→Standing candidates: add me |
Laser brain (talk | contribs) →Standing candidates: add candidacy |
||
Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Thryduulf/Statement}} |
|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Thryduulf/Statement}} |
||
|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Bradv/Statement}} |
|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Bradv/Statement}} |
||
|{{Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Laser brain/Statement}} |
|||
<!-- Add transclude line directly above this comment --> |
<!-- Add transclude line directly above this comment --> |
||
Revision as of 23:40, 9 November 2019
2019 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 09:19 (UTC), Tuesday, 18 June 2024 (
)
- Thank you for participating in the 2019 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
- You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
The nomination statements of editors running in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.
- Eligibility criteria
- An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:
- (i) has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits before 1 November 2019,
- (ii) not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
- (iii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, is willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement,[a] and
- (iv) has disclosed any previous or alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee before the close of nominations do not need to be publicly disclosed).
- Caution: Candidates should be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.
- Statements must:
- (i) be submitted after 00:00 UTC on 03 November 2019 and until 23:59 UTC on 12 November 2019;
- (ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words[b] (although candidates are free to link to a longer statement if they wish);
- (iii) confirm that the candidate will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data;
- (iv) include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee;
- (v) be created using the inputbox below, by appending your username to the existing text, clicking the button, and following the instructions.
Footnotes
- ^ From the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic information policy:
Because we believe that safeguarding the privacy of the Wikimedia community is an important Wikimedia value, those who have access to nonpublic information need to:
- Be at least 18 years old (except email response team members, who must be at least 16 years old);
- Provide contact and identification information; and
- Sign a confidentiality agreement.
- ^ The mandatory disclosure of alternate accounts and declaration of intent to comply with the WMF identification policy are exempt from the 400-word limit, although candidates are encouraged to be concise.
Standing candidates
Gadfium
I started editing in March 2004 and became an administrator in December. In 2005, as editing Wikipedia was more interesting than working, I took early retirement. I subsequently completed a BSc degree to improve my knowledge, so I could contribute better to Wikipedia. I attended Wikimania 2012. I’ve never been blocked, and I now have 130,000 edits.
I’ve rarely been involved in WikiPolitics, and until recently I had little to do with the Arbitration Committee. I started to pay more attention when Fram was blocked, and resigned my adminship as a way of expressing my concern at the overriding of Wikpedia’s right to manage its own affairs. Unlike many who resigned, I continued to create content and improve the encyclopedia, because my concern was with the management rather than the goal. Once Arbcom was given permission to decide the case itself, I regained my adminship.
I followed the Arbcom Fram case with great interest. In particular, I was impressed by the arbitrators who engaged with the community. Overall, the Fram incident deepened my commitment to Wikipedia, and as a supporter of English Wikipedia having some autonomy in governance, I want the new Arbcom to be strong. I’m standing because I can help, or at least give the voters a greater choice of candidates.
I’m going in at the deep end, but I can learn to swim. My approach will be more liberal than the overall Arbcom approach so far: I intend to vote for cautions rather than sanctions for editors who appear to be trying to do the "right thing", even if they overstepped the mark. Editors who fail to heed such cautions and appear in subsequent cases will get less liberal treatment. I believe Arbitrators should be highly responsive to community concerns on the talk pages of cases.
I am male, cisgender, straight and Pākehā (the Māori term for Europeans in NZ), so I am privileged but aware that others have had a more difficult life. I’ve travelled widely, and lived in several countries, however I’ve spent most of my life in New Zealand. I have no strong bias on many of the intractable debates in world politics, and if a case comes up where I cannot easily set aside any preconceptions, I will recuse.
I have read and will fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation’s criteria for access to non-public data, and I will identify myself to the Foundation if elected.
I have registered User:Gadbot for future use, but currently have no plans for a bot. I created User:Gadflum to prevent impersonation of my account and that has been blocked.
- Gadfium (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Fish and karate
Hi, I'm Neil, also known as Fish and karate. I am 39 years young and live in the UK. I have been a Wikipedian for 14 years, and an administrator for 13 years. Over that time I have created a couple of Featured Articles, a couple of Good Articles, and a smattering of Did You Know?s (details on my user page).
To be clear, I do not particularly want to be on the Arbitration Committee. However, I recognize that the community needs 11 new arbitrators and at time of writing there's only 3 nominations. If, by the nomination deadline, this process sees 11 other candidates nominated who would make decent arbitrators, I will withdraw from this process. If this does not happen and I should be elected, I will do my best to serve the community and help the Committee make the best decisions it can. I have spent a lot of time working on complex RFC closures and suchlike, and usually the feedback is positive, I do always try to do the right thing, and try to always be mindful that behind every username is a human being.
Declaration: I have no conflicts of interest or vested interests in or around Wikipedia. Should I be elected, I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data and will identify myself to the WMF as required. I have one alternate account, which is User:Proto (my old username, and the one I passed RFA under) - this account has not been used since 2009. I guess I may technically have User:Neil also, thanks to renaming, but have never used that account.
- Fish and karate (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Laser brain
I'm Andy. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2008 and I became an administrator in 2009. I've spent much of my time as a coordinator at WP:FAC, where my job is to read critical comments and weigh consensus. I have also participated at WP:AE and other venues where editor behavior is examined and assessed. Overall, I have significant experience reading remarks and disagreements and determining the best path forward. I speak my mind, stick to what's right for Wikipedia, and make difficult decisions even when they're unpopular. I also build content, including multiple Featured and Good articles. That means I understand this nuthouse from many perspectives.
I firmly believe in transparency and fairness. Transparency means that processes and evidence should be easy for anyone to examine. I recognize that there are rare cases when evidence needs to be kept private. Privacy is good in rare cases. Secrecy is bad. The difference is that privacy is sometimes necessary for protection of participants; secrecy is when something is kept hidden because one is fearful of it coming to light.
I'm a human. I'm usually chill. I sometimes lose my cool. I've treated other humans here with kindness, compassion, and patience. Ocassionally I've dressed them down when I thought they deserved it. I call 'em like I see 'em. I'm not a politician or a go-along. If you're looking to cast your vote for someone who's going to act in the best interests of the encyclopedia, I may be your candidate.
I believe the role of ArbCom is to serve the community as a mechanism of last resort, and to be authoritative, not authoritarian. If elected, I would serve with fairness and care.
I confirm that I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data.
- Laser brain (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Richwales
I'm Rich Wales — no relation to Jimbo as far as I know — and I'm offering my services as a member of the Arbitration Committee.
I've been a Wikipedian since early 2005, and an administrator since 2011. My work here has included two Featured Articles and nine Good Articles.
I've participated in numerous SPIs (as a clerk); I initiated one RFC/U (a now-defunct process for discussing the actions of an individual editor); and I've been informally involved in several mediation efforts (albeit with limited success).
I am currently a member of the Oversight team. In the past, I have been a member of the Audit Subcommittee (2013–2014) and the Ombudsman Commission (2017–2018), and I have been an SPI clerk since 2013 (though on voluntary hiatus for the past year).
I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and NPA policies. I believe in civility, though my time spent here has helped me to understand that disruptive activity can be a real problem even if editors remain superficially polite, and I am really not as concerned about "nasty words" as I am about battleground conduct, POV-pushing, and undisclosed paid editing.
Aside from a handful of IP edits before I registered for my account, all my editing has been either as Richwales (talk · contribs) or under my alternate account Rich Wales sans superpowers (talk · contribs).
I am well over 18, and I have previously confirmed my identity with the WMF and signed the WMF confidentiality agreement. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 01:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Addendum: I will be retiring from my real-life job at the end of this year, so I can realistically expect to have more time to devote to Wikipedia in 2020. I mention this in case it might make a difference to some of those who have expressed reservations about my candidacy on account of my low activity of late. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:52, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
- Richwales (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Lord Roem
Hi all, I'm Lord Roem. I've been an editor for 9 years, an admin for about 7, have served as a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, and worked briefly on the Mediation Committee before it closed. I also attended Wikimania back in 2012. I'm proud of the content work I've contributed to over the years, including a Featured Article and several Good Articles.
I'm diving in with experience directly supporting Arbitration Committee work from my time as a clerk, with a good deal of attention spent on the arbitration enforcement board dealing with the challenge of applying Committee remedies. I've also done a fair share of dispute resolution as a mediator in various contexts.
The Committee works best when it is proactively responding to community feedback during the progression of a case. The issues that reach the Committee are tough, challenging, and often have broad impact on the project. Questions and concerns raised during all stages should be carefully reviewed and incorporated into the Committee’s discussion. Arbitrators should never seem siloed off from the on-wiki proceedings, but engaged on a regular basis. Communication is a must.
Lastly, I think it’s fair to address my activity. My time supporting the Committee was my most active period, and it is work I’d commit myself to. I’ve recently been able to put more time back to the project and see that continuing for the foreseeable future.
I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data. I identified to the Foundation previously and would do so again, as required. Beyond any IP edits before joining, I have no prior or alternate accounts.
- Lord Roem (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Worm That Turned
- Hi all. I'm Dave Craven, or Worm That Turned. I've been an editor for about 11 years, an admin for about 8, and have served twice on the Arbitration Committee (2013/4 and 2018/9). I've also worked in quite a few other areas of Wikipedia, such as bureaucrat, oversight, checkuser, OTRS. I'm sure you'll all want to know my opinions on the last two years, well, if you have anything specific, please ask at the questions page. Generally, though, I would say the committee has had to deal with some particularly difficult and unprecedented situations - which could have been handled worse. Communication, however, is an area where we still need to improve. I would like to see a good shake up of the committee this year, with 11 seats to fill we have a very good chance of that happening. Equally, we need some institutional memory. I do hope I can be part of both. The final question that I think most people will have is on activity. I know I have not been particularly active on wiki, however I am active, regularly discussing matters on the list. I am willing to put my head above the parapet when the community needs an explanation on the difficult decisions and I do my best to answer promptly when I am asked a direct question. Declaration: I declare my "sock drawer" on my userpage - User:WormTT, User:Wormbot, User:Worm That Trains, User:Wyrm That Turned - and I'm identified to the foundation. Anything else, just ask!
- Worm That Turned (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Thryduulf
- I'm Thryduulf (AKA Chris McKenna). I've been an editor since December 2004, an admin since June 2005. I served as arbitrator for a one year term in 2015 and have remained a member of the Oversight team since then. I have been involved with the community for many years, including helping organise Wikimania 2014 in London and have helped at many training events in conjunction with Wikimedia UK and organisations including the Wellcome Collection, University of St Mark and St John and National Railway Museum. I attend the London and Oxford meetups most months and get to others around the country when I can, and there is barely a day when I don't read Wikipedia.
- This year there are a large number of seats available on the committee after a tumultuous year, and I feel there is a need for some steady hands from long-time community members to work with those who are newer to ensure that the Committee best represents the editing community. In 2015 I did my best to communicate progress on cases as much as possible, and I did a lot of chivying behind the scenes to keep things progressing and get decisions made - a role I intend to repeat if elected. I firmly believe that every new request for a case, clarification or amendment should be acknowledged and responded to as soon as possible, and that no open business should go for more than a week without at least one arbitrator commenting at least once (and ideally more). Accordingly I will endeavour to always acknowledge new business if no arbitrator has yet done so, and to provide weekly updates (if required) on ongoing business I am not recused on. I will also answer reasonable queries about decisions where I can (but I will not feed trolls).
- My philosophy is that everybody's first priority should be to do what benefits readers of the encyclopaedia, and that everybody's second priority should be to facilitate a collegiate and welcoming environment that enables editors to improve the encyclopaedia. I am prepared to take tough decisions if necessary to do back up this philosophy - no one editor is bigger than the project (including me) and nobody should be unblockable.
- Declaration: As an Oversighter I have already signed the confidentiality agreement and will supply the Foundation with my contact details if they don't already have them. All my accounts and their purposes are listed on my user page at User:Thryduulf#Other accounts. Thryduulf (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thryduulf (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Hawkeye7
- I have been a Wikipedia editor for over ten years, with more than 100,000 edits. I have contributed to 76 Featured Articles, 3 featured lists, 117 A class articles, and 290 Good Articles. I have been active as a Military History Project coordinator, being re-elected to a seventh term in September 2019. In this capacity I have assessed articles, closed A class reviews, and occasional written opinion pieces and book reviews for our monthly newsletter, The Bugle. I assist at DYK with reviews and have been involved in the assembly of the prep areas from time to time. I was runner up in the WikiCup in 2013, Military History Project Military Historian of the Year in 2012, and runner-up in 2014 and 2016. I have never been blocked or banned.
- I have been involved with GLAM work with the Australian Paralympic Committee. I was instructor in four Wikimedia Australia workshops, and an accredited Wikimedia media representative at the Paralympic Games in London in 2012 and Rio de Janeiro in 2016. Since then I have continued expanding the Paralympic articles, particularly relating to wheelchair basketball. I have travelled around Australia, and to Thailand, China, Germany, the United States and Canada covering Paralympic sports. I attended Wikimania in Hong Kong in 2013 and Esino Laurio in 2016 on scholarships from the Wikimedia Foundation.
- I hope that I can provide a voice for content creators on the Arbitration Committee.
- I confirm that I will comply fully with the criteria for access to non-public data.
- In addition to my main account, I have written and maintained two registered bots, the MilHistBot and FACBot, which are used by the featured article process, and for performing various administrative tasks related to the Military History Project. I also created a third bot account, AussieBot, which has never been used.
- Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Casliber
- Hi folks, here again. For those who don't know me, my name is Cas Liber and I am a psychiatrist and clinical director (hint: I now have RL experience managing staff and disputes/complaints) in his early 50s from Australia. I have been elected to the committee three times before (2009, 2011-12, 2016-17). My previous statements in 2008, 2010 and 2015 still hold true. I hadn't really planned on this but the events of this year worried me. Funnily enough I was consulted years ago about the formation of a Trust and Safety Committee and did envisage a time where dispute resolution issues (on the one hand) and scope and profile of the WMF (for safety/privacy issues) would make arbcom redundant. However, this obviously hasn't turned out as planned, and keeping an eye on how this process moves forward from here was one of the motivations for me running again. I also do content (I've written some stuff and run the Core Contest and Stub Contest) and feel that helps me appreciate what it takes to build and maintain the 'pedia. As previously, I will push examination of how editors use sources in disputes in cases. If we restrict arb cases to socking, edit-warring and incivility we are leaving wikipedia wide open to organised assaults by parties seeking to influence content. FWIW, I've still only had the one account. Maybe a few IP edits while accidentally logged-out over the past thirteen years...
PS: I have previously confirmed my identity with the WMF and signed the WMF confidentiality agreement
- Casliber (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Bradv
Hi everyone, I'm Bradv and I am currently a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, an OTRS volunteer, and an administrator.
I am volunteering for this role because I believe in Arbcom as a necessary part of the Wikipedia ecosystem. It helps to safeguard the content-writing process from those who would only seek to subvert our processes or undermine our core policies. It is currently our only means of holding editors with advanced privileges to account. And it is the body responsible for the discretionary sanctions system, which provides administrators with greater latitude to resolve issues promptly, and in many cases, preemptively.
That said, Arbcom is by no means perfect. The decision-making process is often too opaque, yet at other times the desire for transparency limits the committee's ability to do the right thing, particularly when it's unpopular. I believe in increasing communication and transparency whenever possible, so that in the rare case something must be done privately the community can trust that the committee is doing the right thing.
I also believe that Arbcom needs to assert its role with respect to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Trust & Safety department has an important role in issues such as child protection and paid editing, but concerns about regular editors need to handled within the editing community. This principle must be strongly held by the committee, particularly with an Arbcom that is not afraid to take a stance on issues even when such decisions are difficult.
My hope for this election is that the committee will be made up of both experienced arbitrators with strong institutional memories and some fresh faces with new ideas. I would hope to fit into the latter category, even though my experience means that I am intimately familiar with many of the inner workings of the committee, as well as most of the issues that face the committee now and in the past year.
As a clerk, I am aware of the burnout that arbitrators experience, and have had to clerk more retirements in the past year than I would have liked. If elected, I will make every effort to remain engaged in regular editing, as it is essential for arbitrators to be well connected to the rest of the community. I also enjoy serving as a clerk, and would be happy to continue in this role if I am not chosen to be part of the committee.
I meet the eligibility criteria, including compliance with the criteria for access to non-public data. I have two alternate accounts, BradV (one edit in 2007, now a doppelgänger), and ArbClerkBot.
- Bradv (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
List of withdrawn candidates