What about people banned or otherwise sanctioned merely for falling on the wrong side of some personal dispute, for holding the wrong viewpoints or making the wrong enemies?

Why not? There are about a dozen of them serving on Arbcom now.

Candidates are still weak at best. [[User:Unomi]] contribs are interesting, should be discussed in a seperate post.

Wow, did I do all that? I think I'd need to see some diffs.

Apparently some find my questions too long.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Non-individual_individual_questions, which lead to User_talk:Lar#Request_to_reduce_volume.2Fnumber_of_questions and to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Gigantic_.22individual.22_questions_directed_at_every_candidate

I may be biased but I find the last topic title choice somewhat pejorative. Could be me of course... I do like to hear myself talk!

With Kato not around I don't know if we'll see the same level of analysis of answers this year. But I hope these questions are useful.

Well, it's completely unreasonable to expect people involved in a project to produce an encyclopedia to be able to read and write.

I can sympathize somewhat, but only because tolerance for morbid logorrhoea (even that which borders on self-parody) has become a de facto job requirement for arbcombatants. If one does not have an attention span conducive to your battery of questions, they'll never be able to stomach the longcat-style macroscreeds in which their colleagues often delight.

Then why don't you run for arbcom, you pompous…

AGK just tossed his hat to run, strongest candidate I see so far. Xavexgoem also entered last night, now the strong candiates are starting to join, still mostly weak though.

I thought about running, just for the fun of it, but Newyorkbrad talked me out of it.

It really amuses me that people are bitching about being asked lots of questions, and that there are people who are being "put off" from running because of all the questions being asked. It's as if they have no concept of what arbitrators are supposed to be doing, and merely see this as another quest that has to be completed in order to get yet another shiny badge. The MMORPG mentality continues to dominate Wikipedian thought.

I'm put off by lots of questions, but that's just because probably 65% of the questions I'm being asked (I haven't counted) are totally irrelevant to my candidacy since they assume I'll actually be bothering to wield power I do not legitimately possess like everyone else running intends to do.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear these can always stick Lego pieces in their ears.

That would not be hygienic. There is no telling where those things have been.

Your support is charming, as always.

Why don't you run?

The list is quite depressing. I would have supported Shell Kinney this time, if she'd run. And certainly Thatcher, Allison or MastCell.

There are a few people on the list whom I could vote for, but certainly nowhere near eight.

But all these clerks, as far as the eye can see ... and then our old friend Jehochman, yet again.

Will Ka of Catherine de Burgh be running?

Hey, you show Big Mama some respect, ya hear?

{{citation needed}}

Gotta give it to get it... and I'm holding up my end.


I think some might say that it's your candidacy that's "totally irrelevant" and that it's clue rather than power that you "do not legitimately possess"

But I could be wrong.

The questions can be a challenge - the thought provoking bit was worthwhile though - as in here where I copped a question from Pixelface with seresin querying a clarification. Given as both editors have fairly opposed views on inclusionism/deletionism, I was rather bemused. Turned out both opposed me anyway though

PS: Link has a letter limit so paste 'http://Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Casliber/Questions_for_the_candidate#Additional_questions_from_Pixelface'

I think you are confusing me with a certain Wiki News reporter/photographer.

Um, no... you're a horse.

Since arbitrators ignore the community after they're elected, it's only fair that the community should bombard them with questions now; they won't get an answer at any other time.

I wouldn't vote for any of these candidates so far. Any candidate who wants to secure my vote should state that they will conduct all of their ArbCom-related discussions on-wiki, not on the mailing list, unless private information is involved. (That doesn't apply to a few current and former arbitrators such as Bauder and Kirill--my opinion of them is already so low that they could do nothing to redeem themselves.)

Who would you vote for then? Names not ideals please.

RHMED is running -- with the very, very best candidate statement of all time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ACE2009/C#RMHED

By all means, we need him on Arbcom!

I'm not sure whether it's a better candidate statement than that of the guy who ran on the "stone cold chillin'" platform a couple years back.

At least he shows some concern for the babes in wood.

Oh no he hasn't.

I'm just saying as you've accrued most of the other prestigious titles already, this one should be a piece of cake.

Plus you meet most of the informal qualifications for this position. I weren't kinda trying to be polite, I'd list all of them.

Go for it. Looking at this year's candidates, you'll probably win.

Looking at this year's candidates, Horsey would probably win. I'm not sure there's eight people on that list who I'd trust to count to twenty without taking off their shoes.

I would never consider running -- masochism is not among my vices.

Personally, I want to see RHMED, Kurt, Chuznit and Cla68 on the board. Within a few weeks, the Arbcom mantra will be "Toga! Toga! Toga! Toga!"

I'll have you know that I wear open-toed sandals in case I'm ever called upon to count that high.

Be glad that you aren't being asked to count to 21.

Masochism is a vice!?

Jon

I just looked through the candidates' statements again.

I know RHMED is trying to be funny on purpose -- are the other guys really serious?

I like the addition of the audio recording "A Conversation with Jehochman"...oh, brother, if this is any evidence, then it seems like anyone with a pulse can get a Yale degree.

Actually, as part of my candidacy I promise to do something like that: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK/Platform

There's no need to denigrate him. I actually thought he was well-informed about every aspect of the project that Privatemusings brought up.

And if by "serious" you mean that we are running with the aim of doing a good job and that we hope to be elected, then yes, I think most of us are. I certainly am.

(I'm aware that I am mostly responding to stuff that most would ignore .)

Very good. Lack of transparency and community engagement is the ArbCom's biggest long-term problem, and it seems like you have some understanding of that, so you'll have my vote.

I know, but I'm not getting paid to write this stuff. If you want a happy horse, slip some moolah in my feedbag and I'll compose sonnets of praise.



Okay, but I am confused about this campaign promise of yours:

"If the community brings a problematic administrator to the committee whilst I am sitting on it, I will vote to launch proceedings to scrutinise the administrator—and will support only measures which fully neutralise the problems with that administrator."

Now I don't understand three things:

1. What are you sitting on, the administrator or the committee? If you are sitting on the administrator, how much do you weigh? And if you are very heavy and have to sit on someone who is rail thin, like MZMcBride, do you think that such behavior by yourself is safe? I mean, we have five million law school students and five million eight-year-olds on Wikipedia, but I don't think there is any physician in the ranks.

2. How do you plan to "scrutinise the administrator"? Do you have to buy latex gloves? Or will a feather duster do? And would you consider wearing a French maid's costume if you had to use a feather duster?

3. How do you plan to "fully neutralise the problems with that administrator"? Will you personally use blunt instruments or hand-to-hand combat, or do you plan to outsource the task to the administrators at the Wiki Cosa Nostra?

Until quite recently, we had one on ArbCom.

Couldn't you pick on the wording of my main candidate statement and not the supplementary page? I'm ten words over the word limit for my statement, and I need to find something to cut out :-)

But yes, that sentence was hideously worded. It's been fixed up.

Seriously? An active MD? The real open-your-mouth-and-say-Ah type?

Well, if we had a doctor, I have to ask that person the obvious question:

{{citation needed}} (that this particular title is prestigious)
{{citation needed}} (that you're trying to be polite)

That would be most excellent, dude. Sadly, I would not be surprised if Hochman, that legendary twat's twat and butt-snorkel, ends up winning a seat.

I'd like to see some candidates saying they'll promote the creation of a community governance structure and resist the accumulation of power into the ArbCom's hands.

I think you should run for class president.

Hello; have we met?

Horsey, is there a good reason that anyone should spend dozens of hours a week on a hobby as a nominal figurehead whose best efforts can be swept away by predictable "community" discord? Consider that an arbitrator's only compensation is insults from anyone and everyone--perhaps people like you, who rail against arbitrators because they don't each read every Bible-long ArbCom workshop page, and who think that users of an internet site should be given due process rights rivaling those given to criminal defendants--without the paid lawyers or judges, of course.

I know that the job of WikiArbitrator might seem attractive to you in the abstract, but first consider that there are starving kids in China, wrongfully convicted innocents in prison, and unwritten Great American Novels--not to mention more mundane things like job hunting, gardening, and netflix.

Why should a rational adult misspend time this way? I would like to know; it's not a purely academic question.

Call me old-fashioned, by I believe that if anyone wants to share an opinion during a discussion, I listen to the opinion with respect and not slosh it off. And I believe that if someone is accused of doing something wrong that they should be allowed to have the right to voice their side of the story. Likewise, if someone is accused of wrongdoing, I don't support stonewalling or censorship in lieu of an honest answer.



The Chinese government (of which I am not a member) is responsible for its population. I am aware that the prison system swallows up innocent people - one of my best friends was jailed on bogus charges. And the Great American novel has been written - it just hasn't been published.

Plus, I've already stated that I see no purpose for Arbcom -- serious academic publishing endeavors do not require such a body.



I would recommend programming movies at the Pioneer Theater in New York City (which both of us, oddly enough, have done at one time). Sadly, that venue is gone.

Why are you putting my name in quotes I did not write? You've done this before.

Maybe he finds that One is a nerd.

Whoops! Wrong cut and paste job. Will fix. Sorry, character.

I agree. Perhaps I'm old fashioned for not savoring the words of every spectator shouting from the gallery.