Below are candidate profiles and interviews of candidates for the December 2006 Arbitration Committee elections.
The election guide is intended to be a brief overview of each candidate's beliefs and experiences. More detailed information about each candidate may be gleaned from their user pages, as well as their responses to questions from other users. Not all candidates have yet replied to our questions; their replies will be added as they are received.
Matt Yeager edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 18 |
| First edit date: | May 28, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | None |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
One of the annoying things about the Arbcom Committee (there aren't many, I think they tend to do a very, very good job) is how they're all "insiders" (e.g. they favor their "friends", or at least they often give that impression... they don't recuse NEARLY as much as they should... administrators are basically never punished with more than a slap on the wrist, etc). I'd provide an outsider's point of view in deliberations.
I don't expect to win this nomination, or to even come close; however, I'm at the point, blissfully, where I don't care all that much about how the higher-ups in the Wikipedia community think of me. I think that'd actually be a pretty good trait for an arbcom member to have, come to think of it. I haven't edited WP much in the past couple months (marching band sucks up one's life, tragically), but it's ended, so I would be able to serve if I happened to win.
Enjoy life. 
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I hold the position of editor of the Wikipedia, no other, and that's fine by me.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
None, thank heavens. I haven't even been close. I had a small supporting role in User:David Levy's arbcom case a while back, and I almost joined a couple cases as far as submitting an amicus curiae, but I've tried to keep away from that stuff as best I can (sometimes it hasn't worked brilliantly, unfortunately, but hey, that's life.)
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running because I feel that the committee has been much too soft on people who have bent the rules and unilaterally rewritten policy in order to get what they want and then have proceeded to hide behind a defense of "stop wiki-lawyering!" Personally, I'm sick of that. I hate myraid policies and legalism, too, but there's a reason we have rules likes "don't ban people you're in a content dispute with". =/
Nandesuka edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | >18 |
| First edit date: | March 27, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since September 2005 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
As Wikipedia expands, it continues to suffer growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as every other editor. As janitors, admins have more options, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are most stressful, administrators can confuse their hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues. In my view, the most difficult problems Arbcom had to deal with this year concerned exactly this issue.
It's the nature of any semi-judicial body that at least one party will be unhappy about their decision. Arbcom can't avoid that sort of criticism. What they can do, however, is to zealously guard the principle of transparency, so that when they make a decision its underlying principles are clear. This means favoring open process over closed process, avoiding secret appeals and secret evidence except as a last resort (for example, when required by law), and explaining the rationales behind their decisions in clear and simple language.
People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned. But every editor has the right to be treated civilly, even during disagreements. It is never appropriate to ignore civility.
I have been editing for several years now, and strive diligently to strike a balance between caution and common sense as both an editor and an administrator. If selected as an arbitrator, I will continue to do the same for that role. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency and efficacy to the process as I can. Thanks.
One more thing that's probably worth mentioning: I'm very unlikely to use IRC, because I think the dynamics of communication there are terrible. I prefer on-wiki communications whenever possible, or email.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm an administrator and (I hope) a responsible and meticulous editor. I'm equally proud of both of those roles.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I was involved in Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision, which I believe resulted — at least for a time — in clearing a number of logjam issues on that article. I've been involved in a few arbitation cases as a party, such as Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Alienus, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/MONGO, although I don't believe I was under risk of censure in either of those cases. I've been an interested bystander and/or participant on the workshop pages in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Depleted_uranium, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Tony_Sidaway, Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Webcomics, and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giano.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Parties hostile to Wikipedia seem to have identified interactions between admins and non-admins as a potential fault line to be exploited to divide the community. I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia operates best when it operates with formal hierarchy kept as a minimum. Admins are not "better" than editors. Editors are not "better" than admins. Both admin and article editor are primarily roles, and the role is not the man (or, as the case may be, the woman). Right now I think the best place to be to defend against those trying to divide the community is Arbcom. So that's where I want to be.
Nihonjoe edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | >30 |
| First edit date: | September 21, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since May 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
My main reason for running is that I enjoy trying to help people work things out, and I want to help keep Wikipedia an open and fair place to which to contribute. I've had an official account here since 2005, though I used Wikipedia (and did some minor editing) fairly regularly for about a year before that. I've been generally easy to work with and I'm a generally balanced, civil, and respectful editor. I've worked on a wide range of articles, though my main focus has been articles somehow related to WikiProject Japan, which I set up in March of this year to help organize the work on that part of the encyclopedia. While I have made some mistakes along the way, I believe I have learned from them, and am a better person for the experience. By becoming a member of the Arbitration Committee, I hope to continue being balanced and improving the Wikipedia project as a whole. Working on Wikipedia has been one of the most enjoyable things I have ever done (for the most part), and I look forward to helping to make the project even better in the years to come. Thanks for your time.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since about May 2006 (it may have been late April, but I'm not keeping track). I founded WikiProject Japan in March 2006, though I'm not sure that's necessarily a "position" per se.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've been involved in a mediation case, but never an arbitration case. I may have commented on one or two cases, but I have close to 19,000 edits, and don't have the inclination to browse through them to see if I have. I have, however, followed a few without commenting on them.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I enjoy helping people and I enjoy Wikipedia a lot. As I indicated in my statement, "I've had an official account here since 2005, though I used Wikipedia (and did some minor editing) fairly regularly for about a year before that." In that time, I've created quite a few pages (see my userpage for an almost comprehensive list), and editing thousands of others. I especially enjoy translating articles from the Japanese Wikipedia to this one. I'm generally easygoing, and try to avoid conflict when possible. I think I would bring a lot of experience in working through issues as I've been (and currently am) a moderator on many online forums and mailing lists, and I've chaired multiple convention committees staffed by people with wildly divergent opinions on various matters. I've been told that I'm a calming influence, and I think that's important when working through disputes such as those handled by ArbCom.
Paul August edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 56 |
| First edit date: | July 19, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since May 2005 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I was born in 1950, received a PhD in mathematics in 1980. I live in Cambridge, MA.
I have been a Wikipedian since Jul 2004, and an admin since May 2005. I have over 26,000 edits. I have participated in a wide range of activities on WP. My writing has been mainly in the areas of mathematics and classical history. I have written one FA and contributed to a few others. I'm an active participant in the Mathematics Project. I've performed maintenance and fought vandalism. I'm familiar with the policy and procedures of Wikipedia. I've never opened or been the subject of an RfC or ArbCom case, but I've closely followed and contributed to several.
I care deeply about our encyclopedia.
Since I now have the luxury of no longer needing to work for a living (I married well and invested wisely ;-), Wikipedia has become my life's work. And it is more fulfilling than any work I've done before.
For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.
However Wikipedia is not a perfect world. There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.
The job of the ArbCom, then, is to serve the writers of the encyclopedia by helping to maintain a positive and productive working environment. This is an important job. I would like to help.
On the other hand, it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.
I am cool headed. I can say without exaggeration that I have never typed a word in anger on Wikipedia. Filiocht (perhaps the editor I've most respected and admired) once told me that I was the most considered editor he knew. I think it might have been a polite way of saying I was slow, but I do think before I type. I also consider myself able to be objective and impartial (but then don't we all).
There are several excellent editors volunteering for ArbCom, at least two of whom deserve your vote more than I do, Geogre and UninvitedCompany.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since May 2005.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've never brought or been the subject of an ArbCom case. I have presented evidence and contributed to the workshop page and talk pages of several including:
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I care deeply about our encyclopedia, I want to serve, the ArbCom plays an important role, and because I think I can help.
Phil Sandifer edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Snowspinner |
| Age: | Not given |
| First edit date: | April 18, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since July 2004 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Being something of a glutton for punishment (An essential skill), I offer myself up again. If elected, I intend to focus on the task of writing proposed decisions - something that currently is done by one person. While Fred is quite capable of the task, a second pair of eyes in decision proposing is important, and will lend balance to the decisions.
I also think it is increasingly inevitable that the arbcom is going to have to get its hands dirty with cases that involve looking at content, and cases that involve trying to sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, and instruction creep that increasingly leads to messes. The de facto committees that form around the frightening number of guidelines we have need disentangling, and furthermore need an exceedingly subtle touch that does not overplay the arbcom's hand and weaken its reputation.
Beyond that, I would apply the philosophy that I've demonstrated in my actions on Wikipedia - a high value on pragmatism, an eventualist mentality, a low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Response not submitted.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Response not submitted.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Response not submitted.
PMA edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | >18 |
| First edit date: | July 26, 2002 |
| Local Rights: | Administrator emeritus |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
If elected, I intend to focus on the task of arbitration as much as I can - i feel that my almost five years here have given me a pretty good insight into situations that might arise.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Response not submitted.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Response not submitted.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Response not submitted.
Proto edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | 27 |
| First edit date: | March 31, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since April 2006 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello. I registered as a Wikipedia user on 31 March 2005 and received administrator status in 5 April 2006 (my RFA)
What have I done on Wikipedia? I’ve just short of 10,000 edits, and about another 4000 admin actions - I get involved. I've dabbled in just about everything one can in Wikipedia, from translations to mediation to AFD to wikifying, and everything in between, so I have a broad knowledge. I am not a specialist in any one area. I've contributed around 300 new articles (a selected list is on my user page). I have been involved in deletion policy, as well as working on policies such as WP:NOT – this has lent me a solid grip of Wikipedia policy, and firmly believe that policy, applied sensibly and with a dash of common sense, is what is required for Wikipedia to proceed.
What do I believe? I dislike 'backchannel' politics, and believe everything in Wikipedia should be done out in the open, hence I don’t use IRC, nor do I take part in the mailing list. These are conscious decisions. I’d strive to ensure that were I to become an arbitration committee member, all my decisions (and discussions) will made in the open.
So am I qualified to make these kinds of decisions? I believe I am; I am reasonable, bright, succinct, clear, and think carefully. I care. I don’t like overcomplicating simple issues. I take responsibility for my mistakes. I’m never quick to block, preferring warnings (especially if none have previously been received), but I don’t shy away from it when it’s necessary to prevent further abuse.
People feel strongly about Wikipedia, and about what happens to their contributions. They should – if you put effort in to something, it’s disheartening to see others take that work away. Often, this is due to a lack of understanding, or a failure on the part of the more experienced user to explain to the newbie, in a civil manner, ‘’why’’ their work was removed. Frayed tempers and brusqueness are, regrettably (but, often, understandably) common. It’s the role of the Arbitration Committee to be detached. To be calm. To not get involved. Content resolution isn’t, and must never be, the role of the Arbitration Committee – correctly applying current policy to contentious cases of conduct is.
I strongly believe I would be a worthy member of this group, and I would not let you down.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since April. I don't hold any other positions, as I feel there are people better qualified than me to handle mediation - frankly, it's not something I have either the patiente nor the aptitude for, and am full of admiration for those who do.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've occasionally commented on a case, but only as an outside opiner. Perhaps I've been lucky. I always try and resolve any points of contention I have with another user well before the final step is required. Considering the number of contentious, borderline deletion discussions I take it upon myself to close (as few admins will inmvolve themselves in these), this remains a surprise.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I believe in Wikipedia, strongly. I believe that the volunteering of so many hours of time, without pay or recognition, in a group bid to build a wide-ranging and comprehensive resource for everyone is a beautiful thing. I want to do more to help. The Arbitration Committee play an - unfortunately - vital role in maintaining that. I would prefer that the ArbCom were not necessary, and that people were always able to interact with others in a sensible and tolerant manner. Unfortunately, this is not always the case, and some form of definitive sanctioning group - chosen by peers - is required; hence, the Arbitration Committee. As I said, I want to do more to help. I believe that the skills and judgement I have would be an asset to the ArbCom and thus to Wikipedia as a whole, and, if chosen, would do my very best to ensure that the ArbCom continues in its excellent, impartial and thoughtful way.
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| Age: | Not given |
| First edit date: | July 13, 2005 |
| Local Rights: | None |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
First a (very) little about myself- I've been a Wikipedian since July 05, accumulating over 2000 mainspace edits in the process, starting over 30 articles and contributing significantly to over 30 more including a featured article. I've had the pleasure and privilege of working along side Kirill Lokshin here. I'm very proud of what we have accomplished so far together. But, it is no small secret to those who know me, I've also grown a little disgruntled[1] . As I've observed in the past, Wikipedia is a victim of its own success and is starting to collapse under its own weight. The current mechanisms for dispute resolution, mediation and participation are starting to break down. I think I can help in some measure to counter, or at least slow, these ill trends. This[2] is an example of what I can bring to the Arbcomm, here [3] is another. I strongly endorse creating a sub-committee system to speed the Arbcomm's work. I believe strongly that openness and transparency at all stages in the process are vital to prevent Arbcomm from turning into a Star Chamber...these virtues have been too lacking in the past, I shall work to change this. Besides a keen sense of fairness and what is best for the project and community, I also happen to live only 2-3 hours (depending on traffic) from Wiki-HQ, so should an emergency arise I could be there ASAP. For great justice vote Ghost!
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I hold the position of longtime, dedicated editor. One which, until recently I truly enjoyed.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've not been a defendant, if that's what you mean...at least not yet:) Only an observer and occasional Peanut Gallery participant. There are links to the two most important cases above in my candidate statement.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I believe I can make a positive difference, and make working here enjoyable again for other dedicated editors, longtime or new.
Radiant edit
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Radiant |
| Age: | >23 |
| First edit date: | December 18, 2004 |
| Local Rights: | Adminship since June 2005 |
| Global Rights: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I’ve been active since December 2004, registered after a few months, and have been an admin since June 2005. My motto is that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. Thus, I have done my best to make Wikipedia run more smoothly. I have never shied away from examining controversial issues, and use careful reasoning to cut to the heart of them. Indeed, I have been called a voice of reason and progress many times, even by those who disagree with me.
I've written an essay on my wikiphilosophy, or how Wikipedia should work. In my view, the ArbCom walks a fine line between guarding the encyclopedia by being lenient to good contributors, and guarding the morale of our volunteer editors by being even-handed. The aim is to be stern where necessary, fair where possible.
Together with a variety of other editors, I have been instrumental in solving or alleviating a number of issues in Wikipedia. The most well-known of these solutions is probably Proposed Deletion. Other frequently-cited ones include the present definition of policy and guideline, Centralized Discussion, Wikipedia is Not a Bureaucracy, and n u m e r o u s others.
Problematic users I have dealt with include Zen-master, Gabrichidze, and to some extent, Willy on Wheels. I've given my thoughts on the Giano case; a recent dispute I have dealt with is TV episode naming, which I looked into after a request for neutral opinion. I have attempted to defuse the situation, mainly using debate, but I felt it necessary to remove an inappropriate poll about one editor's personality, and to temporarily protect the page to stop a revert war over the disputedpolicy tag. I believe there is now a consensus with still some opposition, with the compromise of redirecting the minority name to the consensual name.
I believe I would make a capable arbiter, and if the community so desires I will aid the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm an admin, since June 2005.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I have contributed to the case of Giano (see also) as an uninvolved party, and to non-notability and Children’s privacy as involved party, having filed the latter.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Running because I have an analytical mindset, have experience with finding causes and solutions to problems on the wiki, and because several people who never seem to agree with me on anything have nevertheless called me a voice of reason and stability. I believe this indicates I would be a capable arbiter.