User:Nil Einne/Notes


 * I don't want to continue the offtopic discussion but a comment was made here that appears to be clearly untrue based on the evidence at hand (and no evidence was presented to the contrary) so I feel it's only fair to point it out. Of the current WP:Arbcom - User:Carcharoth* education in science, employment involving writing Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Carcharoth/Questions for the candidate; User:Cool Hand Luke trained as a chemist worked in QC before taking up law Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Cool Hand_Luke/Questions for the candidate which he is either still studying or just completed, so had a legal background but perhaps not a lawyer yet); User:Coren* sysadmin for 18 years (Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate_statements/Coren/Questions for the candidate); User:John Vandenberg various IT related jobs and training ; User:Newyorkbrad* lawyer; User:Risker "work in an administrative capacity where I am a subject matter expert" Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Risker/Questions for the candidate; User:Roger Davies educated in law/economics but appears to have primarily worked in publishing which has included negotiating contracts but otherwise not primarily in legal areas Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Roger Davies/Questions for the Candidate; User:Stephen Bain* studying arts/law could be completed by now and even a lawyer but a new one in any case, User:Vassyana/temp* currently a writer, education was primarily in electronics and communication Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Vassyana/Questions for the candidate; User:Wizardman* student, field not mentioned Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Wizardman/Questions for the candidate; and of the inactive User:FayssalF education in Business Administration, worked in management, was setting up their own business Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/FayssalF; User:FloNight* former nurse Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for FloNight; & User:Rlevse/playground* sysadmin Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Rlevse/Questions for the candidate. In other words of the active we only have 1 lawyer, 2 law students, 1 person who has a background in law but who's work has been predominantly outside the legal field, 2 writers, 2 sysadmin or other IT related jobs; 1 administrative work as a subject matter expert, 1 student in an unknown field. Even if for someone reason you want to describe someone who studied law but hasn't really worked in the legal field at all and want to presume that a student who's field you don't know must be studying law, then you still only end up with 5/10 which is most by any normal definition of the word. You may still think this is too many, but that's a different thing. And of course, once you add up the inactive you end up with 5/13. And if we count the 8 who actually took part in the decision who I marked with an asterix * Arbitration/Requests/Case/Speed of light/Proposed decision we end up with 2/8 or at most 3/8 if you do the student=law student trick. Perhaps the arbcom was mostly 'lawyers' (I'm guessing people are including law students when they make such claims although I'm also guessing law students would be happy to point out they'd likely get into deep shit if they call themselves lawyers) in the past but it's clearly not currently the case and was not the case for the User:Brews ohare case by a long stretch. While I fully accept this claim was simply an error, editors should be careful when making such strong claims and ideally actually research their claims before making them. (Again, I don't wish to discuss other things like whether the current numbers count as too many nor whether the lack of science background arbcom members is a problem.) Nil Einne (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)