Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Emblem-WikiVote.svg 2013 Arbitration Committee Elections


  • Thank you for participating in the 2013 Arbitration Committee Election. Results are available here.
  • Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

It is currently 01:50 (UTC), Monday, 14 July 2014 (Purge)

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2013 Arbitration Committee elections appear below.

  • Eligibility criteria
An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who:
(i) has a registered account and has had at least 500 mainspace edits by 1 November 2013.
(ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans.
(iii) meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data or confirms in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria.[note]
(iv) has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed).
Statements must:
(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 10 November 2013 and before 23:59 UTC on 19 November 2013;
(ii) not exceed a limit of 400 words[note] (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.
The nominating period is now over

^ From the Wikimedia Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy:

Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation, which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

^ 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[edit]


Hello, everyone. I first joined Wikipedia as a registered editor in 2006 to create an article about a play I'd just seen; I created another article the following year, and since becoming more active in 2010 I have created about a hundred more. I don't have any FAs to my name – only a GA and a few dozen DYKs – but I understand and respect the process of building neutral, well-sourced encyclopedia articles. After all, it's why we're here.
I became an administrator in 2011, and a bureaucrat in 2012; I have also served as an edit filter manager and a bot operator. I have never been blocked, banned, or sanctioned in any way, and will fully comply with the foundation's requirements for access to non-public data. I am over 18 and the full list of user accounts I use is available here.
I believe that a good arbitrator is one who really listens to each party in a case, treats all parties with respect, and, most importantly, explains why a particular decision is being made. There are few things more frustrating than a decision that appears to be arbitrary or ill-explained, and if you look at some of the contentious discussions I have closed over the past few years, I believe you will find that I take the time to explain my thought process and reasoning. I can't promise that every decision I would make as an arbitrator will be perfect (there have been times as an administrator when I have been too lenient, and times when I have been too harsh) but I will fairly and dispassionately consider all the evidence presented, and once a particular course of action is chosen, you won't be left wondering why.
Thank you for your consideration.


I have served as a member of the committee for the past two years. I am willing to serve for a further term, and submit myself for your consideration.

Over the past two years, I have voted in countless arbitration proceedings, and drafted decisions for around a third of the caseload I was active on. I have always voted carefully and promptly, in addition to assisting with the committee’s behind-the-scenes work: I am highly active with the committee’s Ban Appeals and Audit Subcommittees, and in several other areas. As a drafter, I have always tried to write an effective decision, engage with case disputants, respond to comments on the case talk pages, and float my proposals in advance.

Throughout my service, I have borne the encyclopedia, its articles, and its writers firmly in mind – I have always tried to vote in the way that is best for the project. As an arbitrator, I have never blindly toed the party line: I always speak out against positions or proposals I think are misguided, unfair, or not in the project’s best interests – both in discussions and public votes. I am experienced, dedicated, fair, and capable.

Outside of arbitration, I continue to be active – whenever I can – as a copyeditor, and on some assorted Classics and other articles. I was appointed as a community auditor for the Audit Subcommittee, and later as a community checkuser, in 2011. Before that, I was active as an arbitration enforcement (AE) administrator and as chairman of the Mediation Committee. I have been an administrator for six years. My experience has given me the highest regard for three groups of editors in particular: our intelligent and hard-working copyeditors and content writers; our diligent functionaries and project administrators; and our dispute resolution experts. Wikipedia has a balanced and rich community; as an arbitrator, I have always respected this blend of personalities, and did my best never to intrude on a Wikipedian’s business unless absolutely necessary.

I support ArbCom openness and continued devolution.

I’m fast running out of space – it seems I’ve got more to say than I thought – but all contributors are welcome to put questions to me. Thank you very much for your consideration.

As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. I only edit as User:AGK but a complete list of other accounts owned by me are listed here.

Arthur Rubin[edit]

I'm running for ArbCom, because, as I write this, I'm not sure there are 9 candidates who are better than an empty position.
I've been on Wikipedia since 2005, and an Admin since 2006. Although my block log is "checkered" (one in 2012, one in 2010, and the rest in 2008 or earlier), and I'm presently subject to a topic ban (in what has been called one of the worst ArbCom decisions, ever), I believe I can act in the best interests of Wikipedia. I assure you that, if elected, and I appeal my topic ban, I will recuse.
I think some of the members of ArbCom have lost sight of the concept that the purpose of Wikipedia is to add and maintain content, and that those who discourage the addition of content, whether or not otherwise meeting the guidelines, are not acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. These include both POV-pushers and those who insult other Wikipedians, whether or not the insult is deserved.
My only exception to that is that, if an editor is blocked, I am willing to see that his or her edits do not make it into Wikipedia, even if otherwise good.
As for the pressure, my name has been reviled by Alex Jones, Ilena Rosenthal, Carl Hewitt, and there are two hate videos about me on YouTube, all relating to my actions on Wikipedia.
If I decide I would not vote for myself, due to the presence of a sufficient number of adequate candidates, or a likely inability to have sufficient time, I will withdraw. If the voting system is (modified) approval voting, then my withdrawal should not affect the ranking of the other candidates.
I use my real name, and am willing to identify myself to the Foundation if elected.
Aside from a few edits under an IP, my only other accounts are 3rdMouse (talk · contribs) and one previously revealed to an ArbCom member, and which will be revealed to ArbCom before the election, which I may have used for edits on a particular subject known to be hazardous to those commenting on it, both here and in the real world.


After much agonizing on the topic I have decided to once again present myself as a candidate for ArbCom. Although the field has expanded toward the end of the nomination period I still feel it is a bit thin and there should be actual competition, not just a rubber stamp election.

So, I began editing in 2007, became an admin in 2009, and joined the functionary team as an oversighter in 2010. I have issued over 2,500 blocks and although many of them were later lifted after a successful appeal, as far as I can recall only about four of them were actually overturned by consensus. I think that speaks to my judgement when handling difficult users.

I have a reputation, which I am quite prod of, for being tough but also honest and fair. I am a terrible liar and would rather just say what I really think. This has not sat well with some members of the current committee, which is part of the reason I feel I would be a good addition to the team. I don't intend to get up in everyone's faces and yell at them, but I won't participate in pretending to believe something I don't believe either.

I am running not just because I believe I can help make the tough calls needed in this are but also because I think the committee needs a bit of a cultural change. As someone who has worked with but not on the committee for the past three years I feel I am uniquely suited to identify what at least some of these problems are and hopefully help rectify them.

I made a few edits as an IP before I registered my account but otherwise have never edited under any other identity.

I am well over 18 and as a functionary I identified myself to the Foundation some time ago.


Hi, I'm BWilkins - I've been an editor here for many years, and an admin for a few. I'll be frank: this nomination may scare a few people. Good. I'm scared too. I'm scared that one or two of the current candidates might actually get onto ArbCom. Look, I've never "run" on scare mongering - but you've looked through the list, and I'm sure you have your concerns too.
Reality is: we have seats to fill on one of the most important volunteer bodies on this project, and they are going to be filled, one way or another.
So, let's go back to something: why are you scared of ME specifically?
  • Because I don't put up with BS?
  • Because I have been known to call a spade a spade?
  • Because I can recognize a dead horse when I see it?
  • Because I don't give a damn about "power and prestige", I give a damn about "solutions"?
  • Because I actually CARE about this project and its editors?
Do you think that maybe that's what ArbCom - and indeed this project as a whole - actually needs right now?'
I have a handful of alternate accounts: User:EatsShootsAndLeaves, User:7SeriesBOT, and 3 other unused potential bot accounts: 1SeriesBOT, 3SeriesBOT and 5SeriesBOT, and will, of course, identify myself to the Foundation

David Gerard[edit]

I have been in and around Wikipedia and Wikimedia since 2004. I was on the Arbitration Committee in 2005, and I know the awful things the arbcom has to deal with. I have represented Wikipedia and Wikimedia (WMF, WMUK and the movement in general) as a volunteer press contact since 2005. I know this place, I know what it's for and I've represented it to the world for the past nine years.

I worry about the reputation of English Wikipedia in the wider world, with the strange and disturbing decisions of the Arbitration Committee in the past few years, and particularly in the last year.

We see the reputation of the English Wikipedia dragged through the mud by bad Arbitration Committee decisions. We are the number six website in the world, with huge social power and responsibility. Remember that these people's actions do in fact speak for the encyclopedia, and for you.

The Arbitration Committee's intemperate decisions, inability to acknowledge gross errors, abuse of powers (including oversight) to suppress criticism of their decisions, attempts to provoke the Wikimedia Foundation to confrontation and regulatory capture by trolls has led to palpable fear in its checkusers and oversighters, dismay and disgust from Foundation and chapter staff, and unwillingness of everyday editors to deal with them in any manner.

I aim to start on remedying this, to welcome reviews of past terrible decisions and to try to restore the reputation of English Wikipedia and of the Committee itself. No-one running for re-election should get your vote.

I hope you will look at those rerunning, contemplate their decisions over the past year and vote accordingly.

Alternate account: User:Querulous, an example account I created in 2005.


I'm concerned that there won't be nine solid candidates for ArbCom this year. To be honest, I can think of many people who - if they ran - I would vote for before I'd vote for me. But most of them aren't going to run. If you can find nine candidates you think will make great arbs, that's fantastic. Vote for them, please. But if you can't quite get to nine, then a vote for me is a vote for a non-insane, reasonably intelligent, non-dogmatic, middle of the road person with no agenda, no point to make, and who is willing to help out. You could do worse. (campaign slogan: "Floquenbeam! You could do worse!")

I'm not a content builder. But I respect those who are, I try to help them when I can, and I at least try to stay out of their way.

If elected, I'm not going to be a terribly active arb. I'll be as active as I reasonably can, based on my real life. I guess my theory is, that might not be a bad thing.

I may not answer all the questions; I certainly won't answer them with NYB-level verbiage. I'll try to answer enough to give you a clear feel for who I am and how I approach things. If I skip one (or skimp on one) that you think is really important, poke me on my talk page.


Thanks for considering this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


When I first joined Wikipedia I was an awestruck admirer of the contributions of the established editors here, who were building this encyclopedia and its accompanying software, bureaucracy, policies, and principles out of sheer stubbornness, optimism, and energy. Despite all my time on Wikipedia, I still reflexively think of myself as a casual hobbyist puttering around a monument built by others. But I think it’s time I realized that I played a role in building that monument and I have a lot of experience and expertise to offer. I joined Wikipedia in February 2004 and became an administrator on November 2004. I have 57 Did You Know articles and 56,917 edits as of this writing and I make a very small cameo appearance in Fuzheado's The Wikipedia Revolution.

I think as a whole that Wikipedia does well in the areas of BLP and NPOV, though we should always strive to do better. The key issues currently facing Wikipedia basically fall under the umbrella of the core policy of civility, which we claim is one of our five pillars but we often dismissively treat as lesser policy. But how editors interact with one another has a significant implications for some of the problems we will have to wrestle with in the coming years, like dropping rates of editor retention and the gender gap. Editor behavior should be weighed against not just positive contributions to the encyclopedia, but whether this behavior contributes to an atmosphere of collaborative editing or drives away other editors we will need to meet those future challenges. We should improve how we deal with these issues and the avenues through which editors can seek assistance regarding them. And above all, we should keep in mind that editors should be allowed to make mistakes - and I know I’ve definitely made more than my share of them, and thinking of some of them can still make me wince – because it’s often through those mistakes we learn how to be better editors and build a better encyclopedia.

I use the same account and no others on all Wikimedia and Wikia websites. My identity is not secret though I prefer not to use it on Wikipedia. I disclosed my identity and age to the Wikipedia Foundation upon joining OTRS.


Something has gone wrong with the english language Wikipedia. After a year of quietly throwing things at walls rather than spend hours fighting something on the project, I am coming back on.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. I can point to a dozen or so specific things, but pointing at specific incidents already concluded will just cause fights. So I'll point to a few big picture points.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. We are losing editors.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Rules are mattering more than the encyclopedia.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Special interests are winning.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Collegiality is going out the window.

Something has gone wrong with Wikipedia. Arbcom has not been helping.

I ran for Arbcom before, in 2010. I didn't do so well. I was thinking sort of tactically at the time. The arbcoms elected then were better tactical arbitrators than I would have been, so I am kind of glad they won at the time.

This is no longer time to think tactically.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We have an excellent set of core values when people remember them. It's time to remember them.

Miscellania: I am an inactive-ish adinistrator in good standing. I was on OTRS for a while, and before that on unblock-en-l for some time, predating my being an administrator. I've edited since 2005, with a few breaks.

I had an alternate account some time ago ( So Long and Thanks for all the Gravitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), back in 2008. 10 edits or so. I disclosed it in the 2010 elections. I edited the Oracle Grid Engine page as an IP on Nov 11 ( [2] ) from my iPhone. I was in a hurry.

I agree to abide by the Foundation sensitive private data policies and provide them ID in person. I have met a number of the staff in person before, so I presume they know who I am. I have used my real name here since I started, and going back to the late 1980s on the internet as a whole.

Addendum - A number of voter guide writers have noted I was fairly inactive over the summer of 2013 (true). There was some aspect of a wikibreak there at the beginning, but a now-solved health issue contributed significantly (Abdominal Surgery Summery Camp is the worst summer camp ever - and if they ask you to try out for the Torn Stitches Team, say NO...). I would posit that you want an arbitrator who's just coming off a Wikibreak, rather than one who might potentially need one. Thank you.


After a lot of thought and a lot of input from a lot of people, I've decided to submit myself as a candidate for the Arbitration Committee.

I have been an editor on the English Wikipedia since July 2006, and active since around 2010. I became an administrator in August 2010, and an oversighter as of this year's appointments. I also volunteer on the OTRS committee. I feel like my history on Wikipedia has shown me to be a level-headed and rather non-contentious editor, and I think these qualities would be valuable as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

I will comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and have already identified to the Foundation. The only accounts I currently use are this one and User:NEU-Molly, which I use when making edits for a research lab on my campus. I began editing Wikipedia as User:Theunicyclegirl, and edited for almost exactly a year before forgetting the password and creating this account. I used to edit as User:GorillaWarfarePublic on public computers, but no longer do, and have since blocked the account. I also have some doppelganger accounts: User:Gorilla Warfare and User:GorrillaWarfare.


Running this year isn't a decision I am making lightly or without lots of thought. I have spoken to a variety of people about this including current and past arbs, members of the community, and people off of the internet. Many of my thoughts are recorded on my talk page.

I am Guerillero and I feel that I have something to add to the committee for this upcoming term. I created my account in 2009, making me the youngest candidate wikiwise. In 2011, I passed my RfA. I know the process of arbitration from my tenure as a clerk. I ran for a seat on the committee last year and came in 11th, three below last year's cut off. Most people would list my, current, seat on the AUSC here but I have a fairly low opinion of the body after spending time on it. In my real life, I am a student of Anthropology and Philosophy. I also work at a GIS lab where I deal with nonpublic information.

I am going to be blunt with you all, I have a major time commitments that take place in the Fall term of 2014 through the Spring term of 2015. I have two theses to write, unless I can find a way to do a join thesis. My education will take presidence over anything wiki related. That being said, I think that it is possible to manage a normal senior year with sitting on arbcom.

  • The AUSC needs to go or the auditors need to be able to use their tools.
  • The BASC needs to have non-arbs on it. Since the group can reverse community bans, the general community should have more say in the process. (The committee needs a safety valve as well.)
Necessary information

If you would like any other information about me, feel free to ask.


Hi. I'm Isarra, I like pie, and I happen to be a Wikipedian. I'm not an admin, but sometimes I do things, especially if they involve formatting, recent changes, images, technical issues, getting horribly annoyed at OTRS, pie, or commenting on random discussions.[1][2][3]
Basically I'm putting my name here mostly because I can, and because of pie. Pie is important and delicious and we should all stop to appreciate a good piece of pie from time to time.
There has also been talk that arbcom needs more diverse voices - members from different backgrounds and perspectives to better represent the views of the overall community. This could include content editors, newer users, and anyone who is not afraid to say what they feel need to be said no matter how unpopular it may be[4] - despite, or perhaps because of, the fact that such users are in many cases unlikely to run in the first place due to the nature of the elections and subsequent responsibilities.
As much as I agree that such talk is well worth considering, I am happy to say that I would probably be of no help whatsoever in addressing such concerns.[5]
  1. ^ Very random.
  2. ^ ...and often entirely unhelpfully.
  3. ^ ...depending on what you consider to be unhelpful.
  4. ^ Even if it happens to be as unpopular as arbcom itself is at times.
  5. ^ Unless for some reason they happen to involve pie.


Well, I'm a content creator and have been around since 2006. I've created 1370+ articles, mostly biographies and elections. (A full list can be seen on my user page.) None of my article creations has ever been CSDed, AfDed or PRODded. That should give you a hint at my understanding of basic guidelines and policies. Besides, I've been fairly active at RfA for the last year, and learned a lot about ongoing discussions of all sorts which are brought up by supporters and opposers of the candidates. I'm not an admin, and never requested adminship so far. Nevertheless, I do a lot of cleaning up, especially the terrible Congress Bios transcribed/created by PolBot.

Now, there are 9 vacancies, and so far (about a day before closing) only 11 candidates. IMO that's not much to choose from. So, there I am.

I'm very much over 18, in fact I'm a grandfather in real life. In case of my election, I'll identify myself to the proper Wiki authorities.

I started editing briefly as an IP before I registered as Kraxler which has been, and will continue to be, my only Wikipedia account.


Greetings y’all, my name is Steve, but I'm preferably known as Ks0stm on Wikimedia projects. I've had an account on Wikipedia since May of 2007 but became active in late 2009. I’ve been an administrator since September 2011 and became an oversighter earlier this year. I also help out with OTRS. On the content side I have 7 Good Articles, a few DYKs, and created a featured picture, most of which I completed since I became an administrator, so I like to think I haven’t forgotten about content in my tenure as an administrator.
As far as ArbCom goes, I have been a clerk for the committee since early this year, after my failed run for ArbCom last election. After being a clerk for a year I would be willing to step up a level and am once again willing to volunteer my time and effort as a member of the Arbitration Committee. I believe I would be a moderate voice on the committee, somewhere between lenient and hardline as needed, with an emphasis on resolving situations brought before the committee as efficiently, evenhandedly, and successfully as possible.
I am willing to fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data and have identified to the Wikimedia Foundation. Other than a few IP edits from before May 2007, I have only ever edited from this account and my alternate accounts User:Ks5stm, User:Ks0spy, and User:Ks0awb. I also have User:KsOstm and User:KsØstm as doppelgängers.
Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)


Formalities out of the way first: I'm in my fifties and use my real name. I have no alternate accounts. I'll identify myself formally to those that require it.

I've been on Wikipedia for 6 years, and an admin for about 40 months. I've always been disturbed by Arbcom's ability to miss the point and ignore obvious implications of all issues brought before it, and my primary goal is to change that.
This year, I'm even more disturbed by the rack of candidates running. Some of the names here would do more damage to Wikipedia than I can conceive of. I don't think there's anything fundamentally wrong with the structure of Arbcom or the flow of our processes, I think the problem is a people problem: we have the wrong people in Arbcom. We shouldn't elect more of them.
I'm not nice. I've never pretended to be. But most people that make an honest evaluation of my efforts will see that I'm fair. I don't tolerate misbehaviour, no matter how glorious of a copywriter someone may be. I don't tolerate socking, even by people that are socking to support my own positions.
I realize that I have neglected to mention User:Kww-newbie and User:Kww-newbie2, both of which were used for testing the user experience for newly created accounts when I was testing the patch to disable Visual Editor.


Hello, I'm LFaraone. I'm an administrator, CheckUser, and Oversight team member. I first registered a Wikipedia account in 2004, although I was not active until several years after. Like others, I was on the fence about running, and I'm presenting myself to the community because as a voter I wanted a strong candidate pool.

I became an administrator in 2008, and have been very active as a respondent with OTRS. Recently, most of my work has been in the functionaries team.

I am running for ArbCom for the opportunity to help craft future decisions on topics like the intersection of WP:OUTING, WP:COI, and WP:NOTCENSORED. I've been troubled by the recent mixed signals given by ArbCom on the scope of relevant policy, and as an arbitrator I would seek to provide clarity as to what they mean in context.

I've seen firsthand how powerful Wikipedia can be, both as a positive force and (sadly) as a detriment to biography subjects. Needless to say, I support a strong WP:BLP that protects the dignity of article subjects while still allowing us to provide neutral coverage. Some focus in this area and additional guidance from ArbCom would most certainly be useful, and I would like to ensure that such decisions are made taking in concerns of all involved.

I am used to dealing with nonpublic information through my previous work on Wikipedia and elsewhere. As such, I would take the same care with the information I receive as an arbitrator. I am over 18, have identified to the WMF, and have not used any non-test accounts besides this one. My account was previously known as User:Firefoxman prior to a rename in 2008; User:LFaraone_(usurped) was the account that was previously under my current name.


Hello, I am NativeForeigner. I have been an editor here since 2006, became active in 2009, became an administrator in 2010, and became a CheckUser earlier this year. In the past I have done Featured Pictures work, participated in the DYK process, served on OTRS, and served as a coordinator of the Military History Wikiproject. At present I mostly work with Sockpuppet Investigations where I have been a clerk since 2010. After obtaining CheckUser in the 2013 CUOS appointments I have spent much of my time using the tool at SPI, clearing the perpetual backlog.
I'm running because I think that I could be a neutral voice on the committee unaffected by any existing politics that may exist. My experience at SPI has shown me that while Arbcom remedies can be effective, they can also create rifts in the community that can never be resolved fully. Furthermore I feel that the Arbcom case pages give frustratingly little insight into the thought process or discussion involved in reaching a decision, and would advocate that non sensitive information be discussed in a more public way, as was advocated by AGK. In short I feel like as an Arbitrator I would bring an outside view of Arbcom, as well as an openness to change.
Right now the committee faces many issues, but I would characterize the following goals as being most important to me:
  1. Letting content contributors largely ignore administration so long as they follow core policies.
  2. Moving whatever parts of the mailing list that can viably be moved on wiki, on wiki.
  3. Establishing the means for the community to take over the role of Arbcom, in the long term. While Arbcom currently serves as an essential body, as the community matures there should be increasingly few reasons to go to Arbcom.

I am over 18 years of age, and have identified to the Foundation for access to the CheckUser tool. I created ForeignNative for usage as a non admin account, but I have blocked it, and plan to not use it. NativeForeigner Talk 21:17, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


Hi. I’m RegentsPark. I’ve been an active editor since early 2008 and an admin since February 2009. I ran (unsuccessfully) for an open seat on ArbCom last year.

I am a strong believer in the content mission of this project. Our place in the world is measured, largely, by the quality of our content, in particular by how accurate and complete is the information we present to the many millions of users who visit this site each year. It is our responsibility to ensure that everything that ends up in our articles is reasonably complete, well researched, well sourced, and carefully crafted. We do this through a process of collaboration and conflict, both of which are important in ensuring the quality of our articles. Collaboration is one of our central tenets and it is the essential glue that makes this a functioning endeavor, but conflict is important too because, often, it raises the information content in our articles to a point far beyond what traditional encyclopedias can provide. Arbitration comes into play when the level of conflict makes collaboration impossible and it becomes necessary to place restrictions on the actions of certain editors or, because absolutely no one here is irreplaceable, when it becomes necessary to weed out those editors who are no longer able to functionally collaborate.

I am, by nature, a deliberative person with a minimalist bent and believe that one should act decisively, but only when necessary. I am not easily upset and try not to act in haste. When I make a mistake, I'm more than willing to recognize it, to apologize if that is necessary, and to do my best to move things along. On Wikipedia, I work on an almost daily basis with a range of editors, varying from prolific content contributors to obvious pov pushers to pedants with esoteric stylistic obsessions. I respect them all because I recognize the passion that they, as do you and I, bring to the project. Whatever our motivations for being here might be, whatever our differences in world view might be, it is that passion that has helped create this unparalleled collection of human knowledge.

These are the perspectives and qualities that I offer to you when you make your choices amongst the various candidates. I am well over 18 years of age and am willing to disclose my real life identity to WMF if elected. I have no other accounts on Wikipedia.--regentspark (comment) 21:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


I'm Rich Wales — no relation to Jimbo as far as I know — and I'm offering my services for the next two years as a member of the Arbitration Committee.
I've been a Wikipedian since early 2005, and an administrator since September 2011. I've been responsible for two Featured Articles (one of which made Today's Featured Article), seven Good Articles, five Did You Knows, and one In The News — admittedly not a huge amount of content compared with many others around here, but it will hopefully demonstrate that I do know something about content creation.
Over the years, I've participated to a greater or lesser extent in about a dozen arbitration requests, RFCs, WQAs, and other formal dispute resolution efforts, as well as several informal mediation efforts regarding conflicts in various subject areas. I have also served during 2013 as an SPI clerk and as a member of the Audit Subcommittee.
I am a strong believer in Wikipedia's core policies — especially the NPOV and civility policies. Regarding incivility in particular, I am strongly opposed to so-called "civil" POV pushing, and I am also concerned about the impact of incivility on our efforts to attract and retain new editors. Although ArbCom's job is not to make or change policy, it needs to fill a crucial role as an interpreter and enforcer of policy when hot-headed, tendentious editors refuse to work collaboratively, disrespect opposing views, and defy community consensus.
I have one alternate account (Rich Wales sans superpowers). Aside from a handful of IP edits before I registered for my account, all my editing has been as Richwales (talk · contribs) or Rich Wales sans superpowers (talk · contribs).
I am well over 18, and I have already confirmed my identity with the WMF. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC) — small addition at 06:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)another small addition at 20:15, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Roger Davies[edit]

I've served five years on the committee now. My two terms have been personally rewarding, though at times a steep learning curve. What have I found most challenging? Trying to do my best to balance the conflicting needs of policy, individual editors, the community and our readers.

In my first term, I was active in pushing through major committee reforms. I followed this by negotiating with the community the first update to Arbitration policy in six years. It ended up gaining solid (85%) support.

I’ve participated in more than seventy cases, drafting/co-drafting the decisions for about sixteen of them. I’ve served in every aspect of the committee's work, including my work on two subcommittees, "BASC" and "AUSC". I helped draft the committee’s CheckUser and Oversight procedural policy, and I’ve supervised/organised several appointment cycles. For five years I’ve moderated ArbCom's mailing lists, typically involving about 75 emails a day; this is mundane stuff, but it still needs doing. I take an interest in arbitration enforcement and I’ve drafted or co-drafted several of its procedures. I'm currently working on a discretionary sanctions update.

Arbitrators should regularly stand back and take stock. I’m aware of a growing distance between the committee and the needs of an evolving community. To focus on core functions and perform them better, I believe the committee needs to shed some of its numerous responsibilities. This won't happen overnight, and the transition must be orderly, but the community and the WMF must start sharing some of the load. In this context, I have been one of the arbitrators tasked with WMF liaison, which requires great patience.

Content-wise, these days I tend to either copy-edit or add refs/sources. Before I joined ArbCom I was very active both at Milhist and FAC. I've added significant content to five FAs, and extensively copy-edited another eight. The subjects have varied enormously, for example, Shakespeare's Hamlet, Welsh rugby, Emily Dickinson, the Roman emperor Maximian, the Battle of Arras, and the First Indochina War.

Addendum: I'm delighted that the WMF has agreed to change access to CU/OS, paving the way for the election of non-admin arbitrators. I've advocated this for years, and believe it will help bring ArbCom and the community closer together.

Mandatory statements: I have never edited from any account other than Roger Davies and (occasionally) User:Red Dragon, which prior to renaming was called Roger Davies II. As a sitting arbitrator, I am already identified to the WMF and will continue to comply fully with the non-public data policy.


Hello, I'm Seraphimblade, an editor here since 2005 and administrator since March 2007. After some consideration, I've decided to stand for the Arbitration Committee.

I have experience with the arbitration processes via my work at arbitration enforcement. Through this process, I've learned a lot about what happens after an arbitration case, when the articles go back to editing under any restrictions in place.

I am not a prolific content writer. My work is more of a gnome, though I'll fill holes where I find them through the course of editing. A lot of the work I do on Wikipedia is to make difficult calls on contentious discussions and processes. I've learned through doing so that there is not always a way to make everyone happy, but it still needs to get done.

ArbCom gets the most difficult cases, the ones that the community could not resolve. It is a necessary final stop for those instances. Over recent years, I've seen, whether one agrees or disagrees, an erosion of trust in ArbCom to handle those cases. I hope to work toward restoring that trust by ensuring cases are resolved fairly and in a reasonable time frame, and by close engagement with the community regarding any concerns.

I have edited under the accounts Seraphimbladeflying and Seraphimbladepublic when using public terminals or networks to avoid placing my admin account credentials at risk of interception. I also edited for a few months as an IP doing minor edits before registering this account, but as this was eight years ago and it was a dynamic IP, I would not know what they were. I am over 18 years of age and am willing to follow the WMF identification requirements. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate[edit]

Salutations, you may know me or you may not. I am not an admin and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I am not a particularly prolific or exceptional content creator and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I have had a few blocks or sanctions in my history and I know that right there may be a deal-breaker for people. I imagine I am not anyone's ideal candidate and I am not even sure I am my own ideal candidate, but I figured I might well give this a try. ArbCom has always been a place for admins and I do like the idea of a non-admin having a spot on the Committee for once. So, I guess this is me trying to be the change I want to see on Wikipedia.
During my time on Wikipedia, I have seen its bright shimmering coat and its dirty underbelly, which has contributed to how I view its faults and its strengths. As my username suggests I am prone to going against the grain in a discussion. In my life, online and offline, I have always tried to see all potential avenues and consider all sides. My personal reasons for this vary from a desire to be certain that everyone is treated fairly to a desire to see that the best course is taken in the end. Were I to argue for one particular reason why I might be a good arbitrator it would probably be that I have been through the wars and have not let it harden me. Understandably, I have a lot of things going against me, but I would like to be considered with some seriousness.
As to the usual disclosures, I am over eighteen years of age and have only ever edited using this account on Wikipedia, with the exception of a single accidental IP edit. Were I elected I would naturally be willing to identify myself to the Foundation. Thank you for your consideration.

Withdrawn candidates[edit]


Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.

Sorry that this is coming in so late. I was pretty much totally off the internet from 3 November until this Monday the 18th.

The interesting thing about ArbCom is that as we grow as a community, we tend to need the Committee less and less frequently. The case load has shrunk to the point where significant periods of time can pass without any open, yet the cases that do come up are by and large the worst of the intractable disputes. We throw our arbs into the deep end on day one, and it isn't fun, but it needs to be done, and so, if I'm wanted, I'm willing to serve another term on the committee.

ArbCom has its flaws. We all know that. It does too much business off-wiki, something I've pointed out, ironically, on the mailing list more than once. It makes decisions than are not all that great; I think every arb has an idea of a few things they wish they could go back and vote differently on. I know I do. At our core, though, ArbCom is 13 people who love this project and are trying to do the best they can. We learn, we grow, and we try our best to get better.

Which we can do. We need to find ways to move more discussion of cases off the mailing lists onto the wiki. We need to be willing to try more innovative solutions (of which I think this was a good example). I think it is time to give a long, hard look at the way functionaries and the Audit Subcommittee are appointed; ideally I'd love to see the selection of the community half of AUSC out of ArbCom's hands.

The job of an arbitrator, at the core, is to vote on every matter how you think is best for the encyclopaedia. That's all I've really ever tried to do. I'm willing to do it for another term, or not. Thanks for reading. (I also seem to have brought home a nice fun head cold from my trip. If answering the questions takes me a few days, that is why.)

As a sitting arbitrator, I am over 18 and already identified to the Foundation. I have a travelling account User:Courcelles is travelling a bot account I've registered User:Courcelles Bot but have never used, a test account, User:Courcelles (ACIP test) and a doppelganger, User:CourcelIes is travelling. This account was once renamed by a bureaucrat, but I've never used any other account than these.


Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.

I'm going to go ahead and withdraw, for a couple of reasons. First, when I signed up, there were only 7 or 8 nominees, and more people were needed to run. Second, it is painfully obvious that this run may be too soon, given the overwhelming opposes in the voter's guides. In any event, there are plenty of good candidates to choose from, and I urge all editors to look at the slate of candidates, evaluate for yourself, and then support or oppose accordingly. GregJackP Boomer! 12:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I’m Greg. I created my account in 2006 and began editing in January 2010. I didn't get off to a great start, being put under an ArbCom sanction and indefinitely blocked in October 2010. My block was lifted (under restriction) in March 2012. Those restrictions were lifted by ArbCom in September 2012.

I am not an admin and have not stood for an RfA. Nor is it necessary to be an administrator to function on ArbCom (and it is certainly not in the requirements). I believe that the normal editor, the non-administrator type of user, needs a voice on ArbCom.

I have concentrated primarily on content since my return. I have three featured articles (two have been on the main page), a FourAward, a number of good articles. I am one of only five editors to earn a Triple Crown after an ArbCom sanction. I have over 19,000 edits.

Wikipedia is all about content. It is either quality work or it needs to be improved, and we cannot let disputes get in the way of that mission. ArbCom's role, as I see it, is not to be a referee for content, but to provide a way for editors to resolve differences and to get on with creating content.

I know that ArbCom is aware of my real identity, and I am willing to provide that information to WMF. I had one alternate, undisclosed account that was legitimately used for personal safety reasons. ArbCom has been aware of that account for some time now, and it has not been used since 2010, nor will it be used again.


Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.
While I am a relatively new user, not having celebrated my first Wikiversary yet, I feel that I understand Wikipedia policies reasonably well. My account was created in January of this year. Much of my work has been new pages patrolling and speedy deletion nominations, as well as categorization and tagging of new pages. However, I have also created over 100 articles, including 4 DYKs. This is the only account I have used to edit Wikipedia since I created it.

Kevin Gorman[edit]

Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.

When I nominated myself, there were less than 24 hours to go in the nom period, and only twelve candidates. I wanted to ensure that we had a solid arbcom, and was worried that we would have an insufficient candidate pool. Apparently, I should've waited longer before deciding to step up; we now have 26 candidates, including a lot who I think would make excellent arbitrators, like GorillaWarfare, NativeForeigner, and a host of others. As such, I'm happy to step down and withdraw my candidacy now that it is clear that we can end up with a solid arbcom from the other running candidates. For those that dropped me private notes, thanks for the kind words :)

I’m Kevin Gorman. I’ve been hanging around the projects for the last couple of years, and edited sporadically as an IP before that. I’ve done a lot of gnoming, and content creation-wise I’ve mostly focused on mushrooms and women philosophers. I’m a regional ambassador for the education program, and have done a lot of real-world outreach focused on the education program and gendergap issues. I’ve also previously been a communications intern for the Wikimedia Foundation, and later accepted a contract with the WMF to write a retrospective history of the Wikimedia Grants program. I am not an administrator; I realize that running for arb without having passed an RfA is unusual. That said, I believe my actions in other areas have demonstrated that I can be trusted to make solid decisions as an arbitrator.

I had not intended to run for arbcom until recently, but I am perturbed by the direction of some of arbcom’s recent decisions, as well as the relatively limited pool of candidates running. I am worried about the generally combative nature of many of ENWP’s forums, and believe that arbcom has the potential to shift our current atmosphere in a positive direction. I’m extremely concerned about ENWP’s ongoing problems with editor recruitment and retention, and believe that arbcom has the ability to make positive shifts in these areas through wise decisions. I believe that we have a duty to get BLPs as right as we can, since messing up how we handle BLPs can cause significant real-world harm to living people. Like several other candidates, I believe that encouraging a collegial, civil culture (in line with the five pillars,) is of significant import.

I strongly believe that arbcom decisions should be based on what is in the best interests of the project, and should be preventative rather than punitive in nature. If elected, I will lean heavily towards admonishments and warnings rather than blocks or bans except in cases where there is good reason to believe a block or ban is in the best interests of the project. I believe policy should be interpreted flexibly and contextually rather than considered set in stone. If sanctioning someone won’t present a benefit to the project as a whole, I would be disinclined to vote to sanction them, even if they’ve committed a technically sanctionable action.

I have one alternate account: User:Kevin (WMF). I’ve used this account in the past when I had an official affiliation with the Wikimedia Foundation; it will be permanently inactive unless I have an official affiliation with the WMF again at some point in the future. I’ve never gone through the normal formal identification process, but since I have been a WMF contractor in the past, they’re certainly aware of my real-world identity, and I’m willing to re-ID in whatever way is necessary.


Coordinator's note: This candidate has expressed their wish to withdraw from the election; their name will not feature on the ballot.
Ah, ArbCom, where would the project be without you. My name is Jorge Aranda, I am 25 years old, a native of Miami, Florida and the owner of a small trading card business while recovering from recent thyroid surgery.
Why would anyone in their right mind would run for ArbCom, especially someone with a “questionable past” you might ask? Well I believe that experience and common sense are needed for this job, as well as someone with free time to read into each argument and make suggestions for every case, something which I currently have because of my recent surgery. The last few years was probably one of the worst years ArbCom ever had. It's clear that they lost sense with the community with several unpopular decisions and we lost several of our best arbitrators as a result. My platform is primarily focused on issues concerning BLPs, something in which the community can't seem to find consensus on and I feel ArbCom needs to be more involved on, although people might say its not within its reach. I’m strongly against process wonkery and I also believe that ArbCom needs to focus on the community first, listening closely to any valid concerns they have, and avoid losing valued contributors. I would look at each case very delicately and use common sense in each situation, while respecting the privacy of all involved.
I am an administrator, I requested desysopping back in September because I'm pretty much disgusted on how things are run on this project. Ignorance of BLP policies, helpless in editor retention, pure process wonkery and arbcom bickering over stupid things among them, thus it needs fresh blood. I recently asked and received the tools back. I’m also not following the civility reform platform my fellow candidates are using. I feel if I get elected to ArbCom, it would be a welcome change that would help the community greatly and I hope you all agree.
My accounts are Aranda56/Jaranda and Secret (renamed), neither of which been actively used recently. I also went by Moneyballing back in 2006 while I had my password hacked during a GRAWP attack and a undeclared clean start account that I quickly abandoned and ArbCom was aware. I will identify to the foundation if elected and glad to answer any question.

Note updated 13:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)