Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2007-12/All

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.

ArbCom candidate profiles:    A-F  |  G-M  |  N-R  |  S-Z  |  All  |  (Withdrawn)

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.)

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.

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).

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?

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.

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.

Candidacy statement:

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.

Editor's note: Earlier, this page indicated that Giano chose not to answer the questions. He has since done so; my apologies for the confusion. -Ral315

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

None so far, I have hitherto always concentrated on main-space edits.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

<Hhohohoho>I'm sure everyone knows the answer to that one.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Because I have experience on both sides of the fence, and have often presented evidence at cases and felt I could see certain flaws in the system which I would be able to address.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I thought they dealt with the immensely complex "Trouble" RFARB extremely we;; and of course I thought the most recently Durova case was very poorly handled.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Because I care deeply for this project and am anxious top see it have a leadership worthy of its editors.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I've been an administrator since April 13 of this year.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I have never been named as a party in any arbitration case. I became involved in the Allegations of apartheid case by virtue of my closure of the Allegations of Chinese apartheid deletion discussion and my participation in its subsequent DRV. I also recently participated in Alkivar's arbitration case, where I steadfastly opposed an editor's use of secret evidence that Alkivar was not allowed to review, something that I saw as flying directly in the face of fairness and justice. I view my lack of arbitration involvement as a good thing - it allows me to come into an arbitrator position with a fresh perspective.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Two reasons. The first, mentioned in my candidate statement, is that I want to help make ArbCom more efficient and effective. Cases shouldn't be bogged down by the inactivity or lack of participation by arbitrators. I would remedy this by being consistently active and involved. I watched the Allegations of apartheid case become stagnant and ignored until it was eventually closed out of apathy. That's not acceptable.

The second reason is that I want to end the practice of secret evidence, which has become more and more problematic and controversial in the last month. I oppose secret evidence because it can and has been abused, and because it does not provide all parties with a chance to refute, explain or provide context. Although it has its uses in privacy issues, I would like to see it banned in situations past that. Transparency and fairness is vital to Arbitration processes.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I believe the handling of the Allegations of apartheid case was abominable and the result of lack of participation and unwillingness to chastise established editors. I was frustrated by the lack of active participation by arbitrators in that case. Although the final conclusions of the Alkivar case were accurate, I still would have liked to have seen a rebuke of the usage of secret evidence by the Arbitration Committee. Should it come up in a case under my term, I would encourage my fellow arbitrators to make it practice not to accept secret evidence unless there are privacy concerns or other exceptional circumstances.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Three reasons. My outlook - I'm neutral, even and unbiased. My positions - I am a determined opponent of secret evidence and a fierce critic of incivility and personal attacks. And my pledge - I vow to be active in discussions, attentive to evidence, and fair in decisions. Thank you.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I am an editor currently not holding any advanced positions, but I am a founding member of the Wikiproject Wikipedia:Unreferenced articles, the goal of this project is to ensure that articles meet at least the barest minimum of verifiability, by including at least one reliable published (online or offline) reference.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I read about them in the Wikipedia Signpost and sometimes take a closer look.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

First: because there was an add posted asking for self nomination and the field for 5 positions was fairly small. Second: I think I have a lot of problem solving skills and experience to bring to the position.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I have no opinion on past arbitration cases. I did not follow any close enough to feel that I have all the facts available. Neither did I fully research all the appropriate references and policy as they stood when any specific arbitration was active.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

I have a long history on Wikipedia of reading policy, being active, and wadding into discuss about it; starting with conversations that can been seen here Talk:Off-road vehicle/Archive 1 in "Edward Abbey qoute" a learning experience when I was new (two weeks) and in "Build a criticism section" an application of joint venture involving differing perspectives months later. From some of the questions I am getting here and in my Questions for the candidate I am guessing that there is some strife in the community about arbitration committee actions, I did not nominate myself to swing that strife in one direction or the other. I am asking users to vote for me because I want to help Wikipedians who bring a problem to the committee to find solutions that are within the bounds of Wikipedia policy.

Candidacy statement:

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 has not responded to questions; responses will be added as soon as they are received.

Candidacy statement:

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)[reply]

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I am an administrator. No fancy positions.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I've been involved in a variety of arbitration cases also as discussed in my statement. To quote from there and save you a click:

One of the first things with which I was involved on Wikipedia was an Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Agapetos angel in which I provided evidence based on linguistic and other habits that an anonymous editor of the Jonathan Sarfati was likely Sarfati himself. The ability to analyze this sort of evidence is frequently at issue in ArbCom cases, and I have both experience and facility with it.

I also brought Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ed Poor 2 to the committee. The details of this case were unpleasant. A long-term editor who had been involved with this project from almost the beginning was engaging in unacceptable editing, and I helped to stop that. More details are available by reading the case itself.

I've been involved in many other ArbCom cases, in some instances providing evidence and in others commenting in the workshops.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

As I discuss in my candidacy statement for ArbCom which I invite you to read at User:JoshuaZ/ArbCom, I am running because I am an experienced, highly qualified candidate with a decent amount of free time.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I don't what it means for a case to be handled exceptionally well. I haven't seen many cases indicating great brilliance on the ArbCom's part but I'm not at all sure what that would mean. Poorly handled cases are easier to point out. I don't think Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid dealt with the underlying issues and taking so long that an issue becomes moot is not a good result. I wasn't happy with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone, which ended with a good but problematic editor leaving the project and did nothing at all to deal with the fact that an outside agent engages in disgusting harassment and attempts to manipulate Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure in that case that there was much that the ArbCom could have done that would have helped much.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

As I discuss on my statement (which I once again invite you to read), I'm a highly qualified admin with a lot of experience in both general dispute resolution on Wikipedia as well as experience with the ArbCom. I'm also active on a few other Wikimedia projects so I have some idea what other projects are doing in similar situations.

Candidacy statement:

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 quality"? 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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I have been an admin since the admin role was first created, somewhere around Dec 01 or Jan 02. I have never sought any other position until this election.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Never. I have however watched many cases very closely, particularly some of the early ones where some core policies were derived as a result. I elected to completely refrain from participation in the Ed Poor/Maveric149 debacle, which took considerable self-control. (I had my own conflicts with Ed Poor along the way).

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Every year I have looked at the elections and felt I owed that service, but it took me until now to be certain I was willing to totally commit to the role. I have no doubt I am perfect for the role, having been here for so long and being so grounded in the core principles of WP. However being an arbitrator is not fun, and to do the job properly means giving up a great deal of the "enjoyable" side of being a Wikipedian. It frequently involves trawling through thousands and thousands of words which are loaded with bias, invective and outrageous self-righteousness, trying to glean the truth. So the decision to take on being an Arbitrator and give up so much of what maked Wikipedia a joyful experience was one that took me a long time to come to.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

At the risk of sounding "insufficiently controversial", on the whole I think the ArbCom has performed admirably this year. I do have a few issues around the timeliness of reaching a decision after the evidence gathering phase had concluded. I have discussed this at length in my "question" response to east718. Of course ArbCom has not always performed flawlessly, but I think its membership to-date has always held the best interests of Wikipedia to their hearts.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

If I was to create a campaign slogan (which I won't) it would be "I still believe". Wikipedia has been a part of my life for over six years, and I love it with a deep, abiding passion. Having said that, if I was not elected I would still be perfectly content. Despite my long participation at WP I have never really sought attention or "positions of power" in any way. I only decided to run for the office simply because I know I would make an excellent ArbCom member (for reasons outlined in my candidacy statement).

However, being an arbitrator is possibly the most thankless role there is, and the only reason to run for the position is because of a deep and abiding commitment/belief in the purpose and mission of Wikipedia. If I am elected then I will serve to the utmost of my ability and with passion, absolute diligence and commitment. If I am not elected to serve, then my sense of personal honour will be satisfied by the fact that at least I offered, and I will continue going about things in my quiet way.

Candidacy statement:

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 has not responded to questions; responses will be added as soon as they are received.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I'm just a plain (yet perhaps not-so-average) administrator.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Hardly, as I am of the observing types, commenting only occasionally (might've put a "statement by uninvolved ..." on one or two occasions).

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Short and simple, I believe the Committee would benefit from my judgment as well as the CheckUser backlogs could use another pair of hands.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

Neither. I wouldn't question any decisions made (not only not to undermine the Committee's authority, but mainly because I don't feel any of them were blatantly missed to my heart) but neither would classify them as handled "exceptionally well", as due to the Committee being undermanned, the decisions are not always arrived upon as timely as one could wish for.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Again plain and simple, because I'm a reasonable and trusty guy. :-)

Candidacy statement:

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 has not responded to questions; responses will be added as soon as they are received.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I've been a registered user since February 2006 and an active contributor since July 2006; I became an administrator in January 2007. I've also been an Arbitration Committee Clerk since the beginning of 2007 and have been one of the most active clerks during the year. I was also one of the members of the committee that coordinated this year's election for three members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I have never been named as a party to an arbitration case. However, I have presented evidence in a couple of cases, and I have made workshop proposals in quite a number of others, several of which have been incorporated into the arbitrators' final decisions (I have probably written more words of official ArbCom decisions than some of the sitting arbitrators). I have also dealt with many cases as a clerk; this role primarily involves opening and closing case pages, notifying the parties and giving them procedural advice, and the like, but it has familiarized with me with the arbitration process and with what types of approaches have and have not been successful over the past year.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

As an observer, a participant in cases, and a clerk, I have experienced the strengths and weaknesses of Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes, which culminate in arbitration when other methods fail. I believe that my Wikipedia experience make me a good fit to join as one of the members of the committee and that I can contribute to deciding the cases and performing the committee's other duties fairly and expeditiously.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

Looking back over the list of cases decided in 2007, there are not many cases in which I think that the final decision contained an outrageous misjudgment. In other words, I believe the committee's final decisions this year have generally been sound. This is not to say that I agree with every word of every decision, but I am reluctant to reopen old wounds, or to multiply the length of this response, by closely analyzing the final decisions and identifying deficiencies either of substance or of form in cases that were closed some months ago. (If anyone is truly curious, ask me to elaborate on my candidate questions page.)

While the committee's final decisions have usually been sound, there have certainly been some proposals made by arbitrators on workshops or proposed decision pages, that were ill-thought and in some cases totally unacceptable, but fortunately these have not been adopted. There are also matters on which I've disagreed with the committee outside the context of a specific case, such as the concerns I have expressed regarding the "4 net vote" case-acceptance policy and regarding the newly announced minimum age requirement for arbitrators.

There have been also been several instances in which the committee has eventually reached a sensible result in a case, but the process has dragged on for so long that much of the value of the decision has been dissipated (because the parties have been using the case pages to call each other names for another two months so that relations among editors at the end of the case are worse rather than better, or one of the parties has become disspirited and left the project completely). Fortunately, within the past few weeks, the serious problem of undue delay in resolving cases has been greatly lessened. I hope and expect to see this improvement continue into the future.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

This is the type of awkward question that invites all the candidates to say nice things about himself or herself, requiring one to steer between the Scylla of self-deprecation and the Charybdis of cloying self-flattery. In an effort to stay clear of both of these perils, I will allow my record on Wikipedia to speak for itself. Those interested are of course welcome to take a look at my candidate statement and my answers to about 70 more questions for further information.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

Administrator, Arbitrator, FA director, OTRSer, Checkuserer, Oversighter, Comcom member

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I have been involved in many arbitration cases - mostly as an arbitrator, but occasionally as a participant.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Because I like it now that I brained my damage the last time ;) -- (on a more serious note) because I think my participation on the committee, voicing my opinions in disputes that matter helps improve the site.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

Being on the arbcom is sort-of like being in the CIA -- nobody knows about or remembers your successes, but they sure remember your failures. I think the arbcom did particularly well in the wheel-war last February (admittedly, that's a bit more than a year ago). After a wheel war that threatened had broken out and was quickly becoming very ugly, we got Jimbo to do an emergency intervention to stop the war, and then rendered a decision that was speedy (fastest arbitration committee decision ever) well thought out, and in my opinion, generally fair all around. (Although I took exception to one or two of the final remedies).

Why do you think users should vote for you?

They should vote for me because of my knowledge and experience on the site and in interacting with its users, and because of the personal values and insights I bring to the arbitration process.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I'm an admin. I also have oversight and checkuser access, as a former arbitrator, and I'm currently serving as one of three checkuser ombudspersons, with responsibility for investigating complaints about privacy policy violations.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Aside from the cases I handled as an arbitrator, they've been two that come to mind. The first, Rex071404, was way back in 2004 - he was the editor who was pretty much singlehandedly responsible for keeping all our articles about the Kerry campaign protected in the leadup to the 2004 US presidential election. I was one of numerous editors who had tried to keep him in line - I believe he later left after repeated arbitration sanctions.

The second case was, I believe last year, concerning a couple of Australian political figures who decided to try and use Wikipedia to smear their opponents. I spent some time keeping said smears out of the articles, and both users were banned for a period and subsequently left.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I ran for the committee the first time around because I felt that the committee was dysfunctional, and that this was affecting the capacity of the project to do what it's supposed to do: write an encyclopedia. I was elected to help reform the committee then, but alas, I feel that three years later, we're in the same position. As someone on the arbcom mailing list (as an arbitrator emeritus), I feel that the current committee has lost sight of the goal of writing encyclopedia, and gotten out of touch with the broader community. I also feel that some of their deliberations have at times over the past few months been a little bit bizarre. I'm also frustrated with the continuing failure of successive committees to keep the backlog down. It just isn't good enough to take one or two months to deal with a case - as such, if elected, I'll be working to ensure the committee runs a lot more efficiently than it has been.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

As I said in my answers to various people's questions, I'm generally reluctant to express opinions on specific cases. I think the committee often does a good job of trying to untangle some pretty complex situations: if I had to give one example, I'd probably say the Highways case was one of these. As for the second question, I'm explicitly not going to answer this one, because most of the cases where I've disagreed with the current committee's handling have the potential to come before the committee again.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

I've been around the traps for a long time. I've been an arbitrator before, and I did that at a time, like now, when the committee was in a position of needing to reform itself to maintain the trust of the community. Beyond that, however, I am frustrated with the current committee's tendency to treat itself as a supreme bureaucracy, rather than a dispute resolution body that exists for the sole purpose of supporting the project in its mission to actually write an encyclopedia; if you would like to see the committee regain that focus, please consider a vote for me. Finally, if elected, I will - as I did last time - actually keep up to date with cases. I believe that arbitrators should not have to be nagged by clerks to actually do the job they were elected to do, so if elected I will be working to keep the committee running efficiently, rather than drawing to a standstill as it so often has over the years.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

First and foremost I'm an article writer. I am also an administrator, since April. I have volunteered to be an OTRS member but I haven't heard anything back from it yet.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I was a party in Miskin because I had handled the initial three revert rule report. I looked over the The Troubles case having tried to solve the earlier editing dispute. I have offered evidence in Winter Soldier 2 where I was again involved as 3RR enforcing admin, and also commented on proposals in Privatemusings.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Mostly because I would really like to serve on it. I have seen arbitration cases progress and think I could bring a thoughtful input into deliberation, better understanding the parties' approaches and likely future behaviour, and considering the best result for the encyclopaedia.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I like some of the broad restrictions which the committee pioneered with the Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 case, allowing uninvolved administrators for good cause to place users under editing restriction without getting further sanction from ArbCom but with appropriate review. This model was recycled for The Troubles case and by and large it works. I regret that the THF case, which concerned several very important issues, did not go through to a conclusion.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

I hope, because I have been able to maintain civility and not let feelings of personal pride intrude. I hope users recognise me as an editor who has the best interests of the encyclopaedia at heart.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

Admin, OTRS

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Yes, I've taken two cases to arbitration, Shiloh and Monicasdude. In both cases, I was a party.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I can help and have the skills to do so.

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 the Attack sites case was a bit of a mess. It was a sticky thing to be going into and ended up producing a rambling list of decisions to try to remind the community of our policies. I think it would have made a lot more sense to either just clarify the earlier ruling or, once the case was opened, deal with the problematic behavior instead of making general statements.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Because you probably don't know who I am -- this means I manage to contribute, clean-up, mediate and work for OTRS and still manage to resolve problems without creating issues and or drama.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

Currently I am an admin, an OTRS legal queue volunteer, and a Communications Committee representative. In the past, I have served as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Yes, a couple as a party on both sides (requestor and requestee), and I occasionally leave a commentary on cases awaiting acceptance.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I believe it is something that I would be good at. The committee needs new members, and I'd like to help.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I believe the nationalism articles, such as azerbaijan/armenia, have been handled well, though obviously there is room for improvement. Also, the Derek Smart arbitration resulted in a good decision that has eliminated the problem. I do not wish to single out certain cases as being poorly conducted, as we are not privy to the inner workings of the committee's decisions, however, I think all of the cases could be moved along much more quickly.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Trust. Users can trust me to carefully handle the sensitive information that arbitrators are privy to, things that the foundation has already entrusted me with as an intern. I will be active, and try to keep these cases moving, while ensuring that all evidence is carefully reviewed. I believe that I am a good candidate for the job. I hope the community will place their trust in me as an arbitrator as well.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I'm an administrator (since December 2005) and an OTRS volunteer (since early 2006).

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I was peripherally involved in the Internodeuser (aka Zordrac) arbitration. I was listed as a party to the Husnock arbitration, as the maker of a block that preceded the case. I've also presented evidence in a number of cases in which I haven't been involved, including the Brandt deletion wheel war case and the Miskin arbitration.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

Arbitration requires a continual investment of energy and enthusiasm to make it work. I feel that I have a good mind for detail and a strong grasp of policy, and that I have skills and knowledge which would be useful. I think that I could assist in improving upon the methods of arbitration to help it run more smoothly. Ultimately this is just another way in which I hope to contribute to the well-being of the project.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

The Brandt deletion wheel war case was handled swiftly but efficaciously: the Committee quickly identified it as an important case, and were able to hone in on the key issues in it, and kept the case focussed and the parameters of the dispute well-defined. In the Badlydrawnjeff arbitration, the Committee managed to distill an extraordinarily complex raft of proposals and suggestions into a few choice principles that were broadly acceptable to most people. That this was done during a groundswell of community-driven change in the underlying policies was even more impressive, with the Committee accurately judging this shift.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

I don't know of anyone else who has received barnstars for arbitration evidence they have presented :)

Seriously though, I hope that, after more than three years contributing to the project, I have a good enough understanding of its workings and of the community to be able to be contribute to it further in this way.

Candidacy statement:

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 fell 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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

I am just a mere editor on en.wiki. I am a commons admin if that matters at all... I would not classify any of those examples and etc as a "position". None of them is a big deal.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

I was an involved party on two past cases (WP:RFAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek (2005) and WP:RFAR/Moby Dick (2006)) as an "involved party". The two cases were filed over harassment complaints. I have been "involved" with many cases. For the most part, I observed. Among the most interesting cases was WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan and WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2. I am currently an "involved party" on WP:RFAR/Episodes and characters which opened on 22 November 2007.

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

I feel this is an area where I can employ my experiences. I do not really have a detailed answer to this question as I merely want to serve the community.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

I really do not feel I am in a position to question the decisions of arbcom. I really feel it is very easy to look back to a closed case and 'judge' it so anything I put here wont be truly fair. Arbcom is overloaded with cases and they are doing quite a decent job. However I feel there were one case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan) which were handled less than perfectly. There was a second case (WP:RFAR/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2) over the mater which was handled exceptionally well. I do not believe arbcom did poorly on the first case. Remedies could have been better worded and enacted and the second case perhaps might have been avoided - but all that isn't really important. Resolving such a complex dispute is however an exceptional accomplishment for arbcom - it just could have gone more smoothly though. There may be a third case judging from enforcement logs: case 1, case 2.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Had I been voting for a candidate, criteria I would look for at the candidate would be candidness, honesty, sincerity, impartiality, credibility. I recuse myself from judging myself per coi :P. I'd hope the users would vote for a candidate (whoever it may be) that has these fine qualities.

Candidacy statement:

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.

What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?

Admin and OTRS.

Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?

Involved party:

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ericsaindon2
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Alienus
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rangerdude

Uninvolved party: (gave evidence or discussed motions)

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Workshop
• Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Blu Aardvark
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jacrosse
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sathya Sai Baba/Evidence
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Attack sites

Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?

The ArbCom needs committed volunteers who can put in the time and effort to resolve disputes that disrupt Wikipedia. I beleive I could help the committee with my involvement.

In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?

A recently closed request, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Railpage Australia, is a great example of a simple case that was handled quickly and properly. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles was a much more complicated request, and took two months to settle, but I think it is also a good example of a well-handled case. On the other hand, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/THF-DavidShankBone is an example of a failed case. While the case was dropped to the departure of one party, it seems that the committee was unable to decide on the facts or remedies. I think that a more methodical approach to complicated cases may reduce stalemates like this.

Why do you think users should vote for you?

Users can judge me by my record and my statements. I'm a longtime contributor to the project who is good at analyzing evidence and summarizing complicated issues. The ArbCom needs people who are willing to put in long hours over a three-year term, who can approach divisive issues with fairness and diplomacy, and who can achieve consensus within the committee. I believe I can meet those requirements.