Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates

2019 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 12:06 (UTC), Monday, 16 December 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Shortcut

WP:ACE2019/C

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

Eligibility criteria

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

(i) has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits before 1 November 2019,

(ii) 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,^[a] and

(iv) has disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee before the close of nominations do not need to 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 03 November 2019 and until 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2019;

(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words^[b] (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

Gadfium

I started editing in March 2004 and became an administrator in December. In 2005, as editing Wikipedia was more interesting than working, I took early retirement. I subsequently completed a BSc degree to improve my knowledge, so I could contribute better to Wikipedia. I attended Wikimania 2012. I’ve never been blocked, and I now have 130,000 edits.

I’ve rarely been involved in WikiPolitics, and until recently I had little to do with the Arbitration Committee. I started to pay more attention when Fram was blocked, and resigned my adminship as a way of expressing my concern at the overriding of Wikpedia’s right to manage its own affairs. Unlike many who resigned, I continued to create content and improve the encyclopedia, because my concern was with the management rather than the goal. Once Arbcom was given permission to decide the case itself, I regained my adminship.

I followed the Arbcom Fram case with great interest. In particular, I was impressed by the arbitrators who engaged with the community. Overall, the Fram incident deepened my commitment to Wikipedia, and as a supporter of English Wikipedia having some autonomy in governance, I want the new Arbcom to be strong. I’m standing because I can help, or at least give the voters a greater choice of candidates.

I’m going in at the deep end, but I can learn to swim. My approach will be more liberal than the overall Arbcom approach so far: I intend to vote for cautions rather than sanctions for editors who appear to be trying to do the "right thing", even if they overstepped the mark. Editors who fail to heed such cautions and appear in subsequent cases will get less liberal treatment. I believe Arbitrators should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases.

I am male, cisgender, straight and Pākehā (the Māori term for Europeans in NZ), so I am privileged but aware that others have had a more difficult life. I’ve travelled widely, and lived in several countries, however I’ve spent most of my life in New Zealand. I have no strong bias on many of the intractable debates in world politics, and if a case comes up where I cannot easily set aside any preconceptions, I will recuse.

I have read and will fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation’s criteria for access to non-public data, and I will identify myself to the Foundation if elected.

I have registered User:Gadbot for future use, but currently have no plans for a bot. I created User:Gadflum to prevent impersonation of my account and that has been blocked.

Casliber

Hi folks, here again. For those who don't know me, my name is Cas Liber and I am a psychiatrist and clinical director (hint: I now have RL experience managing staff and disputes/complaints) in his early 50s from Australia. I have been elected to the committee three times before (2009, 2011-12, 2016-17). My previous statements in 2008, 2010 and 2015 still hold true. I hadn't really planned on this but the events of this year worried me. Funnily enough I was consulted years ago about the formation of a Trust and Safety Committee and did envisage a time where dispute resolution issues (on the one hand) and scope and profile of the WMF (for safety/privacy issues) would make arbcom redundant. However, this obviously hasn't turned out as planned, and keeping an eye on how this process moves forward from here was one of the motivations for me running again. I also do content (I've written some stuff and run the Core Contest and Stub Contest) and feel that helps me appreciate what it takes to build and maintain the 'pedia. As previously, I will push examination of how editors use sources in disputes in cases. If we restrict arb cases to socking, edit-warring and incivility we are leaving wikipedia wide open to organised assaults by parties seeking to influence content. FWIW, I've still only had the one account. Maybe a few IP edits while accidentally logged-out over the past thirteen years...

PS: I have previously confirmed my identity with the WMF and signed the WMF confidentiality agreement

KrakatoaKatie

Hi, I'm Katie. I've been an Wikipedian since 2006, an administrator since 2007, and a CheckUser and Oversighter since 2016. I'm currently serving on the Arbitration Committee and have decided to stand for a second term.

I'm doing this for two main reasons. The first reason is that I'd like to see the harassment RFC through to its conclusion. The text is more or less ready but there's some feeling on the committee that it should wait for the new group in January, and I respect that. This issue has obviously taken up a great deal of our time over the last six months or so and I think I'd like to help shepherd the process to the finish line.

The second reason is the current lack of women candidates. At present, there are four women and four men on the committee. I see one other female candidate as I write this, and that's simply not enough. If we claim to want to reduce our gender bias, we cannot have a 15-member committee with only one or two women members. Biases aren't something one necessarily fosters actively and nurtures; they often simply exist because we are humans and bring our experiences, and lack of experiences, with us. The male members of the committee can't know what it's like to be a woman trying to edit in this male-dominated environment, so we as women have to tell them. That's going to be important with as many men as it appears will be selected in this new group.

This arb thing is no joke. It's serious, sobering, time-consuming (the email will blow your mind), and sometimes brutal. I said in my 2017 candidate statement that I try to be kind; I must admit that's sometimes difficult in this position, but I've done my best. I've struggled at times this year to stay the course through the drama and angst and turmoil. But I love this project, and I'm willing to serve again. I've always tried to do the right thing as I saw it, and I will continue to do that if chosen.

I'll have difficulty answering questions for a couple of days due to travel and other commitments, but I'll get them answered as soon as I can, so ask away. I promise I'm not ignoring you. :-)

I have one doppelganger, User:Krakatoa Katie, and I've signed the ANIP and OTRS agreements.

Maxim

I'm Maxim, and I have been an administrator and bureaucrat for several years. What drives me to run are the unpleasant events of the past year. I feel that as a project, we are better off remaining autonomous with regards to behavioural concerns instead of having the Foundation intervening (with the obvious exception of matters such as child protection). Needless to say, I was disappointed by the events of the past June. I left a message on my userpage and took a break for a couple of months. I am decidedly back now, and not having previously served as an arbitrator, I would provide a new yet experienced voice on the committee.

I'm well aware that the role of arbitrator is difficult. There are for sure similarities to being a 'crat, where from time to time one is called on to make contentious decisions which leaves a vocal group quite upset. My gut feeling is that being a bureaucrat for many years may have prepared for some of the realities of serving on the committee as well as possible without previously being an arbitrator.

If elected, I will comply with the Foundation's policies on access to non-public information. My sock-drawer is declared to arbcom and includes User:Maximr, User:Maxim's JS test account and a few others in my user creation log (I forget passwords to test accounts from time to time). Despite sometimes being a bit of a lurker, I have been consistently present and around for many years for bureaucrat matters, and I intend to similarly honour my commitments if I am elected.

Hawkeye7

I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, with more than 100,000 edits. I have contributed to 76 Featured Articles, 3 featured lists, 117 A class articles, and 290 Good Articles. I have been active as a Military History Project coordinator, being re-elected to a seventh term in September 2019. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and occasional written opinion pieces and book reviews for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle. I assist at DYK with reviews and have been involved in the assembly of the prep areas from time to time. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013, Military History Project Military Historian of the Year in 2012, and runner-up in 2014 and 2016. I have never been blocked or banned.

I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball. I have travelled around Australia, and to Thailand, China, Germany, the United States and Canada covering Paralympic sports. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 and Esino Laurio in 2016 on scholarships from the Wikimedia Foundation.

I hope that I can provide a voice for content creators on the Arbitration Committee.

I confirm that I will comply fully with the criteria for access to non-public data.

In addition to my main account, I have written and maintained two registered bots, the MilHistBot and FACBot, which are used by the featured article process, and for performing various administrative tasks related to the Military History Project. I also created a third bot account, AussieBot, which has never been used.

Newyorkbrad

I am standing as a candidate to return as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As many of you know, I've served several prior terms on the ArbCom. I was a member from 2008 to 2014, and again in 2017 and 2018, making me one of the two longest-serving arbitrators in the Committee's history. I voluntarily retired as an arb in 2014 and again in 2018. Both times, I thought I had made my contributions, and that it was time to move on and allow others to serve. For the same reasons, I was not planning to run again this year. However, within the past few weeks, several editors I respect have suggested that I should consider becoming a candidate this year, in light of the unusually high number of seats to be filled in this election and the events of the past few months. After much thought, I've decided to give the community the choice.

Frankly, the march of time since I became an editor in 2006, an administrator in 2007, and an arbitrator in 2008 remains astonishing to me. Subjectively, it doesn't feel like all that long ago since I was a fresh-faced, independent-minded newcomer, yet the calendar tells me I've become very much of an old-timer here. My goal, if elected, would be to rekindle and combine the advantages of both perspectives.

Off-wiki, I'm a lawyer in New York. In addition to Wikipedia, my hobbies include researching and writing about legal history and detective fiction, chairing the Wolfe Pack, and contributing to the FictionMags index.

Editors who have followed ArbCom's activities in the past will have a pretty good idea what you can expect from me if I'm elected again. I look forward to answering questions. Thanks for your consideration.

Disclosures: I'm already identified to the Foundation (and the general public) and will abide by the nonpublic information policy, including signing the confidentiality agreement again if required. I've had no other accounts besides this one.

Barkeep49

Hi I’m Barkeep49 and I’m running for ArbCom because I believe in Wikipedia. I believe in our mission to provide high-quality information to the world. For free! I believe in our community, the ways people from different cultures come together for a common cause, to work out differences through discussion, and successfully write informative encyclopedic material. I hope to have contributed to the community through my content creation (more than 20 good articles), work with New Page Patrol (where I am the elected coordinator), and measured contributions to the community in discussions.

I also believe in ArbCom. I do not think of it a necessary evil. Considering what it faces, having to solve the problems that a capable community has shown it cannot, ArbCom does a good job, on the whole. Every ArbCom gets some stuff wrong but they do a better job than you’d think if you only read ArbCom’s noticeboard. ArbCom is also better positioned to handle difficult English Wikipedia behavior problems than the Wikimedia Foundation Trust & Safety team.

I hadn’t expected to be running. I am a relatively new administrator. While I remember what it’s like to feel put down or otherwise dismissed because of that status, I also don’t have the range of experience of many who get elected. However, multiple experienced editors whose opinions I value encouraged me to run. Strictly looking at the requirements I meet them: I am over 18, have thousands of mainspace edits, have no bans or blocks, no alternative accounts, and will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, as I already do as an OTRS agent. However, meeting those minimums are not why I’m running.

I am running because I also don’t think you have to be crazy to run and that kind of rhetoric isn’t helpful. Being on arbcom is not fun. The problems are SERIOUS, the rewards few, and the criticism (that which should be listened to, that which should be ignored, and that which should be confronted as toxic) is never-ending. However, the chance to tackle challenging problems on behalf of a community and for an idea I believe in doesn’t strike me as crazy. It strikes me as a chance to be of service. I hope the Wikipedia community will trust and privilege me with the chance to give my service by electing me to ArbCom.

Enterprisey

Hi, I'm Enterprisey. I've been editing for about seven and a half years, and my recent contributions are mostly on the technical side. However, I feel like I would be serving the community by being on the committee. I think good judgment and empathy are important attributes for candidates to have, and I think I've demonstrated both in my career here so far.

I don't have as much onwiki dispute resolution experience as some other candidates, but I think I'm pretty good at it IRL.

As usual, I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have edited under the usernames Enterprisey, APerson, APerson241, WatermelonTest, EnterpriseyBot, RemindMeBot, Thizzlehatter, Enterprisey-alt, and EnterpriseyAWB. These are also listed (with descriptions) at User:Enterprisey/Accounts.

Finally, I will certainly continue to write user scripts if elected, in case anyone was worried about that.

Worm That Turned

Hi all. I'm Dave Craven, or Worm That Turned. I've been an editor for about 11 years, an admin for about 8, and have served twice on the Arbitration Committee (2013/4 and 2018/9). I've also worked in quite a few other areas of Wikipedia, such as bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, OTRS.

I'm sure you'll all want to know my opinions on the last two years, well, if you have anything specific, please ask at the questions page. Generally, though, I would say the committee has had to deal with some particularly difficult and unprecedented situations - which could have been handled worse. Communication, however, is an area where we still need to improve.

I would like to see a good shake up of the committee this year, with 11 seats to fill we have a very good chance of that happening. Equally, we need some institutional memory. I do hope I can be part of both.

The final question that I think most people will have is on activity. I know I have not been particularly active on wiki, however I am active, regularly discussing matters on the list. I am willing to put my head above the parapet when the community needs an explanation on the difficult decisions and I do my best to answer promptly when I am asked a direct question.

Declaration: 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!

David Fuchs

While things have improved much more than I feared, there's still a lot of open seats this election season that could do with a large crop of good candidates for people to choose from; hence, I'm throwing my hat in. I'm David; you might remember me from past Arbitration Committees such as 2010 and 2012. If not, you may have seen me around Good Article Nominations and Featured Article Candidates, where I spend most of my time.

My original candidate statement in 2010 included this line that I think remains pretty useful as a guiding statement about my thoughts on ArbCom: My belief is that we should all be here to—in some way or form—create an encyclopedia, and all of ArbCom's actions should be mindful of that. Fostering a site that allows editors to work diligently means having an Arbitration Committee that acts fairly, quickly, and prudently. Wikipedia is a different place than it was nearly ten years ago, but the project's goals remain the same. As such, I think the role of the Arbitration Committee and how it should operate have stayed germane—and I think it's reasonable that there are community members who feel recent committees have not lived up to that ideal.

I'm already identified to the Foundation, and will abide by the nonpublic information policy. I look forward to answering specific questions posed.

SoWhy

I became a Wikipedian in March of 2004 and passed RFA in October of 2008. Like many editors less versed in article writing, I started out as a vandal fighter and new page patroller, although gaining adminship has proven to be a gateway for my nascent content creation skills to develop, first rescuing articles from (speedy) deletion and submitting them to DYK and later even creating some GAs of my own. A short while ago, I even got an FA, making me eligible for a Four Award, something I would never have expected 15 years ago when I registered on this project. Even though I am still not (and will likely never be) a content creator first and foremost, I am aware of the challenges and requirements.

When a couple of users I trust suggested I stand in this election, I was surprised that they believed I would do a good job as an ArbCom member. But when one of them pointed out that ArbCom’s main job is to be calm, diligent and fair, I think I can honestly say that I can be that and I am confident I can learn what I don’t yet know. Diversity of thought seems to be a good goal to have in mind for the Committee imho.

I’m from Germany, went to law school and working as a lawyer, a job that regularly requires me to see all sides of a problem in order to best counsel my clients. It also means that handling sensitive data is my daily bread, so I can confidently say that I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.

I use two alternative accounts, User:Yhwos and User:SWM. I also registered User:Sowhy to prevent impersonation. Back in 2009, I used User:Azerajion for a short while (declared to ArbCom) but it’s been blocked since and I have no plans to use it anymore.

Note: I will be on vacation from 23 November until 8 December, so any questions asked in that period are most likely not going to be answered, although I will try to check in every few days if possible.

Regards So Why 11:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Richwales

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

I've been a Wikipedian since early 2005, and an administrator since 2011. My work here has included two Featured Articles and nine Good Articles.

I've participated in numerous SPIs (as a clerk); I initiated one RFC/U (a now-defunct process for discussing the actions of an individual editor); and I've been informally involved in several mediation efforts (albeit with limited success).

I am currently a member of the Oversight team. In the past, I have been a member of the Audit Subcommittee (2013–2014) and the Ombudsman Commission (2017–2018), and I have been an SPI clerk since 2013 (though on voluntary hiatus for the past year).

I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and NPA policies. I believe in civility, though my time spent here has helped me to understand that disruptive activity can be a real problem even if editors remain superficially polite, and I am really not as concerned about "nasty words" as I am about battleground conduct, POV-pushing, and undisclosed paid editing.

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

I am well over 18, and I have previously confirmed my identity with the WMF and signed the WMF confidentiality agreement. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I will be retiring from my real-life job at the end of this year, so I can realistically expect to have more time to devote to Wikipedia in 2020. I mention this in case it might make a difference to some of those who have expressed reservations about my candidacy on account of my low activity of late. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox

The basics: I've been an active Wikipedian for most of the last 12 years, I've been an admin for the last decade, and a functionary for about 9 years. I also previously served on the 2014 ArbCom.

I honestly can't believe I'm nominating myself. After my previous stint in 2014 I swore I wouldn't do it again, but here we are. Why? Because the committee has clearly had a very rough year and there is massive turnover/burnout, and a lot of new blood is needed. I think we also need some old blood, some institutional memory and experience with the process, and it has been five years since my previous term expired, so it doesn't burn quite as bad anymore.

This job is hard. It often is no fun at all, but it does need to be done, and I've done it before and was surprised to find I'm willing to do it again. I believe my record speaks for itself, although I have a low tolerance for disruption of the project, I also endeavor to remember, and remind others, that we are dealing with real people here, whether we are patrolling their very first edit or deciding whether to ban them or not, we have to remember that.

As a functionary I am already signed off on all relevant documents required for arbitrators.
I have some non-editing doppelgänger accounts that redirect to my user page, but I do not have any alternate accounts and never have.

Beeblebrox (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man

Well then. I've been ceaselessly dedicated to the project since May 2005 when I adjusted Harold Faltermeyer's article with reference to one of the finest movie soundtracks ever made. The rest, as they often say, is history...

Bad behaviour count: significant, confrontations are notable enough to be discussed and I'm happy to discuss each and every one of them. I'm a former administrator and bureaucrat, both of which I resigned, in cloudy circumstances. I'm also a former OTRS volunteer (no complaints there!). And a former Oversighter and Checkuser on Simple English Wikipedia (my membership elapsed due to lack of interest in that project rather than the tools being removed). I've been blocked a few times, but as far as I know have never been accused or found guilty of abusing any tools I've been given. I'm subject to a couple of Arbitration Committee enforcements, so I know exactly how it feels to be on both sides of the coin.

Wikipedia is a content-based project for our readers. It is not, nor should it ever become, a cock-waving competition where Arb-wannabes blow out about how great we see no real contribution to the global knowledge. People trying to govern a content-based project need to understand how to build that content.... My content: 21 FAs, 111 FLs, more than 150 GAs, 2 FTs. I spend too much time trying to ensure Wikipedia doesn't look terribly shit for our readers. I've got a huge ongoing dedication to the excellence of this project. I think analysis of most anything I do here will confirm that. I fear no-one here, and respect those who deserve respect.

I identified myself to WMF a while ago. No other accounts beyond User:The Rambling Man on tour which I used to while travelling to avoid any issues with my sysop/'crat tools (like someone was going to pop in and promote Willy on Wheels to admin...) Please note, I'll be trying to avoid scrutiny by claiming to be on holiday or on the other side of the planet, but I'll do my best to get to every question as soon as I possibly can. I have two small children (they are my own, not hostages) which does sometimes limit my ability to respond coherently for brief periods and I do work (!) UTC 6am to 6pm. But y'all know me, I'll make it happen.

Calidum

After having reviewed the candidates running in this year's race, I am concerned there could be a lack of new perspectives on the committee, so I therefore submit myself for consideration.

My name is Calidum. I have been an editor since 2011 and mostly focus on WP:RM, WP:ITNC and the occasional anti-vandal work. I am not a prolific content contributor, though I believe writing an encyclopedia is the most important thing this website should be about, and the committee needs to keep that in mind.

Yes, I have had some bouts of incivility in the past, the most recent of which in 2017. I stepped away from Wikipedia at that time, but I have been active for the past year.

If elected, I would like to see the committee become more transparent and work to address matters in a more fair and timely fashion to the benefit of all involved parties. I stand by many of the ideas I've raised in my previous runs to achieve these goals.

Now, for the standard disclosure, I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data and am well over the age of majority in my country. I have three doppelgänger accounts: User:Hot Stop, User:Hotstoponwiki and User:Calidum Sistere.

Thank you for your reading this.

Bradv

Hi everyone, I'm Bradv and I am currently a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, an OTRS volunteer, and an administrator.

I am volunteering for this role because I believe in Arbcom as a necessary part of the Wikipedia ecosystem. It helps to safeguard the content-writing process from those who would only seek to subvert our processes or undermine our core policies. It is currently our only means of holding editors with advanced privileges to account. And it is the body responsible for the discretionary sanctions system, which provides administrators with greater latitude to resolve issues promptly, and in many cases, preemptively.

That said, Arbcom is by no means perfect. The decision-making process is often too opaque, yet at other times the desire for transparency limits the committee's ability to do the right thing, particularly when it's unpopular. I believe in increasing communication and transparency whenever possible, so that in the rare case something must be done privately the community can trust that the committee is doing the right thing.

I also believe that Arbcom needs to assert its role with respect to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Trust & Safety department has an important role in issues such as child protection and paid editing, but concerns about regular editors need to handled within the editing community. This principle must be strongly held by the committee, particularly with an Arbcom that is not afraid to take a stance on issues even when such decisions are difficult.

My hope for this election is that the committee will be made up of both experienced arbitrators with strong institutional memories and some fresh faces with new ideas. I would hope to fit into the latter category, even though my experience means that I am intimately familiar with many of the inner workings of the committee, as well as most of the issues that face the committee now and in the past year.

As a clerk, I am aware of the burnout that arbitrators experience, and have had to clerk more retirements in the past year than I would have liked. If elected, I will make every effort to remain engaged in regular editing, as it is essential for arbitrators to be well connected to the rest of the community. I also enjoy serving as a clerk, and would be happy to continue in this role if I am not chosen to be part of the committee.

I meet the eligibility criteria, including compliance with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have two alternate accounts, BradV (one edit in 2007, now a doppelgänger), and ArbClerkBot.

Thryduulf

I'm Thryduulf (AKA Chris McKenna). I've been an editor since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I served as arbitrator for a one year term in 2015 and have remained a member of the Oversight team since then. I have been involved with the community for many years, including helping organise Wikimania 2014 in London and have helped at many training events in conjunction with Wikimedia UK and organisations including the Wellcome Collection, University of St Mark and St John and National Railway Museum. I attend the London and Oxford meetups most months and get to others around the country when I can, and there is barely a day when I don't read Wikipedia.

This year there are a large number of seats available on the committee after a tumultuous year, and I feel there is a need for some steady hands from long-time community members to work with those who are newer to ensure that the Committee best represents the editing community. In 2015 I did my best to communicate progress on cases as much as possible, and I did a lot of chivying behind the scenes to keep things progressing and get decisions made - a role I intend to repeat if elected. I firmly believe that every new request for a case, clarification or amendment should be acknowledged and responded to as soon as possible, and that no open business should go for more than a week without at least one arbitrator commenting at least once (and ideally more). Accordingly I will endeavour to always acknowledge new business if no arbitrator has yet done so, and to provide weekly updates (if required) on ongoing business I am not recused on. I will also answer reasonable queries about decisions where I can (but I will not feed trolls).

My philosophy is that everybody's first priority should be to do what benefits readers of the encyclopaedia, and that everybody's second priority should be to facilitate a collegiate and welcoming environment that enables editors to improve the encyclopaedia. I am prepared to take tough decisions if necessary to do back up this philosophy - no one editor is bigger than the project (including me) and nobody should be unblockable.

Declaration: As an Oversighter I have already signed the confidentiality agreement and will supply the Foundation with my contact details if they don't already have them. All my accounts and their purposes are listed on my user page at User:Thryduulf#Other accounts. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Isarra

Hi, I'm Isarra. I'm an angry MediaWiki developer and long-term contributor to Uncyclopedia and Illogicopedia, and accidentally kind of on purpose made an account here a few years back as a joke so I could pretend to be a part of a more reputable community. This only sort of stuck as I have no idea what's going on, but I'm pretty sure arbcom is hilarious and generally doesn't involve years-long harassment cases that turn into a deep pit of legal confusion, because y'all have some actual paid people to offload this crap onto when it gets totally out of hand.

You should vote for me because:

I probably won't do anything, and thus am unlikely to make anything worse.
I have been blocked 146 times on the english Uncyclopedia, and an additional 7 times on Illogicopedia, though admittedly most of that was by myself.
I have the technical capability to completely break your site, in several ways. This probably isn't even relevant. I'm just throwing it out there because I can.
I like to think I have already shown considerable restraint not running around rampantly protecting things on request. I also have no idea why I have this right to begin with, since the only use cases I could come up with... are never going to apply in practice because we have better ways/places to do all this regardless.
I am fun at parties. If you consider someone standing around creepily, plastered in thousands of eyeballs, to be 'fun'.
It is impossible to know how many bugs I have created, as they have not yet all been found, and every time one is fixed more seem to appear.
Apparently I forgot to include anything here about pie. This has now been remedied.
I am an award-winning sockmaster.

The WMF knows who I am. I can tell them again if you want, and sign whatever if I haven't already. I also don't actually know what all of my alternate accounts are because I keep drunk-making new ones on the wrong wikis, and while I don't think this is one of them, there are likely global accounts from some other languages and stuff.

Llywrch

I'm Llywrch, & I've contributed to Wikipedia for slightly more than 17 years. I became an Admin back when it was no big thing, & was elected by three votes. I believe I came up with the No Original Research policy, although someone else has also claimed that achievement & has been more active in its development, so I might be wrong about that. I also believe I came up with the idea of Wikipedian-in-Residence, but again someone else actually put it into practice without knowing I had proposed the idea, so I'm probably wrong about that either. I have made a fair number of edits in several different subject areas, so there's that.

I see the Arbitration Committee as the place where disagreements come to an end. Matters are decided, people have their privileges revoked. That is all it does; it does not set policy or otherwise promulgate rules. I have not been involved with it in recent years because I believe it has functioned satisfactorily in most cases, & the ArbCom can do without free advice. Nonetheless, the ArbCom has come to rely on the same small group of volunteers to donate their time & energy to make it work, & they need reinforcements. It's time for someone else to take his turn in the barrel, & I'm volunteering for that.

I hope that last statement didn't sound flippant. Serving on the ArbCom is a job that can have a serious effect on other people; it can protect people but it can also alienate people. And I believe serving on it now is critical because the Foundation appears to be preparing to arrogate management of our community for themselves, & impose rules that may not necessarily be to the benefit of either the community or the encyclopedia. The projects & the Foundation should be working as partners, each focusing on what we can do best to keep the community & the encyclopedia flourishing. And I'd like to be one of those who can convince them that this is the right approach.

I don't see any problem with meeting the requirements for this position. I am of suitable age, can abide by the rules for handling non-public information, & have no alternative accounts.

DGG

I've been at Wikipedia for the last twelve years as editor and administrator. Over this time I've worked with new articles and drafts, trying to keep improvable ones from being deleted--and removing the others, while trying to give realistic advice to new editors and dealing with questions about reliable sources. I was a member of Arb Com for 2015-2018. My goal then was to bring the committee to a more active approach in dealing with the actual problems on Wikipedia, rather than making the narrowest possible decisions—to judge by the merits rather than the technicalities. The committee has come some way towards this, partly by responding gradually to my continuing private and sometimes public dissents during discussions. This is now sometimes the case. I advocated increased openness in discussions and public votes on motions, and these too are a little more frequent. I have learned that takes many years of repeated effort to change Wikipedia, and we need to continue; improvements here do not often come when they are first suggested. For example, when I suggested this at the beginning of my first term, that the committee should accept some responsibility for dealing with violations of the terms of use about undeclared paid editors, no one else supported it; by now, procedures are in place. I respect all the continuing arbitrators—it will not be a situation with sharply divided positions. Arbcom is not the Supreme Court, it's not the Congress, but a group of people who try very hard to work together, and usually succeeed. There are many other good candidates with similar views, candidates with backgrounds working on the actual content of Wikipedia, candidates who will help those interested in the quality of the encyclopedia. I urge you to vote for them, and for me also. The many positions open this year give an unusual opportunity.

My real name and my background are on my user page; I am identified to the Foundation, I've signed the necessary agreements. and alternate accounts used in editing instruction have been previously disclosed.

Kudpung

I registered in 2006 and am an admin for nearly 9 years and over 100k edits. I was at Wikimania 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2016 and as I live in Thailand I'll obviously be in Bangkok 2020. I rarely take wiki breaks and I'm online almost 24/7 [1]. I've been round the WP block in varying phases of activity but this does not mean that I already know everything about how Arbcom works. I've instigated some changes to Wikipedia and campaigned hard for others but I'm not running on any specific platform and if I am elected, I have no designs on reforming the Arbcom, I simply want to contribute towards making the process as expedient and as equitable as possible.

I believe I am fair without being too lenient and firm without being possessed of power. I sometimes do not stand on ceremony, and occasionally call a spade a spade but I can also keep my trap shut and forego on the last word. My career in linguistics and communications has led me to resolve issues that otherwise get stuck on some cultural or social dichotomy. I'm familiar with and at ease in many different countries, continents, and languages and have lived, studied, and worked away from my native UK for getting on for 50 years.

Just like I believe the Committee needs a balance of gender, I believe it needs a balance of generation, a balance of world view, and solid experience in collaborative online projects. I am already identified to the WMF but I'll do it again. I have the following other accounts that are very rarely used and only for testing: Kudpung2, Kudpung3, Kudpung4, KudpungMobile, and Kudpung.wikimania. I have very, very strong passwords.

Xeno

Once more into the breach. The ship is listing, and here is a hand that has sailed before: registered 2006; began editing 2008; administrator 2008*; bureaucrat 2010; WP:ACE2010 (2-year term).

Arbitrator inactivity and attrition continues to be a significant concern and has impacted the committee's function. I was inactive in 2012 on almost all matters (and the project generally) for the final 11 months due to unforeseen life circumstances/time limitations. Risker (arbitrator emeritus-extraordinaire), was immensely helpful to me personally during this time and can confirm the gravity of the situation if that would set anyone at ease. My major contribution of that year was organizing the AUSC selections, where I was pleased to oversee the appointment of a non-administrator to CUOS permissions - I believe for the first time in project history. That 1 March 2012 motion represents the final arbitration action of my term, though I may have contributed to mailing list discussions (probably very sparsely).

Being an arbitrator is by-and-large not an enjoyable scenario, and I do not relish resuming the role - though I did enjoy the collaborative work with my colleagues, organizing the advanced permissions selections, and helping users who were reaching out for assistance. Since being nudged onto the plank, I've carefully considered my available time for committee business as I do not want to disappoint the electorate for a second time. While life does keep me fairly busy, it's a more positive busy and (perhaps paradoxically,) the unfortunate events of the past year in Wikipedia have energized, rather than diminished, my desire to contribute to the project and protect its ideals from overzealous outside influence.

*Note that I do not currently hold administrative privileges, as during the current period of uncertainty with respect to administrative conduct enforcement I have chosen to relinquish that user group. I reserve the right to seek procedural restoration of administrator privileges or remain as a non-administrator. In the latter case, it will be necessary to accept advanced privileges to review deleted content.

Regarding bureaucrat/arbitrator "separation of powers": I adopt WTT's Q2 responses to Vandamonde93.

Disclosures:

I found a significant error in the arbitration candidate editintro, requesting it be fixed at coordination.

I will fully comply with the Criteria for access to non-public data as a signatory to the Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information.

The committee has seen inside my sock drawer, and asked me not to open it again.

List of withdrawn candidates

[1] 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.

[2] Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);

[3] Provide contact and identification information; and

[4] Sign a confidentiality agreement.

[2] 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.

[a]