Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2016 Arbitration Committee Elections


  • The December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
  • Please offer your feedback on the election process.

The nomination statements of editors running in the 2016 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 2016.
(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, is willing to sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement[note]
(iv) has disclosed any alternative accounts in his or her election statement (legitimate accounts which have been declared to a member of the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed).
Caution: Candidates should be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful.
Statements must:
(i) be submitted after 00:00 UTC on 6 November 2016 and until 23:59 UTC on 15 November 2016;
(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’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.


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.


Hello, I'm Luke Faraone. I've been a Wikipedia editor for the past 12 years, an administrator since 2008, and a member of the CheckUser and Oversight teams since 2013.

I served a two-year term on the Arbitration Committee (2014-2015). I've taken some time away over the past year, but would be honoured to serve the project in such a role again. I mostly focussed on internal Committee processes, moving forward a lot of work that has since been eliminated through devolution or delegation. I'd like to continue that devolution, while at the same time provide increased clarity around still-necessary processes and procedures. The best Arbitration Committee (while it is needed) is one that operates efficiently and justly, allowing everyone else to get back to the actually-productive work of writing the encyclopedia.

I will continue to comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; I am identified to the Foundation per roles as a functionary, volunteer response team participant, and arbitrator. I used the username Firefoxman prior to a rename in 2008. User:LFaraone_(usurped) is the account that was previously under my current name.

Writ Keeper[edit]

Eh, why not? Writ Keeper  17:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi. Given Arbcom's importance and the small field so far, I ask for your support for this nomination.


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.


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.


Last year I threw my name in the ring with specific intentions to withdraw if there ever were a sufficient number of candidates I was comfortable supporting and pledged to withdraw if that threshold was reached. It was, and I did... and then people came to me expressing disappointment in my withdrawal. So this year, I'll take part again. However, I will not commit to withdrawing if there are enough adequate candidates to fill all seats; I still might, but I might decide to stick it out through to voting as well.
Oh, and because the rules say this is required: Yes, I'm already identified to the WMF. Yes, I have signed the confidentiality agreements. Whatever alternative/humour/doppelganger accounts I have are all redirected to my main one and listed at the bottom of my userpage, but here's a list anyways: Salvidumbass!, Salvidrim, Salv, Salvid, Salvadrim, Ben Landry, Benoit Landry.  · Salvidrim! ·  14:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I am standing as a candidate to return as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

As many of you know, I previously served on the Committee from 2008 to 2014. During that period, I was an active arbitrator, including as the drafter of about 25 arbitration decisions and a participant in all phases of the Committee's work. I did not run for reelection in 2014 because no one should serve in any role on Wikipedia for life, and I thought it was time to move on. But two years have passed since then, several editors I respect have asked me to consider returning to arbitrating, and I am glad to give the community that option.

Frankly, the Arbitration Committee plays a lesser role on English Wikipedia today than it has in the past, as the number of arbitration cases declines each year—and this lesser role is not a bad thing. However, the cases the Committee does decide still may involve some of the project's most contentious and difficult disputes, and the Committee has other important responsibilities.

By way of personal background, I'm an experienced litigation attorney in New York. While the ArbCom is not meant to engage in legalistic processes or to resolve legal issues, I do think it is worthwhile for at least one member to have some legal background.

Editors who have followed ArbCom's activities in the past will have a pretty good idea what you can expect from me as an arbitrator if I'm elected again. I'm also glad to answer any questions that anyone may have. Thanks for your consideration.

Disclosure: I'm already identified to the Foundation and have signed the required paperwork during my prior service, and more recently when I was appointed as a non-voting community advisory member of the Governance Committee of the WMF Board of Trustees. No other accounts besides this one.


After 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.

Doug Weller[edit]

I'm Doug Weller and have been a member of ArbCom for two years. I've had this account for 10+12 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.


I'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


I never imagined I would ever put myself up as a candidate for ArbCom.
For those of you who do not know me, which I expect to be almost everyone, I am Mkdw. I have been editing Wikipedia since 2006; just over ten years. Saying that sounds even more strange to me than the notion of being an ArbCom candidate. I have been an administrator since 2013 and have access to the OTRS and UTRS. I spend the majority of my time doing small background tasks such as working at SPI, AFD, and AIV in addition to OTRS and UTRS. Lately I've spent a lot of my time investigating SPI cases where COI and PAID are contributing factors. I also make myself available on IRC in the en-help channel.
In terms of article writing, I do a lot less of it than I would like. I have contributed in a major way to three FAs, four GAs, and eight DYKs. A lot of these contributions were apart of the Gender Gap Task Force, Art+Feminism, and Wikipedia Asian Month (as part of Women in Red/Asian Women Month). I became interested in pro-feminism through my work in international transracial adoption. At the time it was also a controversial topic here on the English Wikipedia and I wanted to volunteer my time to expanding the content in those areas.
In my work, I am frequently required to thoroughly review sensitive and confidential information in sometimes complex and lengthy processes. I fully understand the importance in objectively reviewing cases and making decisions even if they are in conflict with my own personal and moral convictions. I feel that I have a stable work-life and personal-wikipedia balance. While I am not as prolific an editor as other candidates in the past (and hopefully more candidates forthcoming), I do think that this aspect may help me avoid ArbCom burn out. So if appointed, I would strive to bring a calm and patient presence to the table.
As a note, I am currently travelling which I do so frequently on business. This trip is quite a long one and I will be back on 17 December 2016. I will have access to the Internet and plan to check Wikipedia regularly but there will be periods of time where I will not be able to respond as quickly. I meet the eligibility criteria; I will fully comply with the criteria for access to non-public data; and my alternate accounts are User:Mkdw Bot and User:Mkdw VF. (Please note User:Mkdwyer99 is not associated with me)
Extended statement and concerns about the low number of candidates (at the time of this statement).