Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2008-12/A-F
Below are candidate profiles and interviews of candidates for the December 2008 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.
Candidates
[edit]| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | September 15, 2003 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
My intention is to assist in arbitration on matters of technical or historical fact, or where necessary, disagreement on technical terminology. My list of contributions is rather long, some minor, some major, and include a few articles that I created. I have been a member of Wikipedia since shortly after it began.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
None
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Not on wikipedia.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
It would look good on my resume, and I am looking to get more involved in wikipedia than I have been these last several years.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Wikipedia hasn't come to a crashing halt, so I wont criticise anything they have done.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
- As an arbitrator no information other than the decisions on the committee is appropriate for release.
- No.
- Yes.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I bring to the committee several benefits. I am a member in good standing of MENSA, I am a veteran, have previously held a security clearance, and I am a mature responsible citizen.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | January 7, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since October 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I'm User:Carcharoth, and I first edited in January 2005, began editing regularly in January 2006, and became an administrator in October 2007. My editing interests are mostly in the areas of science, history, and history of science - mainly gnomelike work but also bringing several articles to higher standards. I also have a long history of contributions in the project and other namespaces. I am standing for election to the Arbitration Committee to serve all members of the diverse community that build this encyclopedia. The attributes I think I would bring to the role, helping to resolve or end otherwise intractable disputes, are:
- Flexibility to adapt to the needs of different cases
- The time and inclination to carry out careful analysis of cases
- Over two years sustained editing of Wikipedia with wide-ranging experience of different areas
- Specific experience at administrators' noticeboards (especially AN and ANI)
- Participation at Arbitration requests, evidence and workshop pages
- Knowledge of the major Wikipedia policies and guidelines
- Remaining objective and fair and being able to see both sides of a dispute
- Being able to argue effectively and articulately for a particular position
- Attention to detail, research skills and summarizing a debate to move it forward
- The imagination to propose something different where it might help resolve a dispute
Over the next two weeks, I intend to expand on these and other thoughts in a longer statement in my userspace. I have been reviewing my editing over the last two years, and will be linking to examples of debates and discussions that I have participated in, to demonstrate what I might bring to the role. Concerning the specific major issues that have arisen this year in the English Wikipedia, I will be happy to answer questions on those topics, as well as areas not covered in this statement.
While considering whether to run in this election, I said to several other editors that I thought it would be particularly hard-fought. There are lots of able candidates that are standing in this election, many of whom care deeply about Wikipedia, even if there are differences in philosophy. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I pledge to support those who are elected. If I am elected, I pledge to work closely with the current and new arbitrators to resolve disputes in a timely manner and address the concerns of the community.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I'm an administrator here on the English-language Wikipedia, with my RfA taking place in October 2007. I don't hold any other positions on this or other wikis.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been a party in two cases. In both of these cases I was not one of the main parties, but was named due to my involvement in previous stages of the dispute. The cases were the Matthew Hoffman case (December 2007) and the Betacommand 2 case (March 2008). For more details of my activity on the arbitration pages over the past two years, please see my arbitration portfolio page.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I stood in this election because I think an analytical and thoughtful approach to dispute resolution can help resolve some of the intractable disputes brought before the committee, and that this can improve the editing environment in those areas of disputes, and, ultimately, allow better articles to be written as a result.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Overall, it's been an up-and-down sort of year. I think the Franco-Mongol alliance case was a particularly tricky one involving content issues that the Arbitration Committee handled well, getting the balance right between needing to remedy the behaviour shown in the evidence, and reinforcing the need for verifiable sources, but leaving the resolution of the content issues to the community, the article editors, and the mentors of the party to that case. As for a poorly handled case, I think the OrangeMarlin case (and the subsequent hue and cry) was badly handled due to miscommunication and misunderstandings within the Arbitration Committee.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
My opinion is that confidentiality is vital when needed, but it should not be encouraged if openness is a better option. Private submission of evidence should be examined to see if it needs to be private, and a dialogue opened with those submitting such evidence. Often, other parties to a case will need to see the evidence in order to be able to defend themselves, and those submitting private evidence need to be told that when they submit the evidence and asked if they consent to this. If they refuse permission, then the evidence may have to be discounted. In cases based on confidential evidence, the confidential material should remain so (with the exception of the arbitrators and, in some circumstances the parties to the case, as stated above) unless permission is explicitly sought and given to make it public. Any other approach will lead to people feeling unable to approach the Arbitration Committee in confidence. The decision in such cases should, as far as is humanly possible, be made public, along with the reasoning behind the decision. Anything less transparent will result in the community losing faith in the process.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I would be fair-minded and objective at all times, examining the evidence with great care to determine what the correct findings should be, and taking the time to explain my reasonings and decisions. Anything less would be a dis-service to the community and the encyclopedia we are building.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | May 5, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since March 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello, I am Casliber (which happens to be an unspaced version of my real name) and have been editing since May 2006, and an admin since March 2007. I am nominating myself for arbcom as I feel I have some attributes which may be of benefit to wikipedia in difficult cases.
My main role is as a contributor and coordinator of (hopefully) quality content; wikipedia excels in its opportunity and use of collaborative editing. No man editor is an island and the skills in various areas of putting pen to paper (or digital equivalent) that I have improved on since I have been here I have been impressed and grateful for. I have spent most time in areas which make use of collaborative editing; Featured Article, DYK and (to a lesser extent) Good Article writing, as well as involvement with various wikiprojects (Fungi, Dinosaurs, Birds, D&D, medicine, some sports etc.), and have thought of ways of how to bring out the best in people with respect to article writing and improvement.
Now in my day job I am a psychiatrist and part of my job/role/skill-set/training etc. involves listening and watching and figuring out things like whether people are able to negotiate and collaborate with others, and if/how they can assume responsibility.
I figure experience in both of these areas may be useful in analysing difficult cases in how firmly to apply remedies or when to cut some slack in figuring out what is ultimately best for the 'pedia and how to get the best out of users.
Another point I'd like to make is that doctors generally shouldn't treat themselves or their families; the analogy here is arbcom. Many currently involved, and seeking to get elected have been involved for some time. This is a good thing and I fully support their involvement. However, I do think the committee may benefit from some experienced wikipedians who may not have been heavily involved and are hence more able to make objective observations and recommendations in some cases where arbcom members may be involved or a particular case is critical of some aspect integral to arbcom in some way.
Thus, if folks feel this is a benefit, I am happy to serve. If people feel all candidates should be heavily experienced, then so be it. Ask away.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I have been an admin since March 2007 on en.wiki. I do a bit on commons but hold no positions there. I have been active in several wikiprojects (birds, dinos, and medicine)
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Only mentioned in one - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 but not singled out for sanctions.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I thought as a psychiatrist and old-hand people observer, I may have some extra skills in difficult cases in helping figure out an editor's ability to accept responsibility or edit collaboratively with others. I also do alot of article writing and I guess have ideas on how to keep the pedia growing.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2 didn't achieve a great deal, but given the underlying problems with notability and arbcom's brief, it was always going to be tricky. Generally a good sign of a good decision is a minimum of fuss and everyone carrying on as usual. Thus the good cases don't 'stand out'. I will try to think of a specific one.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
I can see situations where safety issues arise that material just has to stay private (eg stalking). Thus there are times where a decision might have to be made without much of an explanation. The trick is figuring out what the general community needs to know and where to draw the line.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
apart from above, I have been uninvolved with this area to date. This means I may be more impartial when it comes to arbitrating on people or situations close to recent or current arbs. As doctors shouldn't treat themselves or family members (for loss of objectivity and its impact on decision making), so too a few outside figures may be helpful for arbcom. However, if the community doesn't see this as a good thing so be it. I also like the idea of a level playing field and that we are all in this together. I get down and 'muck in' at DYK and FAC, and sometimes GA. I like the idea that arbs are mucking in and part of the community, and not editing little outside cases or matters related to cases. This isn't rocket science and we don't need to be so specialised. Finally, I am (slightly) more of an ideas person than process person; a good committee has a mix of both and I think there are more process people in and running for arbcom (my impression anyway, but I could be wrong)
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | February 25, 2002 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Arbitrator since January 2007 Oversight Adminship since February 2004 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
You can think of me as a continuity candidate. On leave at the start of 2008, I took more leave in mid-August, returning recently. The reasons were very different. In between we were shorthanded, and I did first drafts in a couple of major cases, because that was needed work. (Then Newyorkbrad returned and I could take some personal time to deal with real life.)
Time away from the Arbitration intray did give me chance to think over the (bruising) job. Basically I’m a backroom boy: I do committee work and drafting in collective discussions, deal with block appeals and people with a beef, and quiet diplomacy. This matters, but why?
First metaphor: Wikipedia is a fantastic vehicle, but the suspension isn’t so great. The “backroom” absorbs some of the shocks so that others can get on with article work. (Which is what I also do, mostly.) Second explanation: the Internet, folks, is a place where the “average case” people and the “worst case” people are very, very different. People should be treated as normal and decent unless there’s a reason otherwise. But the worst case can be pretty bad. Hence there is the toxic stuff, and a need for a group who really can collectively face up to what actually happens (it is going to).
A non-vintage year, 2008, for Arbitration, but there have been reasons. Moving on, here’s my take: Arbitration always has been run much like “WikiProject Arbitration”. The reforms people suggest usually look like conversions to something more like an onwiki process, and that may yet happen. Ask a candidate, not what are the advantages of something more process-like (obviously quicker and more predictable, in routine matters), but what are the potential drawbacks? Things we know from onsite: Would it become the preserve of a smaller group who care most? Full of arcane rules and wonkish? Fine for standard situations but giving odd results when matters required anything unorthodox? Generally, wouldn’t it suffer from restricted insight, when you need the full range of perceptions?
Of two kinds of good Arbitrators: “legal naturals” and “people of good sense” (non-exclusive), I can’t claim to be the first, rarer sort, so I’ll run as the second. My old credo will do. Single tough case to remember: “Attack sites”. I was active in horsetrading it to a conclusion. Not everyone was pleased, but the underlying issue stopped being so divisive.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
Admin, arbitrator, oversight (ex officio: I hardly use the tool) on enWP.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Three (I think) as party, a large number in three years on the Arbcom.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Standing again. I think it is good to deal with my record in a public way, considering the accumulation of issues; and on a couple of the biggest of those issues this has been my first real chance to speak out (for different reasons, re Matthew Hoffman and re Poetlister). I still have time to deal with arbitration work - the reasons I was on leave in 2008 will not recur in the same form. We expect and hope for new blood on the ArbCom; but the committee works best with a broad mixture of people. So I'm offering my services once more.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
2008 (including late 2007) was a classic curate's egg. Big mistakes were made, and some exceptionally tough cases brought to conclusions that will probably last the test of time. Things were too fast or too slow, at least for public opinion; things were sometimes too prolix, and probably other things left out points that should have been included. I can quite see why people think this wasn't inspired stuff. Some initiatives seem to have run away into the sand. But since no one really has a better model for dispute resolution when all else fails, we have to move on. (External factors had a big impact, as everyone should understand.)
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Confidentiality should be absolute, except by agreement. If emails come to the ArbCom, they are treated as confidential until such time as we have figured what is the appropriate way to pass on anything and checked back with the sender. In a private hearing it is in some cases to the right way to solicit evidence as private under explicit conditions (to be passed to other parties, or not). We had such a case this summer. In cases involving "conflict of interest" (WP:COI) it may really only be the ArbCom who can handle the delicate matter of whether an apparent conflict of interest of a pseudonymous editor is real, and the ArbCom who can fairly deal with the situation. Often we might know a real-life identity of an editor because the editor disclosed it to us. In that, case, clearly, we do the right thing in the case about COI but do not "out" the editor, and do not comment on the identity and speculation about it. What else?
Why do you think users should vote for you?
"The devil you know"? I'm still a prolific editor committed to the project, as I was in 2005. The difference would be that I know more about Wikipedia and the dispute resolution process.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | February 7, 2004 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since October 2004 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.
Thank you.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am an admin on English Wikipedia.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have added commentary and analysis to a number ArbCom cases, and I added a non-trivial amount of evidence to the Mantanmoreland case. I was also named as a party to a case in 2005, but no evidence or findings mentioned me.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running because ArbCom is in need of reform. It must be made speedier, more transparent, and more of a servant to the community.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I don't think there were any stand-out cases this year, but I pick RFAR/Tango as a case that went reasonably well. This case had the potential to be enormously dramatic, but ArbCom handled it in such a way that the problem de-escalated, while making an important statement about the necessity of having uninvolved admins issue blocks. Even in this case, however, the ultimate remedy was not seriously considered until late in the day. The OrangeMarlin affair was a dramatic fiasco—a stunning failure—but I'm not sure if it even counts as a case. The combined Omnibus RFAR/C68-FM-SV case was also a failure, for lasting over four months, feeding drama and wasting hour upon hour of editors' time. The committee needs to work on speed and transparency.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Evidence submitted to confidence to ArbCom must be held in confidence. That is not open for debate. However, if the evidence is used to sanction a third party, the third party should be afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations. Once the relevant parties are given a fair process, non-public evidence can be used to make decisions.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Because I'm an outsider with a strong independent streak and a history of analytical work. I like to get to the bottom of things, and am not satisfied with cloistered hearings and evidence which cannot withstand the rigors of cross-examination. I believe that an effective ArbCom must be transparent and accountable, and I will strive for that in every case.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | May 27, 2003 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since November 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello!
I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work. As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement. Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.
I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it. Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.
I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:
- More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
- Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
- Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".
Thank you for your consideration.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I'm an admin, a clerk of ArbCom, and an (inactive) BAG member, on enpw. I am also an OTRS volunteer for the info-en and permissions lists.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I was a participant in the Sadi Carnot case.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Simply put: because I think I can make a positive difference. I used to think one would have to be crazy to run for ArbCom; turns out that you only need to be crazy about Wikipedia. I run because I care about what happens.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
I think ArbCom is feeling the pain of its increasingly conservative outlook and rendering increasingly poor decisions because it looks too much at how things once were to notice how things have become. The problems facing the Wikipedia of today and tomorrow aren't those of three years ago, but the Committee fails to adapt.
I think the handling of cases where real world factionalism have seeped into Wikipedia conflicts has been poor in general. ArbCom still acts, and proposes remedies, under the presumption that most participants in disputes do so for the good of the encyclopedia but disagree on how to go about it. This used to be mostly true, and is still true in some cases, but there are now battles being waged about real world concerns where Wikipedia is just another battleground and the participants do not care about writing an encyclopedia.
ArbCom needs to learn to protect the encyclopedia and editors from those warriors who have gotten very good at gaming with faux civility, edging the rules, and other subtle manipulation of a system that was designed with the presumption that, ultimately, everyone was trying to improve the encyclopedia. Admonitions to "play nice" are futile gestures when participants are not of good faith, and it's high time the Committee started waking up to that reality.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Confidentiality is the primary obligation entrusted on arbitrators. Transparency demands that we share as much of it as is possible, but to do so without ever risking breaches of privacy or security. This means that yes, rarely, decisions may have to be made based on information that cannot be made public; but as much of it as possible should be explained.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Because I can do the job. I'm not a revolutionnary trying to topple the system, which mostly works, nor am I blind to the desperately needed improvements and the glaring flaws. I am willing to yell when things go wrong, and to support the system when things go right. I respect rules and traditions, but I am not slavishly obeying just because.
Ultimately, however, editors should vote for me because they can trust that I will continue what I've always done: remain impartial in disputes, avoid needless drama, be quick to act decisively, but most importantly to be willing to admit and correct the errors I make. To err is human, to act as though one is infallible is what destroys trust.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | July 18, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I don't believe any one person should be able to decide if an article is deleted, or even a significant portion of itself deleted. Nor should this be decided by just whatever three random strangers are around at the time a third party moderator is called for. If dozens of people have contributed to an article over the years, and none of them had a problem with its size, then why should the opinion of a handful of people who don't care about the subject at all, be able to decide this? Most users will never bother to post their opinions unfortunately, and most people don't return to reread an article they liked, or mark it to watch, to keep track of what's going on.
- If there is ever a arbitration called for, to settle a dispute between editors, I'll make certain the "its too long, and I prefer short articles" excuse for editing is never considered valid. An article is judged by its context, not its length.
- The size of an article is never an excuse to erase information from it. If the information is valid to the article, it should remain. If it can be put on a side page, so be it. If not, leave it alone. I doubt most people mind scrolling down to read through a lengthy article, if they are interested in the subject.
I might not always make the right choices straight away, but I do patiently discuss things, try to figure everything out, and then make a rational decision. I will listen to all sides of any argument, and work to settling things in a fair and logical way.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am the administrator of the Voltron wiki
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No official arbitrators cases. I try to discuss things with people, and fully understand everyone's mindset. I believe that's the main skill a good arbitrator needs.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
To help people.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
That'll take some time to get into. I'll try to find the time later to answer it, and all the other questions asked on the official questions page.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
If the information could be revealed, without identifying the person who submitted it, who wishes to remain secret, then there is no reason not to reveal it. And I would always seek to make certain the information is valid, not just something made up by an enemy of the person to attempt to manipulate us.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I think I have handled most things rather well. I don't take things personally, I stay focus on the subject at hand, and I do my best to fully understand everyone's opinion. I strive for what is fair above all else. Please vote for me, and I promise to do my best.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| First edit date: | March 31, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since April 2006 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello. I'm Neil, also known as User:Fish and karate. I've been on Wikipedia since March 2005, and an admin since April 2006.
In that time, I've contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, both as an editor and as an administrator. I believe the experience and knowledge I've accumulated over this time would stand me in excellent stead as a member of the Arbitration Committee.
Why do I want to volunteer my time to be a member of the Committee? Because I believe I can contribute in a positive manner, and help the Arbitration Committee to act as the body it was created to be - a group of experienced users that resolve disputes that the community could not resolve. I participated extensively (under my former username, Neil) in the recent RFC on the Arbitration Committee's standards and practices - see here, here, and here. I am knowledgeable in the way ArbCom functions, and would not become overwhelmed by the volume of work or of the complexity.
The priority is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This means everyone's priority should be "what makes the encyclopedia better"? Things that make Wikipedia better:
- Well-written, researched, interesting content
- Collaborative editing
- A strong, consistent, and ethical approach to decision-making
- Clear and timely communication
- Politeness
- The avoidance of hostility
- Understanding
- Empathy with another's point of view
My decision-making, as part of Arbitration work, will be made based on the above. I believe strongly in trying to rehabilitate "problem" users. I believe in a light touch when it comes to "punitive measures". Targeted editing restrictions rather than wholescale blocks, progressive blocks rather than indefinite bans for those whose intentions are good but methods are poor. I believe in Wikipedia, and want it to continue to be the single best example there is of collaborative contributing. I believe that as a part of the Arbitration Committee, I could play my small part in enabling that to continue. Thanks for reading.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.), on this or other wikis?
I am administrator on this wiki. I have no other positions other than user on any other wiki.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Almost all workship stuff. This is a list of all arbitration pages I've contributed to in some manner. Some in a minor way, some more so. /Sarah Palin protection wheel war, /C68-FM-SV, /Betacommand 2, /Geogre-William M. Connolley,/Tango, /Mantanmoreland, /Anonimu, /Alkivar, /Pigsonthewing 2, /Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war, /Philwelch, /Husnock. Here's a statement I found I made for a case that wasn't accepted, and here's one that was.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I would like to see Arbcom improve its relationship with the community, and function in a constructive and valuable manner. I believe that I can help the Arbcom achieve this, and would like to play a greater part in making Wikipedia work better.
How do you feel the Arbitration Committee has handled cases and other situations over the last year? Can you provide an examples of situations where you feel the Committee handled a situation exceptionally well, and why? Any you feel they handled poorly, and why?
For the most part, things have been okay. Not always excellent, but reasonable. A case handled exceptionally well was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tango - an appropriate verdict, arrived at in a timely manner. The big case of the past year, perhaps, which had some plusses and minuses, was Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV. While I believe the JzG-Viridae issue should not have been merged into this case, and the time the case took was regrettable, the final findings were very good. As for poorly, the OrangeMarlin case was handled poorly. Discussions should only ever be made in private if there is very good reasons for them to be private. This did not meet that threshold in any way, and the case was a huge mistake. OrangeMarlin was given no opportunity to state his case (see [1]), and this was not acceptable. That it was vacated was entirely appropriate. I believe this case was the primary cause of the recent loss in faith the community has suffered with regards to Arbcom.
What is your opinion on confidentiality? If evidence is submitted privately to the Committee, would you share it with other parties in the case? Would you make a decision based on confidential information without making it public?
Evidence should be shared with other parties so far as privacy is maintained. If a piece of evidence that would be detrimental to another party is submitted, I believe the party at risk of detriment should be aware of such evidence, and recieve some kind of summary (at the very least) with any identifiable information excised. Being tried by private evidence without being made aware of that evidence's existence, or the general content of such evidence, is unacceptable.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'll do a good job; I'm bright, experienced, trustworthy, and ethical. I believe strongly that Arbcom exists to serve the requirements of the community, and would strive to further this in thought and in act.