User:AnonEMouse/Arbcom

Thoughts about the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006

Thoughts about each candidate
There are so many candidates, and so much written by each one, that I need to write down my thoughts, or get confused. If someone else should read this and find it useful for them as well - so much the better! AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Organized by Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements

Alex Bakharev

 * editing since July 2005, admin since February 2006.
 * intend to be an arbitrator open for recall. User:Alex_Bakharev/Recall

/Questions for Alex Bakharev


 * Answered questions quickly
 * Minor language issues ("It maybe unfair to Fred Bauder who obliged to do more work than other admins") but he is understandable. But more non-English-first arbcom members are a good thing.
 * Proud of WP:RFSL, but that hasn't gotten any feedback except a merge request. On the other hand, he is actively trying to do something that could be important.
 * Also note minor spelling and grammar issues there. Probably the most serious was the misspelling of "Wikipedia" in the page name. (moved Wikpedia:Request for solutions to Wikipedia:Request for solutions: spelling issue)
 * My Q5, decision disagreed with, seemed to find one that went against a friend, rather than one that brought up larger issues. From evidence, did seem to be overblown, but still.
 * Got to heart of the issue on Requests_for_comment/Chowbok.


 * Avraham - withdrew

Questions for Avraham


 * Long, careful, intelligent answers to questions (including mine), reading and citing policy. I especially like his "parties resolved dispute" answer.
 * Has apparently been in several disputes Talk:Circumcision, followed here by opponents, but he seems civil here, and they don't.

Blnguyen
Questions for Blnguyen
 * hard worker
 * Named in Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar but vague statement there.
 * Attention to detail, especially User:Blnguyen/RfA admin nomination research
 * Reasonable answers. Excellent user page.

Can't sleep, clown will eat me

 * Wikipedia for over a year now, administrator on the English Wikipedia, unblock-en-l mailing list and OTRS queries, > 50,000 edits.

Questions for Can't sleep, clown will eat me


 * Didn't answer my Q5. Didn't have a lot of time to do it, but still.
 * Brief answers in general.

crazytales56297
Questions for Crazytales56297
 * Grade 9, teenager


 * "I'd make WP:IAR policy." It is policy, since August 9. :-P
 * No answers to my questions for a week.


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was withdraw - crz crztalk 05:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Crzrussian
 * Law student; clearly a plus for the arbcom, since it's a reasonably similar occupation.

Questions for Crzrussian


 * Reasonable response to Are you still beating your wife? question from Kim van der Linde.
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Daniel.Bryant

 * Standing as a non-admin, which would mean more if he hadn't run for admin before and failed.
 * This partly failed because of "going on strike" on user page as new editor, and "Sometimes, you have to fight dirty against people who fight dirtily against you" comment in RfA.

Questions for Daniel.Bryant


 * Seems to recognize problems with his RfA, reasonable answers to questions, didn't get to mine yet.
 * Has not answered my questions in a week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excellent answers when he finally got around to them. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

DVD R W - withdrew


 * "Admittedly, I am a little bit green at dispute resolution, but would like to be involved in this activity."

Questions for DVD R W


 * Hasn't answered most questions yet, one he did answer was troubling: seems to think he needs to make a WP:Friendship essay, and permission from Jimbo to make a Image sources page.

Doc glasgow

 * Aged 30-40, I joined Wikipedia in April 2005, Admin since September 2005,
 * Left adminship for a while, vandalized WP:AN/I.
 * "We need just enough due process to give good people confidence of fair treatment, but not enough to allow fools to waste our time screaming about their ‘rights’."
 * chosen field is/was religion, OTRS team, specialising in WP:LIVING issues.
 * rusty legal training, and a modest record of writing wikipolicies.

Questions for Doc glasgow


 * Excellent evidence presentation in several arbcom cases.
 * Didn't seem to read my questions very carefully, even though claiming "I’ve looked over the questions everyone is asking". Q1, didn't understand what power was being asked about (everyone else understood). Q4 seems to think I have an agenda. Q8, didn't take the clear hint to give a reference to an important and rather controversial and famous arbcom case.
 * Q5 had a good answer where he actually changed the course of a bad ruling.
 * Regrets several important actions - userboxes, Giano, his resignation and redirecting AN/I - I believe in forgiveness, but that's a lot of regrets.

Flcelloguy

 * one of the longest-serving active members of the Mediation Committee
 * wrote the Wikipedia Signpost/Series/January 2006 ArbCom election series, including interviewed most of the ArbCom members.
 * Several FAs, on OTRS team, Meta admin, Communication Committee’s Internal Subcommittee, responsible for being a liaison for the community to the Foundation and vice versa.

Questions for Flcelloguy


 * From other questions, impressive evidence in Freestylefrappe case.
 * For my Q4, gave answers that were related to cases he himself had participated in. Not terrible, but sort of the easy way out, especially given that he doesn't completely disagree with the decision, just aspects - in one case that the censure be stronger, in another that multiple mentors be assigned instead of just one. I would argue that he partly misses both parts of the question, first that he prove his ability to do research, and second that he be able to show and explain where he disagrees with actual opinions. Of course he did excellent, well presented research for the Freestylefrappe case, above, but that was something that directly concerned him. On the arbcom, he will usually face cases that don't.
 * Also not quite sure what was the point of his Freestylefrappe decision disagreement - "I would have supported long-term civility parole and even a one-week ban for Freestylefrappe's constant disruptions.... the revocation of his admin rights did not solve the problem, as later demonstrated by Freestylefrappe being blocked several more times (under undisclosed sockpuppet accounts) and then being banned by the community." Well, then that implies that the long-term civility parole and one-week ban would not have solved the problem either, no? It would have maybe sped him on the road to permanent banning by one block earlier, hardly a major change.
 * The rest are good answers.

FloNight

 * editor since September 2005, an Administrator since May 2006, and an Arbitration Committee Clerk since August 2006, also answer OTRS queries

Questions for FloNight


 * Excellent answers, seems thorough and, somehow, kind. Learned a lot from clerk experience.

freakofnurture

 * no FAs, 33K edits, 11,500 blocks (2nd to the legendary User:Curps), 7000 deletions, and several hundred page protections.

Questions for freakofnurture


 * Good answers to Q5 - worries about expunging block log and excluding links to ED.
 * "if you see me creating proposed decisions that are not even tangentially related to the /workshop or /evidence page, please tap me on the shoulder and ask me to recuse. If this happens on a regular basis, ask me to resign."
 * No sense of humor about WP:SPIDER :-( "delete and ban creator" Aieeee....
 * Impressive research in answering Pschemp's questions about MONGO/ED.

Geogre

 * longer-time members of Wikipedia, arriving in 2003 and becoming an administrator in 2004 (but see Improv, just below)
 * long history of article writing ,user:Geogre/AfD has some of the material that led to the "notability" guideline, and Managed Deletion was possibly the first shot at what would become prod and the expanded CSD
 * Was directly attacked by Fred Bauder at WP:Requests for arbitration/Giano - how will they get along?

Questions for Geogre


 * Excellent answers to questions.
 * Doesn't like argument at AfD, but that's not too relevant to this case.
 * Responded well to re:Fred Bauder question.

Golbez

 * editor since March 2004, an administrator since October 2004, and ran for Arbcom (and, as I recall, got over 60% positive vote) in the last election.

Questions for Golbez


 * Couldn't find any disagreements for Q5, asserts not lazy.
 * Admins should primarily edit articles ... to avoid burnout.
 * Nice answers in general.

Harvestman (DLL)

 * "french IT consultant who gnomily contributes to WP articles and RD answers, quite recently proofreading Gutemberg project's books. An arbitrator is not free for the customer : I may spend less time for articles."
 * Note language difficulties.

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Harvestman


 * "As an IT consultant, my job includes software testing. I proposed a six months ban on new policies (WP:VPP, Oct. 27)" - Aieeeee!
 * Serious language issues, they just keep coming.


 * H2P - withdrew
 * "I am a hard ass editor constantly enforcing Wikipedia's rules on anyone from newbies to veterans. I'm skilled in debate and as such understand how to settle them using facts rather than logic. I have been known to be harsh many times, but I am fair, I treat everyone the same and I expect no less from others. Wikipedia should be about control and order,"
 * Immediate reaction: Aieeee! Run, hide!
 * OK, let's give him a chance to answer some questions, maybe he's overstating his jackboots above. I really hope so.

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for HeirToPendragon

Improv

 * involved with Wikipedia since late 2002.
 * before, during, and after my time as an active member of MedCom.
 * various projects over the years, from OTRS to the India-related-topics Wikipedians Notice Board (check userpage for the full list)
 * "Arbitration is an exhausting, thankless task"

Questions for Improv


 * "Transparency in conversations strictly between Arbcom members is not necessary or always desirable." - worrisome.
 * Doesn't see anything wrong with Fred doing most of the work.
 * "The Cookie Caper" - slaughtered articles on Peperridge Farm, Famous Amos, Hydrox, Toll House, etc. (very famous American cookie making companies), for being ads. Aiieee!
 * Similarly, blew away "Cleveland_Steamer" against consensus.
 * Finally, unable to deal with large volume of questions on page, specifically asking people to add new ones to bottom, and misses at least one new one I added. Granted, it's hard, but that's what Arbcom cases will be like. Others don't seem to complain.

John Reid

 * See Brag.
 * "never been a Wikipedia admin; nor do I have any such desire." Compare to Daniel.Bryant, above
 * work at Wheel war and maintenance of cent.
 * don't see me much in articlespace; do some cleanup, template work, documentation; graphics, such as Image:Pi-unrolled.gif.
 * Missed being blocked at Requests for arbitration/Giano by a hair for asking bureaucrats to sign a loyalty oath

Questions for John Reid


 * My Q2 - worrisome, seems to want the bureaucrat de-cratted, without wanting the decision that he made reversed. That seems to be more punishment than problem solving.
 * Q5 - especially troubling. Seems to imply that he disagrees with most Arbcom decisions, without giving specifics.
 * Q6 seems to be opposition to lawyers as a group - fine usually, but not from someone running for the job of, essentially, judge.

Jpgordon
Questions for Jpgordon
 * editor since September 2004, admin November 2004.
 * moderator on The Well
 * Excellent answers, expecially to my Q1.
 * This, on the other hand, was fairly nasty, but asserts it was a one time thing.

JzG

 * Registered as in 2004, active since September 2005, changed account to, sysop since January 2006.
 * "a geek but not a teenager" Guy Chapman, 42.

Questions for JzG


 * Q5 - found two controversial decisions, then writes "But that's not a decision I disagree with as such" and "That said, on the balance of evidence and policy, I cannot fault the conclusion." - Huh?
 * "where my personal views conflict with what ArbCom says then I would either have recused in advance or accepted the consensus".
 * "Note that there is a huge difference between ruling that debate on a failed proposal should be drawn to a close to avoid acrimony, and arbitrating that a proposal has consensus, shutting out a substantial and vocal minority." In other words, it's more OK to say "it's failed, shut up", than to say "it's succeeded, shut up"?
 * Yes, that is basically what he means. :-P.
 * Made his own bumper sticker.

Kelly Martin
I am running for the Arbitration Committee because I feel that there are not enough candidates already running to fill the open positions with acceptable nominees.

I stand specifically for a zero tolerance policy for administrative misconduct: any administrator who abuses administrative privilege (where "abuses" means uses in a manner inconsistent with policy where such use tends to create or intensify a disruption in Wikipedia") will be, at the very least, temporarily suspended as an administrator. Admins on Wikipedia have had a free hand for too long.  I made many mistakes as an administrator, and it is my intention to see that no other administrator makes the same mistakes -- and that those who do, do not get the chance to make them again.

Questions for Kelly Martin

Kirill Lokshin

 * participated in a handful of ArbCom cases, both as an involved party and as a not-entirely-mute member of the peanut gallery: Requests for arbitration/Añoranza
 * 4FAs on user page.

Questions for Kirill Lokshin


 * Good answers to questions. Make that excellent answers to questions.

Kylu
Questions for Kylu


 * 8 months total, 3-4 months as admin
 * "Frankly, I'm not here to win for myself, I'm here to give the community the widest possible selection" ??
 * In several comments, appears to be indecisive:
 * "the remedies to SpinyNorman are both numerous and potentially confusing, I think I'd have rather suggested that they were simplified, but I'm not totally sure how."
 * complex answer to my Q2
 * "In the event that I have my own decisions..."
 * Did the research for Q3
 * Didn't hesitate to express disagreement in Q5
 * Seems to think Fred Bauder is a formal "mouthpiece for the Committee being appointed."
 * Polite with echoes of Phaedriel

Matt Yeager

 * Combative right off the bat, doesn't expect to win.

Questions for Matt Yeager


 * "Generally, if the WP community is mostly behind something, they ought to get their way"
 * "Think of all the huge content wars, debates, firestorms... none of them have been based on NPOV, which has been followed pretty faithfully throughout the 'pedia." - Clearly not involved in editing contentious articles.
 * Would remove WP:RFA and give adminship automatically barring hard to achieve veto.
 * Believes arbcom should ban admins from editing for admin actions, not just de-admin.


 * Merovingian - withdrew


 * Ryan Wetherell, began in November 2003, administrator March 2004.

Questions for Merovingian


 * Decisive. Actually answered my Q1, Q2, Q4, one of few to disagree on Q3.
 * 18 y.o.


 * Messedrocker- withdrew
 * RFA on Wikipedia passed nearly unanimously, Wikinews admin for over a year and arbitrator since September.
 * Wikinews mediator

Questions for Messedrocker


 * Responded quickly and thoroughly
 * Suggested a strawpoll on WP:CHILD
 * Strange way to answer Q6, addressed to Fred Bauder - "not the "king" of remedies/priniciples/findings" - why reproach Fred?
 * "If an arbitrator is responsible, reasonable, and coming up with agreeable settlements (things that at least a few people can agree on), then they're doing a good job. Simply put, not being a dick." -
 * In short, doesn't seem to treat arbitration as judging, but merely as mediation

MONGO

 * arbitration target, involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions,
 * 20,000 edits with 11,000 in article space, 4 FAs.


 * Questions for MONGO


 * Excellent, thorough, comprehensive answers.
 * Slightly worrying edit in his Encyclopedia Dramatica case seems very unlike answers here.
 * ED stuff could be a continuing issue. See this conversation with Badlydrawnjeff:
 * Uncivility on World Trade Center stuff with Hyperbole. He was pushed and pushed to get him to be uncivil, but it did eventually work.

Nandesuka

 * "Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. ... janitor hat != "supereditor.""
 * open process, civility

Questions for Nandesuka


 * Good answers to my questions, Q5 forthcoming.
 * Polite under fire from Ideogram.

Nihonjoe
Questions for Nihonjoe/ 日本穣 (or Nihonjoe)
 * Admin May 10, 2006
 * Wikiproject:Japan
 * Slight spelling issues (mainly to my questions surprisingly enough); but non-English user, good thing
 * Good answers in general
 * However, didn't answer my Q5. Says in 40 cases couldn't find anything to disagree with. That's hard to believe.

Paul August

 * Excellent statement, full of high sounding language. 50yo Math PhD.
 * Jul 2004, and an admin since May 2005., over 26,000 edits, 1 FA and contributed to others, WikiProject Mathematics, no RfC or ArbCom cases, but contributed to several.
 * "Wikipedia has become my life's work"...."have never typed a word in anger on Wikipedia."
 * Endorses both User:Geogre and UninvitedCompany.

Questions for Paul August/


 * Writes well, but seems to work hard to duck actually answering difficult questions. For example: "Nor do I feel I have to agree with everything each says to support both." - OK, so which parts do you actually agree with and disagree with?
 * But writes very, very well. Let's ask again.
 * He'll do. :-)

Phil Sandifer

 * writing proposed decisions, like Fred
 * focus on cases that involve looking at content, sort out the increasingly tangled knots of essays, guidelines, policy, instruction creep, de facto committees.
 * low patience for idiots, but a high tolerance for well-intentioned users.

Questions for Phil Sandifer


 * Good answer to my Q1, emphasizing that in many cases the arbcom only has the power we give them.
 * However seems to be directly contradicted by answer to Q2. Watch: Q1 "... the arbcom is trusted to be correct about what the community consensus is." Q2: "... whether the community came to an acceptable consensus. That is not for the arbcom to judge." - so is it or isn't it?
 * Q5 seems to have objections, but not yet clear on what those objections are.
 * Clarified, pretty good, similarly SlimVirgin's complex questions.

PMA
Questions for PMA (I will be away until Monday for medical treatment so i will answer then)
 * No answers to my (or others) questions for a week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Proto

 * Wikipedia user on 31 March 2005 and received administrator status in 5 April 2006 (RFA)
 * just short of 10,000 edits, and about another 4000 admin actions, 300 new articles, deletion policy, WP:NOT
 * believe everything in Wikipedia should be done out in the open, hence I don’t use IRC, nor do I take part in the mailing list.
 * never quick to block, preferring warnings

Questions for Proto


 * Reasonable answers.

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
Questions for R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
 * Wikipedian since July 05, 2000 mainspace edits, 30 articles 1FA
 * working along side Kirill Lokshin WikiProject Military history.
 * Writes long comments in RfAs and RfCs:, ,
 * sub-committee system to speed the Arbcomm's work.
 * believes in openness and transparency
 * Combative, but with reason.

Radiant
Questions for Radiant
 * active since December 2004, registered after a few months, admin since June 2005.
 * motto is that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy.
 * Product, process, policy, WP:PROD, others...
 * Commented on Giano case - gathered evidence that RfAs for demoted admins aren't as tough as popular belief has them
 * Wrote answers to my questions without my posting them! :-) But seems to think they aren't hard enough? Sure, after having twenty others answer them first... :-P
 * Excellent answers.
 * Prefers probation to short blocks. Interesting - weren't there others railing against probation? Need to check...
 * Lives in Netherlands, which is a plus. Need more non-English-first arbs.

Sam Blanning
Questions for Sam Blanning
 * since September 2005, administrator since March 2006.
 * Supports banning Encyclopaedia Dramatica links and material "empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes."
 * Good answers.

Shell Kinney

 * closet wikignome
 * experiences with a couple of ArbCom cases and work with OTRS
 * Most know me as User:Jareth, my account name for much of the time here

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Shell Kinney


 * In Q5 disagrees with decisions against users (Louis Epstein, Zen-master) who ended up leaving or being banned from the whole Wikipedia.
 * On his user page appears to be civil to a fault.
 * Seems to be an optimist and assume good faith a lot. That's a good thing, I guess.

Starblind
Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Starblind
 * I've been around since 2004 and have been an administrator since July 2005.
 * Many weird articles. VFD regular, gotten a bunch of barnstars, and had a hand in creating policies and guidelines.
 * wants to be promoted to arbcom.
 * Didn't answer 5, 6, 7 yet. However qs were less than a week ago.

The prophet wizard of the crayon cake

 * Seems very inexperienced.

Questions for The prophet wizard of the crayon cake


 * Answered only two questions in a week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

UninvitedCompany

 * resigned former membership in the arbitration committee
 * WP:OTRS (answering the Foundation's email)
 * "at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers whose contributions are weak."
 * Partial remedies such as "probation" and article bans overused

Questions for UninvitedCompany
 * "Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call... I believe that the magnitude and importance of internal and side conversations (e.g. among just two or three arbs) are less than is generally believed."
 * "To some extent the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process..."
 * "I don't believe that it would be wise to comment on a particular case. There are many examples."
 * "I do not wish to comment on how I would vote on particular cases, past or future, so I will decline your suggestion to pick a case where I did not agree with the outcome."


 * There seems to be a consistent pattern of "I'm not going to tell you how I will decide", with some implication that this is also how UC will behave on the arbcom, that transparency is not that important.

Voice of All

 * member of the OTRS team and well aware of WP:LIVING/OTRS issues while maintaining WP:PP. I clerk for WP:RFCU and do Open Proxy checking of IPs.
 * "precenence" "precidence" - this is a clerk?
 * Decisions, while they have precidence in that future cases will likely end in similar result, are pragmatic and focus on resolving a dispute, not on interpreting the "wiki-constitution". It is not a "supreme court"

Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for Voice of All


 * Starts out good, but tends to dissolve into something hard to understand. For example, my Q2 dissolves into math. Was that really what I asked for? Q4 goes into "distorters" whatever they are, misses the "good writers" part, and ends that it's moot anyway.
 * Q5 I really don't like: "I'd dig through and try to find one, but I don't feel the need as I won't really use all that time to do that much other than answer a single optional question that won't be used later." Yes, I want you to use all that time! It's an important question. Then later he does answer it, but with merely a nitpick - force someone to stand for RfA, and remove their bit afterwards instead of before, which is a 7 day difference at most.

Wildthing61476
Questions for Wildthing61476
 * Hasn't answered anyone's questions in almost a week. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Beback

 * Impressively organized summary statement.
 * active editing beginning: October 2004, Admin: June 2005, Mediator: January 2006 (inactive)
 * Requests_for_arbitration/Rangerdude doesn't seem too serious
 * Lots of "problem user" arguments

Questions for Will Beback


 * Thinks humor activities should be erased.
 * Cites Requests for arbitration/Giano as an example of remedies imposed on admins (when TS and KM resigned on their own).
 * Didn't find a decision that actually passed for my Q5, chose one which failed from a recent case.
 * Didn't really answer my Q1 or Q2, or at least not unambiguously.

Summary
Note that almost all of these are excellent editors, worthy of adminship, high honors. Just not "highest" honors - 12 out of all.


 * 1) Alex Bakharev - yes Questions Vote 34-24 language
 * 2) Blnguyen - yes Questions Vote 77-9
 * 3) Can't sleep, clown will eat me - yes Questions Vote 67-29 came in late
 * 4) Crazytales56297 - no, no answers in a week  Questions Vote 4-39 young, no answers No need
 * 5) Daniel.Bryant - yes Questions Vote 41-35 young, new
 * 6) Doc glasgow - no, mixed record Questions Vote 18-43 withdrawn, Giano, vandalism
 * 7) Flcelloguy - yes Questions Vote 67-1
 * 8) FloNight - yes Questions Vote 77-9 Supported
 * 9) freakofnurture - no, no humor Questions Vote 24-44, incivil No need
 * 10) Geogre - yes Questions Vote 61-40 uncivil - Supported, but it's likely no use
 * 11) Golbez - yes Questions Vote 9-26 3RR block, judgement No use
 * 12) Harvestman - no, ban on new policies, language problems Questions Vote 3-26 confusing language No need
 * 13) Improv - no, many problems Questions Vote 12-35 cookie massacre No need
 * 14) John Reid - no, too political Questions Vote 5-43 combative No need
 * 15) Jpgordon - yes Questions Vote 60-4 Supported
 * 16) JzG - no, after clarifications Questions Vote 39-31 incivil
 * 17) Kelly Martin - ? Questions Vote 18-84 divisive No need
 * 18) Kirill Lokshin - yes Questions Vote 72-1 Supported
 * 19) Kylu - no, indecisive Questions Vote 32-40 inexperienced
 * 20) Matt Yeager - no, naive, combative Questions Vote 7-32 distrusts arbcom No need
 * 21) MONGO - no. ED stuff continuing, more civility concerns Questions Vote 18-58 controversial No need
 * 22) Nandesuka - yes Questions Vote 35-17 ambiguous answers
 * 23) Nihonjoe - yes, despite not answering Q5 Questions Vote 14-14 inexperienced with disputes
 * 24) Paul August - yes Questions Vote 81-0 ! Supported
 * 25) Phil Sandifer - yes Questions Vote 8-46 controversial
 * 26) PMA - no, no answers in a week Questions Vote 1-46 no answers No need
 * 27) Proto - yes Questions Vote 8-18 ?
 * 28) Radiant - yes Questions Vote 65-20 warrior
 * 29) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) - yes, though combative Questions Vote 4-27 proxy for banned user No use
 * 30) Shell Kinney - yes Questions Vote 16-16 ?
 * 31) Sam Blanning - yes Questions Vote 39-8 Supported
 * 32) Starblind - ? Questions  Vote 9-21 insufficient DR experience
 * 33) The prophet wizard of the crayon cake - no, inexperienced, few answers Questions Vote 6-42 inexperienced No need
 * 34) UninvitedCompany - no, transparency Questions  Vote 106-3 Opposed
 * 35) Voice of All - no, hard to understand, won't do research Questions  Vote 50-14 ? Opposed
 * 36) Wildthing61476 - no, no answers Questions  Vote 1-35 no answers
 * 37) Will Beback - no, ambiguous answers Questions  Vote 58-18 "list of problem users"


 * 4 "yes"es and only half looked at. (Less than half now that 4 new ones showed up!) Need to be * stricter and more selective! AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 9 yeses out of 19, with 7 to go. Still not selective enough, will need to review "yes"es. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 17 yeses out of 36, with 4 to go. AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions from AnonEMouse
Warning: Most of these are intended to be tough. Answering them properly will be hard. I don't expect anyone to actually withdraw themselves from nomination rather than answer these, but I do expect at least some to seriously think about it!

The one consolation is that your competitors for the positions will be asked them too. Notice that there are about one thousand admins, and about a dozen arbcom members, so the process to become an arbcom member may be expected to be one hundred times harder. (Bonus question - do you think I hit that difficulty standard?) :-)


 * 1) A current Arbcom case, Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy is concerned with the decision of whether or not a proposed policy has consensus or not, and therefore whether or not it should be a policy/guideline. Whether or not the Arbcom has or should have the power of making this decision is  hotly disputed. Does Arbcom have this power? Should it have this power? Why or why not?
 * 2) Similarly, a recently closed Arbcom case Requests_for_arbitration/Giano barely dodged the possibly similar issue of whether the Arbcom can, or should, determine whether Bureaucrats properly made someone an administrator. (Discussed, for example, here). The current arbcom dodged the question (didn't reach agreement one way or the other, and ended up leaving it alone by omission), but you don't get to. :-) Does the arbcom have this power? Should it?
 * 3)  Various arbcom decisions (can't find a link right now - bonus points for finding a link to an arbcom decision saying this!) have taken into account a user's service to the Wikipedia. Several times they have written that an otherwise good user that has a rare instance of misbehaviour can be treated differently than a user whose similar misbehaviour is their main or sole contribution to the Wikipedia. Do you agree or not, and why?
 * 4) If you agree with the above point, which service to the encyclopedia is more valuable - administration, or writing very good articles? For example, what happens when two editors, an administrator and a good article writer, come into conflict and/or commit a similar infraction - how should they be treated? Note that there are relatively the same number of current administrators and featured articles on the Wikipedia - about 1000 - however, while relatively few administrators have been de-adminned, many former featured articles have been de-featured, so there have been noticeably more featured articles written than administrators made. This is a really tough one to answer without offending at least one important group of people, and I will understand if you weasel your way out of answering it, but it was one of the issues brought up in the recent Requests_for_arbitration/Giano, so you can imagine it may come up again.
 * 5) While some Arbcom decisions pass unanimously, many pass with some disagreement. I don't know of any Arbcom member who hasn't been in the minority on some decisions. Find an Arbcom decision that passed, was actually made that you disagree with. Link to it, then explain why you disagree. (If you don't have time or inclination to do the research to find one - are you sure you will have time or inclination to do the research when elected? If you can't find any passed decisions you disagree with, realize you are leaving yourself open to accusations of running as a rubber stamp candidate, one who doesn't have any opinions that might disagree with anyone.)
 * 6) It has been noted that the diligent User:Fred Bauder writes most of the initial Arbcom decisions -- especially principles, and findings of fact, but even a fair number of the remedies. (Then a fair number get opposed, and refined or don't pass, but he does do most of the initial work.) Do you believe this is: right; neither right nor wrong but acceptable; or wrong? When you get elected, what do you plan to do about it?
 * 7) For those who are administrators only - how do you feel about non-administrators on the arbcom? Note that while "sure, let them on if they get elected" is an easy answer, there are issues with not having the ability to view deleted articles, and either not earning the community trust enough to become an admin, or not wanting the commensurate duties. Or do you believe that non-administrators are a group that need representation on the arbcom?