Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2006-12/G-K
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Below are candidate profiles and interviews of candidates for the December 2006 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.
- ArbCom candidate profiles: A-F | G-K | L-R | S-Z | All | (Withdrawn)
Contents |
[edit] Geogre
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 44 |
| First edit date: | November 21, 2003 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since August 2004 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I am one of the longer-time members of Wikipedia, arriving in 2003 and becoming an administrator in 2004, and I hope to bring with me some breadth of experience with the project. I remain convinced that Wikipedia should be, as it was, a flat hierarchy, for we are all volunteers, and we are all equals. Each gives as her or his abilities and interests dictate, and the best arbitrators are those who are most articulate and conversant with the policies of Wikipedia. Thus, being on ArbCom is a job rather than an honor, and arbitrators are judges of policy infractions rather than legislators. I hope that my long history of article writing (I keep a brag list at my user page), involvement at XfD (user:Geogre/AfD has some of the material that led to the "notability" guideline, and Wikipedia:Managed Deletion was possibly the first shot at what would become prod and the expanded CSD (although those were the result of the hard work of many, many others, and I claim no credit except for working)), the various noticeboards, and DRV testifies to my experience and to my temperament. My one interest is in transparency, respect, and subordinating all other concerns to the maintenance of a sound editing atmosphere for our volunteers -- the people who made Wikipedia one of the most used and visited sites on the entire web. I welcome questions and hope to help the community understand the positions ArbCom takes, as well as to help the other members of ArbCom respond to the needs of the general community.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Currently, I'm an administrator and have been since 2004. I do not hold any other official titles.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have been an involved party to an ArbCom appeal, once, where a person was appealing a block and named me (because he had been blocked partly for responding inappropriately to something I had said). Three times or thereabouts, I have been one who offered a view. In the recent Giano RFAR, I was not a named party initially, but I added myself to the case. It's never a pleasant process for anyone in any capacity, even as a witness. I cannot foresee it ever being nice, but I hope it can be more apparently arbitrated and less arbitrary to the participants.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Essentially, I think that my length of involvement in the project and longstanding interest in policy debates and the structural issues of Wikipedia operation give me an insight on how we can best interact with one another to keep the editing environment healthy. Additionally, I have noticed that, of late, arbitration decisions have been light on explanation, and some people are implying that ArbCom is a type of rule or power at Wikipedia. I believe that my ability to explain and my deeply held belief in the equality of all users (with our various positions being tasks rather than honors) are needed. I am cheered by the current slate of candidates and see quite a few people who, like me, have been drawn into standing because of the emergent belief that ArbCom members are above other users. We are all volunteers, and volunteers cannot be ruled, as no one signs up to be a lower caste.
[edit] Golbez
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 26 |
| First edit date: | March 14, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since September 2004 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I've been an editor since March 2004, an administrator since October 2004, and ran for Arbcom (and, as I recall, got over 60% positive vote) in the last election. Most people probably don't know me, I try to avoid big drama and what not, but I do interact with the village pump and administrator noticeboard. I've always wanted to be able to help out this grand project more, and being a part of the Abritration Committee would be just one way of doing that. The main issues I've seen with the Arbcom have been openness and speed - but I can't necessarily say "it needs to be faster" until I see how the sausage is made, right? So while I have certain ideals, I am also a realist. My only goal here is to assist in making Wikipedia even better than it is now. I can promise to be neutral, to recuse myself in all reasonable instances, and wisely assume good faith. I hope you'll consider me, and I look forward to working on Wikipedia more in the future.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm currently an admin (since October 2004) and a member of the OTRS team (for about six months or so now, maybe less). I've been a Wikipedian since March 2004. I've also been an admin on Commons since December 2004.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've made statements in a handful of cases, though I can't find any at the moment. I may well be confusing RFC with RFAr in that regard. So in any case, my direct involvement with arbitration, apart from some enforcement, has been minimal.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I want to help this project any way I can, through editing, administration, and hopefully through helping the arbitration process as well. I love Wikipedia and only want to make it better.
[edit] Harvestman (DLL)
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | >18 |
| First edit date: | December 14, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | None |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
The process of arbitration is a positive way to resolve conflicts where negotiation and mediation failed. Arbitrators have to be impartial, meaning that they won't help or oppose any of the disputing parties on a personal basis : their opinion has to be based, more than upon the facts, upon the better dispute resolving means.
A party that has shown bad faith in his declarations, ways and means may be ultimately right when his goals are proved to be included in the community’s one. A sanction may be necessary ; the goals must be supported.
As a community, Wikipedia’s goals are extensively, if not clearly, defined. Too much policy can only bring more disputes. There is not one and only one solution, there is a way to bring forth knowledge. This has to be done by following a defined process where raw information is first brought upon, then refined.
Conflicts arise when the quality of information declines ; they must not begin just because it is poor. Larry Sanger criticises WP and wants a bunch of experts to have the final word : that is not our actual policy.
I'm a French IT consultant who gnomily contributes to WP articles and RD answers, quite recently proofreading Gutemberg project's books. An arbitrator is not free for the customer : I may spend less time for articles.
Addendum -- "My mood in a nutshell" is added here, please read it before asking questions --
WP says that it is not a democracy. In such a state, three independent powers are required. Here, it looks as if it was a little similar, as anyone proposes policies and votes for them ; various empowered users try to protect articles and users ; arbitrators give decisions (those should not use any more superpowers than requiring sensible information.)
The activities of each category of Wpian is clear and distinct. Arbs are allowed to know nothing of encyclopedia subjects, the same for admins. Editors may ignore all rules, except when it protects them or they lack respect to others. WP is fine.
Problems arise with people's temper, as they put their heart in what they write. This may be treated quite easily.
Problems arise with visibility. Google any word and ask why the WP's article is not n°1 by now. WP is no more fine with such a situation, as more and more energy is directed towards good order and taken off good editing.
Problems are sometimes linked with fandom and creed (political or else). These subjects are, or are not, encyclopedical. Fandom about notable memes (TV series, music or film heroes, games, the glory of the place you were haphazard born in) may be understood.
Creeds are a part of human experience and are welcome too. The first French encyclopedia dealt with powers and creeds in a perfect POV manner, according to its own agenda. There may not be any agenda, even a politically correct one, here : go and create your own 'pedia elsewhere.
May editors remember what they used to search for, find and like in an old style encyclopedia. WP is not that, but its contents must respect the reader searching anything in it.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm an editor. I like to peruse RD questions.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
People asked questions about my statement and I just took a look at some ArbCom cases - to find it is an awful task to read, understand and determine what to do.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
There are plenty of subjects that I'm interested in and their WP coverage is correct. I run here to give help where I may be useful, to learn something more ; maybe to prove to some, being French, that the cabal is much more subtle than they imagined.
[edit] Improv
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Pgunn |
| Age: | 28 |
| First edit date: | December 3, 2002 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since February 2005 Mediator emeritus |
| Global Rights: | Adminship on Meta-Wiki |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Arbitration is the final step in ruling on user behaviour, and as such, is important to keep the project (and community) running smoothly. It takes a lot of time and devotion - I am willing to devote my energies to it if elected. Arbitration, like some other activities on our projects, takes a good grasp of policy and of the good of the project -- there are many different styles of judgment possible for an arbiter. If you like mine, then vote for me. I've been involved with Wikipedia since late 2002. I have been a mediator, and have also settled disputes through other, less formal means, before, during, and after my time as an active member of MedCom. I've been involved in various projects over the years, from OTRS to the India-related-topics Wikipedians Notice Board (check my userpage for the full list), and care a lot about the project. I know Arbitration is an exhausting, thankless task - I won't claim to be different or better than the other people who have served on the committee (many of whom I know), I'm just willing to serve.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm a retired/inactive mediator and an admin on EN and Meta.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have occasionally offered my thoughts on cases to the Arbitration Committee, and very occasionally posted evidence to some cases.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running because I am willing to serve. With an election of several people, having a good set of available people to choose from is helpful to the community.
[edit] John Reid
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 46 |
| First edit date: | December 30, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | None |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Just the facts. You may be astonished to see me here. I've never been a Wikipedia admin; nor do I have any such desire. I don't think it's a prerequisite. I have been active on this project in policy matters; not all of you agree with me on every point but then, I don't expect that. I hope I've treated everyone fairly at all times. I think it's not too much to say that I've been instrumental in several popular policy initiatives. I'm most proud of my work at Wikipedia:Wheel war and of my maintenance of {{cent}}. If you don't see me much in articlespace, it's because I don't think I know more than other editors about most things. I do some cleanup, template work, and documentation; and I produce graphics, such as Image:Pi-unrolled.gif.
I will not attempt to expand ArbCom's scope beyond issues of user conduct. I will not permit my personal opinions on substantive issues to cloud my interpretation of what editors have or have not actually done. I will not be a party to any "legislation from the bench"; I will not endorse any decisions that extend or amend policy as our community chooses to define it. I will not use an ArbCom seat to "steer" this community; I will never lose sight of the fact that I'm just an ordinary editor, like you and you and you. I have opinions and I'm not afraid to state them but none of them will ever be "official". I will not even attempt to "solve" problems or mediate disputes. If you egregiously violate our policy, I will endorse a remedy for your trouble. That's it.
I will defend the core principles upon which our community and project are founded: open editing, neutrality, civility, consensus, and common sense. I will not exceed ArbCom authority in order to do so. ArbCom is for issues involving user conduct only and I will resist any attempt to encroach on other areas. I will uniformly be available at length to explain my reasoning on any point. I swear never to do anything in secret that I would not do publicly; I uphold frank transparency at all times.
Finally, I will do everything possible to move cases through RfArb in a more timely fashion.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Response not submitted.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Response not submitted.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Response not submitted.
[edit] Jpgordon
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 52 |
| First edit date: | September 4, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since November 2004 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I'm here to be of service, as I was when I ran last time. I've been an editor since September of 2004 and an admin since November of that year. I feel I am particularly suited for participation on the Arbitration Committee due to my experience here, as well as my many years of experience with online community, first as sysop of my own BBS, and later as moderator of several high-traffic, high-profile conferences on The WELL. My strongest point, I think, is my ability to make impartial analyses of complicated situations; though I certainly have strong opinions in some areas, I'm able to set those opinions aside to work to help find solutions to human problems. I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an Admin since November 2004.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've offered comments on a few arbitration cases over the years, but I don't think I've ever been a named party in one that's been accepted.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm here to serve.
[edit] Kelly Martin
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 37 |
| First edit date: | December 27, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Arbitrator emeritus Administrator emeritus Former oversight, checkuser |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I am running for the Arbitration Committee because I feel that there are not enough candidates already running to fill the open positions with acceptable nominees.
I stand specifically for a zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct: any administrator who abuses administrative privilege (where "abuses" means uses in a manner inconsistent with policy where such use tends to create or intensify a disruption in Wikipedia") will be, at the very least, temporarily suspended as an administrator. Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long. I made many mistakes as an administrator, and it is my intention to see that no other administrator makes the same mistakes -- and that those who do, do not get the chance to make them again.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I currently hold no position within any Wikimedia-related community other than editor. I am formerly an administrator of the English Wikipedia, and have previously held checkuser rights on the English Wikipedia and the English Wiktionary, and oversight rights on the English Wikipedia. I have previously been a member of the Arbitration Committee, the Mediation Cabal, and the Foundation's Communication Committee. All such positions were resigned voluntarily. I've also been involved with OTRS, and still have access rights there, although I have not worked the queues in some time.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have obviously been involved in a goodly number of arbitration cases as an arbitrator. I have also commented on several cases as a "friend of the Committee". I have been a named party in a small number of rejected cases, and in at least one accepted case, although that case occurred while I was not participating in Wikipedia and I did not participate in that case in any way. I think there is one other case from about a year ago where I was a named party, but I don't remember the details.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
As stated in my candidate statement, I am running because, in my evaluation, there are fewer candidates in the slate who are qualified to be arbitrators than there are open seats in the Committee. I therefore nominated myself in order to give the voters another choice and to decrease the chance that an unqualified candidate will be elected to the Committee.
[edit] Kirill Lokshin
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 22 |
| First edit date: | June 8, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since October 2005 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I've been a Wikipedian since June 2005 and an admin since October of the same year; at one point or another, I think I've tried my hand at most of the more interesting activities on Wikipedia. (Most of my time is spent working here, if anyone is curious.) I've participated in a handful of ArbCom cases, both as an involved party and as a not-entirely-mute member of the peanut gallery.
Broadly speaking, I think the current ArbCom setup is more-or-less successful (aside, of course, from what seems to be a chronic lack of time on the part of the Arbitrators, and the resulting slow process). There has been a certain tendency, in some cases, to dodge the underlying problem in favor of a simpler superficial one, thus not really resolving the fundamental dispute; but this has been limited enough that it does not necessarily indicate a harmful trend.
Aside from that, I won't descend into any obscenely long ruminations on wiki-philosophical issues here; if anyone is interested in my opinion on something in particular, please don't hesitate to ask!
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an Adminstrator since October 2005; I'm also the Lead Coordinator of the Military history WikiProject.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been a party to two arbitration cases (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Añoranza), and an uninvolved participant in a couple more (chiefly Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano).
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Based on my work on Wikipedia, I think that I would make a good Arbitrator (and I have a certain liking for such non-article-space work, in any case).
[edit] Kylu
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | >31 |
| First edit date: | April 2, 2006 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since July 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I'm going for simplicity: I'll try to be reasonable, and remember to keep the best interests of Wikipedia first in my mind. If I think that I'm prejudiced regarding a case, I'll recuse. If you want to know my definitions of reasonableness, I'd ask you look to my actions, not my statements, but I'm willing to answer almost any questions you have. Thanks! :)
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I am an admin on English Wikipedia, have accounts on several Wikimedia Foundation wikis (though they are primarily to support my work here), I am one of three coordinators for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, often thought of as the "first step" of the Dispute Resolution process, and have access to both the OTRS system and the Toolserver.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been tangentially involved in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giano, though as I was not directly involved in the dispute under arbitration, I chose to not be directly involved. I tend to think that if I'm in a case that gets to arbitration, it means I've failed to cooperate to find a resolution with the party that I'm in dispute with. So far, there's only one situation I'd like to take through the dispute resolution process (another party to the Giano case) but the other party and I don't communicate often and, sadly, has not taken me up on my offer to resolve the situation.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I have perhaps an odd answer for that: I'm mostly interested in giving the contributors to Wikipedia the widest possible selection of good users to choose from. I'd be just as happy if I didn't get an Arbitration Committee seat...provided that those who are selected are as good or, preferably, better. I'm already familiar with the dispute resolution process, but there is always something that can be improved.
- ArbCom candidate profiles: A-F | G-K | L-R | S-Z | All | (Withdrawn)
