Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates

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

Emblem-WikiVote.svg 2014 Arbitration Committee Elections


  • The December 2014 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
  • Please offer your feedback on the election process.
It is currently 23:30 (UTC), Saturday, 31 January 2015 (Purge)

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2014 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 2014.
(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 a member of the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed).
Statements must:
(i) be submitted after 00:01 UTC on 9 November 2014 and until 23:59 UTC on 18 November 2014;
(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]


I realize going into this election that I'm facing an uphill battle. I'm not an admin. I'm not a prolific content creator. I can be brash at times.

Despite that, I'm running.

I'm running because I honestly believe in the core mission of Wikipedia: Creating an encyclopedia. I believe the Arbitration Committee -- and each arbitrator, individual -- should focus first on what is best for the encyclopedia.

I'm also running because I believe ArbComm is lacking in a few key areas. First, the current committee lacks members who aren't admins. I feel bringing the perspective of "the average user" to the committee is a plus. Secondly, the committee moves slowly. Too often cases take many weeks, or even months to decide, leaving editors in limbo. Third, ArbComm lacks transparency. Too much happens off site, hidden away in emails and a private wiki.

As for myself, I've been on Wikipedia since 2011 having originally joined under the username "Hot Stop." In fact, I unsuccessfully ran for ArbComm that year. I feel like I've grown over the past three years, and I hope you see that too.

As for the standard disclosure: I have not edited with any other account, save for some IP edits made before I registered as Hot Stop. The doppelgangers Hot Stop and Calidum Sistere are both mine. I am over the age of 18 and willing to identify myself to the foundation.


Hi, I'm Courcelles, I've been here for a few years, an admin for about 4, and I was an arb for the 2011-2013 term.

I'll start by saving I haven't been very active this year. When I rotated off the committee last year, I was effectively going blind. This year, I've undergone two surgeries to fix that, neither of which went particularly smoothly. At least I now have one fully-functional eye!

ArbCom does a lot of important things, some of which it does well, some of which it doesn't. Currently, the system pretty much lets 12 of the 14 arbs forget cases even exist for the (too long) they sit at the evidence and workshop phases. The two subcommittees need a complete rethink; Beeblebrox's proposal isn't perfect, but BASC needs to be reformed, and I still think that we need to go back to letting the community pick their "community" members of the AUSC. The committee needs to appoint more functionaries ASAP, the lack of an appointment round this year and normal attrition has led to a few people doing tons of work.

I think I would be a better arbitrator than I was three years ago. I'm a mellower guy in real life, and I know what I'm asking to jump into here, something that I had no clue about when I was elected in 2011 I'm willing to do the job for another two years, so I'm asking for your votes.

This hasn't changed from three years ago, so in means of standard disclosure, 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. As a CU/OS, I'm identified already to the Foundation, and do and will continue to comply with the non-public data access criteria.


Hello all, I'm DeltaQuad. I've been an Administrator since May 2011 and CheckUser July 2012. I'm also currently a standby member for the Audit Subcommittee. I'm currently concerned not only that we don't have enough candidates, we do not have a solid group to choose from to do the crazy job of an arbitrator. Therefore I'm running in hope that others who I know would well serve the committee also stand.
Right now we have an overloaded, busy Arbitration Committee that the community has lost a significant amount of faith in. It's not a healthy mix. It needs a fix, even if it's a slow daunting band-aid by band-aid fix until things are stable again. I would like to see the Arbitration Committee hand some tasks over to the community, such as the Ban Appeals Sub-Committee. While I'm not sure how everything would look like in the end, the less Arbitrators we have for a specified task that isn't sensitive or directly under ArbCom remit (aka a case), the better. I'll support any reasonable proposal to do so. I won't get into specifics with that right at this moment though. The other major reason that I am running, is to help alleviate some of the administrative backlog that the committee deals with such as email response and yearly activities (CU/OS/AUSC noms & reports).
The community is and should be a candidates' biggest priority as being an Arbitrator if elected. You, each individual voter and contributor matters to continue to build a successful encyclopedia. As any candidate should already do, Arbitrators should listen with a fair and open mind, stop disruption, and enable the wiki to flow as smoothly as possible. Whether using harder corrective measures such as blocks and bans or giving people second chances; I will always read into the issue an be informed to well serve the community, and put them first.
Disclosures: A list of my accounts and I already and will continue to comply with the WMF Identification Policy.


I've been at Wikipedia for the last seven years as editor and administrator. I've mainly been involved in dealing with new articles and drafts, trying to sort out and keep the improvable ones from being deleted--and removing the others, trying to give realistic advice to new editors, and dealing with questions about reliable sources.
This is the first time I am running for Arb Com; I think that what I have been doing is critically important. But others are now doing this work just as well as I have tried to do, and I want to take the opportunity to use my experience elsewhere on Wikipedia. I have only participated in WP:AN/I and the like when it seems I was needed, but I think I've shown the ability to summarize complex situations, and to find rational solutions. I work at WP:OTRS, and I am used to dealing with people who are at least initially rather angry.
My real name and my background are on my user page; I thought I was formally identified to the Foundation, but since I'm not on their list, I will re-identify. I have an alternate active account as User:DGG (NYPL) for use as a volunteer Wikipedian in Residence at the New York Public Library; for other accounts I have used in the past see User:DGG/accounts


I'm tossing my hat in the ring after being asked to run by User:Bishonen. I've had this account for 8 1/2 years and have a dormant account, User:DougWeller which has 2 edits, the first six months before I created this account. If elected, I will comply with the criteria for access to non-public data/

My main article interests are archeology and to some extent history, mainly American and British. For a variety of reasons I also edit in areas where nationalistic pov editing is a problem. I love doing research and fnding good sources to add to articles. My approach to editing articles is basically academic and NPOV, trying to use only the best sources and to display any controversies or differing viewpoints fairly. I've accumulated a decent library on the areas of archaeology and history that interest me and I use JSTOR quite a bit. I'm more of a content improver than an article creator as many of our existing articles are either bad, only present one aspect of a subject, are outdated or just wrong. At the moment I'm hoping to organise some Wikipedia training for members of the regional volunteer archaeology group I belong to in order to recruit more editors interested in editing archaeology articles. I'm retired having worked in a variety of fields including social work (in New York and London), ten years as a University Lecturer and local authority administration, all of which have involved working with people, education and at times mediation.

I've been an Administrator for just over five years. I'm a former ArbCom clerk and a member of OTRS, although I've been inactive there recently. Because I have a huge watchlist I find myself doing quite a bit of vandal blocking and dealing with sockpuppets,

I have no fixed opinions on ArbCom and have not kept up with its actions or any controversies around it. If elected I'll approach the job with an open mind and no preconceptions other than I think it is a vital part of our community and that it needs to have the trust of that community if it is to do its job. Conflict is inevitable in a community such as ours and when other tools fail it's the role of ArbCom to stop it from damaging the community. I think I have the experience and skills to help ArbCom do that job.


Hi there! I'm your second candidate! One of the main reasons that I'm choosing to run at the moment is because of my love and commitment to the community. ArbCom is part of the community where I would like to see more non-admins active in, and the only way that can start is for non-admins to run for a seat. I would like to make it clear that I'm not exactly running for ArbCom because it's glamorous and a great gig - I'm doing so because I want non-administrators to feel that they're heard and that they too have a voice on Wikipedia. There's been a stigma that Admins feel they're "above" the rest of the non-mop holders and while I don't exactly agree, I think that broader representation can help mitigate some of that stigma and help for a better sense of community. This statement is supposed to be short and sweet, so I would like to go ahead and clarify a few mandatory things:
  • There is a block on my account surrounding an issue over 3RR where I did not actually breach 3RR. I was blocked for edit warring "like" behavior which is understandable. I am willing to go into detail surrounding the block should it come up as a question, but I'd rather not do it here in my statement and waste valuable campaign space :).
  • My editing patterns in the past had the normal highs and lows. I have become more and more consistent and active over time and even should I not succeed, I will remain an active member of the community.
  • I've been active since early 2007 when I made my first edits. I do not have or possess any other accounts.
  • I currently have access to non-public information as an administrator with the Account Creations Team. I will continue to comply to the foundations mandate(s) surrounding access to non-public information.
  • While I won't call myself a dispute resolution specialist, I will say that I find myself to constantly be able to work under pressure, respond quickly and respectfully to those who are upset, and do my best to try to come to a speedy resolution while maintaining a good faith attitude. All of those qualities make for a good administrator and ArbCom member.


Hi. Given Arbcom’s importance and the fairly limited field so far, I ask for your support for this nomination.


I joined Wikipedia in April 2007. I became an admin in November 2008 and an OTRS volunteer in 2013. As an admin I try to focus on good communications, a calm attitude and a willingness to consider feedback. I also work hard at simply "taking care" - that is, viewing and reviewing materials before responding.

In addition to admin work, I'm active in the Ships and Australian Wikiprojects and used to be informal co-ordinator of WikiProject Ports (now merged into Maritime Trades). For a few years I was semi-active while completing a masters degree, but have since returned to daily Wikipedia work. My most important article contributions are on eighteenth century naval and Australian history. Mostly I research and expand shorter pages to C- or B-class but have also written one FA, a GAN, 5 DYKs and created around 40 new articles. In the context of Arbcom, I believe a decent content contribution record can assist in understanding dispute context and the potential impact of sanctions.

I presently spend 10-15 hours/week editing or researching for Wikipedia. If elected I could comfortably devote this time to Arbcom, plus an additional 5-10 hours/week as required.

Views on Arbcom

As a statement of the obvious, a good arbitrator needs a clear grasp of policy, patience, an enthusiasm for communication and a commitment to effective outcomes. These are the approaches I would pursue if selected for the Committee.

In addition, I suggest Arbcom consider:

  • on occasion, better clarifying the scope and direction of accepted cases;
  • more detailed decision rationales to reduce the need for followup clarifications; and
  • swifter acceptance of cases alleging admin misconduct, while noting that acceptance does not presuppose a finding.

Technical info

I have one test account that made five edits in 2009 and was legitimately declared to Arbcom at the time. I have previously self-identified to the WMF as an OTRS volunteer, and would be happy to comply with any further identification requirements.

Thanks for considering this statement.


I've been around wikipedia for over a decade now. In that time pretty much been everywhere and done everything. Been an admin for much of that time and been politically involved enough to be aware of why our policies and practices are what they are. I read far more than I get directly involved these days but I'm still pretty aware of what is going on.

I'm not going to say I'm running to shake things up because other than the eternal problem of things taking a long time I think arbcom currently handles things pretty well. Mostly what I would bring to the committee would be shear breadth of experience. From editing through admining through OTRS to trying to appear serious in front of representatives of governments bodies I've been there. And I literally have the T-shirts.

In terms of time availability my work patterns mean that there will at least be a couple of days a week where I have a lot of time to deal with things.

Disclosures: I have created various declared socks over the years for various reasons. Most include the name “Geni” and only user:Genisock2 could be considered still in use.

I confirm I will fully comply with the WMF's criteria for access to non-public data


Hi there. I am Tom aka Guerillero. I am a current administrator and oversighter. At some point in the recent past, I have been an ArbCom clerk and a member of the AUSC. I ran for ArbCom in 2012 and 2013 where I lost by a narrow margin. 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.

This term I would like to see an update to how the AUSC and the BASC works. As a former member of the AUSC, I would like to see it have more autonomy and teeth than it does now. I will push for the community member of the AUSC to be directly elected by the community rather than picked by ArbCom. While Beeblebrox's proposal has some flaws, it is part of the way there. I would like to push for it to be spun off into a committee that is separate from ArbCom. If I failed to include anything relevant here, please take a look at my past statements and questions.

This year, like last year, there will be some questions about my work load. I do graduate from college in May. Since last year’s election, I have found a way to merge my Anthropology and Philosophy theses into a single 30 page project. (I am looking at how Foucault’s idea of a panopticon translates into behavior online and if the knowledge of being watched builds different power structures.) In addition to working on that, I am taking two classes. This upcoming term should be my least stressful term since my freshman year and I do not foresee either my thesis or either of my classes making it difficult to complete the role of an arbitrator.

The fine print
Note for questioners

I reserve the right to refuse to answer any questions that I deem to be rehashing an ArbCom case that you were involved in, axe grinding or out of scope of the responsibilities of the committee. I also reserve the right to answer this year’s version of a question with a reply that I have used in past years.


Obligatory greeting.

Generic roundabout statement that Isarra is running for arbcom that never actually answers the question of why and instead devolves into a tedious note about some lack of other candidates, or issue with the process, or within ArbCom itself, with an unnecessarily inflammatory accompanying speculation as to why. Long rambling statement about pie. Overly verbose explanation of Isarra's Wikipedia experience, with excessive notes about drama and knives. Something about angry developers, and more knives. Something about cutting pie. With knives.

Thank you note that happens to be unclear as to what it's actually thanking anyone for.

  • Various notes about inactivity, Wikimedia ecosystem interactions with both the user and arbcom, software development, and something about OTRS.
  • Link to a list of alternate accounts that may or may not be accurate, with an explanation that Isarra can't remember if it's accurate or not, but it's all she's got.
  • Follow-up note that Isarra also can't remember whether or not she ever identified with the WMF, but could if needed.
  • Rambling tangent about pie, the importance of pie, and the overwhelming need for pie.


Well, I'm a content creator and have been around since 2006. I've created 1680+ 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 years, and learned a lot about ongoing discussions of all sorts which are brought up by supporters and opposers of the candidates. Besides I've been lurking at the drama boards, and the ArbCom case pages, thus being well informed of what's going on. I'm not an admin, and never requested adminship so far. Nevertheless, I do a lot of cleaning up, reverting vandalism sometimes, but mostly improving badly written content.

I ran last year for ArbCom, polling the third highest number of abstentions. Although one can expect a last-minute flurry of candidates, like last year, when more than a dozen of them appeared less than 24 hours before closing time, I still think that the voters should have a wider range of candidates to choose from.

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! I'm Ks0stm, and I've decided I'll throw my hat into the ring for ArbCom (again; I ran each of the past two elections, finishing with 51% support and a whole lot of abstentions last year). I've been on Wikipedia since 2007, an admin since 2011, and am an oversighter and OTRS volunteer. I've also been an arbitration clerk for a couple years now, so I'm well familiar with the Arbitration process and procedures. I recognize that I haven't been the most active editor over the last year (mostly due to my spending my free time doing things other than Wikipedia), but if elected to ArbCom I will make it a point to spend the necessary time fulfilling the responsibilities that come with being on the committee.
I don't necessarily see any reason to propose wholesale reforms of ArbCom if I'm elected; I'm sure there are things here and there that could be tweaked to make the process and committee function more efficiently, but I'll reserve judgement of what those tweaks could be until I'm familiar with how the committee functions internally.
In the interest of keeping this simple and brief I'll leave it at that; if there's anything else you want to know, by all means please ask.
Note: All of my alternate accounts are declared on my user page (in the "Links, stats, and info" section). I am over 18 years of age, and I have already identified to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Salvio giuliano[edit]

Hi everybody, I am Salvio giuliano. I have been an editor since December 2009, an administrator since April 2011 and, for the past two years, I've also been arbitrator.
There is very little to add to that, apart from the fact that I consider myself an experienced metapedian and, during my term, I have tried to use my skills to contribute to making things run smoothly on Wikipedia for those who create content, who I deem the lifeblood of Wikipedia, and would like to continue.
Unfortunately, just like the last time I ran, I still have health issues, which have caused me to occasionally stop editing for a couple of days at a time and to decrease the number of edits (well, that and the various tasks arbitrators are supposed to take care of). I don't think this has, so far, impacted on my ability to serve as an arb, as I've always been able to do the needful in a timely fashion and not disrupt the committee's workflow, but I realise this may give some voters pause.
In addition, as a checkuser and an oversighter, I have always fully complied with the criteria for access to non-public data and confirm that I intend to continue to. I also have two alternative accounts, Salvio's not home (talk · contribs) (lost the password) and Tarapia tapioco (talk · contribs) (used once for a test), and as many doppelgänger accounts, Salvio Giuliano (talk · contribs) and Salvio guiliano (talk · contribs).
So, to conclude, I guess the gist of my statement is, I don't think I've been a lousy arb so far and, if you agree, please consider supporting me for another term.


I am running for the Arbitration Committee because I started here as an editor with the idealism many of you still share, and have some of the disillusionment that others here endure. My goals are simple. If elected, I will do the Committee's work, keep confidential information confidential, and represent no interest except the Community's.

I am not an administrator. If elected, I will subject myself to an RfA to obtain the tools, strictly for the purpose of handling ARBCOM duties, and resign the the admin rights at the end of my term.

My other well-known association with Wikipedia is as a system administrator and content creator for the Wikipedia criticism site Wikipediocracy (member name Zoloft). I pledge to fully comply with the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data, including not disclosing any such information I gain to Wikipediocracy (I do add a caveat that there are likely to be members of ARBCOM who are also members of Wikipediocracy. Discussions of ARBCOM confidential business by me will not be on Wikipediocracy, but on ARBCOM channels if I am elected.).

Why am I running? Because I feel the Wikipedia community needs a voice of reform and a critical eye on the Arbitration Committee. If elected, I promise you that I will work hard for you, be honest, be as transparent as confidentiality allows, and give you an exit interview when my term is over. Disclaimers: I have only the one account. I agree to identify to the Foundation if elected and comply with its rules as an Arbitrator.

Technical 13[edit]

Here I am! Your first ArbCom candidate for 2014! I also happen to be a non-administrator candidate for this term.
I will comply with the criteria for access to non-public data, and have already identified to the Foundation. I have the following test/doppleganger accounts ShoeMaker (talk · contribs) and Technical-13 (talk · contribs) as-well-as a bot account T13bot (task list (1) · logs (actions · block · flag) · contribs · user rights)
  • I consider myself level-headed person that likes to get all the facts before making decisions. I've been known to be stubborn in my pursuit of finding out information, and it's gotten me into trouble I'll admit, but I'd think that to be a good quality for any arbitrator to make sure they have all the facts before making decisions.


Both last year and again this year several people, including sitting arbitrators, have encouraged me to stand for the Committee. Having given it great thought I've decided that I will throw my hat into the ring.

I feel my qualifications for the role are my being a long-standing Wikipedian (I'll clock up 10 years of editing on Boxing Day) and administrator (9½ years on 2 December), and having experienced a wide variety of Wikipedia in that time. I've been following the public activities of ArbCom with varying degrees of closeness for several years, contributing to various cases, and especially clarification requests, as an outside observer (and as a party to the Iasson case in 2005). I also maintain WP:ARBLOCI.

While I'm not the worlds biggest or best content creator (I have no GAs or FAs to my name) I have dedicated most of my wiki time to enabling those that are to do so, and even more importantly to ensuring the reader can find and access the content they are looking for (the latter through being probably the most prolific user ever at RfD). I feel this fits well with being an arbitrator, the goal of which is to resolve disputes and allow those who can to create neutral, sourced encyclopaedic content free from disruption and harassment.

I feel that the committee got the Infoboxes case very wrong by taking sides in the dispute and requiring WP:OWNership of articles, and I aim to use this reminder to always think through the consequences to avoid something similar. I will recuse from all the future discussions of that case though.

I feel that it is an arbitrator's duty to clarify any decision made when asked to do so in good faith, and that every public request to the committee should be publicly acknowledged by at least one arbitrator, normally within 48 hours. I can't promise to do this on my own, but I will do my best to play my part. I also note that many of the proposals for reducing the workload of the arbitration committee fail because there is a lack of understanding of what arbitrators do behind the scenes, while much is rightly private I aim to publicly record how much time I spend on various tasks (but be warned I am not good at blogging!).

Mandatory information: If elected I will identify to the Foundation and comply with their requirements. In addition to this account I also control user:Awkward42, User:Chris McKenna and user:Chris McKenna (WMUK) – the first as a test user, the second to prevent impersonation, and the latter from when I was employed by Wikimedia UK (May–August 2014) to help deliver Wikimania 2014. I do not control User:Chris Mckenna.


With just over three days left for submission of nomination statements, I am growing increasingly concerned over the lack of candidates. I sense that several sitting arbs may be reluctant to run for re-election. So, out of a sense of duty, I tentatively submit my hat into the ring. Should a sufficient number of suitable last-minute candidates surface, I may withdraw my candidacy favor of others with more experience, but I do feel that the Arbitration Committee plays an important role in the community and should be fully staffed. If elected, I will fully comply with the wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy. I operate three bots: RMCD bot, Merge bot and Bot1058. I have not edited under any other accounts, but have edited as an unregistered user, particularly during the several months prior to registering. I am now the third of three candidates so far, who is not an administrator. I do feel that arbitrators should ideally all be admins, and that anyone capable of winning election to a seat on the Arbitration Committee would also likely easily be granted their request for adminship. Thus, if elected, I will promptly submit my RfA. I feel that arbitrators should exhibit a high level of integrity, and am proud to say that I have never been blocked. I have generally not been an active participant on the "drama boards", and am not particularly familiar with the arbitration process. So I may bring a fresh perspective, and if elected, I pledge to work to bring myself up to speed on this. Integrity in real life matters, too. I have not been subject to any law enforcement beyond a very few speeding and parking tickets. I do have some experience in volunteer elected positions, though not in organizations as large as the Wikipedia editing community; I was once, many years ago, President of a group with over 700 members, and have served out my full term in each position I've been elected to. I will probably learn a lot just via the process of answering your questions, but forgive me if I wait to answer until after the time limit for submissions expires and I'm sure that I'm actually running. In the meantime, let the scrutiny of my edit history begin, and I will be gauging my chances of success ;) Thanks for your consideration.


I'll confess to some hesitation putting my name on the ballot here. I try to avoid getting involved in Wikipedia drama as much as possible, so jumping into Arbitration (an area which I've read heavily, but edited little) is rather a counter-intuitive step. However, the Committee needs folk who are willing and able to serve, and I guess I meet both requirements. I have no plans to reform ArbCom; I just want to see it do its job effectively.
I'm an admin and a responder on ACC, UTRS and OTRS, so I already have access to a lot of non-public information; I'm also identified to the WMF. I have one alternative account, User:Yunshui-tester, which I don't use for editing.

Withdrawn candidates[edit]



Withdrawn prior to voting