Main pages
edit- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Guide
- Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Discussion
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Coordination
- Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016
Guides
editCategory:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2016 voter guides
Calidum
editAfter much contemplation, I've decided to once again place my hat in the ring.
For those of you who don't know me, I've been here five years and focus mostly on Wiki-gnoming -- tasks such as vandal fighting, copy editing and other page cleanups, and updating articles. I tend to stay away from more contentious areas of the 'pedia, though I do have experience with WP:Requested moves.
I ran for Arbcom previously in 2011 and 2014, losing both times, and know well that I am an underdog this time around too.
I do still stand by the statement I made in 2014:
- "I'm running because I honestly believe in the core mission of Wikipedia: Creating an encyclopedia. I believe the Arbitration Committee -- and each arbitrator, individually -- 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 the standard disclosures, I am over the age of 18 and meet the requirements for access to private data, and am willing to sign the necessary agreement. I have the following doppelgänger accounts: User:Hot Stop (my former account name), User:Hotstoponwiki and User:Calidum Sistere. I have not used other accounts, though I did edit anonymously prior to registered my account in April 2011.
Thank you for your consideration, and I truly hope you really think about your vote before casting your ballot.
- Calidum (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Calidum
|
Calidum questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Question from Rschen7754edit
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Question from BibliowormeditConsider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
Thank you. Biblio (talk) Reform project. 19:34, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Question from ThePlatypusofDoomedit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from User:Wisi_euedit
Question from *thing goesedit
--*thing goes (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Question from User:Doc Jamesedit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
Calidum questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Calidum/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Calidum general discussion
editMy first thoughts
editLeaning towards support; Anyone who has been trying to help with ArbCom since 2011 is likely serious.--Mr. Guye (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
- It's also nice to have non-admins on the committee. We need someone to represent the perspectives of that key group in our community. Edge3 (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- I've long thought this as well. ArbCom is too admin-topheavy. While there's going to be a natural tendency for those the community trusts well enough for adminship to also be good candidates for ArbCom, there are innumerable long-term, content-creation-focused editors who do not want to be admins, sucked into a daily grind of administrative tasks, but who do have the time to set aside for deliberative, slow-moving arbitration work. While trust is involved in both roles, they're very different. Adminship is about addressing the urgent (which is often not important, just time sensitive) and the tedious (and sometimes the fragile), while arbitration is about addressing the important and the intractable. It's not a good thing for ArbCom to be 100% admins, as this introduces a pro-bureacracy, pro-enforcement, less content-editor-supportive and less learning-to-get-along institutional approach, one that has been the primary source of dissatisfaction with ArbCom. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Strong 'No'
editSeems like a loose cannon editor with tendency toward drama and petty vindictiveness. ARBCOM is like the Supreme Court of Wikipedia. Calidum in such a high position would be a disaster of huge proportions, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 08:06, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
- The irony of someone who was just given a two-month timeout for harassment calling me vindictive is not lost on me. Looks like I'm about to lose the coveted somehow still allowed to edit despite being blocked ten times in two years demographic [1] demographic. Oh well. Calidum ¤
I do think we need to think of ways to encourage more non-admins to apply to the ArbCom. I understand you may have concerns with this particular candidate, but the non-admin voting bloc is a very important (and sometimes ignored) part of the community. Edge3 (talk) 00:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes: Wikipedia needs to tilt the balance of power to editors, not admins
editEditors are the lifeblood of Wikipedia. In recent years, the number of editors has been dropping off. This is in large part because Wikipedia is being taken over by admins, moving toward a hierarchical culture that drives off editors, particularly new ones, who thrive in a more egalitarian environment. We need a demonstration that nonadmins can win elections like this as a first step toward returning Wikipedia to an editor driven environment rather than an admin ruled environment. For this reason I've voted in favor of Calidum and against all the other candidates. Warren Dew (talk) 03:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Back to Table of Contents
DeltaQuad
edit- I’m Amanda (aka DQ or DeltaQuad) and I have been serving on the committee for the past two years. In that time, I’ve drafted on 5 cases, and been drafter designate on another, and held two CUOS appointment cycles. While following through with my work on the committee, I remain active in the areas I was in before Arbitration. I am also on my way to getting my first good article, Colmar-Meyenheim Air Base.
- The perspective of sitting on the committee definitely changes your view. Incumbent and experienced members are becoming even more critical to the proper functioning of the committee with no topic area cases this past year, only user conduct cases. Incumbents help avoid mistakes that previous committees have made and not only provides background but an understanding of past issues for the committee, whether they are similar or a review of a past decision. With members that know this history the committee definitely has opportunities to show it can do better this year.
- The committee going forward needs to collaborate more, really discuss the issues it is presented with, and come to a solid, well rounded resolution. Cases are the biggest example of this. More than just the drafting arbitrators need to be involved in earlier stages of cases. This can also be augmented by regular meetings to discuss the issues facing the committee at the time.
- Arbitrators also need to be aware and conscious of omnibusing and case scope issues. This year we have had cases that should have been declined or had a corrected scope to correctly address the underlying issues. Yet they continued as is in the interest of time or resolving the issue at hand, which in the end hurts the case parties and related topic areas.
- With my continual willingness to learn and adapt, retaining knowledge of past committees, and always remaining a community voice when it comes to votes, I ask you to elect me again for the 2017-18 committee.
- Disclosures: A list of my accounts and I already and will continue to comply with the WMF Identification Policy.
- DeltaQuad (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: DeltaQuad
|
DeltaQuad questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Joshualouie711edit
Question from BibliowormeditConsider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
Format redone for ease of answer. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 11:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Rschen7754edit
Question from Ajraddatzedit
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Questions from ThePlatypusofDoomedit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from *thing goesedit
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Question from Banedonedit
Question from User:Doc Jamesedit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
DeltaQuad questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/DeltaQuad/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
DeltaQuad general discussion
editRe: Sarah777
edit@Sarah777: If you look, those four accounts were blocked by DeltaQuad as old accounts. Not entirely sure why (account security, maybe?) but it's not a block for any actual disruption. ~ Rob13Talk 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
- OK - thanks. I wasn't sure why there were so many dead accounts - I thought duplicate accounts were verboten on Wiki. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
question
editHow do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @BlackAmerican: I see that you did voice a question on her "Questions for this candidate" page, therefore might this question (above) be better suited to be repositioned there, along with your other question, as well as deleted from here? It doesn't seem that it belongs in the "discussion" when it's in fact a question directly for her. (NB: I in no way am meaning to be rude; just trying to ensure that things are in their appropriate place, so as to minimize clutter and/or misplaced items) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
It's unfortunate that we must still deal with bias issues, whether gender or other. People will always harbor biases; however, when it comes to any type of public decision, there are always other factors to consider, which is how I determined that DeltaQuad would be an excellent choice in this capacity. We must learn to leave our biases at home and harbor them only in private, because in the public arena, only intelligence, wisdom, willingness to help others and perhaps achievements on some levels, only these factors will improve things, whether they be reference works, nations or global issues. Paine Ellsworth u/c 18:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Minority status is important
editIn an ongoing effort to combat the Gender bias on Wikipedia, there's something to be said for including women in all administrative groups/levels. Albeit I'm biased, however, considering furthermore that A. she's got experience since 2014, as well as B. her GLBT minority status and BPD mental health disclosure (from her User page), it seems that she's an important person to have on board if we're actually going to be serious about "countering systemic bias" (versus just "feel good" measures). Having that perspective, combined with her 2 years of experience, makes her a solid candidate.
This may be my first time ever participating in any sort of election here on Wikipedia, however I'm just "calling it as I see it," and reminding people that we can't just "well-wish"; that we have to take active measures to combat systemic biases, by consciously including oft-overlooked minorities. (the same could be said for Mkdw's statement about work on those minority task forces) PolymathGirl (talk) 04:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Back to Table of Contents
DGG
editI've been at Wikipedia for the last nine years as editor and administrator. Over those years I've worked with new articles and drafts, trying to keep improvable ones from being deleted--and removing the others, while trying to give realistic advice to new editors and dealing with questions about reliable sources.
As a member of Arb Com for the last two years, I've helped reach fair and realistic decisions. We have unsolved problems where some progress has been made in the two years, and I want to continue the effort: simplifying procedure, rationalizing Arbitration Enforcement, dealing with outing, and accommodating our rules to the terms of use. I hope I have been a voice for editors interested in the quality of the encyclopedia; their efforts can sometimes be lost in the bureaucracy.
My real name and my background are on my user page; I am identified to the foundation, I've signed the necessary agreements. 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
- DGG (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: DGG
|
DGG questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
:
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Bibliowormedit
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from Banedonedit
Question from *thing goeseditRegarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
--18:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
DGG questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/DGG/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
DGG general discussion
editStrong support
editI am very pleased to see DGG running for this important position. I have had many Wikipedia encounters with DGG over the years and have always found DGG to be very positive, helpful, and fair.--Rpclod (talk) 02:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Strong support
editDGG is in my view an excellent candidate, due to his consistent dedication to the web of concepts underlying WP, his organizational and analytical prowess, and his keen wit. I strongly agree that "A person who just comes here once should be helped to do what they intend." So important! WP cannot survive over the long term without constantly attracting new talent, and this means welcoming, encouraging, and educating newcomers. This line was the closer for me: "As a general rule, everything very useful is also dangerous, though the proportion varies." Victimofleisure (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Support
editI have encountered DGG during periods that I have frequented AfD, and found him to be reasonable, knowledgeable in wikipedia policy and consensus, level headed, calm, and respectful. I think he will make a fine arbitrator. Fieari (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Support
editWilling to take a balanced position on outing versus undisclosed paid editing and therefore has my support. Has done a good job so far. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
question
editHow do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Back to Table of Contents
Doug Weller
editI'm Doug Weller and have been a member of ArbCom for two years. I've had this account for 10+1⁄2 years and have a dormant account, User:DougWeller, which has 2 edits, the first six months before I created this account. I've been an Admin for just over 8 years. I wasn't planning to run and told several people I wouldn't, but the dearth of candidates has changed my mind.
It's been an interesting two years for me, and very different years. As others have pointed out here and elsewhere, 2015 saw many more cases than this year - 18 vs only 4 this year. I think that this year's committee has by and large managed to deal with cases faster than last year but we've still had some problems, particularly with scope (as noted by other candidates as well).
DeltaQuad is absolutely correct when she suggests that cases shouldn't be left just to the drafters and that all of us need to be more active at the opening phases of the case. I'd also like to see more Arb input at the Workshop phase, particularly with drafters making proposals at that stage rather than wait for the Proposed decision stage. I did that when I was a drafter at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. The workshop phase should be the heart of the process.
Another area which definitely needs improvement and isn't obvious is dealing with email. It's all too easy to let it fall behind and weeks later find issues that haven't been resolved. Nagging sometimes helps (thanks User:Opabinia regalis for your nags) but isn't enough. We already have regular phone conferences with the WMF, usually once a month. I think I've been part of all of them, and at times we Arbs have stayed in the conference after the WMF have left and discussed issues, which has been useful, depending on how many Arbs were around. A few weeks ago DQ organised an Arb-only phone conference, and we were able to go through the list of outstanding items with an efficiency I haven't seen at any other time on the Committee. I see that she has mentioned regular meetings in her statement, and it's something I will definitely push for if I'm elected. We should always have one in the opening stages of a case, particularly to make sure whether the case is really necessary and the scope. The mailing list is good but not good enough for this.
As for my non-ArbCom activities, I'm still a relatively active editor in a wide range of areas, although I'm most interested in archaeology. And there's the usual anti-vandal work, chasing sock puppets, etc.
I'm identified with the WMF and meet the requirements specified in the access to nonpublic information policy.
- Doug Weller (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Doug Weller
|
Doug Weller questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Please ask your individual questions here. While there is no limit on the number of questions that may be asked, please try to keep questions relevant. Try to be as clear and concise as possible, and avoid duplicating questions that have already been asked. Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Thank you. Collect (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Questions from Alanscottwalkeredit
Question from BibliowormeditConsider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Question from Yngvadottiredit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from *thing goeseditRegarding security in e-mail-communication, especially when it comes to potentially sensitive information about “editors”:
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
Doug Weller questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Doug Weller/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Doug Weller general discussion
editHi Doug Weller
edit- Your anti-vandalism work seems to include keeping relevant but unwelcome (to you) information off Wikipedia. For years you have obstructed posting that Ramses III has haplogroup E1b1a, and that this haplogroup is associated with the Bantu Expansion. This is a ridiculous abuse of power.
- On the Wikimedia Foundation https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_censoring_Wikinews
MrSativa (talk) 21:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
As I and others have tried to tell you, it's a matter of our policy on sources. Nothing to do with vandalism. The peer reviewed source in question does not say that E1B1a is associated with the Bantu expansion (and wasn't aimed at tracing his ancestry or origin), and combining sources to make an argument is WP:Original research. The Ramesses III article says, twice in fact, that he has E1B1a. I added it to the article a year ago.[5] I'm not sure why you repeated it. If you wish to discuss this further, please do it on my talk page or an article talk page. Doug Weller talk 22:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Unrealistic position?
editThis comment "I'd like to see COI and (undeclared) paid editing dealt with by the foundation" is not realistic. COI and undisclosed paid editing are significant issues that will need a collaboration between the community, arbcom, and the WMF to address. Due to this I am unable to support. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: That's a minor sentence in an answer to a six-part question, and I think you are reading far too much into it. The question has a very blue-sky quality and nothing less than a five thousand word essay would be required to properly address the points raised, so it should be assumed that the text quoted above was not intended as the last word on COI. The WMF will never notice COI editing so the community has an indispensable role in drawing attention to potential problems, and admins/arbcom may be involved in escalation or enforcement. Arbcom is unable to make policy and can only act to resolve otherwise intractable disputes. By the way, see Ask new users to disclose paid editing for a related proposal. Johnuniq (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to hear further clarification from Dough on this. Agree arbcom should not make policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: - it's only unrealistic if you interpret it as saying "only dealt with by the foundation". And looking at what I wrote again, it does suggest that they do nothing, which of course isn't true - they did a lot of work on the Orangemoody case. I believe that they also keep records of reports to them about paid editing - you may know more about this than I do. Of course these issues need collaboration between the community, Arbcom and the WMF. If we left it to the WMF not much would happen. It would be nice to think that they might be proactive - was it you who suggested they could go after a few big offenders by setting up 'sting' operations? I;d be very surprised if they took that up. On the other hand, when they do learn about paid editing they could send out a letter explaining the TOU - it might help in some cases although it probably wouldn't make a big difference. My main concern is that they expect us to do the lion's share.
- Happy to hear further clarification from Dough on this. Agree arbcom should not make policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- John is right of course, that was just a very brief part of my answers to Biblioworm's 6 part question and in no way adequately expresses my opinions or quandaries in regard to handling paid editing (or COI). I'll have a go but I'm not writing an essay here! I see you support Salvidrim!, and I agree with all 3 paragraphs in his point 2. On the privacy issue, I'm a bit conflicted. Here and elsewhere I've made my real name public (which has left me and at times my wife open to harassment, unfortunately). In an ideal world we all would, but even just on my own experience I can understand why some people want to keep their identities private. But using privacy to avoid detection as an undisclosed paid editor, sock, etc, makes me uncomfortable. I believe that the WMF isn't quite as hot on privacy as our community is, particularly in regard to identifying IP addresses with users. I know this isn't a paid editing or COI issue, but there's nothing in the TOU to prevent identifying an IP address with a known sock, but we tend to avoid it even in the case of long time abusers. I think they would take the same attitude towards using IP addresses in investigations into paid editing. As to our role, I'm not convinced that we should be proactively investigating paid editing as a committee. Among other things we don't have a remit to do it, as you know. Personally, I'd be unhappy to be in a position of ruling that someone is an undisclosed paid editor, simply because it would expose me and my family to a lawsuit if it turned out they weren't. I've already had one company try to get my IP address (they failed) because of an action I took as an Admin. I'm much happier dealing with unpaid editing the way Salvadrim! suggests. I think the registration process discussed at Wikipedia talk:Harassment/Archive 10#A process at account registration might be worth pursuing further, but I suspect it would be rejected. Doug Weller talk 16:24, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I know that the WMF does a fair bit regarding undisclosed paid editing. The community works the best they can on this issue as well. We now need an arbcom that takes the problem seriously.
My concern is that I interpret what you wrote as saying undisclosed paid editing is not an issue arbcom should help address (and by extension not a major issue overall). Agree that "sting operations" that break others terms of us are not appropriate. I have suggested collaborating with Upworks; however, and that collaboration does move forwards.
Having being legally attacked by a fellow Wikipedia, which required getting legal counsel for 9 months, I also "understand why some people want to keep their identities private". Arbcom, it appears to me at this point in time, is not interested in handing the private details required to enforce the TOU. They also appear disinclined to allow other admins to take on the work. As such a change in arbcom members might be good.
While I believe those here deserve a degree of privacy, this should not extend to job postings that advertise paid Wikipedia editing. We are not here to build some anonymous online utopia but an encyclopedia. If people are following the TOU these details should not be private to begin with, and if the are not others bringing the details up on WP should not be a bannable offense. At least that is my position.
I agree that arbcom does not decide policy. The community; however, is currently undecided on this issue. Arbcom, of which you were a member, unfortunately enforced their personal position on the matter regardless of our undecided policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
- @Doc James: I think that there are a number of major issues that ArbCom can't address, I don't follow that your line of argument there. I'm not sure how we can allow or disallow Admins to take on the work. Depending on what "take on the work" means, such work might be constrained by policy, but we don't enforce policy where there's no case before us. Doug Weller talk 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
question
editHow do you plan on dealing with people who have are transition from other wikia to english wikipedia with knowledge of how to utilize the site but are thought to be socks? BlackAmerican (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- That's a tricky question. The different wikipedias have different rules, and there are editors here who are blocked elsewhere. We should treat all editors here fairly though and not assume they will commit blockable offences here. But you are asking about socks. I don't know if you mean socks of editors blocked elsewhere or accounts here running socks. If they are accounts here running socks an investigation at WP:SPI might look into it. But it's something I would do in my role as an Administrator, it's not part of the Committee's role. Doug Weller talk 22:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Euryalus
editHi. Given Arbcom's importance and the small field so far, I ask for your support for this nomination.
- Background
I joined Wikipedia in April 2007 and became an admin in 2008. I was elected to a two-year Arbcom term in 2014, but retired early to spend more time writing articles (see below). I've been a Checkuser since 2015. I used to be an Oversighter but gave it back - I wasn't routinely using it and there seemed no point in holding the permission for the sake of it.
- Dispute resolution experience
Per my 2014 statement, 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" - ie. viewing and reviewing materials before responding. Some recent examples:
References to real-life activities are unverifiable; however as this comes up occasionally I have professional experience in commercial mediation and HR.
- Content experience
I believe a decent content contribution record is essential in understanding dispute context and the potential impact of Arbcom sanctions. Most of my contributions are in naval or Australian history; generally I research and expand pages to C- or B-class, but I've also written one FA, 5 GAs, ~10 DYK's and created around 60 new articles. My Featured and Good Articles are here; some recent B-class articles are here, here and here. I'm also active in WP:SHIPS and Milhist, and used to be informal co-ordinator of WikiProject Ports.
- Arbcom: What needs changing
Statement of the obvious: an arbitrator needs a clear grasp of policy, patience, good communication and a commitment to effective outcomes. I pursued these on Arbcom last time, and would do so again. Last time I also made three commitments for Arbcom change. How I think I went (plus additional commitments) are at this subpage.
- Time
I spend 10-15 hours/week editing or researching for Wikipedia, and can devote this time to Arbcom plus an additional 5-10 hours/week as required.
My record shows I don't consider Arbcom a "job for life"; I worked on the Committee for a year, then left to spend the next year writing articles and working at ANI. One year later, I’d like to again contribute to resolving the kind of complex cases that are Arbcom's work.
- Technical info
I have one test account that made five edits in 2009 and was legitimately declared to Arbcom at the time. I am also User:Euryalus2. I am identified to the WMF as a former Arbitrator and checkuser.
Thanks for considering this statement.
- Euryalus (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Euryalus
|
Euryalus questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
--Kyohyi (talk) 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Question from BibliowormeditConsider the following ideas for reforming ArbCom:
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Question from Rschen7754edit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from *thing goesedit
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Question from User:Doc Jamesedit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
Euryalus questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Euryalus/Questions
Back to Table of Contents
Euryalus general discussion
editPositive experience
editMy areas of interest overlap with those of Euryalus. My interactions over the years have been uniformly positive.Acad Ronin (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
can we just vote for this guy?
editi mean, he has an interest in Australian navy and knows the difference between dead reckoning and a chronometer. if that isn't cool enough for u, i dont know what is EggsInMyPockets (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Question from BlackAmerican
editThis was removed from the main Questions page. On balance the second half does relate to approaches to dispute resolution, so have brought it here. -- Euryalus (talk) 00:42, 3 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Ks0stm
edit- Hi y'all! I’m Ks0stm. I’ve been an administrator for five years and an arbitration clerk for four years. While I tend to work in administration areas of the project, I have nine good articles, three DYKs, and a featured picture to my name. I also have experience handling sensitive and confidential information from my work as an oversighter.
- As an arbitration clerk, I’ve observed that when the community is asked for their input, the quality of proceedings is enhanced, particularly with cases. Arbitrators should take full advantage of the workshop to get input from the community on the proposed decision, so that they can refine it before putting it up for voting. Doing so ensures the final outcome of the case is more tailored to the needs of the community.
- I’ve also come to understand that arbitrators who have strong ties within the community, outside of arbitration proceedings, have a better understanding of its issues and needs. The committee and its members should strive to welcome the opinions, concerns, and ideas of community members and be responsive to them in a timely manner. Arbitrators do not cease to be regular editors, and they should continue to work for the betterment of the encyclopedia outside of ArbCom proceedings.
- Finally, the committee should carefully consider the appropriate scope for each situation. Scopes that are too large have a tendency to result in proceedings that are slow and difficult to manage, while scopes that are too narrow overlook key aspects of a problem and undermine the Committee’s ability to solve complicated situations. When the committee chooses the right scope and clearly communicates it, the solutions are clear, focused, and targeted to problems that the community hasn’t successfully solved on its own.
- It is with much deliberation that I submit my candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. The decision was born mainly out of a desire to improve the quality and efficiency of service provided to the community by the committee. I look forward to the opportunity to continue serving the community and working with all of you to build a better encyclopedia. Anyone who has any questions, advice, opinions, or concerns for me should feel free contact me, either via my questions page, talk page, email, or on IRC.
- As an oversighter, I have signed the non-disclosure agreement, and meet the requirements specified in the access to nonpublic information policy. I have six alternate accounts, all of which are declared on my userpage.
- Ks0stm (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
Arbitration Committee Election 2016 candidate: Ks0stm
|
Ks0stm questions
editQuestions
|
---|
==Individual questions==
Add your questions below the line using the following markup:
Thank you. Collect (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC) Question from Bibliowormedit
Question from Rschen7754edit
Question from Mark Arstenedit
Questions from ThePlatypusofDoomedit
Questions from Opabiniaedit
Question from *thing goesedit
--18:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC) I would probably not be comfortable using something as technically advanced as email encryption, especially given 1) the greatest risk to ArbCom communications is someone gaining unauthorized access to an email account, and the second greatest risk an arbitrator leaking information, and 2) it may restrict arbitrators from using the email platform of their choice. However, I would make it work should the committee decide to implement email encryption. That said, I think ArbCom communications are sufficiently secure so long arbitrators use password best practices and enable two-factor authentication for access to their email.
Question from Banedonedit
Question from The Rambling Manedit
Questions from Antony-22edit
Question from User:Doc Jamesedit
Questions from George Hoedit
|
Ks0stm questions discussion
editWikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Ks0stm/Questions
Back to Table of Contents