Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates

2011 Arbitration Committee Elections

WP:ACE2011

Status

Thank you for participating in the 2011 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2011 Arbitration Committee elections will appear below once the nominating period begins at 00:01 on 12 November.

Eligibility criteria

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:

(i) has a registered account and has had at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011.

(ii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data or confirms in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria.^[note]

(iii) has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed).

Statements must:

(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 12 November 2011 and before 23:59 UTC on 21 November 2011;

(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 nominating period is now over

Once you have saved your statement, you will need to transclude it below using the following code:

{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/{{subst:REVISIONUSER}}/Statement}}

Congratulations! You are now an election candidate.

Footnotes

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

Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

^{^} 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

AGK

The Arbitration Committee is an important component of our project. I am willing to serve on the committee for two years, and submit myself for your consideration.

To summarise my experience on Wikipedia, aside from occasionally contributing to articles (when I have time), I am a former mediator (appointed to the Mediation Committee in May 2007) and I have helped to co-ordinate the MedCom as its Chair since April 2010. I've had administrator access for five years, and I currently sit on the Audit Subcommittee which regulates the use by functionaries of the checkuser and oversight tools. Additionally, I am a CheckUser, and am one of the more active users in that capacity, and I have Oversight access for my subcommittee term. Although I have had the pleasure of working with many editors and the opportunity to work in many backstage areas of Wikipedia, I do not think I have become one of its "insiders", and my role on the Audit Subcommittee requires that I maintain an amicable detachment from the other functionaries. I am also familiar with the administrative aspects of the arbitration process, having served with the arbitration clerks (the team that runs the clerical and procedural side of the committee's workload) for over 3 years.

In an administrative capacity, I was one of the team of administrators who regularly dealt with Requests for Arbitration Enforcement (AE). I have a great respect for the work of those administrators and for the efforts of those who contribute to our most contentious topic areas. However, one cannot stoke the fire without being burnt, and I suspect as a result of my work there, I have a lower tolerance for POV-pushing, unprofessional, and divisive editing than most. Having contributed to these areas, I nonetheless believe I have always been approachable and fair, and from anecdotal reports I understand that many contributors would agree with that assessment. As an arbitrator, I would be pleased to bring this experience and approach to ArbCom.

I am experienced, dedicated, and capable, and am happy to serve as an arbitrator. By way of a platform, some important issues to me are:

Effective resolutions to disputes: I see little use in recycling the same principles endlessly, when more time could be afforded to creating meaningful remedies
Intolerance for POV-pushing disputants: I will vote to topic-ban an editor who uses Wikipedia as a forum to continue a nationalist or cultural dispute
Creation of a usable public space for ArbCom discussions, to replace most of the unreliable and non-public mailing list
Liaising with the WMF: much of ArbCom's remit is partly the Foundation's as well, and there are areas in which we can work together.
Supporting content contributors above process, administration, and everything else. (As a principle, this is vague, but one that I will not forget if elected.)

I will not outline my views on more specific issues here, because a rambling statement is frankly tiring, but I will happily answer questions from all contributors. Thank you for your consideration.

Mandatory statement: Any accounts I have created are listed here, I have no undisclosed alternative accounts, and I am already identified.

Coren

Once more unto the breach.

The past two years have been full of ups and down for the committee. We managed to improve things where we can, yet there is still much work to be done. Some things could go faster, some more transparency is desirable, and some of the way we do things are – in retrospect – catastrophically stupid mistakes. Yet, through all this, the necessity for this work remains, and it gets done.

I've served three years now, and I think I still have something to contribute. My work was no more perfect that anyone else's, and I cannot claim to have been an arbitrator that stood especially out. I tend to be a little more on the "law-and-order" side than most, and a quite bit less conservative than some. I often do not see eye to eye with my colleagues on when and how (and whether) the committee should intervene; after all, such a diverse group is bound to not agree on some things – even on the fundamentals.

I do believe that this diversity, even when it brings friction, is why the committee works at all. We could not hope to serve a community so diverse if we were all of one mind, or if we didn't each bring our own approach to the mix. I hope the community found my voice of value on the committee over the past three years, and I'm up for another two if you'll have me.

For the record, I already comply with all the relevant identification and data access policies (and, indeed, am already so identified as an incumbent), and have no undisclosed user accounts. (proof of identification)

I have a few bot accounts, only one of which is nominally active: CorenBlockMonBot, CorenANIBot, CorenSearchBot, CorenGoogleBot, and one doppelgänger that never edited to protect my real name. — Coren ^(talk) 20:53, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles

The Arbitration Committee is, as a community, our highest body for resolving disputes. We all know this line, and we've heard it a hundred times. Let us face facts, to a supermajority of the community, the Arbitration Committee is only considered in two situations; when they're frustrated with a situation that isn't getting resolved involving another user(s), or at this time of the year. We can't elect a quality committee when the first situation presents itself, so we have to do it now. ArbCom looks less busy than it used to, there are fewer cases than in years past; but the importance of the body is in many ways increasing as time passes, with the cases the Committee does hear being even tighter Gordian Knots than in years gone by. I believe that editors that care about this project deserve an ArbCom that is available, active, and experienced, and to those ends, I offer myself up as a candidate.

To know whether I can live up to those goals, you'll need to know me. Well, as the page title makes obvious, I'm Courcelles. I've been an admin here for roughly 18 months, a member of the Audit Subcommittee for almost seven, and was confirmed as a permanent Checkuser and Oversighter earlier this quarter. That's a list of rights, you could have looked on my user page for that, but it seems to be standard in these statements. I've had my hands in 23 featured lists, 2 featured articles (though I'm hesitant to take significant credit for those), and a featured topic. I believe that all of us, are first and foremost editors of this encyclopaedia; everything we do, as admins, as functionaries, or even as arbitrators, must be to serve the needs of the encyclopaedia. If we lose sight of that, we have lost our way.

In means of standard disclosure, I have a travelling account User:Courcelles is travelling a bot account I've registered User:Courcelles Bot but have never used, a test account, User:Courcelles (ACIP test) and a doppelganger, User:CourcelIes is travelling. This account was once renamed by a bureaucrat, but I've never used any other account than these. As a CU/OS, I'm identified already to the Foundation. 400 words, as I'm discovering, isn't a lot of space, so, questions, anyone?

DeltaQuad

Hello Everyone, I'm DeltaQuad, a metapedian usually working with the inner workings of Wikipedia. Right off the bat, I’ll be the first one to admit, my content contributions are lacking, but I believe that I still have a fundamental understanding even if I don’t edit articles much. I my work is primarily done with Sockpuppet investigations and Unblock-en-l. I am an administrator, currently taking a month break to understand the position of a non-admin again, and to let things run a little easier in my personal life for a bit.

I do also keep up generally with the committee proceedings weekly or so though I can not verify it. I'm running because I'm wanting to bring bring the editors opinion into the committee. I am not 100% clear on what procedure is, but I do know the basics.

Some might ask why I’m running with not much experience in the areas that ArbCom is. This is a hard job, which needs to be continued to be done by people who understand the editors, not just the content behind the Wiki. I do not dismiss, by any measure, that content based editors on the committee are needed. I feel though that my contributions would be an understanding of the individual editor. I interact with editors on IRC, though I do clearly understand that IRC is not Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee, at times, has had its faults, but it’s bound to happen, and we are all human. Without the human factor I might as well be a programed bot run on the toolserver. (I’m speaking sarcastically of course) But with the addition of humanity, I think there comes an understanding of what happens.

I am an administrator as I stated above, on break. I run several bot tasks including the bot that runs at Usernames for administrator attention. I am an OTRS member, and I moderate 2 mailing lists. I am an active subscriber to unblock-en-l also. I am also a proxy checker.

Mandatory Statement of disclosure: I am willing to comply to the identification requirement before January first. See my alternate account disclosure here.

Eluchil404

After some thought and consideration, I have decided to put forward my name as a candidate for the Arbitration Committee. I believe that my experience and perspective would be a valuable addition. I have been a registered editor since 2006 and an administrator since 2007, but have never held any other advanced permissions. I currently spend most of my time evaluating deletion discussions and participating at Deletion Review. I do not have a giant number of edits due in part to my desire to read and understand before I comment as well as my preference for saying nothing rather than simply adding a contentless “me too”. If elected I would devote a significant amount of time and energy to the Committee as I have few other commitments that would preclude such a focus. I believe that there is much room for improvement in the areas of speed and accessibility and would work to address them. I will go into more detail on this matter and other issues facing the Committee and the Community as a whole in my answers to the questions which I encourage everyone to read.

Thank you for your consideration, Eluchil404

Mandatory disclosures: I do not now nor have I ever operated any sock accounts legitimate or otherwise. Before I registered I edited Wikipedia from IP addresses. I used several but cannot now go back and remember or find out what they all were. I made one edit from the account of a family member who had left himself logged on to a shared computer. It was a minor edit and such confusion has not happened since, though I have forgotten to log in once or twice. I am over 18 years old and over the age my majority in my jurisdiction and will identify to the Foundation should I be elected.

Geni

I've been around since 2004 and since that time I've done just about everything possible on wikipedia as well as some stuff that is no longer possible due to software changes. So I thought perhaps it was time to run for arbcom. I'm certainly well aware of what arbcom does having been involved in everything from unofficially getting the arbcom elections to happen to being on the receiving end of arbcom rulings (I got better). I've also been involved in various workshop stuff as well as being asked to provide evidence in various cases. So I know arbcom and some of its members over the years.

What I would bring to the committee would be shear breadth of experience. Over the years I've been active in almost every area it is possible for a standard editor/admin to be active in. At the same time I've never really been more than a standard editor/admin which I feel puts me in a good position to understand the context in which the events leading up to an arbcom case take place.

These days I spend a lot more time reading wikipedia than editing something which should stand me in good stead for arbcom although it has to be admitted that the average case report is less interesting than say our article on Gamma-ray bursts. I've got at least some limited experience of investigating things through OTRS and the days back when I used to be the main 3RR enforcer. Sure not on the same scale as arbcom but still follows the basic principle of looking through large numbers of diffs to try and work out what is going on. I've spent a lot of time as an admin in some of the more ah interesting areas so I'm not greatly phased by anything from people trying to play politics to legal threats.

In short I know what I'm getting into and I'm pretty sure I can handle it.

Mandatory statement:I'm prepared to identify to the foundation if elected.

Alternative accounts. I have a lot of these. Most created to test various things or for projects that fell through. Since I've been doing this since 2004 I can't actually guarantee that this is a complete list and it may get added to if I recall any more:

user:genisock2 is the only one that I've used at all recently (as a non admin alt account when I was editing from a museum)
user:Genisock
User:Arbcom Candidate
user:Genidealingwithalbumcovers
user:Genicoord
user:YetanotherGenisock
user:Genidealingwithfairuse
User:Liveware problem
User:It's Character Forming
User:UK voteing account
User:geniice
A significant chunk of the first page of Special:ListUsers are mine created to push some rather abusive usernames off the first page

Hersfold

Hello everyone. My name is Hersfold, and I wish to officially declare my insanity by running for ArbCom again.

I have been on Wikipedia for just short of five years now; in that time I have been an administrator (current), checkuser (current), bureaucrat (current), BAG member (current but inactive), ArbCom clerk (current), and ArbCom member (Jan-May 2010). A quick glance at my contributions will quickly show that I am not a content editor; I've found that I can best support the encyclopedia and its community by working in the background, handling administrative tasks and keeping things running. This is where I'm most comfortable and I'd like to think that I do a good job with it. The areas I focus on mostly are sockpuppetry investigations, unblock requests, account creations, and work on my bots, particularly of late User:HersfoldArbClerkBot. Most recently my on-wiki activity has been down somewhat, but this is largely due to the fact that my attentions have been focused on handling requests at the unblock mailing list and working on developing a tool to replace that list in the near future. I have also recently started a full-time job in a new location and am finishing working out all the issues related with that.

My previous term on the Arbitration Committee ended abruptly; at the time, I was a junior at my university, and employed by the university's residential life department. While I thought I would be able to balance that job, my studies, and ArbCom, it simply didn't work out. Of the three, ArbCom had to go. Now, as I mentioned above, I have recently started a new job; however, things are now settled down into a easily managed routine, and there won't be any surprise "hey, we need you to organize this extremely complicated event for next week all by yourself" fiascoes. Once the new unblock tool is online, I will be able to fully dedicate my time to ArbCom.

In conclusion, I feel as though I am a dedicated, responsible, and trustworthy member of the Wikipedia community, and so I ask that once again you lend your trust in me to assist in the back.

Required disclosures: I am identified to the Foundation as a standing checkuser (confirmation). All accounts I have edited with are listed on my userpage; all are in accordance with the policy on usage of multiple accounts.

Hot Stop

There seems to be a lot of complaints about arbcom and how it runs. Whether it's because the members aren't open in their discussions, preferring to hold them via email or IRC, or because it takes them far too long to decide cases, there's one simple solution: vote 'em out. If you were dissatisfied with the way a contractor built your neighbor's house, you wouldn't hire them to renovate yours, would you?

Who am I, you ask? I'm something this committee needs. I'm an outsider. Unlike others who've spent years and years on the committee, I've only been editing since earlier this year. Why is this a good thing? Because I don't suffer from hivemind, and I'm not part of the borg like others running. The committees never had a true outsider serve, and now's the time.

Now, a little about me. I'm from New England and have a college degree. In real life, I deal with people. Everyday, normal people like those who read this encyclopedia. I have created two articles at this point, and worked on others. But my main work on here is at WP:ITN/C which is about as frustrating as arbcom is made out to be. I know I'm not the most active editor, but neither are some of the current committee members up for election.

If elected, I intend on representing the "little people" who end up in front of arbcom. Currently, only administrators serve on the committee and I don't think that's fair for non-admins; real life juries aren't composed solely of lawyers and other professionals, they have normal folk on them too.

One thing I'd push for is transparency, real transparency. I would ask that all "off-wiki" deliberations be released some time after a case is closed (provided all confidential information is expunged). And, if elected, I promise to only serve a single two-year term.

Yes, I realize I was recently blocked. But I was blocked for calling a spade a spade. I believe in being honest with people, and that's something you, the voters, should value.

And now for the disclosure: I've never edited under another account or made IP edits, am of legal age in my home state, and have no problem identifying myself to the foundation (and committee) if needed.

Thank you. Hot Stop talk-contribs

Jclemens

As one of the two remaining arbitrators elected to a one-year term last year, and as the only one without prior experience on the arbitration committee, I am submitting myself for reelection as its most junior member.

During this year, I have done what I promised: been an advocate for the non-admin, the new user, the content contributor. If you review my votes on cases, I have advocated opening cases on incivil or abusive administrators as well as appropriately harsh penalties for those who seem to have missed their way and see themselves as the masters, rather than the servants, of the content contributors.

This has also been a learning year for me. At this time last year, I was just another administrator with two years' tenure. Throughout 2011, I've learned to handle the tools of the trade: Checkuser, Oversight, high-profile OTRS queues, and the other, non-public tools such as the arbitration wiki and various mailing lists. I've also just posted my first case decision as a primary drafter. While I've participated in others before, this one was more than I had imagined it might be, and the delay, too, was a learning experience.

While not visible to the public, I have remained active in arbitration proceedings even when my graduate medical education has been challenging, and even when I have been out of my home country for weeks at a time.

With the reduction in seats, the number of well-qualified incumbents running, and a few other dedicated functionaries throwing their hats into the ring, this election is shaping up to be about which candidates are the best among the field, rather than simply who is tolerable. If not retained as one of the top candidates in this election, I will bid good luck to the incoming committee, and work to alleviate their work by refocusing my efforts on high-sensitivity OTRS work and content creation.

The fine print: I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. The sole other account I've used to edit Wikipedia is User:Jclemens-public, which I created myself after becoming an administrator.

Kirill Lokshin

I've now served on the Arbitration Committee for nearly five years—from January 2007 until July 2009, and from January 2010 onward. The focus of my attention has generally been drafting case decisions (I've written more than sixty) and managing the organizational and procedural aspects of the Committee's day-to-day work (I was the coordinating arbitrator from February 2009 to July 2009, and have been the deputy coordinating arbitrator since February 2010); but, over the years, I've had the opportunity to participate in just about every possible aspect of an arbitrator's role.

I stand before you on the depth and breadth of my experience with the arbitration process, and on my proven track record as an arbitrator. I will not claim to be perfect—no arbitrator is—nor to have pleased everyone with my decisions; but I have always sought to act in the best interests of the project, and I believe that I've been a voice of reason and a driving force for efficiency, transparency, and professionalism among the arbitrators.

With the reduction in the size of the Committee and the transition to fewer overlapping tranches and shorter term lengths, the need for experienced arbitrators is greater than ever before. As the longest-serving of the current arbitrators—indeed, as the longest-serving arbitrator in the history of the Committee—I believe that I have a unique level of experience to offer. I've learned much about being an arbitrator over the years; and I would like to continue serving the community in that role, if the community will have me.

Mandatory statements and disclosures: As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the Foundation and otherwise comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have not edited Wikipedia with any account other than User:Kirill Lokshin. (proof of identification)

Kww

I've been editing Wikipedia for 4 years now, and I've been an admin for about 18 months. In that time, I've been discouraged by how many times I see Arbcom basically missing the point of the cases brought before it. I've watched BLP concerns be exaggerated to the point that nearly any admin misbehaviour can be excused so long as he shouts "BLP!!!!!" really loudly before he abuses his powers. I'll do my best to correct these problems. Most long-term editors have encountered me before: some of you hate me, most of you do not, but I think all of you will agree that I consider things carefully and try to act within the boundaries of policies and guidelines. I use my real name, and have no sock accounts. Needless to say, User:Kevin Wayne Williams and User:Death of Kww aren't actually me. I will demonstrate my identity, and I will conform to all privacy rules related to the position.

I'm going to add something to my statement, because many people seem to misunderstand my position on BLPs. I'm not in favor of badly sourced BLPs. I'm not in favor of badly-sourced anything. Give me a consensus to work with, and I would delete every unsourced and badly-sourced article myself, and that would include BLPs. What I do disagree with is editing BLPs to conform to the way the subject wants to be presented, and editing out information because we consider it to be unsavory. We have no obligation to present our subjects in a good light, only in a neutral light.

NWA.Rep

full statement here User talk:NWA.Rep/Statement

This campaign is about the little guys and the average good-faith editors who are sick of rogue admins and want one of their own in ArbCom. I'm not an admin. I'm not an insider. I have no ties to the so-called establishment and I have no special interest or vendetta. I have never been to IRC. I'm not on any mailing list.

Three years ago, my ultra-grassroots arbcom candidacy was sabotaged in controversial circumstances that culminated with my departure from 'pedia. A fellow candidate, User:Gwen Gale, who was an admin, gave me an unwarranted block for voicing my concern about another admin's patronage of a sockpuppet [1] . Arbitrator User:FT2 had the decency to step in and at least acknowledge the questionable nature of the block User_talk:NWA.Rep#Comment_on_your_block. After too many unwarranted blocks and constant admin abuse including standing up to a rogue admin in the now infamous Wikipedia_talk:User_pages/UI_spoofing, I was disillusioned and decided to quit Wikipedia for good.

Now after a three-year-long hiatus, I want to throw my hat to the ring one more time. I always said Wikipedia is at a crossroad. We are losing contributors, especially content contributors who actually make this project works. The big-time players, insiders, and power brokers are not interested in actually writing an encyclopedia but only the political mudslingings to fulfill their egos. Admin abuse scares off newbies and potential valuable contributors who have something to offer to this comprehensive encyclopedia. I was a prime example of that during my initial foray to this site. Thankfully User:Bishonen took me under her wings and it pains me to see her, someone with so much passion, integrity, and love for this project getting crucified by a large chunk of the community who never contributed to the content. I learned a lot from several well-respected editors, which gave me an inside look of the intricacy of the Wikipedia power structure. I commented on various high-profile arbCom cases before my departure and regularly in AN/I and other policy making venues.

Wikipedia needs to dig deep and go back to the basic. That's it. I’m running not only to reform arbCom, but to bring the spirit, love, and passion back to wikipedia. ..full statement here User talk:NWA.Rep/Statement --NWA.Rep (talk) 06:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NWA.Rep talk-contribs

Panyd

Hello, my name is Fiona. I've been an editor since 2007 and an administrator for the past year or so. From November 2010 - February 2011 I helped organise the contributions team and since then I have done much outreach for Wikimedia UK. This work has connected me to our readership and new editors in ways I think few people have experienced, and shaped my views on interactions in our community, both newcomers and old hands. On-wiki I have befriended new editors, assisting them where necessary and pointing them in the direction of community-led projects which I feel are the heart of our encyclopedia.

Were I to become a member of Arbcom I would see myself as an open conduit for community consensus. As an administrator I have been open to criticism as well as the ever-flowing nature of policy as dictated by the community, and this is something I intend to continue should I be elected. Though arbitrators must sometimes make decisions based on non-public information, community input should be sought wherever possible and transparency should be key to any major decisions made. No one person is perfect (especially not me) and no body of users should be above the will of the community.

I have two points of disclosure with regards to my candidacy and I would invite interested parties to ask any questions they have. I aim for complete transparency. I shall however address them here in brief. One, I am dating a current arbitrator. I make no bones about this whatsoever. However, I hope that users will take the time to look at our history of interactions on-wiki and the complete disparity in the type of work we do and understand that the skill-set I would bring to the arbitration committee is completely different from his. As such our conclusions will be formed on a completely different basis and our decisions may wildly differ. There should be a strong line drawn between real-life and "professional" relationships and my avoidance of arbitration cases thus far can be attributed to this.

The second is my illness. I have an essay on hand for the curious (please see here) and hope that during my tenure on Wikipedia I have shown both the dedication and responsibility necessary to allay fears regarding it. Though please, do feel free to ask any question, I shan't be offended.

I have one alternative account for when I'm ill, it's User:All Hail The Muffin and I'm already identified to the Foundation. I have also just now created User:Fiona Apps just to avoid confusion and on the advice of the community. It's my name after all!

Risker

In my three years as an arbitrator, I’ve focused on both infrastructure and casework. I contributed to the development of a community-based checkuser and oversighter corps, as well as the development and functioning of the Audit Subcommittee. I led the drive to ensure that checkusers, oversighters and auditors are expected to be available and active, so that community members know the teams can be counted upon. This included moving the oversight request functions to the OTRS system and guiding the team members who developed the oversight manual. I have worked collaboratively with checkusers from other projects, stewards, and the WMF in improving management of the checkuser mailing list (including removing archiving functions and deleting existing archives) and developing the Checkuser wiki for data retention relating to long-term abuse.

During this work and throughout my tenure, I remained active and involved in the majority of on-wiki cases. I’m not usually the first off the mark, nor am I the last person voting (unless it moves very quickly). I do, however, read all of the evidence for every case I vote on, including the entire discussions from which diffs are taken.

If selected to continue my work with the Committee, I plan to collaborate closely with the WMF on behalf of the Committee to sort out issues involving mailing lists and management of archives, as well as finding systems which fit within the WMF structure to help the Arbitration Committee better manage its incoming requests. This continuation of the work I started on behalf of the Committee in April of this year should have a significant positive impact on Committee workflow and communication.

In considering whether to seek a second term on the Arbitration Committee, I went back to read over my previous candidacy statement and responses to (over 140) questions. I found it reassuring that, despite three years of working with Wikipedians sometimes at their worst, I still hold the same beliefs and follow the same principles: our passionate and diverse community is both Wikipedia’s greatest challenge and greatest strength. To best assist community members in working collaboratively and constructively, the Arbitration Committee must be both frank and fair.

Obligatory statements: I have identified to the WMF. Those who want to know my alternate accounts can see the Candidate Guide or “Alternate accounts and interesting stuff” on my userpage.

Roger Davies

I’ve been an arbitrator for three years. This has been a stimulating and enriching experience, and I’ve learned a lot about the encyclopedia, about my fellow editors, and about myself.

I’ve heard about fifty cases, and have drafted/co-drafted decisions for ten.

I’ve participated in all aspects of the committee's work, including a year’s service on BASC and a four-month stint on AUSC. For three years I’ve been a moderator/administrator of the committee's mailing lists. I helped draft the committee’s CheckUser and Oversight procedural policy, and have supervised several appointment cycles.

I’ve served as coordinating arbitrator since July 2009, with strong emphasis on improving logistics. In April 2011, I gained support for creating internal teams to decentralise coordination, reduce dependence on individual arbitrators, and speed up the committee’s work. I successfully proposed default timetables for cases for quicker case turnaround. Average times have dropped from 60 days in 2009 to 45 days thus far this year.

For the record, I’m opposed to ArbCom becoming GovCom. As a tangible demonstration of this, I was instrumental in working up the arbitration policy, via extensive community consultation over many months for ratification. The new policy places new constitutional restraints on the committee, limiting its ability to make content decisions or create policy. It was formally adopted by the community in June, with 87% support.

Content-wise, I was very active both at Milhist and FAC. I've added significant content to five FAs, and extensively copy-edited another eight (either for or during FAC). The subjects vary from Shakespeare's Hamlet to Welsh rugby to Emily Dickinson to Maximian to the Battle of Arras. Since joining the committee, I've had less time for my first love, article editing, but I've recently re-discovered sourcing and wiki-gnoming, mainly on articles about British lawyers and French lycées.

If re-elected, I will focus on:

Further improving case management and turnaround;
Opening BASC membership to non-arbitrator members and separating BASC from the ArbCom mailing lists;
Developing ideas with the community for a possible Administrator Review Subcommittee;
Encouraging the Foundation to play a much greater role in dealing with deeply problematic users per the WMF’s new Terms of Use;
Working with stakeholders and the WMF to develop a contingency defence fund for arbitrators, checkusers, oversighters, and administrators.

Mandatory statements: I have never edited from any account other than Roger Davies and (occasionally) User:Red Dragon, which prior to renaming was called Roger Davies II. As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF and will continue to comply fully with the non-public data policy.

SilkTork

I am a conscientious, fair minded Wikipedian user with some experience in dispute resolution. I am a firm believer in community consensus, and feel that the community is at the heart of Wikipedia's success. What hurts the smooth progress of Wikipedia is any user or group of users (including the Arbitration Committee) who feel they are above or beyond the community, and who wish to assert their own point of view. If everyone abided by community consensus we wouldn't need an Arbitration Committee but reality is that there will always be people who want to do things their way. History has shown that sometimes this can be positive, but - unfortunately - mostly it is negative. ArbCom is here to ensure that the community's views are upheld, and to reduce disruption.

Though I recognise that ArbCom will be a time-consuming task, I am prepared to undertake it because I enjoy and respect this project. I am grateful both for the access to information Wikipedia provides me, and for the fun I have in taking part in building this encyclopedia. My weakness at the moment, and I understand and accept that this is a major problem, is that my Wiki access time can be limited because I have to care for my 2 1/2 year old daughter. What I am able to offer is thoughtful, conscientious and community focused input when I am able, though what I can't offer is that I would be able to offer that 24/7.

I have no alternative accounts, and make myself known on my userpage. I am willing to provide WM or anyone else with full details of who I am.

Added 22nd November: I've been reminded that I created a SilkTook account in December 2008. That was me trying out the account creation tool. The account has not been used.

28 November & 1 December - some copy-editing for clarity.

Worm That Turned

Hello all. I’m Worm That Turned and I thought I’d throw my hat into the Arbcom ring. As Arbitration is the final level of dispute resolution, I feel that a good mixture of users with many different backgrounds is essential to provide a proper cross section of the community. So I put myself in line with editors I greatly respect, hoping the community will consider me a worthy candidate.

I see myself as a fairly quiet editor who’s been getting drawn into different areas in the past few months. In real life, I am a programmer; my academic background is mathematical, but I have also spent a few years working in customer services. Although I've worked as an OTRS volunteer, ambassador and guide, I hope I am best known on Wikipedia for my mentoring, something I take seriously and have great success with. I’ve worked with about 20 users in mentorship and adoption; this is a significant number and I'm very proud of the results. My skills therefore lie in working with people and understanding different points of view – factors I feel would be very helpful in an arbitrator.

Just over four months ago I became an administrator, with support that overwhelmed me, although I still don’t think of myself as an admin, and often need to be reminded of it. I would describe myself as diplomatic and generally tending towards excessive good faith – offering problematic users more chances than they perhaps deserve. However, as an arbitrator, this is a stance that I would tighten up on, since Arbcom needs to create binding judgements in the most difficult of situations.

Mandatory Statement: I hold only one alternate account User:WormTT – which I registered to ensure users wouldn’t get confused by my signature. Most of the usernames in this SPI were created to impersonate me, one of the hazards of working cloesly with new users that encounter difficulties. I will be willing to identify to the foundation.

Candidates who withdrew prior to voting.

<poem> Maxim (talk · contribs); Candidate statement. Withdrew on 02:23, 23 November 2011.

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides
These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. HJ Mitchell Sven Manguard Wizardman William M. Connolley NuclearWarfare Joe Gazz84 RegentsPark Kiefer.Wolfowitz Monty845 Elonka SandyGeorgia Ealdgyth Guerillero Carcharoth Rschen7754 Badger Drink Heimstern Master&Expert