Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017/Candidates

2017 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now closed. The results have been posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.
Feedback on the election may be left on the feedback page.

It is currently 06:02 (UTC), Saturday, 14 December 2024 (Purge)

Shortcut

WP:ACE2017/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2017 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 2017.

(ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans.

(iii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, is willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement^[note]

(iv) has disclosed any alternative accounts in his or her election statement. (Legitimate accounts which have been declared to a member of the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed.)

Caution: Candidates should be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:00 UTC on 12 November 2017 and until 23:59 UTC on 21 November 2017;

(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 nomination period is now over.

Footnotes

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

Because we believe that safeguarding the privacy of the Wikimedia community is an important Wikimedia value, those who have access to nonpublic information need to:
Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);

Provide contact and identification information; and

Sign a confidentiality agreement.

^{^} 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

Opabinia regalis

I'm still hoping my attempts to bribe other people into running will work, but in the meantime I thought I'd put my money where my mouth is. (Or my mouth where my money is, in this case.) I was elected to a two-year term in WP:ACE2015 (statement, questions) and am throwing my hat in the ring for re-election.

Two years in, I've changed my mind about some things, but my basic qualifications remain the same, and still consist almost entirely of being a level-headed, deliberative, analytical person. Luckily I've learned during my term that being good at changing your mind is an essential skill for an arbitrator. Two-year terms are long enough to eat some of your own dog food, and hey, sometimes it doesn't taste good :) Astute observers will note that my edit count has gone down lately - I changed jobs this past summer and real work has been eating into my hobby time - which was one of my biggest hesitations in deciding to run again, but I do think that I've been reasonably effective in the job even with less time on hand, and I anticipate a less demanding schedule after the new year. I think the argument I made in my 2015 statement, that as a scientist I'd bring a thoughtful attitude about evaluating evidence, has worked out well on the whole. I'm still on the lenient side in terms of sanctions and still capable of talking to people like a human despite my lack of a spine, though I think I've slowly moved toward a firmer approach with repeated disruption.

When I ran last time, I emphasized my unusual background as a source of new perspective - I registered in 2006, had a successful RfA six months later, faded out of the project about six months after that, returned in 2015 after such a long absence that I needed a new RfA, and then ran for arbcom the same year. Now I'm just part of the project's furniture and will have to hope some new young guns get elected to serve that outsider role :) I think the committee benefits from a good mix of experienced arbs and fresh faces, and I've found it enormously helpful to serve along with some longer-memoried arbs, so I hope I can still be useful on the other side of this particular fence.

Mandatory stuff: Obviously I meet the requirements and have already signed the NDA. Alternate accounts are User:Opabinia externa (used on my phone and while traveling), User:Opabinia robotus (old account intended for a bot that I never got around to developing), and User:🐱 (new since last cycle, created to test emoji usernames after someone asked if it worked). Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worm That Turned

Surprise! I'm sure no one expected to see my name here, I've been away for most of the year and have had some pretty low opinions of serving on Arbcom in the past. Well, times change and they've certainly changed me. As to my absence, I've been working hard - I was offered a contract position which has now come to an end. My free time, I spent with my family, and Wikipedia got left by the wayside. The year prior to that, I did my utmost to stay away from the "negative" areas of Wikipedia, focusing instead on writing content and I'm still chuffed with how that year went *cough*Sabrina Sidney*cough*. Today, I can firmly say, I believe in the project again.

So why return to Arbcom? It's changed for the better and I hope to help it change further. During my last stint, I did my utmost to ensure that the committee was responsive and reasonable sounding where possible, two things I hope to bring to the committee again. The parts I hated most strongly have been moved elsewhere.

About me: I'm Dave Craven, I've been on Wikipedia since 2008. I have held numerous hats, administrator, arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat, OTRS - all of which I passed back when I stopped using them. I firmly believe that non-administrators should be eligible to Arbcom, so while I'm not a good test case (I could ask for the bits back today), I hope running as a non-admin will help pave the way for future non-admins, or at least open the debate further for next year. I declare my "sock drawer" on my userpage - User:WormTT, User:Wormbot, User:Worm That Trains, User:Wyrm That Turned - and I'm identified to the foundation. Anything else, just ask!

Callanecc

Background

I joined Wikipedia in 2009, but didn't start actively editing until 2012. I became an administrator in 2013. In 2014, I was appointed to the Audit Subcommittee and gained CheckUser and Oversight tools which I've held since. I was elected, in December 2015, for a two year term on the Arbitration Committee.

Content experience

I continue to believe that having experience with content is a necessary as it demonstrates an ability to work collaboratively with other editors and an understanding of the context of disputes. I've mainly worked on biographies, but I'm trying to branch out into articles about rivers. I've written four GAs and eight DYKs but also contributed to the Articles for Creation process. See User:Callanecc/Articles and User:Callanecc/AFC log for more.

Dispute resolution

As an admin, I place an emphasis on communicating clearly, staying calm under pressure and ensuring a willingness to accept and consider feedback.

Another of my big focuses, which I've developed with more emphasis after gaining admin then CheckUser and Oversight rights, is to slow down and collect and review information before making a decision. An example of that in practice, outside of ArbCom, was closing the Hilary Clinton move request where there was a huge volume of comments and policy to consider.

Thoughts on the Committee

For the Committee to work at its most effective, it needs to have a mixture of personalities as well as experience levels. The combination of fresh editors, who bring new ideas and energies, and experienced arbitrators, who can provide advice and institutional memory, allows the Committee to consider decisions in different contexts. I believe that, during my two years on the Committee, I've been able to make a number of positive changes to how the Committee operates with a focus on making things simpler, more easily understood and less bureaucratic. However, there are still things I'd like to do and I still believe there is a place for my work ethic and my positions on different issues.

Disclosures

As I'm already on the Committee, and a checkuser and oversighter, I have signed the WMF's confidentiality agreement and so am compliant with the access to non-public information policy. I have three other accounts, Callanecc (alt), Callanec and Calanecc, which are listed on my user page.

Alex Shih

Hi all, I am Alex, and I would like to put myself forward for the upcoming committee election. I have been an administrator of English Wikipedia since 2007 (although this is misleading, as I have been inactive for many years in between). Since returning to full activity this year, I have mostly remained editing in the same area, focusing primarily on Chinese/Japanese military history articles. Majority of my administrative tasks involves DYK and the Main Page.

I have always believed that administrators/arbitrators are just another editor with tools and the skillset that includes dispute resolution and de-escalation, serving with the purpose of helping other editors to enjoy a better editing experience. If I am elected, I wish to work closely with the community to continue to lower the number of cases, and eventually delegating different roles of the committee to the community (similar to the views expressed by a former arbitrator).

I would love to answer any questions in detail, so please don’t hesitate to ask for more information. I have signed the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information. As disclosure, I have previously edited under the username AQu01rius prior to being renamed in 2010. I do not have any other accounts.

SMcCandlish

I've been a Wikipedian for twelve years, and am a skeptic, a political centrist, a civil liberties policy analyst for over a decade, and a cultural anthropologist by training. All of these things make me a good candidate, and combine to produce a see-all-sides mindset, grounded in evidence and necessary procedure but guided by principle not proceduralism. I've decided to offer to serve on the Arbitration Committee for several reasons.

While I have long been involved in Wikipedia's internal WP:POLICY development, I work on content and am here as an editor of an encyclopedia, not as an admin. I'm not alone in long having an issue with the fact that almost all Arbs are admins and tend to do notably less content work than average. I don't think this works very well; it doesn't properly represent the community intent and interpretation ArbCom is expected to bring to bear.

I aim to have ArbCom be more consistent, more transparent, less bureaucratic, and less afraid to address and rectify is own collective past mistakes. I said a while back that what the community expects out of our entire dispute resolution system is ultimately that the disruption caused by a dispute be resolved quickly and with as much community buy-in as can be mustered, but this has not really been happening. Incivility and PoV pushing appear to be increasing, editor retention has dropped, the discretionary sanctions system has not been reviewed much less revised in years (and is clearly problematic in multiple ways), and too much emphasis has been put on blocking productive people for transgressions rather than removing them from the areas in which they're not productive or hamper others' productivity, and getting everyone back to "work". I think these and other issues can be rectified, and I have the time, patience, and experience to move them in a positive direction.

The boilerplate: I signed the WMF confidentiality agreement years ago, and will do so again if its wording has changed. My doppelganger accounts are listed on my user page [1], aside from one disclosed to ArbCom but not listed on my page for privacy reasons (I edit under my real name, and have used that alternative account occasionally – well within the legitimate uses provision – for editing controversial topics, to avoid data-mining).

Mailer Diablo

I volunteer as Tribute...so as to offer everyone a choice and hopefully be of service to the community again in terms of resolving disputes on Wikipedia.

You can consider me as an old-school establishment candidate of sorts. I am here since 2004. What I can offer to the community is my wiki experience, institutional knowledge and respect. And hopefully knowledge from a recent legal education (which I had just completed, and that was why I wasn't as active as I should been...talk about word limits). Being here long enough allows me to know the backstory to how things/policy/processes are what they are today, and to use that to deal with new challenges such as paid editing.

ArbCom is one strange, interesting world. Everyone's worried what's going on in there, myself included before my first term. Since then, I realized the importance of dealing with confidential information/evidence/issues and dealing with them in a sensitive, respectful manner and the importance of protecting such information - what is done there does have impact on other living people (especially fellow Wikipedians) and the community as a whole. What I can still promise is to uphold the integrity of any offices I carry, and to arbitrate with principles of fairness and natural justice in mind (even for banned/indef users). I stand by whatever I said/wrote in internal discussions, if a FOI ever existed. I am also a backlog fighter, I used to do most of the background work in BASC back then, and then CU/OS after I finished my term. That carried on to the responsibilities I hold over at OTRS.

I am willing to give people a chance when it comes to disciplinary matters, but if I find that you have abuse(d) the community's trust then it's gone. I am also a practitioner of the no asshole rule.

My fundamental principles outlined on my previous run statements and my userpage remain the same, and they are those that I hold dear here. I keep close to my roots that Wikipedia is first and foremost, an encyclopedia and the importance of content creation.

I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message!

The fine print: I have already signed the paperwork, and of course will continue to protect non-public data. I have two alternatives: User:Mailer Diablo (case sensitive, my main account uses the lower case 'd') and User:Way Of Life for public computers.

KrakatoaKatie

I'm Katie, and I'm a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I have been an administrator since 2007 and a CheckUser and Oversighter since 2016. When I'm not involved with washing all the socks, I'm a catch-and-release editor. I find something to work on, I fix it up, and I move on. When I do create something these days, it's either a missing NRHP page or a Women in Red article.

I must admit that I'm here rather reluctantly. I have the time to commit to being an active member of the Committee, but I've always felt that there are more qualified, more competent, more appropriate members of the project who should be arbitrators. It's become clear to me over the last few months that, apparently, I am now one of those long-time editors who has a modicum of respect from her peers, and that I should probably serve the community by standing as a candidate.

I assure you that my hesitance to run will have no bearing on my enthusiasm or work ethic if I am chosen. I have no agenda; I'm not standing to advocate for or against any particular position on any issue, with the sole exception of making this project a collegial environment in which editors of all stripes and kinds can find a way to work together. That's a tall order, and the community decides how that should be done, not the Committee. Arbitrators are here to be of help.

We're all human and we're all volunteers. Working on the Committee is a tough job that takes careful thought, a considerable expense of time, and a willingness to hold everyone's feet to the fire when necessary. I believe that in order to be a good arbitrator, one must be firm and principled, but adaptable. I try very hard to be fair and flexible in all things and, above all, to be kind.

I am not here for selfish reasons. If you want me to serve the community in this manner, I will oblige to the best of my ability.

As a CheckUser and Oversighter, I have already identified to the WMF and I am compliant with the non-public information policy. I have one doppelganger, Krakatoa Katie.

I will be extremely busy from November 22 through the morning of November 27. I'm also in the middle of a cluster of headaches, but I hope and expect that will subside soon. I will answer your questions as soon as I can. :-)

RickinBaltimore

After careful consideration, and lots of thought on my part, I have decided to self-nominate myself for this ArbCom election. I ran in the 2015 election as a relative unknown editor here. I became an admin in 2016, and after working in my admin role for over a year, I wish to work on ArbCom to help resolve many of the tougher issues that arise on Wikipedia. My goal, if elected to the Committee, is to be a neutral sounding board, and examine every issue with the mindset of "What is best for the project?" As an admin, I have mainly focused on areas such as vandal fighting and general cleanup; however I have watched, and participated in, some rather heated discussions on AN and AN/I. My primary skill is helping to resolve disputes, or help mitigate them, and I feel that the Committee would benefit from someone who can put their emotions aside, and try to use reason and logic to help with some of the most tenuous issues on Wikipedia.

In the idea of disclosure, I have edited under Wildthing61476, and RickKJr prior to this current name change. I have not had any other accounts at Wikipedia at any time.

The Rambling Man

So I've been around the block a few times and seen at first hand how the current Arbcom ply their trade. It's unsatisfactory in several regards, and recently has served to do nothing other than disenfranchise editors. I am a serious content editor, unlike the vast majority of Arbcom, so it can safely be assumed that I have the very best interests of the project at heart. I'm here to create and enhance an encyclopedia, not simply police it. I have two small children so arbitration is a daily routine in my household. I have already identified to the Foundation as I held CU/OS rights at Simple English Wikipedia, as well as admin/'crat rights there, and of course, admin/'crat rights here for quite a while. As can be seen from my contributions, I'm here a lot so I'm unlikely to disappear for weeks at a time mid-case as has so often happened. While I'm not going to tick everyone's box, I can promise that I will bridge the current gaping chasm between our editors and the current, broken system. (P.S. I only have one other account, User:The Rambling Man on tour, which I used when going round the world a couple of times). That is all. x

BU Rob13

I've decided to put my name forward as a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I'm an experienced administrator and recently-appointed CheckUser. If elected to the Committee, there are two major goals I would like to accomplish.

First, I'd like the Committee to be more active in all phases of arbitration cases. ArbCom is necessarily an opaque group, as they handle a good deal of private information, but they don't have to be opaque everywhere. Certain recent cases would have run more smoothly if arbitrators had popped in every once-in-a-while and given a status update on how the Committee understood the issues before it. This can help focus cases and resolve them more quickly with less unnecessary drama. We need less courtroom and more conversation.

Second, I hope to take an active role in evaluating the Committee's place when it comes to the issue of abusive paid editing. In early 2017, the community made clear that it wished there to be some process for handling private information related to abusive paid editing at this RfC. So far, that process has not emerged. It is the Committee's duty "to resolve matters unsuitable for public discussion for privacy, legal, or similar reasons" according to WP:ARBPOL, so if this consensus is to be enacted, it must be facilitated by the Committee. Ideally, that will involve further input from the community and the Wikimedia Foundation. There are many possibilities that need exploring here, but there has been substantial support for the idea of creating a functionary group to investigate abusive paid editing complaints. I think that idea is promising.

Other than a few doppelganger accounts registered to prevent impersonation, my only other account is BU RoBOT, my bot. I've already signed the WMF's access to non-public data agreement due to my role as a functionary.

Sir Joseph

I wish to throw my hat into the ring. I've been interested in this for quite some time and now is as good as any. For me, one of the major issues impacting Wikipedia at this time is civility. I remember the "early days" when editing was more fun than it is now. I remember going from topic to topic learning new things as I edit and made the encyclopedia better. Today, it's a far different world. Editors are now oftentimes editing on eggshells, and they oftentimes face harassment, bullying, etc. I have noticed that of the past few Arbcom cases, I would have to say most were purely conduct issues and not necessarily issues arising from content disputes.

I am not an admin and I will never be one, but I do think that's not a net-negative for Arbcom. Arbcom needs diversity of opinion.

Besides civility, I would strive to help out with transparency. Arbcom, for better or worse, has a reputation of being secretive or not responding to emails, etc. I would try to start (I do think they might have done this years ago, but I'm not sure) a monthly report showing full stats of Arbcom (as best as possible), so people know that Arbcom is doing their job.

I see the role of Arbcom as a mix between courtroom and arbitration room. We oftentimes need to balance the law and fairness and I will strive to do that. I do some mediation in real life and I think I would be able to do that here. I intend to fully comply with all WMF criteria.

Premeditated Chaos

I've decided to put my name forward as an ArbCom candidate for this year. I have been a Wikipedian since 2003, and an admin since 2004. Due to school and work there have been some large gaps in my activity since then, but since returning this year I have been extremely active at both mainspace editing, including content creation, and the administrative back-end, particularly MfD and AfD. I have no intentions of significantly reducing my activity in the near future.

If elected, my primary interest is ensuring that cases, requests, and emails are responded to quickly - though never hastily. One of the major complaints people raised about ArbCom this year was the appearance of sluggishness in responding, particularly to the Arthur Rubin case. Given my high rate of activity, you can be sure that I will be here to read and respond to cases and requests with the promptness they deserve.

My real-life day job involves cooperatively working with a team to handle a variety of dispute-resolution situations, some involving protected personal data; I think my work-related skills would make me a good fit for ArbCom, which requires similar levels of cooperativeness for the sake of solving a problem. My work at MfD and AfD has given me a strong base in assessing consensus in sometimes-contentious debates, knowledge of policy, and development of creative solutions.

I would be happy to sign the WMF's confidentiality agreement. I have never edited under another account. User:PMC and User:PMC_x are doppelgangers for the short form of my username and my IRC nick, respectively.

Withdrawn candidates

SarekOfVulcan

Good morning, all! I'm putting my name forward more because the list is currently too short than because I think I have a chance at being elected, especially in the wake of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram and the ongoing interaction ban. That being said, this isn't a joke nomination. As BU Rob13 points out, there could be more transparency during cases, and I'd like to help with that. Everyone here knows I can both shoot my mouth off and keep quiet when needed. I am willing to sign the confidentiality agreement (I think I already have, when I worked with OTRS). The only doppelganger I have used significantly is SarekOfVulcanExtra. There are a couple of others listed on my userpage with no more than a couple of edits each. I've edited occasionally as an IP, but not often, and never to avoid scrutiny. Rather than ramble on here, I'll just continue in the questions. What would you like to know?

Disqualified candidates

A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver

I am a lawyer and come from a legal background, the important role played by ArbCom is of interest to me from a professional viewpoint. I would enjoy being able to do something I know well here on Wikipedia and consider that my real-life legal background would be of great use to the project. Although I have other commitments, I am able to put the required amount of time towards this role and do not have interfering interests. I consider this to be a worthwhile use of my time and effort for a good cause, and if elected will put my efforts toward fair and impartial justice. Arbitration is as important here on Wikipedia as it is in real life, and I respect the role the Arbitration Committee has played over the last decade or so.

I am neutral on matters of Wikipolitics, and am looking at this as I would a real courtroom, which I am experienced with. I have no plans to reform Arbcom, the very nature of it cannot please everyone. I promise to uphold fair rules and follow the spirit and letter of policy in consideration. I am not an administrator, I am aware many people consider having the "admin bit" is a prerequisite for this role, however it is not a requirement and not being such will not affect my ability to contribute to equal level as required. I will point out that although I have bee here for a while, I am not incredibly active, nor a member of the ten year editing club, there are many others things which I have done over the years besides editing Wikipedia. I am offering to give my expertise as legal professional, for a volunteer role where my skills would be most suited.

My primary interest areas as an editor are in geographical and historical topics, both areas which Wikipedia is a world leader in. All the towns, villages and hamlets in my home county have articles now. I have edited elsewhere, and on any topics, done roles such as NPP and anti-vandalism, and have a though understanding of major processes without having got entrenched. I consider that I can see the bigger picture, and am pleased with the progress of the WMF’s new 2030 strategic direction.

I have used various other accounts in the past, listed here. I am happy to sign the nondisclosure contract with the WMF if elected. For privacy reasons (and per the warning in the candidates guide) my real name is not on public display, and I had it revdeled out before posting this, the many trusted editors who are aware of my real name are asked not to post it publicly.