Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.
PPS: Also note that I do have to devote to the Arbitraton Committee, or else I would not put myself forward for the position. Given the recent promotion other checkusers and another bureaucrat, I find myself with more than ample time such that I can make the Committee my primary commitment on Wikipedia, and devote it all the time it needs.
It might make sense for Dan to drop some of his other commitments to address the concerns below, but either way I think he would make a good arbitrator.
Angela.10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Really no questions at all over this user's ability to do the job. Having dealt with him over a detailed matter some time ago, I would emphasise his ability to maintain confidentiality of all parties while allowing those who have a job to do to do it as being a critical quality.
Orderinchaos16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Concerns about concentration of power in few hands are valid enough. On the other hand, if a person already has n jobs and has shown that he can do them very well, then I guess we can trust him with the n+1st too.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I strongly support this nomination: Deskana has had an excellent track record with his responsibilities, and he'll make a great arbitrator.
Acalamari17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
'Support, though my preference would be that he resign at least one other role (in addition to the MedComm). I worry about the ability to adequately handle all those duties. -
Philippe |
Talk18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm torn. I completely agree with the opposers about having any one person wearing too many hats... but at the same time, I feel Deskana's good at all those jobs, and would do his usual excellent job at being an arbitrator.
EVula//
talk //
☯ //05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Arbcom members can get checkuser access anyway, OTRS is like reading junk mail with the occassional bill...crat vs admin, nope no concentration of power.
Gnangarra12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support While I have concerns about concentration of power, I trust this user's judgment to exercise these powers in a responsible manner --
Versageek15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, absolutely. Deskana is an excellent admin, helpful, fair, and knowledgeable; a great asset for Wikipedia. I think he'll make a great arbitrator.
Dreadstar†15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Had nothing but good experiences with this user and clearly has a solid track record (just don't overstretch yourself, Deskana ;) ) -
Mgm|
(talk)23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
flip-flopping. I was concerned about Deskana having too much power, but looking at it again, Deskana's a good guy and I'm sure it won't affect him. I trust his judgement.
Ryan Postlethwaite15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Wearing a lot of hats is not a problem, in my view (Ihavemorehats than Deskana does, after all, and seek another one). The issue would be if discharge of responsibilities became difficult. I don't see that as very likely in this case. Support. ++
Lar:
t/
c15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. There shouldn't be worry about Deskana having too much power as the current privileges aren't really that uncommon among arbcommers.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Paiev (
talk •
contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2007
I know him not here, only through checkuser-l and perhaps we haven't interacted directly, so I have no interaction with him at all but observed his manner to deal with confidential data, its analysis and attitude to other participants - from those, and also in my past interactions with other enwiki arbitrators, I think he'll be a good asset. --
Aphaia (
talk)
12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Iamunknown23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) While I am concerned by the situation W.marsh describes below, I believe from my observations and Deskana's statement that Deskana is more tactful now than then; I would appreciate his input on ArbComreply
Support Has shown willingness to drop his commitments, so "not enough free time" isn't a concern for me. ArbCom is about dispute resolution, and he's shown he's more than up to that task.
szyslak06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. --
W.marsh00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --(
Review Me)
RParlateContribs@01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. --
JayHenry03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik•
talk08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, though I'm thinking about this still. Over-concentration of influence in one pair of hands is worth being concerned about up-front, not post-facto.
Splash -
tk13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry but concentration of power and influence has proven to be a disastrous idea. Like Raul654 Deskana should be plenty busy as it is.
EconomicsGuy16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Very weak. Don't like the idea of a checkuser/arbiter/admin/crat...that much power shouldn't be concentrated. If not for Deskana's other responsibilities, I would support. Sorry. ♠
PMC♠
01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal a bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story.
ScienceApologist (
talk)
23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose With great regret, as I have lots of respect for Deskana, but The Earth isn't round by consensus, but by fact. As such, I must agree with SciAp, above. I am open to a different vote next go 'round, should you run again.
ThuranX (
talk)
00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
No I really do apologise for this, but I feel there is, perhaps, a type of limit in regards to the kind of power one should be able to "wield". There are also other reasons that are quite minor relating to Deskana's past actions, comments and the like that leave me slightly concerned, but, overall, I think that Deskana is performing exceptionally well with the accesses that he already holds. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the concerns regarding the wearing of too many hats above. Arbcomm members should also be relatively active editors so as to stay in touch with the problems in the trenches.
Tiamut20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Deskana seems to be a fine editor, but I am not convinced by his answer to the question w/r/t concentration of power, and if you are too busy with your current tasks to much contribute to mainspace, how are you not too busy for Arbcom? --
Gwern (contribs) 21:58
7 December2007 (GMT)
per Nishkid, I think you have enough on your plate. Arbcom is a serious time commitment. We have enough inactive arbcom members. --
Aude (
talk)
19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
A look at your contribs tells me you've either forgotten why we're here or are already weighed down with all the extra hats you wear. Either way, you're not the right person to be on arbcom.
Angus McLellan(Talk)13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You certainly did reply and I did read those answers, but they didn't convince everyone as can be seen from the similar opposes above. Like several candidates in these elections, I think you're deceiving yourself as to what will happen if, or in your case more probably when, you're elected. Even if you give up other things, medcab and/or part of the bureaucrat stuff, arbcom appears to be extremely demanding of time and energy. If you can't find the time to build the encyclopedia now, you certainly won't if you are elected. Either you'll be increasingly detached from the work of this project and life in the trenches or you'll be a part-time arbitrator. Neither of these outcomes is ideal, not for you and not for the community.
Angus McLellan(Talk)16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A good editor and seemingly a nice person, but I oppose on the principle of too many hats, too much concentration of power COUPLED with the fact that I see nothing compelling about why this person should be on ARBCOM and in some cases I disagree with this person's positions. With all of these combined I oppose.--
Blue Tie (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.
PPS: Also note that I do have to devote to the Arbitraton Committee, or else I would not put myself forward for the position. Given the recent promotion other checkusers and another bureaucrat, I find myself with more than ample time such that I can make the Committee my primary commitment on Wikipedia, and devote it all the time it needs.
It might make sense for Dan to drop some of his other commitments to address the concerns below, but either way I think he would make a good arbitrator.
Angela.10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Really no questions at all over this user's ability to do the job. Having dealt with him over a detailed matter some time ago, I would emphasise his ability to maintain confidentiality of all parties while allowing those who have a job to do to do it as being a critical quality.
Orderinchaos16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Concerns about concentration of power in few hands are valid enough. On the other hand, if a person already has n jobs and has shown that he can do them very well, then I guess we can trust him with the n+1st too.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I strongly support this nomination: Deskana has had an excellent track record with his responsibilities, and he'll make a great arbitrator.
Acalamari17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
'Support, though my preference would be that he resign at least one other role (in addition to the MedComm). I worry about the ability to adequately handle all those duties. -
Philippe |
Talk18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm torn. I completely agree with the opposers about having any one person wearing too many hats... but at the same time, I feel Deskana's good at all those jobs, and would do his usual excellent job at being an arbitrator.
EVula//
talk //
☯ //05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support Arbcom members can get checkuser access anyway, OTRS is like reading junk mail with the occassional bill...crat vs admin, nope no concentration of power.
Gnangarra12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support While I have concerns about concentration of power, I trust this user's judgment to exercise these powers in a responsible manner --
Versageek15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support, absolutely. Deskana is an excellent admin, helpful, fair, and knowledgeable; a great asset for Wikipedia. I think he'll make a great arbitrator.
Dreadstar†15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. Had nothing but good experiences with this user and clearly has a solid track record (just don't overstretch yourself, Deskana ;) ) -
Mgm|
(talk)23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
flip-flopping. I was concerned about Deskana having too much power, but looking at it again, Deskana's a good guy and I'm sure it won't affect him. I trust his judgement.
Ryan Postlethwaite15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Wearing a lot of hats is not a problem, in my view (Ihavemorehats than Deskana does, after all, and seek another one). The issue would be if discharge of responsibilities became difficult. I don't see that as very likely in this case. Support. ++
Lar:
t/
c15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Support. There shouldn't be worry about Deskana having too much power as the current privileges aren't really that uncommon among arbcommers.—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Paiev (
talk •
contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2007
I know him not here, only through checkuser-l and perhaps we haven't interacted directly, so I have no interaction with him at all but observed his manner to deal with confidential data, its analysis and attitude to other participants - from those, and also in my past interactions with other enwiki arbitrators, I think he'll be a good asset. --
Aphaia (
talk)
12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Iamunknown23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) While I am concerned by the situation W.marsh describes below, I believe from my observations and Deskana's statement that Deskana is more tactful now than then; I would appreciate his input on ArbComreply
Support Has shown willingness to drop his commitments, so "not enough free time" isn't a concern for me. ArbCom is about dispute resolution, and he's shown he's more than up to that task.
szyslak06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. --
W.marsh00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --(
Review Me)
RParlateContribs@01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. --
JayHenry03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik•
talk08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose, though I'm thinking about this still. Over-concentration of influence in one pair of hands is worth being concerned about up-front, not post-facto.
Splash -
tk13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Sorry but concentration of power and influence has proven to be a disastrous idea. Like Raul654 Deskana should be plenty busy as it is.
EconomicsGuy16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Very weak. Don't like the idea of a checkuser/arbiter/admin/crat...that much power shouldn't be concentrated. If not for Deskana's other responsibilities, I would support. Sorry. ♠
PMC♠
01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal a bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story.
ScienceApologist (
talk)
23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose With great regret, as I have lots of respect for Deskana, but The Earth isn't round by consensus, but by fact. As such, I must agree with SciAp, above. I am open to a different vote next go 'round, should you run again.
ThuranX (
talk)
00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
No I really do apologise for this, but I feel there is, perhaps, a type of limit in regards to the kind of power one should be able to "wield". There are also other reasons that are quite minor relating to Deskana's past actions, comments and the like that leave me slightly concerned, but, overall, I think that Deskana is performing exceptionally well with the accesses that he already holds. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the concerns regarding the wearing of too many hats above. Arbcomm members should also be relatively active editors so as to stay in touch with the problems in the trenches.
Tiamut20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Deskana seems to be a fine editor, but I am not convinced by his answer to the question w/r/t concentration of power, and if you are too busy with your current tasks to much contribute to mainspace, how are you not too busy for Arbcom? --
Gwern (contribs) 21:58
7 December2007 (GMT)
per Nishkid, I think you have enough on your plate. Arbcom is a serious time commitment. We have enough inactive arbcom members. --
Aude (
talk)
19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)reply
A look at your contribs tells me you've either forgotten why we're here or are already weighed down with all the extra hats you wear. Either way, you're not the right person to be on arbcom.
Angus McLellan(Talk)13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)reply
You certainly did reply and I did read those answers, but they didn't convince everyone as can be seen from the similar opposes above. Like several candidates in these elections, I think you're deceiving yourself as to what will happen if, or in your case more probably when, you're elected. Even if you give up other things, medcab and/or part of the bureaucrat stuff, arbcom appears to be extremely demanding of time and energy. If you can't find the time to build the encyclopedia now, you certainly won't if you are elected. Either you'll be increasingly detached from the work of this project and life in the trenches or you'll be a part-time arbitrator. Neither of these outcomes is ideal, not for you and not for the community.
Angus McLellan(Talk)16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A good editor and seemingly a nice person, but I oppose on the principle of too many hats, too much concentration of power COUPLED with the fact that I see nothing compelling about why this person should be on ARBCOM and in some cases I disagree with this person's positions. With all of these combined I oppose.--
Blue Tie (
talk)
16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)reply