Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission

A three-member Electoral Commission was proposed and gained consensus during the most recent Arbitration Committee Election Request for comment. Editors wishing to volunteer as a commissioner should create a section on this RfC, and all editors are encouraged to comment on the suitability of volunteers for this role. Three volunteers will be chosen as Commissioners, and the remaining qualified applicants will be reserve members of the Electoral Commission. This is not a vote or an election; the final appointments will be made by Jimbo Wales.

The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with unforeseen problems in the 2012 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. Commissioners and reserve members are not eligible for election to the Arbitration Committee during this year's election. Commissioners must be identified to the Foundation.

Floquenbeam
I'd be willing to do this, if there's a shortage of experienced clueful people willing to. (If I see three highly experienced and clueful people sign up here, I'll (a) ask them to run for Arb instead, and (b) if they don't, I'll just withdraw.) I'm willing to identify to the foundation.

I've been around for over 5 years, and since August 2008 with this account (see my RFA for an explanation of why I abandoned my old account). Sometimes active, and sometimes not, but I am confident I can be available as needed through the election period. I'm not much of a stickler for rules, and am more in favor of thinking things through from first principles instead, which might be an advantage in a "deal with unforeseen issues" position.

For better or worse, people who are interested in the inner workings of this election are probably familiar enough with me that I won't go into more detail. FWIW, I'm currently much more cranky than normal; if having a non-cranky electoral commisioner is important to you, I'm probably not your man. But I'll take this seriously enough that I'll hold my temper and my tongue if something annoys me. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * One point I hadn't thought of prior to reading HM's statement, is whether it's OK to be an EC and vote. I agree with HM that creating a voter guide or endorsing candidates or similar would be unacceptable, but I do intend to vote.  If this is a problem for people, I'll withdraw; voting is far more important to me than helping out as an EC. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * I have concerns about the blocking of Jclemens and the subsequent full protection of their talk page. I thought Jclemens' comments were way out of line, but I also thought a block was too hasty, and vindictive/punitive as it came hours after the comment was made. The subsequent full protection of their talk page shows they did not want to be answerable to the community on this. --Rschen7754 21:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rschen, I stand by the block of Jclemens. I acknowledge others disagree, and that's reasonable (what isn't reasonable is this "vindictive" meme, bit I'm not going to argue about it) . The talk page protection was part of an intended retirement.  What I'm not proud of, in retrospect, is the block and the retirement in combination; that was dumb. Luckily it didn't affect anything, as the unblocking admin could have posted there anyway (but chose not to).  But it was disrespectful to any non-admins who wanted to criticize the block on my talk page. A mistake, and probably not my last, though I continue to learn, so I won't make that particular mistake again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, I agree with Rschen. Floqenbeam, I'm sure you have all the great qualities discussed above and below. But 3 weeks ago, in a firestorm over what comments by arbs were appropriate during the performance of their duties, you blocked an arb for 24 hours with a block log entry that indicates you were at the moment far from dispassionate about the issue at hand: "(Personal attacks or harassment: He's more a "Wikipedian" than you are)". I'm not going to go searching for exact diffs, but in doing what you did you at least gave the appearance of aligning yourself with a group of people who were then calling for the immediate resignation of several individual arbs - some of whom may well be seeking re-election this time around. So a) I have some private reservations whether you can keep calm in exactly the type of situation we might need this Commission to step in, and b) more importantly, I think we need to find Commissioners who can't be perceived as having had as recent high-profile imbroglios with the individuals on Arbcom as you have had. Martinp (talk) 12:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the unrepentant comment above, it is clearly highly inappropriate for Floquenbeam to be in any sort of position of responsibility to adjudicate an election in which I may be a candidate. WP:INVOLVED clearly applies in spirit, even if it was never written to cover this eventuality. Jclemens (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Given the unrepentant comment above, it is clearly highly inappropriate for Jclemens to be in any sort of position of responsibility or to even be a candidate in this election. WP:NPA amd WP:COMPETENCE clearly apply, in letter and in spirit. --John (talk) 08:25, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * While I strongly disagree with Jclemens's conduct in that incident, I do think that it may prevent Floquenbeam from being a sufficiently impartial commissioner. wctaiwan (talk) 11:45, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Flo, but I must agree with the above: having very recently expressed a very strong personal opposition to some sitting members of ArbCom that are up for re-election eminently qualifies you to run, but disqualifies you from a position where rigorous impartiality is expected. &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing Floquenbeam

 * 1) Consistently applies not bureaucracy appropriately, not as a "ignore the rules" or "do what I want" approach, but what is best for Wikipedia Nobody Ent 17:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) No brainer; eminently qualified for the task. The only downside is I suppose this means he won't be running for ArbCom himself. 28bytes (talk) 17:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. — ΛΧΣ  21™  18:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) +1. Legoktm (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Intelligent, calm, and principled. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  21:42, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no issues. Intothatdarkness 22:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 01:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Yep. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) I'd rather have this user run for ArbCom, but oh we'll.— cyberpower ChatLimited Access 16:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Dittos that this should ideally be an ArbCom candidate and member, not a vote counter. Endorsed. Carrite (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Per above. --John (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Happy-melon


Tznkai encouraged me to volunteer for this, and I am very happy to do so. I've pretty much become part of the furniture for ArbCom elections now, having been an election administrator in every year since 2009; as such I have an extremely strong and complete knowledge of how the process works, has worked, and needs to work in order to produce the necessary results with the minimum of fuss and Drama. Minimising drama is one of my basic philosophies, and I'm generally pretty proud of my policy/IAR balance in achieving that. I'm already identified to the Foundation.

It's worth noting that I've been much less active in the past few months than I have been in the past, thanks to some big and overlapping RL commitments, but you could (I would, obviously :D) argue that that's a strength, not a weakness: I've been lurking a lot, and so am still pretty much up to date with policy and process, but have almost no incidents that could prompt conflicts of interest. The election falls, as it has for the past few years, in a period when those commitments actually force me to be welded to an internet connection for much of the day, so I'm confident in my availability for the period. I'm no more cranky at the moment than I normally am... :D

One thing that is worth putting on-record: I don't have a strong opinion on whether or not ElecCom members should be allowed to vote in the election, but I would certainly take the view that anything more partisan (like posting a voting guide, etc) would be inappropriate. If this nomination is successful, I will commit to doing neither. Happy‑melon 20:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing Happy-melon

 * 1) No issues. --Rschen7754 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Qualified. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) It would horrible form to oppose another candidate, but surely it's OK to say that HM is one of the "highly experienced and clueful" people I mentioned above? --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the hint! You won't see me running for ArbCom this year, though. Happy‑melon 13:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) I'll yield to the opinion of my fellow Lord above.  -- Lord Roem (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) It's clear to me that "has done essentially the same job with no problems for years" is about as clear an endorsement as possible.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Past (and successful) experience as an election admin for ArbCom elections is the key factor for me.  Neutron (talk) 13:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes, trustworthy. - jc37 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Experienced, trustworthy, endorsed. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Plenty qualified and willing, what more can you ask? Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 20:57, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Having done an excellent job in this role before, Happy-melon will be a great plus to the team this year.   dci  &#124;  TALK   02:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11)  My 76  Strat  (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Coren. Jafeluv (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Worked in the area before.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Has my confidence, per statements and above supports. Thanks for offering to serve.  Jus  da  fax   08:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Has my confidence. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

KTC
I'll start off by noting that although I obviously believe I am otherwise qualified, I am not an administrator. As such, if the community believes being an administrator is an essential requirement for being commissioner, then don't endorse me.

I served as a member of the 2008 Foundation board elections committee, and identified with the Foundation in that capacity. As a Wikipedia editor, I have been around since 2004, with periods of editing followed by periods of lurking while still following on wiki and the various mailing lists, although I have been and intends to be much more consistent of late and the foreseeable future.

While I have taken part in some heated discussion in my time to provide me with the experience and ability to handle it, I have not been in any major conflict with any particular editor for me to develop perceived or actual conflicts of interest with potential candidates. On the meta side of things, I am currently a member of the foundation Grant Advisory Committee and a fairly new OTRS volunteer. -- KTC (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Nothing against the candidate, but I'd prefer members at least be entrusted with adminship responsibilities. - jc37 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing KTC

 * 1) I know the user and I have no issues with her nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Qualified. --Lord Roem (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Works for me.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Eight years a Wikipedian, IDed, OTRS, committee and election experience plus more exceeds fully qualified. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 23:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Support as "second reserve".  Neutron (talk) 04:54, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Lord Roem
I'm volunteering simply because I'm interested in helping out. I am not an administrator, but I have experience in resolving disputes as a member of the Mediation Committee. I am also a Clerk on the Arbitration Committee. Since the clerk team functions as a sort of permanent civil service for the Committee, I have an interest in ensuring a smooth process. My hope is that there won't be any disputes that arise through the process and that the Electoral Commissioners won't be needed. But alas, I agree it's a prudent measure to take.

If the consensus is that Commissioners are precluded from voting, I am still willing to help fill this role.

I have identified to the Foundation. Best, --Lord Roem (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Nothing against the candidate, but I'd prefer members at least be entrusted with adminship responsibilities. - jc37 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing Lord Roem

 * 1) Should have the requisite experience. --Rschen7754 19:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Clerks AC well. Nobody Ent 19:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3)  Seems reasonable.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) Work as an ArbCom clerk has been efficient. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Given that this job is likely to be exactly as boring and dreadfully clerical as that of an ArbCom clerk, Lord Roem is going to feel right at home.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Experienced and competent as an Arb Com clerk. wctaiwan (talk) 11:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) Knows what he's doing. -Lord Bromblemore (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) I see no reason at all why admins should be favoured - ArbCom is supposed to serve the community, not the admin corps. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:13, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I made my statement above. I'd like to see individuals who already have the community's trust. And managing to pass RfA (for all its warts) shows that the person had earned the community's trust at least at one point. - jc37 04:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Impressed that Lord Roem has the character to change his vote in light of new evidence.Momento (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Has the experience, no reason to require admin, knows the system better than most admin.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:51, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Support for "first reserve" after Happy-melon, MBisanz and Avraham.  Neutron (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC) Overwrote prior comment from November 11.
 * 4) From what I have seen in mediation cases, he is serious about following procedures and has good ideas on how to settle disputes. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Certainly. Trusted user. Jafeluv (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6)  My 76  Strat  (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 16:14, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Guy Macon (talk) 17:52, 14 November 2012 (UTC) I have been monitoring Lord Roem's contributions as part of my study of Mediation Committee procedures, and I have been quite impressed with his fairness and diplomacy. I think he would shine in this particular task.
 * 9) Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

MBisanz
Hi, I'm Matt and I'd like to help out with this task. I'm a former election administrator, former Arbcom clerk and former/alternate AUSC member. I'm a current steward, oversighter, bureaucrat and BAG member. I'm identified to the Foundation, where I also serve as a member of their Audit Committee. I have a detailed understanding of the Arbcom election process and how it interacts with other fora on the project. I believe my past work has shown my ability to fairly deal with complex matters and comply with policy. Ideally, I hope Elections commissioners won't need to play noticeable role as most of the stuff the community has gotten down pretty well over the years, but last year does prove there are still things that need refinement. I also assent to forgo voting or otherwise asking questions/giving guides if the community deems it undesirable for election commissioners to vote. Otherwise, I'm just interested in helping to keep things running smoothly. Thanks.  MBisanz  talk 23:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing MBisanz

 * 1) Seems reasonable. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  23:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. --Rschen7754 23:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Of course. Legoktm (talk) 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) I do not see any issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) We need more people using their real names on WP. A sign of integrity. Endorsed. Carrite (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Nobody Ent 00:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 7) So qualified it's not even funny.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Jclemens (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 04:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Experienced and competent trusted user. wctaiwan (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Strongest of the lot IMO.  And I also agree that overseers of any process must be like Caesar's wife with regard to their acts. Collect (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 12) Can always be relied upon to act impartially.  Leaky  Caldron  14:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 13) Past (and successful) experience as an election admin for ArbCom elections is the key factor for me.  Experience in other roles is a plus.  Neutron (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 14) Definitely. -Lord Bromblemore (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 15) Yes, trustworthy. - jc37 16:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 16) Yup.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:21, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 17) Definite support.   dci  &#124;  TALK   17:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 18) Per above.  Automatic  Strikeout  01:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 19) Superlative qualifications. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 20) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:08, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 21) Yup. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 22) No issues.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 14:50, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 23) Please! — ΛΧΣ  21™  21:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 24) Survey says? Ding! Sorry, I was watching Family Feud Yes, MBisanz is a great editor and is willing to do this, so I would absolutely support this. Go   Phightins  !  21:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 25) Extremely qualified for the job; no concerns at all. 28bytes (talk) 04:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 26) He's done a lot of good work at AN, including closing discussions. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 27) Certainly. King of  &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:58, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 28)  My 76  Strat  (talk) 05:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 29) Qualified. Jafeluv (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 30)   S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 31) Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 32) Certainly.  Rcsprinter   (babble)  @ 16:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 33) Yes. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 34) —   Ched  ZILLA  08:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Sven Manguard
Hello. I'm a former election coordinator. I have no real ambitions when it comes to ArbCom, but would like to see things run smoonthly none the less. I have no illusions of being selected as one of the primaries, I'm throwing my hat in far too late in the game, so on a purely numerical basis my chances are slim, but if the community would have it, I'm willing to serve as a reserve.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments

 * Oppose Sven's guide to candidates last year started with some personal attacks against arbitrators, which were later removed: Sven accused Roger Davies of having a "God complex", etc. Sven removed an unsubstantiated personal attack alleging sock-puppetry, without apology but with the comment that "it was not worth fighting over". Sven  edited Monty's user-space summary and removed the links to the individual comments, a decision without policy warrant and which was not supported by the community or by Monty. Sven is a good editor and great asset to the project, and he has always been professional and helpful as a Wikimedia Commons guru, but I think that this is not an appropriate role, given last year's events.  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  10:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No comment on the issues you bring up with Sven's guide, but the second issue concerning the user guides is an issue you have with me, more than anyone else. The so called "community" input as seen in the talk page was pretty much 5 people: myself, you, Monty, Elonka, and at the tail end Sven. The "individual comments" you mention were changes that you made to Monty's guide, amplifying and linking to your guide, elevating it in attention and obviousness above all others. Since you've decided to bring up changes to a guide after a year, and having gotten your way, I can safely assume that you disagree with how it was handled. Which is fine. But the person you want to complain about is actually me, and my door is wide open.--Tznkai (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The outstanding concern is Sven's comments on the ArbCom members. (Elonka and I discussed your behavior at the post-election community discussion, and you won't be an election referee again .)  Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:13, 15 November 2012 (UTC)19:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the other issue, I don't see anything wrong with Sven's conduct with regard to my guide. Kiefer.Wolfowitz made the edit, Sven reverted it, and a discussion ensued. Rather then get caught up in technicalities, I would just say his edit was safely within the spirit of WP:BRD. Monty  845  19:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sven and I often start off disagreeing, and then we end up agreeing, fairly often. It was the other Election Official who was out of line, I suppose. I would bet that Sven would be more restrained in his evaluations of candidates as an official. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe Sven (with whom I have had no disagreements or even any significant past involvement, as far as I know) should serve in this role, for reasons having nothing to do with any of the discussion above. The reason is that Sven has published a voter guide for this election. Per the discussion on the talk page, a number of editors (including myself) believe that the commissioners should be persons who have not publicly supported or opposed candidates in this election. (Note that most of those comments were made before Sven volunteered for a commissioner position, so the discussion was purely hypothetical and unrelated to any particular editor.) As I discuss further in my most recent comment in that discussion, the roles of commissioner and active commentator on the candidates are not compatible. Neutron (talk) 05:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nothing against the candidate, but I'd prefer members at least be entrusted with adminship responsibilities. - jc37 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Sven is an administrator and OTRS hero on The Commons. Sven sometimes gets out of the bed on the wrong side, but he usually ends up as a key consensus-builder. Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Per your edit summary here, Requests for adminship/Sven Manguard would seem to be evidence to the contrary.
 * As I've said above, this is nothing against the user in question. I'd just like to see individuals who already have the community's trust. And managing to pass RfA (for all its warts) shows that the person had earned the community's trust at least at one point. - jc37 22:14, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * He must have been too busy to wait for the cavalry to arrive, and got tired of the hoi polloi. ;) Kiefer  .Wolfowitz  22:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was thinking about this and I am a bit concerned. --Rschen7754 06:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 'Oppose per Neutron. NE Ent 18:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing Sven Manguard

 * Sure, why not. --Rschen7754 06:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) I have always been impressed with Sven. I think he would be a reall asset to arbcom. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:02, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Yup. Go   Phightins  !  11:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Ymblanter (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Whereas I still have sufficient trust in Sven, I unfortunately have to withdraw my support due to the voter guide publication.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:36, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Per voter guide. I'm sure Sven would be objective, but he wouldn't appear to be objective, which is important, given the stated purposes of the committee. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:40, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Avraham
Responding to a request on WP:BN, I will also volunteer my services for this role. I have a reasonable amount of experience in Wikimedia in general, and the English Wikipedia in particular; I am identified to the Wikimedia Foundation, and believe that I have demonstrated, over my years here, to be able to approach disputes and issues fairly, minimize personal opinion/bias as much as possible, and be able to interpret and apply Wikipedia policy and guideline as intended by the project. I have held, or currently do hold, a number of maintenance roles here in the English Wikipedia project, as well as in other projects, which I believe will serve as good experience for dealing with "unforseen" problems. I have not, however, ever held an ArbCom or election-related position to the best of my recollection. Thank you for your consideration. -- Avi (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Users endorsing Avraham

 * 1) Why not. — ΛΧΣ  21™  19:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, trustworthy. - jc37 19:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Ymblanter (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 2) Avi would be a very good choice for this role. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 3) Extremely well-suited for the task. 28bytes (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 4) The support of Floquenbeam and 28bytes is good enough for me.  Go   Phightins  !  22:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 5) Weak support. I think Avraham is perfectly trustworthy, just not very active. Last 100 edits goes back to 18 July 2012.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  23:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 6) Me too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs)
 * 7) Mhm. Legoktm (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 8) Very good choice for this role, which requires a great deal of trust by the community, which he has earned in his previous roles.  Neutron (talk) 04:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 9) It's been a while since I interacted with him, but he's good people. Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 10) Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 11) Has my trust. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 16:55, 17 November 2012 (UTC)