Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:AC2007
WP:ACE2007

2007 Election status

It is currently 12:41 (UTC), Saturday, June 14, 2008 (Purge)

Voting instructions

When was the vote?

  1. The voting phase of the election process has ended. Subsequent votes will be reverted and removed.
  2. The voting phase began on 00:00 December 3, 2007 UTC and remained open for exactly 14 days until 23:59 December 16, 2007 UTC.

Who can vote?
In order to vote, you must have an account registered with at least 150 mainspace edits before the start of the nomination process 1 November 2007.

To check when your account was created, go to the user creation log, and enter your username in the "User" field. To check your number of mainspace edits, use this tool or see your contributions. Enter your username in the "User:" and "username:" fields.

If you have multiple accounts, you may only vote with one. Voting with multiple accounts will result in all your votes being declared void and a block on all accounts.
Shortcut:
WP:ACV
How to vote
  • You may vote in support of or in opposition to any number of candidates. Not voting for a candidate is equivalent to an abstention, and does not affect the candidate positively or negatively.
  • Vote for a candidate on their voting subpage by clicking on the "Support or oppose here" link that appears after their candidate statement below.
  • In addition to their votes, users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should be made at each candidate's vote talk page. Candidates should also refer their rebuttals to the talk page. Voters may ask questions of the candidate at any time at the candidates' questions subpage.
  • If you have already read the candidates' statements, you can find a simple list of their names and links to their voting subpages on this page.
  • Up-to-date voting results summaries can be found at User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2007 and at User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections.
Warning VOTING HAS ENDED.
Thanks for participating.
Subsequent votes will be reverted and removed.
Table of Contents
David Fuchs  · Deskana  · Endlessdan  · FayssalF  · FT2
Giano  · Hemlock Martinis  · Jeepday  · John Reaves  · JoshuaZ
Manning Bartlett  · MastCell  · Misza13  · Moreschi  · Newyorkbrad
Raul654  · Rebecca  · Sam Blacketer  · Shell Kinney
Swatjester  · Thebainer  · White Cat  · Will Beback
Withdrawn candidates

Final standing candidates

David Fuchs

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. David Fuchs (talk) 18:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Deskana

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. --Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Endlessdan

Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed. EndlessDan 17:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF

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. FayssalF - Wiki me up® 15:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

FT2

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.
FT2 (Talk | email) 05:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I was too late (Bad internet connection) but I enthusiastically support this candidate. --Blue Tie (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Giano

I first edited properly in May 2004. I had a couple of short term names before finally settling on Giano - my childhood nickname. I'm not an Admin, and have never wanted to be. An arbitrator needs only to form a sound opinion.

I believe passionately that the Wikipedia project can succeed through high quality content. I think that all editors should be encouraged to contribute to main-space, if only through copy-editing or formatting, at least initially. As a chronic dyslexic I am always amazed at how helpful most editors are with copy edits and advice and this is one of Wikipedia's strengths. To me one of the greatest wiki-crimes are summaries such as this [19] to a new editor. Lack of linguistic and grammatical skills need be no impediment to editing Wikipedia. The lambasted editor in question there I suspect has an enormous amount to contribute if it can only be encouraged. We all have something to contribute but often is does need a little fostering.

My faults: I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless. Some of my doings have probably become exaggerated with the telling. For the record: I don't think IRC should be banned but kept in its place. I have used it myself. Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins. From time to time some matters do need to be discussed privately but these are always affairs for the Arbcom rather than a general admin.

Regarding Arbcom deliberations many problems can be solved by common sense. Many wikipedia problems become confused by pile-ons and opinions from those not grasping the situation. "Troll" is frequently shouted at anyone persistent in seeking the truth. The result is often muddy water, impossible to see through. This has been the case some of the more notorious Arbcom cases. Other cases are avoidable, more understanding is required to see where controversial editors are coming from, and more use employed of talk pages - often compromise can be reached before an edit war commences.

I would be very useful to the Arbcom, I have more experience than many other editors at both writing content and the machinations of Arbitration. I see two sides of each coin.

Hemlock Martinis

Five months ago, I would never have even dreamed of doing this. Five months ago, I was just another editor. I spent most of my time plumbing the depths of uncategorized pages, doing relatively minor cleanup duty. Then, over the summer, I closed the deletion discussion for the Allegations of Chinese apartheid article, and was subsequently drawn into that whole larger apartheid allegation fiasco. I put all the pages of the resulting ArbCom case on my watchlist and observed with great interest as it all unfolded. Then, I watched it all re-fold. I watched as discussion dragged to a standstill, as people weaseled their way around plainly obvious conclusions until finally it ground to a screeching halt. Now, just this last week, it was closed. What was the result? Nothing.

The Arbitration Committee needs new blood and fresh ideas. Cases are at an all time high and yet still half of the ArbCom is inactive. This is unacceptable. We need active, committed and involved arbitrators. We need people willing to make decisions with the same speed and efficiency that we would expect of a community that has so effectively written about the Virginia Tech shootings, the Burmese monk protests and the California wildfires in real time.

I don't have a lengthy resume. My involvement in the Wikibureaucracy has been minimal apart from my regular duties as an administrator and the forays I've briefly mentioned above. My involvement in major disputes has been quite neutral, and I promise to bring you only a fresh, open mind. I'm willing to listen to all sides. I can't promise that I'll be on here 24/7, or that I'll participate in every single case - after all, predicting the future would violate WP:CRYSTAL - but I promise to do my best. Thank you. Hemlock Martinis 15:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jeepday

I have been a named user contributer since October 2006. My contributions have included a few articles from scratch and a major redo or two, but most of my contributions have been through the projects stubsensor or Unreferenced articles and dabbling in a few other projects or discussions related to referencing articles. I read the Wikipedia Signpost regularly and realize that the Arbitration Committee has a challenging task. I considered the challenges and length of commitment carefully before offering myself as a candidate for one of these positions. In my professional life I do a lot of project and process improvement work in state government and I beleive that that history will permit me to continue personal growth through work on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, if I am selected by the community to participate. Jeepday (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves

I've been an editor since 2005 (mainly active since November 2006) and an administrator since March 2007. I do the usual administrative tasks, occasionally answer unblock-en-l e-mails, answer questions and help operate some of the IRC channels. I generally view the happenings of Wikipedia from the sidelines. I'm not too involved in the politics and drama of Wikipedia because I seek to minimize and ultimately eliminate (I know it's not possible, but hey) both. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an collaboratively built encyclopedia (yes, we all forget this sometimes) and the arbitration committee is an unfortunate byproduct of this. I see my non-involvement in much of the drama as an advantage to being an arbitrator. If elected, I will lend my impartial views to issues brought before the committee and seek to swiftly, but thoroughly, see cases and keep the encyclopedia running. I'm strongly opposed to wikilawyering and process wonkery and would like to put a stop to all forms of process and policy abuse. I feel the community needs to occasionally take a step back when considering a user's contributions. We need to think "Does the bad out way the good? "Is the development of the encyclopedia being impeded by this user?". I intend to make make decisions that benefit Wikipedia and not a specific user or group and help keep trolls out. If I haven't addressed an issue you feel to be important, feel free to ask me about it. Thanks for your consideration. -- John Reaves 06:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Note about answers to questions: While my answers express my personal views, were I to be elected to the committee, I would always consider other proposals and treat each case as unique and be willing to adopt measures that bring the most benefit to a case. 08:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)

JoshuaZ

As some of you may be aware, I'm a bit talkative. I've therefore taken the liberty of putting my full statement on a subpage. Thanks. JoshuaZ 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Manning Bartlett

I am an old-timer from mid-2001 and I was a member of the first group of admins ever appointed. My personal Wikipedia history is summarised at my user page (including links to my pre-Mediawiki contributions).

I participated heavily in the formation and/or development of a number the core philosophies that still underpin Wikipedia. But I will confess that I became very disillusioned on and off over the years as I felt that the 'pedia had lost it's way, and become mired in bureaucracy. I am delighted to see that in the past year the focus on "quality" has thoroughly regained precedence over "procedure".

My approach to being an arbitrator would be very simple. In any arbitration situation I just ask the question, "where is the best quality outcome for the Wikipedia"? Quality is to be found in the calm, impartial seeking of consensus and the delivery of swift resolution. The first priority is always the 'pedia, as it has been since the beginning of 2001. When one is focused on the quality of the 'pedia, making the "hard" decisions is never quite so difficult.

Before nominating myself I gave considerable thought to the question "Am I willing to give up the 'fun' side of the 'pedia"? Taking on an arbitrator role responsibly means giving it first priority, and scheduling it into one's life as a fixed and regular routine. This naturally implies that editing (and even basic adminship) must fall away. After sincere consideration, I am willing to genuinely make that commitment if elected.

Whether I am elected or not, I shall enjoy seeing the consensual process at work in this election, as this is the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so extraordinary. I am (like I hope you all are) extremely proud of my association with it over the years.

PS - I have taken the liberty of casting a few votes of my own. I have not voted for myself, and I will not cast any "oppose" votes. However there are a few outstanding candidates that I strongly desired to express my support for.

Manning (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

MastCell

I've been a user since August 2006 and became an admin in May 2007. I'm a fairly active admin and editor; my content contributions are mostly to medical articles, including the featured articles acute myeloid leukemia and cholangiocarcinoma. I don't use IRC or the mailing list, so what you see in my contribution history is pretty much what you get. I initially wasn't going to run, because there is already an impressive array of excellent candidates. However, having expressed mild concern about a couple of prior decisions, the ethic of {{sofixit}} suggests that I should try to be part of a solution rather than just point out problems. So here I am.
My "platform" is pretty straightforward. I think that in-the-trenches experience with the practical application of policy and dispute resolution to controversial articles is essential for an Arbitrator, as the gap between theory and practice in these areas is substantial.
Given Wikipedia's prominence, it attracts people whose primary goal is to advance an agenda rather than improve the encyclopedia within the bounds of policy. Our current system of dealing with such editors is cumbersome. The best approach is not to adopt a circle-the-wagons siege mentality, nor to endlessly bicker about and enable such editors. Instead, we should deal quickly and decisively with editors who are evidently using Wikipedia as a battleground or a soapbox rather than working to improve the encyclopedia, and just as quickly move on and get back to improving the encyclopedia. Interestingly, identifying such editors is often quite straightforward, but actually dealing with them effectively is not. I would like for this to change.
I believe in second chances, probationary periods, and temporary topic restrictions instead of outright bans where feasible. However, I also believe that there is a point where efforts to reform a disruptive editor outweigh any potential benefit and take away time and energy that could be spent actually editing the encyclopedia. I think we too often pass this point.
The Arbitration Committee can't dispense Truth and Justice. It can only adjudicate matters of user conduct in a way that defends the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. I like Wikipedia; I spend a lot of time here, and I don't want anything bad to happen to it. I'm heartened to see such an impressive field of candidates, and hope you'll consider me among them. MastCell Talk 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Misza13

Hello! My name is Michael, I have been editing since July 2005, and trusted with the mop a year later.

To date, my main focus on Wikipedia has been the technical side, that is writing scripts and bots (including not-so-secret-anymore adminbots). I am a developer of the pywikipediabot project (author of the discussion archiving script, among others) and a staff member of the countervandalism network as well as an operator of several bots.

As you may have noticed, I rarely involve myself in the dispute resolution process and non-technical aspects of the Project – that's because I'm of the observing types, often keeping many opinions to myself. I am however told that people trust my judgment and when I do comment, I value logic, reason and civility over emotions, vague accusations and mud-flinging. I also value product over process – while the rules were written to help in everyday Wikipedia operations, I know when to ignore them should they stray from or be a constraint in achieving the core goal of building a free encyclopedia.

If elected, I seek to be an active member, helping both with the arbitration process and checkuser backlogs as well as use my technical skills to find ways of automating processes without compromising integrity or privacy issues.

For all issues that this terse statement does not cover, I invite you to the questions page. Yours, Миша13 23:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreschi

Shall we begin, ladies and gentlemen? Even if not, it's nice to see you, to see you - nice! I typed out something lovely and then realized it was way too darn long: so as to not to disturb its artistic-rhetorical qualities, it's in a user subpage all for your delight right here. Cheerio! Moreschi Talk 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad

Thank you for considering my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.

I registered my account in February 2006, began editing actively in July 2006, and became an administrator in January 2007. I have participated extensively in arbitrations for more than one year and have drafted many workshop proposals, several of which have been included in the final decisions.

Someone sought to "draft" me to run for the Arbitration Committee in last year's election, but I believed I was too new a user at that time. Instead, early in 2007 I was named as a Clerk for the committee. Clerk responsibilities including opening and closing cases, monitoring the case pages, providing procedural advice to parties, and preparing implementation notes for decisions. This work has familiarized me with all aspects of the arbitration process and with its strengths and weaknesses.

My off-wiki resume includes 20 years of experience as a litigation attorney in Manhattan. Despite this, I would not bring a legalistic approach to the Wikipedia arbitration process. What I would do is seek in every case to analyze the evidence carefully and to reach a result that is fair to all users involved in the case and will best serve the project as a whole.

It is essential that the Arbitration Committee speed up its process of considering and deciding cases. This year as in the past, there have been delays in deciding many cases. Too often, these delays have caused bitter disputes between editors, which were brought to arbitration to obtain a just and speedy resolution, instead to fester and worsen. Such outcomes defeat the whole purpose of having a high-level body of experienced and respected editors to resolve disputes as fairly and expeditiously as possible.

I respect the difficult role that the arbitrators and the Arbitration Committee play. Dealing with some of Wikipedia's most intractible disputes and most truculent users—to say nothing of the sensitive matters that the arbitrators must sometimes address off-wiki—is inherently a time-consuming, challenging, and sometimes tiring role. If the community chooses me among the editors to play this role, I will do so diligently and to the best of my ability. I look forward to answering questions from members of the community.

Raul654

Hello all. I've been an arbitrator now for almost 3 1/2 years. I was elected back in August of 2004. The reason I wanted to become an arbitrator was I was very unhappy with how the (then-newly created) dispute resolution process was working. In particular, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654 left a very bad taste my mouth. Plautus was ultimately banned, but only after weeks of unbelievably outrageous behavior that caused several good users to permanently leave. I wanted to join the arbitration committee to make it better serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia - to favor those who do good work, rather than bending over backwards to give 3rd and 4th chances to users who do not share our goals of building an encyclopedia. How far we have come since then.

In the early years of the committee, I authored many cases - not as many as Fred Bauder, but certainly more than my fair share. Owing to time spent on the other work I do here - as an administrator, checkuserer, oversighter, member of the press committee, featured article director, and contributor to the encyclopedia - in the last year or two I have not authored as many cases as I used to. However, I have made it a point to take the lead on some of the more controversial ones (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war). I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on WikipediaReview detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

Just to lay out a few of my other accomplishments:

  • It was at my suggestion that the three-revert rule became enforceable. (I wanted to propose it as a principle in a case, but James F. suggested we do it through Jimbo. This was ultimately what was done) It may not be perfect, but it is certainly an improvement over the 100-revert war we were dealing with at the time. (And I mean that literally)
  • I created the clerks system. It started out a bit rocky, but I think the program has turned out to be a very useful tool for the arbitration committee, helping to spread out the more mundane activities over a larger group of users.
  • I set up the Arbitration Committee mailing list. (We used to use one provided by user:Nohat. After a wikimedia.org mailing list allocated, I set it up, and, along with others, administer it to this day)

I stand by my record as an arbitrator, and if re-elected, I will continue to do so in the same fashion.

Rebecca

I realise that it's a late stage in the nominations, but I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. So, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Rebecca. I've been around Wikipedia since 2003, and I've been involved in most areas of the project, including serving a previous stint on the arbitration committee in 2005. I've changed quite a bit over these last three years - I'm older, wiser, albeit surlier, and though I once swore that I'd never go near the place again after I stepped down, I've been convinced to nominate once more.

I'm running again because I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. I believe the committee should be here to facilitate the work of writing an encyclopedia, and at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help that goal. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with the community, especially with those of us who primarily work on writing articles. My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus), as I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. Most of all, though, I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job. I ran on a similar platform three years ago, and for a time, we managed to get the committee running smoothly and effectively. Three years later, I'd like the chance to help do that again - although hopefully with a more lasting effect this time around.

As a final point, I also want to note that I've recently been appointed as one of the English Wikipedia's ombudspersons to handle complaints over abuses of the privacy policy and CheckUser. I don't think this poses a conflict of interest if I were to be elected, as UninvitedCompany previously held both positions simultaneously. However, if necessary, I would be prepared to resign from that position in order to avoid any perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Later update: I've noticed a number of opposes based on claims of a conflict of interest with my position as a checkuser ombudsperson. Can I just reinforce what I said in my original candidate statement - that I am quite prepared to resign from the former if elected to the arbitration committee? I'm also a bit bemused as to why a couple of people have opposed based on supposedly not answering all the questions, because I've answered every single question put to me so far. Rebecca 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Later update #2: I've noticed a number of people opposing based on the fact that I chose to vote in the election. I've voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and as I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I am not, I don't feel that there is any reason not to this year. I've currently supported all but one of the candidates who are currently in contention for positions on the committee - and I initially supported him too. I'm just concerned that some people seem to be assuming that because I voted I did so as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Sam Blacketer

I have been thinking about running for a bit and hope I am not too late. I would very much like to be on the Arbitration Committee and help its work. I may not be the first to jump into threads on the administrators' noticeboard but I have often helped with three revert rule checking and enforcement which has taken me into some arbitration cases, and I have commented on others where I was not involved.
If appointed I would want to spend some time drawing out from the parties how they see their editing on Wikipedia, to make a calm judgment about whether they are able and willing to work with others who they do not agree with. Particularly with harassment (including off-wiki) I will try to determine whether problem editors have become disruptively obsessed with personal power struggles either with other users or with their point of view.
There are some big arbitration issues coming up, which include multiple editors edit-warring to push 'nationalist' positions. There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators. There is rarely a good reason for applying lengthy blocks to established editors where disruption is neither happening nor imminent; discussion should be preferred. In crafting arbitration decisions I think it would be helpful to write findings which do not just indicate where someone went wrong, but also indicates what procedure should have been followed. Arbitration should help guide, not just criticise.
I hope that I have shown good 'people skills' in my time on Wikipedia. I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive. I have learnt not to get fooled when dealing with disruptive editors but I have also learned to keep cool and civil with them even when they are unlikely to reciprocate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Shell Kinney

There are two main reasons that I would be an asset to the Arbcom. First is my commitment to the Foundation's projects and the community that supports them. Second is my experience with Wikipedia, dispute resolution and OTRS.
I've been an editor since June 05 (my account name was previously Jareth) and an Admin since November 05. I started working on the now defunct Wikipedia helpdesk email shortly before becoming an administrator - when this closed, I was invited to volunteer at OTRS. While some of the answers to OTRS emails are simple, many involve research to resolve and all require delicate handling of disputes and a solid knowledge of policy.
The ArbCom needs members who can stay active and nimble even under the weight of a rather thankless job. Thank you for this opportunity. Shell babelfish 18:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Swatjester

My name is Dan Rosenthal, user User:Swatjester, and I would be an excellent choice for an Arbitrator. I have been an English Wikipedia editor since December 28, 2005 as an anon, and January 4, 2006 as a registered editor. In my time here, I've been promoted to administrator, accepted onto the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee (a.k.a. wmfcc/ComCom), OTRS, and from May 2007 through Sept. 2007, I served as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Arbitrators have to deal with sensitive matters and are given not only a public, but a private trust. I believe my time dealing with privileged material, such as OTRS legal complaints, and communications committee matters, shows that I can be trusted to have the information security required as an Arbitrator.

I'm also a law student, at American University in Washington D.C. I believe that this provides an interesting perspective of looking at things. Law school teaches one to think like a lawyer. It teaches one to draft solutions to often complex problems, to find broader principles from specific rulings, and to present arguments effectively and to the point.

I do NOT wish to bring the legal profession to Arbitration Committee cases. Law suits are slower than ArbCom cases. A recent case I've been following, a standard defamation case, was filed in July, and the "Evidence" (discovery) phase is not scheduled to end until January. In addition to expediency, Arbitration is simply not court. Though there is a panel of decision makers, similar to appellate courts in the United States, the Arbitration Committee is not usually bound by precedent, there is not an adversarial system of lawyers arguing, there are no complicated rules of civil procedure and evidence. It's a system unique to Wikipedia, and it deserves to be treated that way. I believe that I can make the Arbitration process faster, and in some cases more fair (for instance, recent cases have taken far longer than necessary due to lack of presence of some arbitrators, and some have been accepted, only to be later dismissed. While this is sometimes appropriate, other times it is not).

As a final word, I'm also familiar with the Arbitration process, and the stresses it entails. I've been a party in a couple of Arbitration cases, both as the requesting party, and as a requested against party. Arbitration creates a lot of stress on its participants, some would say in a manner similar to litigation, and I believe that it is important to have Arbitrators who understand what the parties are going through, and the causes that led them to that stage, rather than an aloof, distant decision maker.

⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thebainer

G'day, my name's Stephen and I'm a law student from Melbourne, Australia. I've been an editor here since October 2004, and a sysop since December 2005. I also do a little OTRS, and I'm involved with many of the mailing lists.
I feel that I have a good mind for detail; I've presented evidence in a number of arbitrations (such as this one and that one) and it always seems to have been received well. I feel that I have a good grasp of policy, having rewritten a number of them (such as the three-revert rule or the blocking policy).
The project has changed a great deal in the more than three years that I have been participating in it; users have come and gone, the volume of work produced here has dramatically increased, and even many of the ways in which the community has run have evolved significantly. Yet there are many important things which have stayed the same: our fundamental goal to write a free encyclopaedia, our aim to build a strong and cohesive community to support that effort, and the principles that underlie those goals. Arbitration fulfils the essential function of championing that second goal: resolving disputes, defending against passion, reinforcing our basic policies. It's a role that requires eternal diligence, to borrow a phrase, a role to which I hope I can contribute.
Who knows where the project will be in another three years. I am confident that the principles at the heart of the project will continue to drive it, and that I will be doing what I can, in whatever capacity, to aid in that end. The things that motivated people to pick up their keyboard and edit back when I joined continue to motivate them to do so now, and while the community remains strong, they will continue to motivate people in the future.
After all, if we can survive the userbox wars then we can survive anything. --bainer (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

White Cat

Hi, everybody out there. For those who may be surprised why am I even a candidate there is a very simple yet unorthodox explanation for this. I have had gotten into a fair share of disputes. Of course being into disputes is by very nature not pleasant. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either. After how can anyone truly be able to deal with disputes big or small without experiencing big or small disputes.
I'd like to talk about my "failures"
  • I have one hell of a block log (as user "Cool Cat" and "Coolcat")
  • I have had 4 failed RfA's here on en.wikipedia. Full list is available here and I would recommend a short peek at it at least.
  • I let my paranoia bother AKMask to the point of an RFC.
  • I had been in front of ArbCom twice as an involved party:
    1. WP:RfAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek had put me on a year long temporary mentorship on issues concerning Turkey and/or the Kurds and banned me from mediating indefinitely until I am officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. That case was closed on 5 October 2005. Two out of three the other involved parties User:Davenbelle and User:Fadix ended up getting banned indefinitely* and for a year* respectively.
    2. WP:RfAR/Moby Dick had not levied any remedies on me. That case was closed on 13 August 2006. A number of remedies were levied on Moby Dick, a user treated like a sockpuppet of Davenbelle at least by arbcom*.
I am not "proud" of any of this and I will not even attempt to make excuses. But I can't change the past. I was not genetically engineered with wikipedias policies and I do have a learning curve with a finite slope.
I have been recommended to have a fresh start with an unconnected account but I desire not to do that. My reason for this is simple. I value honesty above everything else. It would be dishonest for me to come and claim to be a different user - at least in my own mind. I refuse to give up on my ideals simply because it is convenient.
So in sum I am not any near your "ideal" and popular candidate. I think I have a lot of experience that I can put to good use should I get appointed as an arbitrator. I hope to offer a different perspective which I feel is healthy in any median. I strongly feel that if everybody is thinking alike, often nobody is truly thinking. Weather I have grown adequately with my involvement with wikipedia and other wikimedia projects such as commons in my 2+ years here is for you to judge.
-- Cat chi? 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback

I've been an editor at Wikipedia since 2004, and an admin since 2005. I participate in a wide range of topics, including many that have editors with strong POVs. I've never been blocked or accused of wheel-warring. Off Wiki, I've chaired or served on several real life committees, including juries. I'm patient, work well with others, am good at analyzing situations, and am willing to compromise to achieve consensus.

The ArbCom is an important tool in keeping the project moving along. Its job is to resolve the disputes that haven't been resolved using other procedures. It interprets but does not make policy. ArbCom decisions should always put the good of the project first.

The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque. I think that clearer deadlines and schedules for action on cases would help both ArbCom members and RfAr participants. Editors expecting resolution of requests for arbitration should not be left hanging, and ArbCom members should make handling cases their top priority. Some of the greatest delays have come after the evidence is completed and some ArbCom members have voted. I think that members should seek consensus before voting is started, and should promptly resolve internal disagreements regarding cases rather than letting them linger for weeks or longer.

ArbCom members have additional official responsibilities, including handling checkuser and oversight requests. There are also unofficial responsibilities, including setting examples for good behavior. I believe that I can fulfill all of the responsibilities involved in serving on the ArbCom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates

Withdrawn prior to election
Withdrawn during election