Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates/Harej

Previous identity
One of the requirements for a candidate's statement, is that they disclose alternate accounts. I see no such disclosure on Harej's current statement, even though there is considerable history on at least one alternate name. --Elonka 02:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there an exemption for users who may have received unwelcomed attention while operating a prior username? (Logically, there should be.) I don't know who this user was, but perhaps there is a reason they didn't disclose a past account, or perhaps it was just an omission. For convenience of readers and to avoid doubts, could you link to those requirements, please. That may help all of us get on the same page.  Jehochman Talk 03:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Above the button that says, "Click here to create a candidate profile", at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Candidates. Specifically, a candidate's statement must, "include a disclosure of all prior and alternate accounts or confirmation that all such accounts have been declared to the Arbitration Committee".
 * --Elonka 03:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have disclosed my prior username, "Messedrocker". I was renamed in 2009, and then a vandal took over the old username. I apologize for the oversight on my part. harej 04:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The whole thing is explained in harej's own words on his candidate questions sheet, FYI. Sven Manguard  Talk  19:24, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, from what I have seen, Harej is a solid editor and admin and I'm looking forward to supporting him.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

sleep
You can be a good arbiter, an underemployed arbiter, and/or loose sleep as a result of Wikipedia. You can't be all three; which will you choose? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I choose to incorporate ArbCom as part of a healthy and balanced life. I love really difficult questions, and there are not many Wikipedia jurists in the world (compared to jurists of real-world legal institutions). One of the things I love about contesting this election is that I get the opportunity to answer these really difficult questions about Wikipedia and its practices. I am prone to getting little sleep if something worthwhile (or not even!) keeps me up. I also see what you mean by how with two options, you have to exclude a third. To that end, there will probably be times where I am working on only a little bit of sleep, but that won't make me a bad arbiter necessarily, but perhaps one of interesting character. (Right now I'm working off of a caffeine high.) If in the future I am employed (by something other than course work, that is), I still hope to somehow keep ArbCom in my life. I'll see. harej  02:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Note on copyright issues question
Just to clarify, that was not a loaded question - I haven't looked at your contributions at all, and the question was purely hypothetical. Thanks for the answer. MLauba (Talk) 15:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)