User:Fluffernutter/SinglePageAC (L-Z)
Main pages[edit]
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Guide
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Discussion
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Coordination
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016
Guides[edit]
Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2015 voter guides
Lfaraone[edit]
LFaraone[edit]
- Hello, I'm Luke Faraone. I've been a Wikipedia editor for the past 12 years, an administrator since 2008, and a member of the CheckUser and Oversight teams since 2013.
I served a two-year term on the Arbitration Committee (2014-2015). I've taken some time away over the past year, but would be honoured to serve the project in such a role again. I mostly focussed on internal Committee processes, moving forward a lot of work that has since been eliminated through devolution or delegation. I'd like to continue that devolution, while at the same time provide increased clarity around still-necessary processes and procedures. The best Arbitration Committee (while it is needed) is one that operates efficiently and justly, allowing everyone else to get back to the actually-productive work of writing the encyclopedia.
I will continue to comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; I am identified to the Foundation per roles as a functionary, volunteer response team participant, and arbitrator. I used the username Firefoxman prior to a rename in 2008. User:LFaraone_(usurped) is the account that was previously under my current name.
- LFaraone (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: LFaraone
|
LFaraone questions[edit]
Questions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from User:Doc James[edit]
Question from Joshualouie711[edit]
Question from Biblioworm[edit]
Questions from Collect[edit]
Thank you Collect (talk) 13:40, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Mark Arsten[edit]
Questions from Carrite[edit]
Question from Rschen7754[edit]
Questions from Opabinia[edit]
Question from *thing goes[edit]Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
--18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC) Question from The Rambling Man[edit]
Questions from Antony-22[edit]
Questions from Dweller[edit]
Questions from George Ho[edit]
|
LFaraone questions discussion[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/LFaraone/Questions Back to Table of Contents
LFaraone general discussion[edit]
Experience in security matters[edit]
I am wondering what others think of the ways the candidate's real-life experience in software and online security would impact their role in the Arbitration Committee? Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC) Back to Table of Contents
Salvidrim![edit]
Salvidrim![edit]
- Last year I threw my name in the ring with specific intentions to withdraw if there ever were a sufficient number of candidates I was comfortable supporting and pledged to withdraw if that threshold was reached. It was, and I did... and then people came to me expressing disappointment in my withdrawal. So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well.
- Oh, and because the rules say this is required: Yes, I'm already identified to the WMF. Yes, I have signed the confidentiality agreements. Whatever alternative/humour/doppelganger accounts I have are all redirected to my main one and listed at the bottom of my userpage, but here's a list anyways: Salvidumbass!, Salvidrim, Salv, Salvid, Salvadrim, Ben Landry, Benoit Landry. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
- Salvidrim! (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Salvidrim!
|
Salvidrim! questions[edit]
Questions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from PeterTheFourth[edit]
Question from Gerda Arendt[edit]
Question from /u/NVLibrarian[edit]
Questions from Collect[edit]
Question from Biblioworm[edit]
Question from Mark Arsten[edit]
Questions from Carrite[edit]
Question from Leaky[edit]
Questions from Opabinia[edit]
Question from Rschen7754[edit]
Questions from GorillaWarfare[edit]
Question from *thing goes[edit]
Question from The Rambling Man[edit]
Questions from Antony-22[edit]
Question from User:Doc James[edit]
Question from Panyd[edit]
|
Salvidrim! questions discussion[edit]
Format[edit]
@GorillaWarfare: the {{quote box}}es are breaking the ArbCom-question templates (which are fragile to begin with). Mind if I replace them with line returns and in-line {{tq}} quotes? I won't alter the content, just the format. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, go for it. GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to review my formatting revision to make sure the result still appropriately reflects the intention of the questions. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome to review my formatting revision to make sure the result still appropriately reflects the intention of the questions. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 18:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Salvidrim! general discussion[edit]
Layout/format issue[edit]
I can't figure out why a "1." shows up to the left of the box with my answer to Biblioworm, it doesn't for the others. If someone can fix that I'd be very thankful.... pinging Mike V or JJMC89 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Salvidrim!: I've fixed it. There were missing
#
's. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)- Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the issue before that and trying to remove said
#
but I must've been the one who broke it in the first place. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the issue before that and trying to remove said
Question followup[edit]
Thanks for your honesty with your answers, though I admit I am concerned with your "longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass" and how that might affect your judgment as an arbitrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
- Every guy wants to be James Dean or Indiana Jonnes or Han Solo at some point. Everybody tries to be cool, especially on places like Reddit or with co-workers around the water cooler. It doesn't change how one is when working seriously, for example either at my day job or on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Mkdw[edit]
Mkdw[edit]
- I never imagined I would ever put myself up as a candidate for ArbCom.
- For those of you who do not know me, which I expect to be almost everyone, I am Mkdw. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006; just over ten years. Saying that sounds even more strange to me than the notion of being an ArbCom candidate. I have been an administrator since 2013 and have access to the OTRS and UTRS. I spend the majority of my time doing small background tasks such as working at SPI, AFD, and AIV in addition to OTRS and UTRS. Lately I've spent a lot of my time investigating SPI cases where COI and PAID are contributing factors. I also make myself available on IRC in the en-help channel.
- In terms of article writing, I do a lot less of it than I would like. I have contributed in a major way to three FAs, four GAs, and eight DYKs. A lot of these contributions were apart of the Gender Gap Task Force, Art+Feminism, and Wikipedia Asian Month (as part of Women in Red/Asian Women Month). I became interested in pro-feminism through my work in international transracial adoption. At the time it was also a controversial topic here on the English Wikipedia and I wanted to volunteer my time to expanding the content in those areas.
- In my work, I am frequently required to thoroughly review sensitive and confidential information in sometimes complex and lengthy processes. I fully understand the importance in objectively reviewing cases and making decisions even if they are in conflict with my own personal and moral convictions. I feel that I have a stable work-life and personal-wikipedia balance. While I am not as prolific an editor as other candidates in the past (and hopefully more candidates forthcoming), I do think that this aspect may help me avoid ArbCom burn out. So if appointed, I would strive to bring a calm and patient presence to the table.
- As a note, I am currently travelling which I do so frequently on business. This trip is quite a long one and I will be back on 17 December 2016. I will have access to the Internet and plan to check Wikipedia regularly but there will be periods of time where I will not be able to respond as quickly. I meet the eligibility criteria; I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; and my alternate accounts are User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF. (Please note User:Mkdwyer99 is not associated with me)
- Extended statement and concerns about the low number of candidates (at the time of this statement).
- Mkdw (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Mkdw
|
Mkdw questions[edit]
Questions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from Rschen7754[edit]
Questions from Collect[edit]
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Biblioworm[edit]
Question from Mark Arsten[edit]
Questions from Carrite[edit]
Questions from BU Rob13[edit]
Questions from Opabinia[edit]
Question from *thing goes[edit]
Question from The Rambling Man[edit]
Questions from Antony-22[edit]
Questions from George Ho[edit]
|
Mkdw questions discussion[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Mkdw/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Mkdw general discussion[edit]
I do not know Mkdw well, but I did have some interaction with this editor several years ago in WP:WikiProject Vancouver. At the time, I found Mkdw to be friendly, reasonable, and easy to work with. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
question[edit]
How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BlackAmerican: If you're talking about as a functionary, I would handle an SPI in exactly the same way I have always handled SPI cases. I would examine the evidence against the editors based upon diffs, edit summaries, logs, tendencies, area of interest, history of the accounts (such as when they were created), and technical evidence. SPI is not a fishing expedition and there needs to be a convergence of evidence either behaviourally, technically, or both that surpasses a threshold for anything to be actionable administratively. Merely having experience with the markup language would not be sufficient grounds alone and editors investigating these cases must be careful to ensure they're not inadvertently outing someone using a legitimate alternate account. These are procedures and best practices (among many others) followed at SPI that all editors should adhere to regardless of their appointment to ArbCom or not. Mkdwtalk 17:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
- Were they engaging in meat or sock puppetry as outlined in WP:SOCK? Were they blocked based upon behavioural and technical evidence or did an WP:SPI determine there was enough evidence to reasonably indicate they were involved in meat or sock puppetry? There is typically a lengthy queue for unblock requests. Were their unblock requests eventually responded to and either granted or denied? Did they file multiple requests? Were their unblock requests in line with WP:GAPB? Did they eventually appeal their block via the UTRS or directly to ArbCom? Do you believe any of these blocks violated our current policies and guidelines? If not, have you or they attempted to amend our blocking policy through community consensus such as via WP:RFC? I'm asking all these questions because there are a lot of steps before an ArbCom case when it comes to editorial conduct.
- It's important to note that ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. If a case was brought against an admin for misuse of their tools such as blocking editors beyond the scope and provisions of WP:BLOCK and other relevant policies, then ArbCom would likely investigate the matter. Beyond that, actions taken that are deemed by some as "unfair" but fall within our policies and guidelines are not within the jurisdiction of ArbCom to address. Mkdwtalk 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad[edit]
Newyorkbrad[edit]
I am standing as a candidate to return as a member of the Arbitration Committee.
As many of you know, I previously served on the Committee from 2008 to 2014. During that period, I was an active arbitrator, including as the drafter of about 25 arbitration decisions and a participant in all phases of the Committee's work. I did not run for reelection in 2014 because no one should serve in any role on Wikipedia for life, and I thought it was time to move on. But two years have passed since then, several editors I respect have asked me to consider returning to arbitrating, and I am glad to give the community that option.
Frankly, the Arbitration Committee plays a lesser role on English Wikipedia today than it has in the past, as the number of arbitration cases declines each year—and this lesser role is not a bad thing. However, the cases the Committee does decide still may involve some of the project's most contentious and difficult disputes, and the Committee has other important responsibilities.
By way of personal background, I'm an experienced litigation attorney in New York. While the ArbCom is not meant to engage in legalistic processes or to resolve legal issues, I do think it is worthwhile for at least one member to have some legal background.
Editors who have followed ArbCom's activities in the past will have a pretty good idea what you can expect from me as an arbitrator if I'm elected again. I'm also glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. Thanks for your consideration.
Disclosure: I'm already identified to the Foundation and have signed the required paperwork during my prior service, and more recently when I was appointed as a non-voting community advisory member of the Governance Committee of the WMF Board of Trustees. No other accounts besides this one.
- Newyorkbrad (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Newyorkbrad
|
Newyorkbrad questions[edit]
Questions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from Ajraddatz[edit]
Question from Mark Arsten[edit]
Questions from Carrite[edit]
Question from Rschen7754[edit]
Questions from Begoon[edit]
Questions from Collect[edit]
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Biblioworm[edit]
Questions from Opabinia[edit]
Question from TH1980[edit]
Question from Banedon[edit]
Question from *thing goes[edit]Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
--18:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Questions from The Rambling Man[edit]
Questions from Antony-22[edit]
Questions from Sarah777[edit]
Question from That man from Nantucket[edit]
Question from User:Doc James[edit]
Questions from George Ho[edit]
|
Newyorkbrad questions discussion[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Newyorkbrad/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Newyorkbrad general discussion[edit]
Part of a cadre of admins who mollycoddle the editor Beyond My Ken, taking complaints about non-constructive reverts and behavioral issues and dismissing them on technical grounds. Electing Newyorkbrad to the arbitration committee will create a more clique-y Wikipedia that protects disruptive and borderline abusive editors. Furry-friend (talk) 21:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Ah, jeepers, you would deny me the mollycoddling I so richly deserve? (Try walking in my shoes sometime, I guarantee you won't feel coddled, molly- or otherwise. "Curdled" is more like it. Maybe I'm "mollycurdled" - is that a thing?) That you would judge the very able and valuable Newyorkbrad by this one thing (assuming you were even right, which you're not) is an indication not you're really not thinking very deeply about people's qualifications, or, indeed, about what would happen if NYB was re-elected as an Arb. (Yes, "re-elected", because he was an Arbitrator from 2008-2013, and he was damn good at it. And the project didn't die of "clique-ishness".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, BTW, the next time you feel like mentioning me, please don't ping me, I'm not really interested in what you have to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- I must admit that I'm with Furry-friend, despite his obvious POV on the issue. It seems that there are many groups of editors and admins who are unnecessarily supportive of some editors despite their incivility or refusal to follow the rules on Wikipedia. This seems to be a case of that, although I haven't looked very deep and may be entirely wrong. Just my comment. R. A. Simmons Talk 20:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
IMO, Newyorkbrad has an amazing presence proven to me by his actions as one of three closing panelists in a recent controversial discussion. Newyorkbrad would serve as well or better than any have in this capacity. Paine Ellsworth u/c 23:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Language[edit]
In response to one of the questions raised for the candidate, I wish to say that I found his language straightforward and clear. As an ESL speaker, who has for years worked hard to express my ideas in English as clear as possible, I consider the candidate's writing skills admirable. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 04:15, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
question[edit]
How do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BlackAmerican: If this is meant to be a question for me, the answer is that I do not believe in jumping to the conclusion that someone "must be" a sockpuppet or undisclosed alternate account merely because he or she shows familiarity with how to edit Wikipedia in his or her early edits. As you correctly point out, the editor might be familiar with wiki mark-up from another site using the software, or in a number of other ways. This exact issue came up recently in an RfA, in which someone claimed that the candidate "must have had" earlier accounts based on his early editing history, and I pointed out that this was not the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents
Writ Keeper[edit]
Writ Keeper[edit]
- Eh, why not? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
- Writ Keeper (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Writ Keeper
|
Writ Keeper questions[edit]
Questions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from User:Doc James[edit]
Question from Biblioworm[edit]
Self(-indulgent) questions[edit]
Question from Rschen7754[edit]
Questions from BU Rob13[edit]
Question from SilkTork[edit]
Questions from Collect[edit]
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Question from uninvolved Drmies[edit]
Question from Mark Arsten[edit]
Questions from Carrite[edit]
Questions from Opabinia[edit]
Questions from Spike789[edit]
Questions from Dr.saze[edit]
Thanks for answers.
Question from *thing goes[edit]Regarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
--18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Question from The Rambling Man[edit]
Questions from Antony-22[edit]
Questions from George Ho[edit]
Question from Fish and Karate[edit]
|
Writ Keeper questions discussion[edit]
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Writ Keeper/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Writ Keeper general discussion[edit]
indifferent?[edit]
Sorry to say this but the "Eh, why not?" suggests indifference and feels off-putting. First impressions matter, particularly when interacting with strangers.Victimofleisure (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I like it. Halbared (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Back to Table of Contents