2016 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

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

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2016. To read Candidate Statements and their Q&As during the Nomination process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016.

Please endeavor to remain calm and respectful at all times, even when dealing with people you disagree with or candidates you do not support.

Candidates

LFaraone

Experience in security matters

I am wondering what others think of the ways the candidate's real-life experience in software and online security would impact their role in the Arbitration Committee? Caballero/Historiador^⎌ 05:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DGG

Strong support

I 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)[reply]

Strong support

DGG 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)[reply]

Support

I 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)[reply]

Support

Willing 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)[reply]

question

How 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)[reply]

Writ Keeper

indifferent?

Sorry to say this but the "Eh, why not?" suggests indifference and feels off-putting. First impressions matter, particularly when interacting with strangers.Victimofleisure (talk) 03:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. Halbared (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ks0stm

DeltaQuad

Re: Sarah777

@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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

question

How 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Minority status is important

In 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)[reply]

Mkdw

I do not know Mkdw well, but I did have some interaction with this editor several years ago in WP:WikiProject Vancouver. At the time, I found Mkdw to be friendly, reasonable, and easy to work with. Moisejp (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

question

How 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) 12:50, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackAmerican: If you're talking about as a functionary, I would handle an SPI in exactly the same way I have always handled SPI cases. I would examine the evidence against the editors based upon diffs, edit summaries, logs, tendencies, area of interest, history of the accounts (such as when they were created), and technical evidence. SPI is not a fishing expedition and there needs to be a convergence of evidence either behaviourally, technically, or both that surpasses a threshold for anything to be actionable administratively. Merely having experience with the markup language would not be sufficient grounds alone and editors investigating these cases must be careful to ensure they're not inadvertently outing someone using a legitimate alternate account. These are procedures and best practices (among many others) followed at SPI that all editors should adhere to regardless of their appointment to ArbCom or not. Mkdw ^talk 17:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen a number of people blocked after an argument or debate on AFD's based upon an admin saying they are not a new account. Even when they say they are from other wiki, they are ignored. I find this to be quite unfair and wonder if changes will ever come to this issue. BlackAmerican (talk) 04:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Were they engaging in meat or sock puppetry as outlined in WP:SOCK? Were they blocked based upon behavioural and technical evidence or did an WP:SPI determine there was enough evidence to reasonably indicate they were involved in meat or sock puppetry? There is typically a lengthy queue for unblock requests. Were their unblock requests eventually responded to and either granted or denied? Did they file multiple requests? Were their unblock requests in line with WP:GAPB? Did they eventually appeal their block via the UTRS or directly to ArbCom? Do you believe any of these blocks violated our current policies and guidelines? If not, have you or they attempted to amend our blocking policy through community consensus such as via WP:RFC? I'm asking all these questions because there are a lot of steps before an ArbCom case when it comes to editorial conduct.

It's important to note that ArbCom does not decide matters of editorial or site policy. If a case was brought against an admin for misuse of their tools such as blocking editors beyond the scope and provisions of WP:BLOCK and other relevant policies, then ArbCom would likely investigate the matter. Beyond that, actions taken that are deemed by some as "unfair" but fall within our policies and guidelines are not within the jurisdiction of ArbCom to address. Mkdw ^talk 20:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim!

Layout/format issue

I can't figure out why a "1." shows up to the left of the box with my answer to Biblioworm, it doesn't for the others. If someone can fix that I'd be very thankful.... pinging Mike V or JJMC89 ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:49, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Salvidrim!: I've fixed it. There were missing #'s. — JJMC89 (T·C) 22:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I seem to recall seeing the issue before that and trying to remove said # but I must've been the one who broke it in the first place. :p ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 22:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question followup

Thanks for your honesty with your answers, though I admit I am concerned with your "longing to appear as a rebellious devil-may-care badass" and how that might affect your judgment as an arbitrator. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:18, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Every guy wants to be James Dean or Indiana Jonnes or Han Solo at some point. Everybody tries to be cool, especially on places like Reddit or with co-workers around the water cooler. It doesn't change how one is when working seriously, for example either at my day job or on Wikipedia. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 00:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]