User:Jd2718/jd2718 ArbCom notes

ArbCom 2008 Elections
This is the 3rd ArbCom election I will participate in. My first, I clicked diffs and read statements and tried to interpret what I poorly understood. Still, I think my votes were fairly thoughtful. Last year I knew more going in, but I was less engaged by the candidates. I spent a long time asking questions, reading statements. And this year? I have been busy. I have barely followed the elections, read fewer than half the statements, have not been keeping up with the questions. But now I will start.

(my notes from previous years are preserved, below)

Since I started late, a new approach
No, not a fancy league table. Others have done that, and better than I could. Rather, I will use the early results to focus on the dozen editors sitting in positive territory, and in the next 2 - 3 days examine them more closely.

I note that Gwen Gale and Sam Korn dropped out.


 * 1) Carcharoth Running with high opposes. Don't know why.
 * 2) user:Casliber
 * 3) user:Cool Hand Luke
 * 4) user:Coren. Favorably inclined. Will look more closely.
 * 5) user:Jayvdb
 * 6) user:Risker. Very favorably inclined.
 * 7) user:Rlevse. Favorably inclined.
 * 8) user:Roger Davies. Don't know him. Interesting statement. Need to read more.
 * 9) user:SirFozzie
 * 10) user:Vassyana
 * 11) user:Wizardman
 * 12) user:WJBscribe

17:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
First cut: There is one candidate who already has my support, and several who do not (with reason) and a bunch who do not (inexperience). But most, I am still reading, thinking, maybe asking.

Support

 * 1) Carcharoth

Oppose for cause

 * 1) user:Jehochman. This user wants it too much. Rooted more in noticeboards than in articles, yon...
 * 2) user:Jdforrester. The current arbitrator I am second most likely to disagree with. Plus, I don't see how he avoids the perception of non-neutrality. And the perception matters. Two terms is enough.
 * 3) user:Kmweber. Opposed to ArbCom. Reasonable or not, will decline to participate on the committee, which is not reasonable.

No decision at this time

 * 1) user:Casliber
 * 2) user:Charles Matthews. I thought I would automatically oppose all sitting arbitrators, but he has some interesting things to say.
 * 3) user:Cool Hand Luke
 * 4) user:Coren. Favorably inclined. Will look more closely.
 * 5) user:Fish and karate
 * 6) user:George The Dragon
 * 7) user:Gwen Gale
 * 8) user:Hemlock Martinis
 * 9) user:Jayvdb
 * 10) user:Lankiveil
 * 11) user:Lifebaka
 * 12) user:Privatemusings
 * 13) user:Risker. Very favorably inclined.
 * 14) user:Rlevse. Favorably inclined.
 * 15) user:RMHED
 * 16) user:Roger Davies. Don't know him. Interesting statement. Need to read more.
 * 17) user:Sam Korn
 * 18) user:Shell Kinney
 * 19) user:SirFozzie
 * 20) user:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
 * 21) user:Vassyana
 * 22) user:White Cat
 * 23) user:WilyD
 * 24) user:Wizardman
 * 25) user:WJBscribe

Oppose for inexperience

 * 1) user:AnthonyQBachler
 * 2) user:BillMasen
 * 3) user:Dream Focus
 * 4) user:Justice America
 * 5) user:Trojanpony

ArbCom 2007 Elections
I will maintain notes about the current elections on this page. For me personally, my involvement with WP went from occasional to a bit more than occasional when I became involved in following the 2006 elections (when I created this page). It was fortuitous. ArbCom is highly regarded on WP (and the level of disappointment when it doesn't deliver is just as high).

I watched the last election closely, carefully deciding whom to support and whom to oppose. And I will do that again this year. As I write this, there are 24 candidates. I have asked questions of 17 or 18, and formed some initial opinions. But before I get too far, I will set up a league table, and try to collate relevant information. There are now 34 candidates. I asked multiple questions of most of them. I also especially appreciate questions that Picaroon asked of the first few, and Heimstern asked of all. Nominations are closed.

Update, almost done, 17:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Opposes are running high. At this point, only 2 arbitrators (Newyorkbrad and FT2) would have been elected in 2006 (Can't sleep, clown will eat me was at 75%). In 2005, on percentages, FayssalF and perhaps Sam Blacketer may have made it, and since the bar seems to be lower for sitting arbitrators, maybe, just maybe, Raul as well.

But even though the number of votes is just barely up, the opposes for the 3rd, 4th, etc candidates are much higher. In 2006 Blnguyen barely made it with 46 opposes. In 2005 Jpgordon did not make it with 75% and 43 opposes. But now we are considering candidates with 72, 51, 106, 71 and 118 opposes?

Why so many opposes?
Mood. Jimbo Wales used his authority in what looked like a fairly arbitrary way recently, on more than one occasion. Makes some regular admins (not many-hatted cabalists, but regular admins) nervous. When will my tools be taken, and for what? And Durova... Is everyone who knows how to get to the men's room without asking directions really a spy? And the reaction of Jimbo and the snoopers and snooper-supporters was scary. Rightly or wrongly, the editing community sees the ArbCom as some sort of Ombudsmen, and the screening, in this climate, was going to be much tougher. And it was.

Strategic Voting. Look, there's some of this every year, but we have a handful this year who have been quite open about it. Here are a couple of diffs:,. This, however, counts for but a fraction of the increase in opposes.

Talent. There's just not as much real ArbCom material among this year's candidates. At the top, I would have supported Newyorkbrad and FT2, based on their current statements, last year. Brad would have been among my top choices not my top choice. And FT2 would have probably been among the top, as well. But Kirill and Geogre would still have been my strongest picks. And Flcelloguy (what happened to him?) and Paul August too. Uninvited Company, I know that some users are pissed with what he recently did, but he is an important part of the ArbCom. And I do not regret my support for several who were not chosen. Oh, and I often disagree with Jpgordon, but I do not regret that vote either. He is an important part of the committee. I look at the list and think, "they may not do what I want them to do, but I have confidence that they will do something appropriate, at least most of the time." And NYB and FT2 would have fit.

But many others would not. A bot operator? Admins under scrutiny for misuse of tools? Multi-hatted cabalists who refuse to answer regular WPian's questions, or who answer rudely? Old-timers who've become inactive? Gnomes who rarely interact with other editors? Admins with civility issues?

Just a word here about Swatjester, although it could be extended (not as strongly) to several others. SJ gave very strong answers to my questions (and to others). But as I reviewed contributions, I found him to be too aggressive, for my taste, to sit on ArbCom. His is the sort of voice that should be giving evidence, making suggestions. But I don't think he himself should be an arbitrator. I realize that the preceding paragraph sounds harsh. It should. My threshold for support for ArbCom is high, as it should be. Not making that threshold does not make an editor a bad WPian, even though my words above may sound that way.

What should be done?
Some, or all, of the following:
 * Only promote users with Community support
 * Allow the tranche to go forward, incompletely filled
 * Set a Spring 2007 by-election for open seats
 * Ask retiring arbitrators to stay on (until by-election, or for a year)

Jimbo certainly has the power to fill as many slots as he likes, using whatever criteria (although I think he has agreed to only look at those with 50% support or more). But someone with 100 opposes? He could appoint them. And he shouldn't. What has the community 'feisty' today is action that seems either arbitrary or outside process, and being able to appeal to a well-respected, community-supported ArbCom helps dampen that 'feistiness.' Appointing a heavily opposed arbitrator would tend to undermine this.

What will I do?
I am adding a new reason to oppose: lack of community support. Even if I think an editor is otherwise qualified, I am opposed to promoting editors who face substantial community opposition.

This is not strategic voting. I am not helping promote a single candidate. I am not hurting candidates that I already opposed. I am, in fact, changing some supports to opposes because I think lack of community support is a real problem.


 * Newyorkbrad and FT2. I supported, I continue to support.
 * Fayssal. 72 opposes is an awful lot. I think he could have been a good arbitrator, but not if selected against such opposition. I will move from support to oppose.
 * Sam Blacketer. 52 opposes. Move from support to oppose.
 * Deskana. I already opposed, but note the 107 no votes, and this discussion.
 * Rebecca. Over 100 no's. Move from support to oppose.
 * Thebainer. 71 opposes. Move from neutral to oppose.
 * Raul. An exception. Jimbo has reappointed sitting arbitrators in the face of opposition. I'm not explaining, just commenting and accepting.
 * Manning Bartlett. I already opposed. 80 opposes.
 * Giano II. Might be 700 opposes. I don't care. Supported, and maintain my support for the editor who stood up loud and clear while others were still apologizing for Durova's un-WPian activities. Is this WP:Point? Sobeit.
 * David Fuchs, MastCell. 74 and 85 no's. Neutral to oppose.

Table - Votes for last three ArbComs
(I'll massage this into something that allows reasonable comparison). From: User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2007 and User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election December 2006 and User:Mathbot/ArbCom Election January 2006



Update, halfway through 21:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad has garnered what will be a record number of votes, supporting votes, and net votes (476, 467, and 458, at this moment). FT2 is a clear number 2. But the rest...

There is a division between those with lots of votes, and about half as many. Deskana, Rebecca, Raul, and Giano have lots. FayssalF, Thebainer, Sam Blacketer, all have less. If we work by percents, Thebainer, Raul, and Giano would be out, though thebainer is on Rebecca's heels. If we work by supports, FayssalF, Sam Blacketer and theBainer go (with Rebecca just a bit ahead of FayssalF). If we work by supports, Sam Blacketer, Giano, and theBainer are out (with Rebecca yet again #6). And finally, if we used a hybrid perhaps 2*support - oppose (or more simply support + net), newyorkbrad, FT2, Deskana, followed by Raul, Giano, and FayssalF and Rebecca in a flat-footed tie for 6th.

They are all at this point trending down, with Rebecca perhaps the most rapid. There hasn't been a change in the top 6 (by percent) from the opening hours, but this still could happen.

I mention who is in 6th as I can't tell if 5 or 6 arbitrators will be appointed. The top 5 have have changed places several times.

Should note, 10 have dropped out so far, leaving 24 going for 5 or 6 slots. I have supported 6, opposed 10, and have left 8 neutral. I am actively considering my neutrality on Raul and theBainer. I also may reconsider my support of Sam Blacketer, who seems like a fine candidate, but only 159 WPians have voted on him. The high percentage without consensus bothers me (by contrast, the other leaders have 236 - 476 votes so far).

data table
...is maintained over here.

Quick Voting Link
right here

results tables
...are maintained over here and over there. And a graph here.

my voting scheme
I will stake out several qualities that would lead me to support, several that would lead me to oppose, and then apply them unevenly. I intend to vote early on most, and perhaps hold back on the last few tough decisions. There are 6 seats open. I intend to support 6 candidates, and remain neutral on 6 more. I will oppose the other 22 candidates. Last time I supported 11, opposed 14, remained neutral on 9. Of the 11 I supported, 6 were selected, as was one I was neutral on.

Note: Some of the above was trumped by the introduction of O14, lack of community support, on 12/16, the last day of voting.

Support

 * 1) Length of service to the project.
 * 2) Editor - need to increase the number of editors (primary task)
 * 3) Dispute Resolution - look, this is the huge one. If someone has a history of 3rd party resolution of disputes, or of being a party to disputes, and working out the problems without intervention, that has to count as much or more than anything else.
 * 4) Civility. Not just civil, but exemplarily so.
 * 5) Writing decisions. Fred is going, but Kirill has picked up a lot of this, and a handful of others are jumping in. Still, at least one real writer and a couple more sometimes writers will be important.
 * 6) Knowledge/History. Need to know their way around the minefield that en.WP sometimes is.
 * 7) Intelligent. Not calling anyone stupid, but rather some people demonstrate outstanding intellect.
 * 8) Positive, potentially productive critique of ArbCom (with ideas)

Oppose

 * 1) Not enough time serving the project
 * 2) Lack of article writing
 * 3) Too much time in one area
 * 4) Lack of overall knowledge about en.wikipedia
 * 5) Bite-y, in any of its forms
 * 6) Lack of knowledge about ArbCom or en.wikipedia disputes and resolutions in general
 * 7) Center of controversy. Candidates fault, or not. If you were the center of a whirlwind, I might oppose you for the controversy, no matter where fault lies.
 * 8) POV pushing/editing, or anything that comes close
 * 9) Impatience (habitual)
 * 10) Abuse of admin tools, or even the appearance of same
 * 11) Occasional bouts of bad behavior
 * 12) Non-serious/immature
 * 13) Admin's admin (looks at WP from pov of "a place for admins" or "a place for trusted admins"; short shrift to regular editors, article writers, or lower level admins - and yes I know that those 'don't exist.'
 * 14) Lack of Community Support Even someone I consider a great candidate may be so widely opposed that his presence on ArbCom would tend to undermine the community's high regard for the committee. This is a difficult reason to use, but it comes into play this year.

my votes
Will be registered here:

Support

 * 1) Thoughtful answers so far. Need to review history, await balance of responses. S1345678. Cast 12/3.
 * 2) Editor's editor, but surrounded by controversy. Pledge not to oppose. Haven't decided support vs. neutral. S127. Cast 12/3.
 * 3) Odds on choice. Incredibly patient. Thoughtful. Will likely move to support. S34567. Cast 12/3.

Oppose

 * Not knowledgeable enough. Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/13 with vote at (46-130)
 * Little experience. Sanctioned in the Estonia arbitration. Will likely move to oppose. O1/2/3/4. Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/7 with vote at (8-124)
 * Refused to answer questions. Will move to oppose. O5/13. Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (65-118)


 * 1) Nice answers, reasonable answers, but awfully new.  Moved from neutral to Oppose. O14. Cast 12/16.
 * 2) Answers were impatient to the point of being rude. Brusque is the word I was looking for. Promoted, imo, too quickly. Will likely move to oppose. O5/13. Cast 12/3.
 * 3) Joke candidate. Will likely move to oppose. O12. Cast 12/3.
 * WP:Military History. Same as Kirill. Late entry. Waiting for more responses. May well support or stay neutral. S2346. Cast 12/3. Moved to oppose O14 12/16.
 * 1) Largely a tagger. Not very familiar with ArbCom. Will likely move to opppose. Cast 12/3.
 * 2) Answers felt 'weak' w/o anything specific to point at.  Cast 12/3.
 * 3)  Moved from neutral to Oppose. O14. Cast 12/16.
 * Terse answers. Refused to answer about alternate accounts. Funny in the Durova mess. Will likely move to oppose. O13. Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (3-67)
 * 1) On the technical side. Answers tended to vague. May oppose. Cast 12/3.
 * Opposed last time. Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (27-71)
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/6 with vote at (8-95)
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew at 12/3 with vote at (13-28)
 * 1) S1678. Cast 12/3 Moved to oppose O14 12/16.
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (90-78)
 * 1) . S34. Cast 12/4 Moved to oppose O14 12/16.
 * 2) Cast 12/3 (late)
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (5-28)
 * 1)  Moved from neutral to Oppose. O14. Cast 12/16.
 * 2) History of problems as a disputant (past) gives insight, but leaves me uncomfortable. Cast 12/3.
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew at 12/5 with vote at (70-54)
 * 1) History of problems as a disputant (past) gives insight, but leaves me uncomfortable. Cast 12/3.
 * Cast 12/3. Withdrew at 12/5 with vote at (70-54)

Neutral/Not yet decided

 * Non-admin. Writer. Seems fairly knowledgeable, reasonable, esp. considering relatively new. Withdrew 12/3 with vote at (8-41)
 * 1) Nice answers, for the most part. And seems reasonable in discussions of current disputes. But why did he nominate Kelly Martin for RfA 2 months ago?
 * 2) Sitting arbitrator. Term limits? Mostly inoffensive. But perhaps ineffective.
 * 3) Thoughtful, but sometimes uncomfortably aggressive.
 * 4) Supported last time. Will keep neutral or move to support.
 * 1) Supported last time. Will keep neutral or move to support.

Criteria from 2006
I have created some (subjective) criteria for casting my votes.

I am looking for commitment to the project, to process (although not rigidly so) and to the writing side of the project in particular, in that order. I am using time as a proxy for commitment, as well as behavior in individual incidents.

Adminship is not higher office; it is a set of tools. I'd like ArbCom members to at least pay lip service to that idea. If I can discern real actions based on that, all the better. (I accept that in general more committed editors are more likely to have the tools, but still have to look at each individual. Tools are tools, not status.)

I am looking for commitment to new editors. Patience. Courtesy. Calm, pedagogical approach. And just as much a limit to patience. There is a difference between new user mistakes and systematic disruption. It is perfectly normal that an editor on one or two occasions has lost it. It worries me, just a bit, when someone hever has. And of course habitual incivility is a problem.

There has been discussion of ArbCom's scope. I would support cautious exploration, and to that end will not systematically make decisions based on candidate's attitudes towards content or forms of resolution. Get a good mix of good people, and trust that their consideration and deliberation might slowly (not radically) alter bits of what ArbCom does, how it does it, and what the results look like. (That being said, I am impressed that the idea of time-limited removal of admin tools, freely used, might be a good thing. Too often it looks like consequences for admins are too draconian or none at all - an in between would be good)

And then I might still ignore all guidelines and just go with my gut in one or two cases. Jd2718 17:40, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Length of service to the project (certainly more than a year).
 * 2) Editor - need to increase the number of editors (primary task)
 * 3) Dispute Resolution - look, this is the huge one. If someone has a history of 3rd party resolution of disputes, or of being a party to disputes, and working out the problems without intervention, that has to count as much or more than anything else.
 * 4) Civility. Not just civil, but exemplarily so.
 * 5) Writing. More than Fred would be good (without complaint about the RFA findings I have read). This has more to do with backlog, and on a committee functioning as a committee (no invaluable individuals)
 * 6) Intelligent. Not calling anyone stupid, but rather some people demonstrate outstanding intellect.
 * 7) Positive, potentially productive critique of ArbCom (with ideas)

Oppose

 * 1) Not enough time serving the project (certainly less than a year.)
 * 2) Youth. The rules have no age minimum, but too young and interests are far more likely to change in a short period of time. I am not sure about 17, but 16 is not enough. (Frankly, I would prefer to know if they were done with high school/secondary school)
 * 3) Center of controversy. Candidates fault, or not. If you were the center of a whirlwind, I want to know what you think about selecting ArbCom candidates, but you should not stand, and if you do, I cannot support you. After some time this might change.
 * 4) POV pushing/editing, or anything that comes close.
 * 5) Impatience (habitual.)
 * 6) Abuse of admin tools, or even the appearance of same.
 * 7) Occasional bouts of bad behavior

Endorsements
As I decide, even tentatively, I will record my thoughts and reasons here. One "oppose" reason will usually be enough to oppose; several "support" reasons may not be enough to support. I will not supply diffs to support my reasons, though, if challenged, I might. Jd2718 17:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please remember, I am opposing some candidates for the ArbCom. I am not calling them bad editors, admins, or Wikipedians!

Bolded votes have been cast

Support

 * 1) Blnguyen S2, S4
 * 2) Flcelloguy - S3 (will add more here)
 * 3) Geogre - strong. S1, S2, S6, S7
 * 4) Improv - strong. S1, S3, S4, S6
 * 5) jpgordon - S1, S6 I think I am satisfied with response re incivility, but want to mull it over a bit more. 
 * 6) Kirill Lokshin - strongest possible; S2, S3, S4, S5, S6.
 * 7) Paul August - S1, S2, S6
 * 8) UninvitedCompany - S1, S5, S6
 * 9) Voice of All
 * 10) Will Beback - S1, S2, S3, S4, S5. Doesn't excite me as a candidate, but doesn't need to. Should make a solid, trustworthy Arbitrator.

Oppose

 * 1) Alex Bakharev - Poking through edits, got the impression he is not sufficiently deliberative for an Arbitrator at this point 
 * 2) Can't sleep, clown will eat me (will add reasons)
 * 3) crazytales56297 - O2. At age 14 just too young, imo, to make a 3 year commitment.
 * 4) Daniel Bryant - O1, O2. good service, good Wikipedian, just too new, and a bit young.
 * 5) Harvestman - O1. too new. I was uncomfortable with the terseness of his answers.
 * 6) John Reid - O1,O5. too new, and seems to find a bit more than his share of controversy.
 * 7) Kelly Martin - "Bigger than Wikipedia" is how I characterized her answers to questions. Not suitable for ArbCom. This is tough. I would have thought 24 hours ago, O3 - center of controversy, but I also think that time has passed, that Kelly has been active and productive with Wiki stuff away from here, etc etc. More insider than editor, from the bits I've glimpsed. Strict no-content position on ArbCom.
 * 8) Kylu - O1. too new. Not enough editing.
 * 9) Matt Yeager
 * 10) Phil Sandifer - I reserve the right to disregard my own criteria. He seems, to me, to be too rash for the ArbCom; he has some not so good conduct, but I hesitate. Very intelligent, not afraid to stand up. Really not unpleasant when disagreeing. Maybe this is the voice that needs to be there, different from the rest. Two of him on ArbCom would be a disaster. I am still thinking. Thinks ArbCom should tackle some content.
 * 11) PMA - hasn't answered questions, but that might relate to a medical procedure he mentioned (hope all turns out well for PMA). Has long service, but I wasn't comfortable with edit/conflict history.
 * 12) Radiant! - Better off discussing policy. I am still unnerved that he failed to mention his half year self-imposed absence until asked about it directly. 
 * 13) The prophet wizard of the crayon cake - O1. too new.
 * 14) wildthing61476 - O1. Too new.

Others

 * 1) FloNight I don't want clerks to become members, without a break in between. In general, I like the idea of a'flat hierarchy' and worry about the degree to which it does not really exist. I would, (same reasoning) support term limits, if that were an option. Moved vote from opposed to neutral but will continue to raise this very important issue
 * 2) Golbez
 * 3) Nandesuka
 * 4) Nihonjoe
 * 5) Proto
 * 6) R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
 * 7) Samuel Blanning
 * 8) Shell Kinney
 * 9) Starblind

Doc glasgow Withdrew Freakofnurture - nothing negative here, I just don't get a sense that he would be a strong Arbitrator. Might stay neutral. Opposed, then withdrew MONGO - O3, O5.'''    Withdrew JzG - Sometimes brash or aggressive. Does dirty admin work, and does it well. I'm still thinking. Withdrew.

First Impressions
I wrote this section late October:


 * 1) Most (not all) ArbCom members should be editors and administrators. However, I am more inclined to support editors who do a little adminwork than to support administrators who occasionally edit.
 * 2) A positive history of dispute resolution is important: as a party, a 3rd party, or a mediator/arbitrator/etc or an outsider; and informally, through mediation, or at some other level.
 * 3) A history that includes problematic service as an administrator will preclude my support. Mistakes as an editor are more easily forgiven.
 * 4) Strong opinions - good; few/weak opinions - not good;  POV-pushing - bad.
 * 5) A history that includes no rash decisions ever worries me, just a little. A history that includes a pattern of rash decisions will preclude my support.
 * 6) Since the election will be to a fixed term, there should be no recall. Arbitrators should sit until they decide to leave, or until their term expires. Unfortunately, several candidates who have otherwise impressed me have indicated that they would be arbitrators open to recall. (does not preclude my support, just disappoints me).

Anyway, there are 26 candidates at this moment. I have formed tentative opinions of over half the candidacies, but will keep reading and remain open.Names and impressions. Nothing set in stone, but elections are drawing close.

I think I will support a small number of candidates who I would really like to see chosen as arbitrators, and then remain neutral on a larger number who would be acceptable. I anticipate opposing quite a few.

First edit; First admin
Over at the official talk page, Saint Tra posted these. I will, probably, scoop out the data and plant it into my main list, above, but for now I'll just repost. Jd2718 03:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And then Chacor filled in the gaps. Almost complete! Jd2718 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

And many many more improvements since! Jd2718 07:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The List
Super-updated, but I've deleted my endorsement stuff. Better that way, anyhow. I'll get more answers first. Jd2718 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And even more updated. Nominations have closed. Jd2718 13:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

On second thought, that that list is huge and well-maintained elsewhere. Just follow the link. Jd2718 13:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

General comments and statistics
38 candidates. 2 former arbitrators. 1 bureaucrat. 27 administrators. 2 former administrators. 9 non-administrators. 2 arbitration committee clerks (one inactive). 2 requests for checkuser clerks. 8 candidates with mediation cabal or mediation committee experience. Candidate age range (where revealed) is 14-56. Arrival years (number of candidates): 2002 (1); 2003 (2); 2004 (10); 2005 (20); 2006 (5).
 * Edit counts (as of 4 November) for most of the candidates, for those interested, can be found at List of Wikipedians by number of edits.

Hmm. This is a bit out of date now. Check back over there and see the expanded version! :-) Carcharoth 06:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Links
Carcharoth's ArbCom Page has some info as well. I will try to pull various sources together here.