consideration : ) - jc37 20:36, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate account: User:Jc377 - for automated editing (hasn't been used much) - jc37 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And yes over 18. - jc37 22:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And willing to identify to the WMF per their policy. - jc37 21:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens

Hi, I'm Jclemens, and I'm running for reelection after having served for two years on the committee. If reelected, I will continue actually implementing what I promised in last year's election statement: holding administrators and other long-term users accountable for conducting themselves by the same standards expected of every other user.

Needless to say, there are a number of users who fear this sort of evenhanded enforcement or dislike how I've gone about it for the past two years. If I am re-elected, it will be because enough voters choose to stick with a proven egalitarian who treats everyone fairly, than newcomers with untried promises. All of the unproven candidates would certainly do their best if elected—but with me, you know what you're getting into, and so do I. I'm not a politician—I won't parrot platitudes: the job is thankless, but I'd rather do it than leave it to others who haven't seen the things that I have.

I'm far from perfect, and that will undoubtedly be pointed out in great detail by those who don't like my approach, but what I am is forthright and consistent:

I won't make promises, like absolute transparency or sweeping reform, that cannot possibly be kept.
I've had a consistent philosophy of administration, and now arbitration, that has survived actually doing the job.
The most ambitious plans I have are to actually make Wikipedia into a five-pillars kind of place, with more than lip service given to every one, where newbies are welcomed into the fold and educated, rather than treated as nuisances by vested contributors who have forgotten what it is like to try and comprehend this strange shared website.
I still do as much content contribution as I can find time to—including half a dozen GA's and a DYK in the past year. Arbitrators are not the encyclopedia's masters, but rather its servants, selected for its most distasteful and responsible role.

As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF, and use User:Jclemens-public as my only alternative account for work on untrusted computers or connections.

Keilana

Hello all! I’m Keilana, and I’ve been a Wikipedian since April of 2007. I’ve been an admin since November 2007, and I’ve been involved in many different content and administrative areas in my time here. I’ve written some featured content, including 6 FAs and 2 FLs. I’ve also done a lot of anti-vandalism and dispute resolution work, including serving on the Mediation Committee. Despite the fact that I don’t edit ArbCom pages much (if at all), I’m a keen observer of what goes on there. I’ve had all of the Committee pages watchlisted for years and keep a very close eye on everything, including arbitration enforcement. I was also one of the three closers for the Muhammad Images RfC, which was mandated by ArbCom.

I know there may be some concerns about my activity, given that I was absent from the project for about 2 years. This was at a hard, busy time in my life, with some unique circumstances I don’t expect to be replicated in any way, at least not anytime in the next two years. My editing has settled into a pattern that sees me online for at least an hour or two every day, often more, and I’m consistently making several hundred edits a month.

I do think I have something to offer the Committee. I’ve been very involved in collaborative content creation, including writing 3 FAs collaboratively and starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. I think an understanding of the content creation and auditing processes is essential to ArbCom, as well as the dispute resolution methods that are necessary to keep the mainspace functioning, and I have experience in both of those arenas.

I’m over 18 and eminently willing to identify to the Foundation and comply with the other requirements for access to non-free data. I don’t have any other accounts under my control. I may have edited as an IP before creating an account (don’t remember, that was a long time ago), and I had created User:Keilana’s Sock but lost the password and have since blocked it. Other variants on my username (User:Keilana2, User:Keilana444, User:Keilanadecker, and User:Keilanahater) are unrelated to me. I have no other accounts; if elected I will create an alternate account for public editing. [Edit: I was formerly known as User:Neranei and had a name change in December 2007; it has been recreated to prevent impersonation. I don't have control over it; it has a scrambled password.)

Thank you very much for your consideration, and I look forward to your questions.

Ks0stm

Greetings all! My name is Steve, but I'm preferably known as Ks0stm on Wikimedia projects. I've had an account on Wikipedia since May of 2007, but I didn't really become active until late 2009. I'm not the most prolific content writer, but I have produced three Good Articles. I became an administrator in September 2011. As an administrator I haven't focused on any one particular area; I pitch in wherever I feel like I can help out at a given time. I also help out with OTRS.

Having read AGK's essay to candidates and been observant of Arbs, I realize that serving on ArbCom requires a significant time commitment and is by no means an easy way to serve the Wikipedia community. Despite this I would be more than willing to volunteer my time and effort as a member of the Arbitration Committee for the next two years. If elected to the committee I believe some of the best assets I would bring to the table would be my empathy and the fact that I always try to be as confident as I can before taking action, both of which I believe would help me to consider all matters with fairness and diligence. I also am and always will be open to criticism and strive to be humble at all times.

I am willing to fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, including identifying to the Wikimedia Foundation. Other than a few IP edits from before May 2007, I have only ever edited from this account and my alternate accounts User:Ks5stm and User:Ks0spy. I also have User:KsØstm as a doppelgänger.

Kww

Formalities out of the way first: I'm in my fifties and use my real name. I have no alternate accounts. I'll identify myself formally to those that require it.

I've been on Wikipedia for 5 years, and an admin for about 30 months. I've always been disturbed by Arbcom's ability to miss the point and ignore obvious implications of all issues brought before it, and my primary goal is to change that.
I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the structure of Arbcom or the flow of our processes, I think the problem is a people problem: we have the wrong people in Arbcom.

Newyorkbrad

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

It is hard to believe that it has now been five years since I was first elected as an arbitrator. The community was extraordinarily kind to me in both the 2007 and 2010 elections. I have done my best to live up to the trust that was placed in me.

For better or worse, I'm pretty much a well-known quantity by now. I've written 15 or 20 of the Committee's decisions since 2008, voted on several dozen others, participated actively on our noticeboards and mailing list, and served since the fall of 2011 as the Committee's liaison to the Wikimedia Foundation office. I do my best to work toward an outcome in every case, and every other matter that comes before the Committee, that promotes the best interests of the encyclopedia, of the community that creates and maintains that encyclopedia, and of the millions of people who read and rely upon our content every day.

I hesitated about running again this year, because there's certainly a plausible argument to be made that four and one-half years (a three-year term and a two-year term, minus a couple of wikibreaks) is long enough for any one person to serve as an arbitrator. Certainly I agree that new blood should enter the Committee following each election. On the other hand, a degree of experience and continuity among the arbitrators is also desirable. With eight of the 15 ArbCom seats to be filled in this year's election, it appears that most of the incumbents have decided not to run again; and several of the seven arbitrators whose terms carry over to next year are in their first year of service.

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 my prior and current terms, will almost certainly come through much more clearly in responding to questions than in any 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.

Finally, I commit myself to more mainspace efforts in the next two years, whether I'm reelected or not.

As a sitting arbitrator, I've identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've never used any alternate accounts; other than a dozen or so IP edits in 2005 or 2006 before I registered, I have edited only as Newyorkbrad.

NuclearWarfare

Hi, I'm NW. I have been an editor here since 2007 and an administrator since 2009. I have participated in a number of areas of the project, including article writing, arbitration, administrative work, OTRS, oversight, and policy discussion. I am running for the Committee because I feel like I have something to contribute in helping settle disputes in a manner that is most beneficial for those who want to be able to peacefully ignore the Wikipedia administration and edit according to our core content policies in peace.

I have certainly not been a perfect editor, and I have made my fair share of mistakes as well as taken actions that other editors have reasonably disagreed with. I imagine the same will continue to be the case if I am elected to the Committee. But I will also endeavor to always listen to and comprehend other editors' thoughts and only then take the actions that I feel is best supported by our core policies as I understand them.

I am by no means the most eloquent of people, so I would prefer to keep this fairly short. Please feel free to ask me questions if you have any.

I have already identified to the WMF and disclosed all alternate accounts to both the community and the Arbitration Committee.

Pgallert

I am contributing since 2008, my activity on Wikipedia is steady. Even though my edit count is just about to reach five digits, I am usually online for at least an hour a day, and when I'm not editing I spend that time reading, from time to time also teh dramah boards. I have pondered for a while whether and in which way I would like to take on more responsibility on Wikipedia. I believe that as an odd-one-out member of ArbCom my contribution could both be challenging for myself, and valuable to the community.

I am fully aware that no one has ever been elected into this body who did not have prior administrator status. This is not necessarily bad for ArbCom; prevalence of the admin bit and experience on Wikipedia correlate significantly. But I do think that this situation is not ideal for how the community and the rest of the world perceive how things work on Wikipedia. And true or not, these perceptions can damage our project.

If elected to ArbCom, I will neither seek nor accept administrator rights for the duration of my term. The CheckUser and Oversight permissions I will accept, though. The monitoring of their use is one of the Committee's functions, and it seems that most Arbs at some point in time join the Audit Subcommittee. I pledge to hand these privileges back once my term ends.

The most important right of an editor is to make edits, and ArbCom can take this right away for a considerable period. ArbCom is in an uncomfortable situation where arbitration is what it should do by virtue of its name, but a Supreme Court is what it really is. It also performs executive tasks in that it polices the use of advanced permissions. This is a lot of power in the hands of 15 people.

I wish to introduce a new view of arbitration to the Committee. I wish ArbCom's decisions to be more logical, and to be better explained. I also wish ArbCom to be a little less Supreme Court, and a little more Arbitration Committee, and I will do my best to popularise these views. 400 words limit mean that I cannot go into further detail at this point, but I am happy to clarify on the last two paragraphs on the Questions for the candidate page.

Pgallert (talk · contribs) is my only account on Wikipedia. I occasionally make a few IP edits for demonstration purposes in my lectures. I will create an account for public networks if elected. I fulfill the age restriction of the criteria for access to non-public data, and I will identify to the Foundation.

RegentsPark

In my opinion, Wikipedia is, at its core, an encyclopedia and the success of our project is measured by the quality of our content (largely how accurate and complete our information is) each time a user types a search term and peruses the Wikipedia article that pops up. The impact of a decision or action on content should therefore be the prime consideration for any editor who cares about Wikipedia. But content does not appear magically, it is created by a vast network of editors through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in assuring the accuracy and completeness of the information we provide. Arbitration is not therefore merely a process of discovering who is right or wrong or good or bad or what's fair or unfair, but rather it is an act of intervention in the collaboration and conflict process in a way that helps us perform our content mission better. It is an important role because open issues and conflicts need to be resolved so that the project can move forward but it is also a limited one since consensus is primarily decided by the community (based on our policies and guidelines which, too, are decided through a collaborative consensus building process).

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. I am not easily upset. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. Other than a dislike for tendentious editing and the belief that dealing with these sorts of editors is where we're doing a poor job, I don't have an antipathy toward any sort of editor whether they be content producing mavens, agenda driven pov producers (as long as they're not overly tendentious), wikispace focused editors, or just regular editors (and that's where I place myself) trying to add the little they know to Wikipedia. I believe all of these types of editors are necessary elements of our microenvironment and, properly managed, add value to the encyclopedia.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choices amongst the various candidates. Because of the holiday week where I live, I may be a bit slow in responding, but I will try to answer every question put to me.

I've been editing here since late 2007 and became an admin in February 2009. I'm well (really well!) over 18 and will willingly disclose my identity to WMF if elected. I haven't edited under any other names. Thank you.

Richwales

I'm Rich Wales — no relation to Jimbo as far as I know — and I'm offering my services for the next two years as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

I've been a Wikipedian since early 2005, and an administrator for a little over a year. My work over the last 12 months has included one Featured Article (which also made Today's Featured Article), two Good Articles, three Did You Know's, and a lot of gnoming. In all, I've been responsible for one FA, six GAs, five DYKs, and one In The News — admittedly not a huge amount of content compared with many others around here, but it will hopefully demonstrate that I do know something about content creation.

Over the years, I've participated to a greater or lesser extent in about a dozen arbitration requests, RFCs, WQAs, and other dispute resolution efforts. I've initiated one RfC/U. I've been informally involved in mediation efforts regarding three political / ethnic / religious conflicts, albeit with limited success.

I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and civility policies. Although ArbCom's job is not to make or change policy, it needs to fill a crucial role as an interpreter and enforcer of policy when hot-headed, tendentious editors refuse to work collaboratively, disrespect opposing views, and defy community consensus.

I've been making a concerted effort to keep abreast of recent arbitration cases. One improvement I would very much like to see would be a more comprehensive cataloguing / indexing of ArbCom cases (by the principles put forth and the policies implemented), kept up to date as new cases are heard and decided.

I have one alternate account (Rich Wales sans superpowers). Aside from a handful of IP edits before I registered for my account, all my editing has been as Richwales (talk · contribs) or Rich Wales sans superpowers (talk · contribs).

I am well over 18, and if elected, I agree to confirm my identity with the WMF. — Rich wales 05:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Salvio giuliano

Hi everybody, I am Salvio giuliano. I have been an editor since December 2009 and an administrator since April 2011. I am also a former Arbitration clerk and a current member of the Audit SubCommittee.

There is not really that much to add here: I consider myself to be an experienced and dedicated metapedian and I deem it my responsibility as a sysop to always try to assist as much as I can in making things run smoothly on Wikipedia for those who create content, who are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. And in this spirit I would approach my role as a member of the Arbitration Committee, if I were elected. I feel I need to point out I acknowledge that, lately, due to health issues, my participation to Wikipedia has decreased and that there have been short periods of time where I have not been able to edit; while I realise this may give some voters pause, this should only be a temporary impediment and, furthermore, I think that, despite my illness, I would still be a good addition to the ArbCom team.

Finally, being a checkuser and an oversighter, I am already identified to the Foundation. And the following are my alternative accounts: Salvio's not home (talk · contribs) and Salvio Giuliano (talk · contribs).

Timotheus Canens

Hello, I'm Timotheus Canens. Occasional editor since late 2005, started editing in earnest in 2009, admin since March 2010. I'm a clerk at sockpuppet investigations. I've worked at articles for creation, articles for deletion, deletion review, RC and new page patrol. Much of my current work is at arbitration enforcement.

I'm running because I believe it is useful and important to have more arbitrators who are previously AE administrators, especially after a few very disappointing recent episodes that nearly destroyed my willingness to continue to work at AE. I believe that it is important that the committee get a better understanding of how its decisions will be interpreted and enforced at AE, and how their actions and inactions can affect the work of AE admins. As the number of topic areas under discretionary sanctions continues to grow, I think it will greatly benefit both admins and editors working in those areas alike to have a fair, effective, and efficient enforcement system, but that can't happen without support from the arbitration committee.

I'm over 18, and willing to identify to the foundation if elected. All my currently used alternate accounts are listed on my user page. User:Tim Song is my previous username; User:Tim song was created by an impersonator that I then usurped and used as a doppelganger.

Worm That Turned

Hi, I'm Dave, known on Wikipedia as Worm That Turned. I've been on the encyclopedia since 2008, though I only really started editing in 2010. I've since become an administrator, an oversighter, written a few articles, helped out in a few areas but I've always come back to my niche - helping out newcomers, primarily through adoption. Indeed, I'm confident that I have adopted and mentored more editors than anyone else on the encyclopedia and the lessons and techniques from my adoption school have touched many more. I was also an Arbcom clerk for a short while, but resigned as I wasn't enjoying it, I'll be explaining more in my questions area.

I believe I would make a good arbitrator as I am a "listener" (although on Wikipedia, that makes me more of a "reader"), who can generally see every side of a debate. On top of that, I am an introspective person, which helps me to spot my own biases and remain objective. I'll be the first to admit that this skillset has meant that I'm not the most prolific administrator, as I spend time reviewing situations in depth before making any judgement and taking any action.

If you didn't notice, I ran last year, where I came 9th with only 8 spots available. I hold two alternative accounts on WP, User:WormTT which was created to ensure that there was no confusion over my signature and User:Wormbot, an account I've created to play around with statistical analysis and possibly for bot editing in the future. Finally, as an oversighting admin, I have already identified to the foundation. Worm^TT(talk)

YOLO Swag

When I started this journey more than six years ago, I had no idea what I was doing. I didn’t know the politics or the policies. I didn’t know how to make a difference or how to make this site a more harmonious, welcoming editing environment.

All I had was this youthful idealism as well as a bit of a rebellious recklessness. I was drawn in by the concept of this encyclopedia as the sum of all the world’s knowledge. It seemed like a project with limitless possibilities.

I appreciated the freedom to edit and the diversity of editors’ background that made collaboration that much more fulfilling. There was also a faint sense of community, of being able to relate to each other despite all our individual differences and eccentricities. The implicit acknowledgement that hate me or love me, we were all in this together. We all strived to build and expand this project, to educate the masses, to prove the doubters and naysayers who said this could not be done wrong.

Six years later, I am older and wiser. While I still value authenticity, brashness, and the mantra of “keeping it real”, the youthful idealism is in the rearview mirror. I suspect the aforementioned naive idealism was the reason most of us signed up to contribute to this project in the first place. Then we all had our disillusioned coming-of-age moment that hardened us. I am world-wearied and cynical beyond my years. Yet the passion to make this community a better place still burns.

If elected, I promise to the bring the passion (shoutout to Giano/Malleus), 100% transparency except privacy concern (open ArbCom balloting, no secret mailing list/IRC), efficiency, integrity (Malleus’ civility enforcement case problematic), accountability, and the sense of community back (editor retention, userpage freedom, joke banner, satire, humor, shoutout to ‘zilla). I still firmly believe that we have more common grounds than we think, that consensus-building is not impossible. As part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject ArbCom Reform Party, me and my running mate Count Iblis are offering fresh ideas and bold solutions. I truly believe together we can change Wikipedia for the better.

Last but not least, I have to give a shoutout to Bishonen for all her kind words and encouragement. I would not have lasted half as long here without you.

Wikipedians deserve better! We can do better!--YOLO Swag (talk) 01:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If elected, I would be willing to identify myself to the Wikimedia Foundation. I've only ever had this one account.

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides
These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. Guides to other guides are ineligible. Casliber Sven Manguard SandyGeorgia Collect Hot Stop HJ Mitchell Reaper Eternal Kiefer.Wolfowitz Boing! said Zebedee Heimstern Hahc21 Elonka Ealdgyth Wizardman Kurtis Rschen7754