Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2007-12/A-F
Below are candidate profiles and interviews of candidates for the December 2007 Arbitration Committee elections.
The election guide is intended to be a brief overview of each candidate's beliefs and experiences. More detailed information about each candidate may be gleaned from their user pages, as well as their responses to questions from other users. Not all candidates have yet replied to our questions; their replies will be added as they are received.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | February 14, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since March 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hi, I'm Vanished user. I've been a contributor since early 2006, and an admin since about March this year. I've not shunned controversy - I've done a lot of work on Homeopathy, Evolution, and other such articles. Oh, and List of major opera composers, which led to the first arbitration I was ever in, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau. I think I'm a tough-but-fair admin, and pretty much every time I've had to indef ban someone I've been applauded for it (partially because the people banned included a fellow who was adding screeds about how blacks and interracial marriage were a threat to humanity to any article he could force it in) I think one of the major problems we have is that we can be a bit too timid with people, like the fellow I mentioned, who have stated repeatedly that they refuse to change. Of course, in the cases I've seen have been operating for months or years: I'm not advocating off-the-bat banning newbies, unless they're vandalism-only accounts or obvious sockpuppets.
I'm on Wikipedia almost every day, and will do what I can to speed up the often very slow arbitration process. In some cases, it does seem the simplest cases can stretch on for months, which is not good. We really need to try and achieve quick throughput, or, at least, have some sort of temporary injunction system.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Just administrator.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I was one of the people that got caught up in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jean-Thierry Boisseau difficulty. Basically, it was a case involving what, if anything, could be done to correct for the historical bias against women opera composers on List of major opera composers. Historically, the cost of producing an opera prevented very many women from ever getting the chance to have one performed, and hid many of the efforts of those who did. We were able to find two women opera composers that a few reliable sources ranked as among the best, but Jean-Thierry Boisseau didn't feel this was good enough and wanted equal numbers of women, to correct the historical wrongs.
It gets complex and sordid after that, so let's let it be. Suffice it to say it was incredibly frustrating, and a very disruptive editor was allowed to continue for months while the process dragged on, and ended up leaving just before arbcom made a decision.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I feel the need to provide a sensible, skeptical, scientific presence.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Arbitration is a thankless job, and when it's going well, you don't notice it. Combined with the glacial slowness that has caused even the best decisions to come rather late, it's hard to point out any decision as exceptionally good. But there was one case that was exceptionally bad: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Barrett_v._Rosenthal/Proposed_decision judged that the scientific point of view was partisian and that Wikipedians could be cautioned for promoting it. A site, Quackwatch recommended by many medical orginisations, was declared partisian and unreliable.
This is simply wrong.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
To try and provide sense, fairness, and speed to the ArbCom, and because I'm not afraid of controversy. (Though I do rather wish the elections weren't happening just before exams, which rather damages my claim to the speediness part.)
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | October 15, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since May 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
For those who know me not, I am David Fuchs. I've been a member here since 2005, an active contributor since 2006, and an administrator since May of 2007. Well then, let's be short and to the point. I think the dear ole' ArbCom is pretty much fine, but it needs to be more active. It seems to me whenever I look over at the ArbCom pages, half the members are inactive, and cases are pouring in. Not good.
I've "done" dispute resolution, being the one in the dispute and out; back when I was a newbie, I got into a protracted content dispute with another editor; as far as I know, my persistence only succeeded in alienating the other user to the point of leaving Wikipedia. That's always bothered me, and I think it's shaped my focus since- if a more experienced editor had pulled me aside, the whole debacle could have been avoided. I was also a member of the now-defunct Association of Members' Advocates, and I learned several important things from my months there; one, the more layers of bureaucracy you add to the dispute resolution process, the slower it grinds; and that if you've got long queues of grievances and conflicts and don't get to them, things tend to bubble over and escalate more than they need to. In 90% of disputes on this fine wiki, I've found you can defuse situations by simply calmly talking to each editor; most issues don't even need dispute resolution if you have at least one person who keeps cool. But then, there are *those* kinds of issues, and that's why we've got Das Oberteil- ArbCom.
As an ArbCom member I would remain active in other areas of the Wiki, as I feel it is important for a Committee member to stay involved and aware of issues and to head off conflicts on noticeboards before they escalate to the point of needing the formal involvement of the Committee. Similarly, I feel that it's important for a member of ArbCom to look over a case thoroughly and attempt some reconciliation or resolution by other methods before actually accepting the case. In short, I feel that I will be able to do all of the above, and promise to do so to the best of my ability.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm currently an admin, with said privileges since the 12th of May, 2007.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've actually never been involved in any arbitration cases; the closest I ever came was a mediation case for WP:SPOILER which threatened to spill over, luckily however the disputes were defused before ArbCom was needed. Issues or debates I've had with other users I've been able to deal with at lower levels of WP:DR, but I always read up on ArbCom cases.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I like helping out, and ArbCom seems like it's in need of a few good users.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I think when no one raises a fuss, ArbCom has worked well; no extra back-thumping is needed. In terms of handled 'poorly', I wouldn't put the sole blame on ArbCom in any of these cases, but Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites were both tar babies and ended up with a little more noise than needed. In terms of BJAODN, i think the failure was a breakdown of WP:BRD, but in the attack site case, I feel ArbCom should have dealt more specifically with the issue at hand rather than rattle off our policies.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'm probably no more exceptional than many of the candidates, and perhaps a good deal less, but whoever votes for me I can assure that I'm willing to give ArbCom my all.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | June 24, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Bureaucratship since July 2007 Checkuser/oversight Adminship since May 2006 Mediator |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration.
PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I am an Administrator, Bureaucrat, Checkuser, Oversighter, member of the Mediation Committee and OTRS volunteer.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been a party in one case, Daniel Brandt deletion wheel war which was referred directly from Jimbo. My involvement in the case was minimal, other than to explain why I had deleted the article during the wheel war. Due to my explanation as to why my deletion was not part of the wheel war, no findings of fact or remedies were proposed about me (other than "Deskana excused" and similar things that the committee didn't use). More recently I was involved in Digwuren. where I gave evidence. I was not a party in this case, but I had been involved with Digwuren and some other Estonian and Russian editors in the past (particularly on Rein Lang, which was commented on by the press and I was indirectly mentioned as a "senior administrator", a misconception of the Estonian government). This case took quite a while to sort out, but that seemed to be more because none of the people involved in the case were giving evidence, rather than anything to do with the committee.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
The community needs confidence in the people that arbitrate for them. Several users who I respect had recommended I run, which made me consider whether or not I felt I could do a good job. I think I can do a good job, so if the community wants me, then I will do it.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I agreed totally with their handling of Digwuren, though I was involved in that case so had I been an arbitrator I would have recused. The only mistake I think the committee has made is by taking too long to answer cases, which could possibly be more damaging than making bad remedies, in certain cases.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'm hard working (one of the most active bureaucrats and one of the most active checkusers), dependable (I've been on Wikipedia for 2 years, 5 months now), contactable (I try to respond to e-mails quickly, and always appreciate reminders), and I know what the community expects of its editors and administrators, so I can produce effective remedies that the community is happy to enforce (and it's important the community are happy with them).
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | July 12, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
None. EndlessDan is for the children.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Nah.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
For the money.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I think they handled them all flawlessly without exception.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Endless Dan: Why Not?
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | April 2, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since December 2005 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
After a deep thought coupled w/ some discussions via emails w/ some admins and users, i decided to nominate myself for the current ArbCom elections. Everyone here agrees that the Arbitration process is one of the main and essential processes in Wikipedia. The process helps us reach important decisions which affect users' participation in the project. However, many users argue that many requests take a long time to be decided upon. This is one area where i'd try to help at w/ the collaboration of the rest of the ArbCom members... One idea is to reduce the overall processing time by prioritizing complicated and long-term conflicts. Another is to try to contact involved parties to sort out their disputes while working at workshops trying to see if they could save some time by stepping back and agree on the main Wikipedia principles or the WP:FIVE in short.
My name is Fayssal Fertakh (age 34) and i am coming from Morocco, North Africa. I am a holder of a Bachelor of Business Administration degree and work in management while on a process of setting up my own business. I joined Wikipedia on April 2005 and became an admin on December of the same year. Since that time i've participated in many dispute resolution processes (mainly informal ones such as the Sri Lankan/LTTE conflict resolution, Western Sahara/Morocco conflict mediation, Israeli-Palestinian conflict and user mentorship, Eastern Europe historical conflicts, Music-related disputes) where i succedded in some and failed or still working on others. I also help at the Admin Coaching program training some future admins (User:Richardshusr/Admin coaching, User:Sahmeditor/AC, User:BrianWalker/AC). On the other hand, i've been elected twice to serve as a coordinator at the Military history WikiProject which some believe is one of the best organized and a model WikiProject.
With more than 35,000 edits and over 2,750 articles on my watchlist i must say that i've become very familiar w/ all Wikipedia processes. I also can help and communicate in 4 languages with/for people who prefer to approach admins or arbitrators in their own languages off-wiki.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since December 2005. I've dealt/been dealing w/ informal mediations as the Sri Lankan/LTTE conflict resolution, Western Sahara/Morocco conflict mediation, music-related disputes, etc.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Yes. It was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Digwuren as an involved admin... i was the one who had blocked User:Digwuren and User:Petri Krohn for 1 week back on July. Both users were banned for 1 year by the ArbCom 3 months later.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
The ArbCom needs some fresh air and more efficiency and i think that part of my work at Wikipedia was helping many users in terms of editing, resolving conflicts, etc. I believe therefore that many users can trust me making this place a better one in a neutral and fair manner coupled w/ much patience.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Not one in particular so far. Maybe i am not aware of all the ArbCom cases but if you got one in mind you can mention it and i'd give you my clear opinion on it. However, there's only one small concern which comes to my mind...it is the process of appeals. It is still ill-organized and this is an area where i'd help at by proposing that all involved parties in the case should be present at the appeal to express their opinions. There were some cases where people were permitted to get back editing by the ArbCom w/o informing users who were involved in the case in the first place.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Reading through my talk page one would notice that too many users trust my admin judgements and i believe they would still support and trust me at the ArbCom.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | July 11, 2004 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since January 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hi. I'm User:FT2. I've been quietly working on our more difficult cases [1] and helping other administrators and users [2] since 2004/05:
- I've written around 100 substantive articles (list), and authored the stable wordings/structure of many of our core policy and project pages (list).
- I undertook my first full mediation case [3] and presented my first substantial arbcom evidence [4] in November 2004, my first full arbcom case in December 2004 [5], followed by involvement in another in January 2005, and a further two warriors later that year, with repeated experience since. Since 2004 and moreso since adminship, I've consistently managed difficult disputes, more virulent warriors, closure of heated or difficult AFDs, further arbcom cases, and problems needing exceptional insight and communication. Throughout, I've continued participating regularly at arbcom.
- In this arena, I've not only gained respect, but also been commended for some of the best decisions and dispute resolutions in the history of the project: - "possibly the wordiest, best thought through AFD close in the history of the project" [6], and "probably the most comprehensive and balanced dispute resolution I've ever read on Wikipedia" [7]. Even in heated disputes, I am routinely considered fair [8]... even by those I've declined [9], who initially disagreed [10][11] -- and by more than one I've warned or blocked.
- Behind the scenes, I also do a lot of "second opinion" and escalation/resolution work, in-depth allegation/dispute checking, and drafting analyses and dispute summaries that gain respect even in tough cases [12]. I'm able to say 'no' and explain the reasons [13], non-provokable [14], fair to difficult editors, and evidence-centered in presenting concerns about administrator and arbcom decisions when necessary [15]. I spot important privacy/security issues others might miss [16], and reconsider my stance if needed [17] [18].
- For further details, please ask.
Arbcom is our way to endorse a panel of trusted and experienced users, to decide our most divisive or exceptional matters. The Committee must therefore 1/ be responsive (major cases often deteriorate rapidly), 2/ earn exceptional respect for its decisions (unlike all other communal decisions, the invitation "anyone can edit" does not apply), 3/ act transparently and with clarity, and 4/ be answerable to the community, not the other way round.
As an administrator, I have been community focussed and a problem-solver, accessible and supportive. As an arbitrator (if appointed) I give my commitment to absolute integrity; to be accountable; to be approachable; and to be fair, insightful and effective.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Admin and OTRS,1 a Wikimedia Foundation position of trust that includes handling of confidential user information.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've presented the main evidence on four cases now (2004, 2 x 2005, 2007), and several 'outside evidence', as well as drafting proposals and writing one of the Arbitration Policy sub-pages. Twice my view was adopted as the final resolution of a case. My involvement has always been to present evidence, or do other work on the case.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Virtually since joining, I've written content, actively shouldered major disputes, and helped resolve problems for others. These kinds of very divisive (train wreck) disputes - and complicated cases needing a lot of checking - are an area most will avoid, but I find fulfilling and I'm able to effectively work on: it means good-faith editors can finally get on with adding content.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Yes to both. The final rulings were usually good, and (crucially) when they did err, it was mostly on the side of caution which can be remedied in future. The proposals were more variable, reflecting difficulty in some cases and misjudgements in others. Often the handling was the main concern. However most cases did ultimately provide valid findings and remedies.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
- I'm well suited to the task and experienced, with a high level of communal support of case judgements and findings.
- I understand what a prompt, high quality resolution can accomplish, and I put work into achieving that for others.