Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2006-12/A-F
Below are candidate profiles and interviews of candidates for the December 2006 Arbitration Committee elections.
The election guide is intended to be a brief overview of each candidate's beliefs and experiences. More detailed information about each candidate may be gleaned from their user pages, as well as their responses to questions from other users. Not all candidates have yet replied to our questions; their replies will be added as they are received.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 43 |
| First edit date: | June 11, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since February 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hi, I have been editing since July 2005 and have been an admin since February 2006. I was a reasonable editor (my brag list is on my user page) a reasonable P:RUS gnome and a reasonable admin. I did many small mistakes but I believe I have not yet made unforgivable ones (I think this is because of my good understanding of wiki policies and a common sense).
Having some experience in many wiki-roles I realized that Arbcom is very important for the project. Wikipedia is done by volunteers; if it is a comfortable place for productive work - people will come here to do productive works, if it is a comfortable place for trolling, vandalizing and disruptive editing - trolls, vandals and tendentious editors will be in and productive people out. If it will be a comfortable place for abusing administrative tools and biting newbies then again power hungry megalomaniacs will be in and workers out.
Administrators handle obvious vandalism. Since the introduction of the community blocks some cases could be solved by the admins acting as a large committee, the new Wikipedia:Community sanction may increase their number even more. Still many complicated cases could only be solved by Arbcom. There is a domino effect here - one wrong decision will lead to much more of the same. Good decisions create precedents and diminish future conflicts. Since the small Arbcom committee manage to handle their load despite the growth of wiki they must be doing the right thing most of the time. I believe I could help to separate rights of wrongs.
I am an admin open for recall, I intend to be an arbitrator open for recall as well, so it should be feasible to recall me if you want it.
Thank you for your attention, I am happy to answer questions.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I am an admin on English Wikipedia.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I was a plaintiff in the case against AndriyK - it was an easy case, I have written my statement and the first round of comments on the objections, in a few months I learned that we won. I was not officially a party but actively monitored the Giano case. I thought (and still think) the case was important for the whole project and besides my friends were parties to the project. I have presented evidence in a few cases arguing arbitrators to reject them. I believe all of these cases were indeed rejected.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I like the project and I think Arbcom is very important for the health of the project. Despite having registered accounts measured in millions, statistics show that 50% of all edits are done by ~500 users, 75% of all the edits are done by ~1400 users. Taking into account remarkable people able to create good articles in two edits we would find that Wikipedia as we know it would not exist without 2..3 thousand people. Having any of them banned brings an unrepairable damage to the whole project, having any of them is locked in an edit war instead of doing productive work makes an unrepairable damage to the whole project, even having any of them to spend 2..3 months on a contentious Arbcom case makes an unrepairable damage to the whole project. The last but not least having any of the potential great contributors bitten and driven out by the more experienced wikipedians makes an unrepairable damage to the whole project. To save the editors and to save the editors' time we need arbitrators who understand that this project is not done by unmeasurable them hiding somewhere in the dark corners of the Universe but by quite a limited number of us with all our weaknesses and shortcomings.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | Not given |
| First edit date: | September 15, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since May 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello. I registered in September 2005, becomin an administrator this May. I try to be active across a wide variety of activities, due to my enjoyment of the project, trying to become a more complete editor, as it is clear that I am very far from such a state. I have written extensively across a variety of topics with featured contributions, as well as janitorial duties, clearing backlogs, mediating disputes, and stuff in between. I feel that as Wikipedians tend to specialise more, a wide experience gives a good view of the issues facing Wikipedia , so that good faith contributors of all trades get the respect and fair treatment that they deserve.
Every arbcom decision must be geared towards advancing our fundamental goal of advancing the encyclopedia, by creating an environment which allows for maximum growth and productivity of quality content. The Arbcom intervenes when dispute resolution fails, to break deadlocks so that human resources are redirected to their ideal use, when users who persistently misbehave in a manner preventing the encyclopedia's progress, cannot be dealt with through the blocking policy.
As Wikipedia grows, the attention it receives from people with strong ethno- political and religious ideologies has exploded, and content improvement is stifled due to attempted advocacy, propaganda or rewriting of history. High levels of tendentious and disruptive behaviour persist for months before sanctions are put in place, resulting in many high profile and complex articles being in an embarrassingly poor state. This benefits detrimental editors whilst hardworking productive editors, often our best, who maintain delicate articles are forced out, sometimes simply due to the stigma of being in a protracted dispute. I strongly believe in the use of tailored remedies, as everybody has different strengths, in order to retain the productive facets of editing, whilst restricting negative activity, with banning as a last resort. I also favour maximum transparency.
I have a commitment to attention to detail (shown here in RfA nominations) , to maximise the likelihood of making correct decisions which give the encyclopedia the optimal opportunity to continue growing. I will attempt to make arbcom become more visible, by helping to formulate the findings and remedies so that problems are resolved faster. I have a thick skin, neutral, analytical and objective style and approachable and willing to respond to requests for assistance in detail, as shown by my talk archives.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since May 2006. I have not been appointed to any other "official" positions, though I've signed up to the Mediation Cabal, reactivated WikiProject Eurovision and have heavily involved myself in the DYK selection process.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been directly involved in one: the current Hkelkar case, as a non-editor not under investigation, after attempts to extinguish a bunch of religious disputes related to India failed. Aside from that I have given evidence on Jason Gastrich (sockpuppetry) and also DarrenRay and 2006BC. Aside from that I have commented on a few other non-materialised arbitration requests urging rejection.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I am running because I feel that I have the time and interest required to speed up the arbitration process as currently I feel that it is too slow and allows disruptive users extra time to inhibit the progress of the encyclopedia. My interest in helping out is also augmented by my personal experience of witnessing an explosion in the number of irretrievable battles that have erupted in recent months. I feel that attention to detail in my RfA research show the attention to detail, objectivity and analytical approach that is required to make the optimal result for the growth of our encyclopedia. I feel that my attempts to gain a wider and more complete wiki-experience allow me to treat all types of contributors fairly with their work with respect. In general, I seem to have a strong urge to contribute to the encyclopedia, as I feel that many candidates who are more suitable, have refused to run or are unlikely to succeed.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | Not given |
| First edit date: | November 30, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since April 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello everyone. It has been an honor to work closely with Wikipedia for over a year now, and I look forward to this opportunity to serve on this committee. In addition to contributing as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I also assist with the unblock-en-l mailing list and OTRS queries as well. I cannot say with any certainty how many edits I've accrued; the edit counters tend to crash after passing the 50,000 mark. ;-)
Simply put, I will always try my best to carefully consider all sides of an arbitration case, to be as fair as possible, and do what is best for the continued existence of our encyclopedia. Thanks for your time, I look forward to any questions you may have.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an administrator since April 2006, and also work with unblock-en-l and OTRS issues.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
While I have worked with the Arbitration Committee in the past regarding several matters which required oversight and comparable attention, I have not been directly involved in any specific arbitration case.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running because I appreciate the important role that the Arbitration Committee plays in the well-being of this project, and believe that I possess the time, patience and experience the appointment can require of us.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 16 |
| First edit date: | May 26, 2006 |
| Local Rights: | None |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Wikipedia. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Wikipedia's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Well, none really. I'm not an administrator (although I have declined near to 10 proposals from editors who offered to make a RfA for me), but I am a member of the Mediation Cabal, and have taken the odd case, however most of my efforts tend to be informal on article talk pages to cool people's tempers. I am one of a very small number of active RFCU clerks. Nominally, I have 11,000 edits, although I acknowledge that this does not bring with it any rank or position as referred to in the question.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Normally, I just write the proposed findings of fact/remedies etc., something which I feel sets me up well to be an ArbCom member - I try to help Fred Bauder out in this way. Other than that, I've been egregiously listed as a party on the odd occasion (they've been rejected, and the one I'm currently listed in looks like it will be rejected too), and often give my opinion on matters both at the accept/reject stage and the evidence/workshop stage.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Please see my "candidacy statement" above - I don't feel there's any need to simply rephrase it, when if you scroll up half a screen you can see the answer :)
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | Not given |
| First edit date: | May 14, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since August 2005 Mediator |
| Global Rights: | Adminship on Meta-Wiki |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello! The Arbitration Committee, the final step in our dispute resolution process, is a critical and integral part of Wikipedia, and I humbly offer myself as a candidate for these elections. I’ve been here since May 2005, and was promoted to admin in August of that year. My contributions to Wikipedia (currently at 14,000 edits, although I give little value to edit counts) span a breadth of topics: from writing and contributing to the encyclopedia to helping newcomers to performing administrative tasks, I’ve always been dedicated to this wonderful project.
I’ve also had significant experience in our dispute resolution processes. I’ve been a member of the Mediation Committee, one of the key steps prior to arbitration, since September 2005 and am now one of the longest-serving active mediators. Seeing disputes firsthand and attempting to mediate the cases has provided me with invaluable experience, and will allow me to serve as Arbitrator more efficiently and with more judgment. I’ve also followed the activities of the Arbitration Committee closely, providing evidence in several cases. I also wrote the entire series about the Arbitration Committee and the elections for the Wikipedia Signpost’s series on the January 2006 ArbCom elections; articles covered everything from the history of the ArbCom, criticism of the committee, reform attempts, to duties and requirements of ArbCom members. During the series I also interviewed most of the ArbCom members. Conducting these interviews, along with researching and writing the series, has provided me with a keen and unique perspective about the ArbCom.
My experience is not limited to dispute resolution, though. I’ve nominated several featured articles and pictures, and created and improved countless others. I’ve also served the community in other capacities: I’ve written nearly 100 articles for the Signpost since August 2005, am on the OTRS team, am a Meta admin, and also am on the Communication Committee’s Internal Subcommittee, responsible for being a liaison for the community to the Foundation and vice versa. I’ve always been of the community, and will always be for the community.
My platform is simple: I will always listen closely to everyone, carefully consider all the options, and do whatever is best for the encyclopedia. Ultimately, the duty of the ArbCom is to improve the encyclopedia, and I will always keep that priority first.
It has been a great honor and privilege serving the community, and I look forward to continuing to serve.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I have been an administrator here since August of 2005, and have been a member of the Mediation Committee shortly after that. I was also recently promoted to an admin on Meta, and serve as a member of both the Communication Committee (Internal subcommittee) and a participant in OTRS.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have provided comprehensive evidence in a few cases (see my questions page for more details) and given my view as a third-party in several cases, but I have never been a "major party" in an Arbitration case. However, I've covered the Arbitration Committee in the past, writing the entire Signpost series on the January 2006 ArbCom elections.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I've served the Wikipedia community as a mediator for a long time, currently now as one of the longest-serving active mediators on the Mediation Committee. I believe I can serve the community better and more efficiently as an Arbitrator; my experience and background in dispute resolution, along with my work in other aspects of Wikipedia/Wikimedia as both an editor and administrator, will provide me with a keen perspective on the Arbitration Committee.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 48 |
| First edit date: | October 11, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since May 2006 Arbitration Committee clerk |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
The Arbitration Committee exists to settle disputes that the community can not resolve on its own. For this reason the Arbitration Committee is essential for helping the Wikipedia community achieve its purpose of creating a free encyclopedia.
I would like the opportunity to assist the community towards meeting this goal by working as an Arbitrator. I've been an editor since September 2005, an Administrator since May 2006, and an Arbitration Committee Clerk since August 2006. I also answer OTRS queries for the Wikimedia Foundation. I have knowledge of Wikipedia culture and policy as well as time to do the job well. I am easily approachable, will listen to all sides of the dispute, and will strive to find the best solution for the Wikipedia community.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I became an administrator in May 2006 and an Arbitration Committee Clerk in August 2006. I enjoy editing articles and consider myself an Article Editor also.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Yes, many. I was a party in the WebEx and Min Zhu case after I commented in a RFC related to the case. I've commented in many other cases on the workshop page and the main RFAr page. Recent case is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Non-Notability. As an Arbitration Committee Clerk, I announce the Final Decisions, sometimes enforce Remedies, and answer questions as appropriate.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I believe I can do a good job as an Arbitrator because I have knowledge of Wikipedia culture and policy as well as ample time to spend in this role. Since I am not employed my schedule is flexible giving me the ability to research cases and assist in writing the Findings. Quite a few users also encouraged me to run.