Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Special/2007-12/G-M

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 : ArbCom candidate profiles:   A-F  |  G-M  |  N-R  |  S-Z  |  All  |  (Withdrawn)

Giano II
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 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?'''

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.

Hemlock Martinis
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.

Jeepday
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 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.

John Reaves
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.

JoshuaZ
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)

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, 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 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 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 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.

Manning Bartlett
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.

MastCell
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.

Misza13
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. :-)

Moreschi
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.


 * ArbCom candidate profiles:   A-F  |  G-M  |  N-R  |  S-Z  |  All  |  (Withdrawn)

&larr; Back to the Signpost main page