Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements

message: Note that the lorem ipsum (by a quick count) has 64 words in it, which is just under one sixth of the maximum wordage recommended. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lorem Ipsum doesn't have the required 1000 edits to run this year. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Lorem Ipsum isn't running...that's just the placeholder text being used as a format example. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um ... that was a joke. I was curious whether anyone would have taken the username "Lorem Ipsum," so I checked. Newyorkbrad 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry! *embarrassed*. I just clicked on the link in your message and thought you must have thought that person was running. The first time I came to the page, it was formatted differently and I think it would have been easy to get that impression.  Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's okay. Meanwhile, I asked another editor if he was interested in running, and he responded "I wouldn't run for ArbCom if the only other candidate were Ghengis Khan" - but I checked and User:Ghengis Khan isn't eligible either. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's okay.  It's not really Latin, either. :)  --ElKevbo 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah - I should have read lorem ipsum before guessing.  Newyorkbrad 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Quite possibly. Let's try that. GreenReaper 08:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lorem ipsum

message: Could we set a standard on whether pipes will be used in usernames or not? As of right now, 6 out of 9 usernames, as well as the User:Arbcom Candidate example, have their usernames piped. However, this time last year, all usernames were piped. So, for the sake of consistency, I'm going to pipe them all. (Usually, I'd just be bold and update it, with an explanation in an edit summary, but this is a rather important page, so I decided to give a thorough explanation here first.) Picaroon9288 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Picaroon9288 02:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you; the same thing was bothering me, too. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if this fair use image is appropriate here (that is, I can't see how fair use rationale is justified here) hoopydinkConas tá tú? 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Updated with a free-use image from commons. — xaosflux Talk 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Re-updated. Thanks Xaos. -- Avi 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipe or no pipe? 

message: seats are open? Derex 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  how many 

message: Quite a few editors, myself included, have some "questions for all candidates", while its a little late for this go around, perhaps in the next election we can look back at this to streamline the process (perhaps make a "questions for all candidates" page that gets subst:'d in for all new question pages. — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea to me. No use doing more work than you need to if there's an easier, equivalent, method. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 22:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree with Geni. Is it not fairer when we ask questions to all rather than single out one candidate? Why would we want to punish this fairness with a penalty of having to do 35 unnecessary edits? I have one question that I'd like to ask primarily of one candidate, but since that is actually from a situation where (th)ey was helpful, I feel it would be unfair to impose this potential stumbling stone just on the helpful one. That said, maybe I just don't know enough about this election. Are there good arguments that outweigh my fairness concern? — Sebastian (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Never mind. I realized there are already more than 1000 questions, so I do see a big advantage in keeping the overall number low. — Sebastian (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions for all candidates

message: I've specified that the 1000edit requirement to run for this committee should be as of the start of the nomination period.  From other discussions this seems to have been the intent, if not, revert mercilessly!. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always been curious about the need for a specific number of edits anyway. An administrator, or member of the arbitration committee, requires a certain level of wisdom, not editing frequency. A user with few edits who regularly participates in resolution disputes such as RfC or third opinions would appear (to me) far better qualified than a user with thousands of edits in popular culture articles and vandalism reverts. -Amatulic 02:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The candidate with experience in dispute resolution and policy areas ought to have the 1000 edits in the normal course of dealing with those areas. The candidate who has only done popular culture articles and vandalism reverts should not be a candidate at all. It is a minimum threshhold; many users who should not be on ArbCom will exceed it, few users who should be on ArbCom will not exceed it. In addition, it does eliminate trivial candidates. —Centrx→talk • 02:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: someone with 1000 edits is likely to be able to make a reasonable assement of their chances. Much below that level that tends not to be the case.Geni 19:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility Requirement Update 

message: I'm thinking about running in the arb-com elections this year, but have less then 200 edits with this account. I had 17,000+ in my other account but can't recover the password. If I do decide to run in this year elections, would the edits in both accounts will be counted. I know there is a 1,000 edit limit. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can prove that you are the same user, then I don't see why not. To prove it, you'd need to have someone who is well-respected here who knows you in person. This would also in principle allow you to regain access to your old account, but as this would require a developer to directly change the database to either enable the email on that account or reset the password, and developers generally have better things to do, that might not happen in a hurry.-gadfium 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. Of course, if you had e-mail enabled on the old account, you can get a new password easily. If not, the policy is normally that you're out of luck, but I think an exception could be made for someone with 17,000 edits, and it's apparently not that big a deal to do (see Workshop discussion in the so-called Giano arbitration for more). Newyorkbrad 03:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have Checkuser run on yourself, if it's positive add your candidacy. (you should still find a developer and work on getting your old account back, regardless).
Hmm I could do that, but if I do plan to run, I'm still thinking. I likely still have my email enabled. The main reason that I lost my account password though is that I blocked those email request forms when I was getting harrassed by them. I may be able to recover my password if I find out how to unblock that link, I'll contact my internet provider again. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit count question 

message: Just note - Epopt, Theresa Knott, and now Sam Korn have all indicated they do not wish to serve another term on the Arbitration Committee. Combined with Mackensen's resignation earlier in the year, it appears there will be at least 4 open seats. I am not sure if Jay has made up his mind yet or not. Raul654 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All 5 seats will be open. Someone decideing to run again doesn't effect that.Geni 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly I meant open in the sense that the person currently occupying it will not be running again. Raul654 22:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitrators not seeking re-election

message: Just as a note I have removed myself from the running. My job is requiring much more time now than what I usually get and I won't have the time to do Arbitration. I'll still be around editing though. H2P (Yell at me for what I've done) 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw 

message: User:Balla_Laika appears to be an account registered yesterday for the sole purpose of posing questions to ArbCom Candidates. Per the account log and (see second entry from bottom) Special:Contributions/Balla_Laika, it appears that this user has also created at least one additional account that also posed at least one question to at least one candidate (the question has apparently been deleted). At this point I am mentioning this as a matter of information. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't question your assertion but I'm curious to know what you think. Why would anybody do such a thing? I'll respond to any question posed, including those tied to a brick and tossed through my living room window. John Reid ° 18:58, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: DNFT comes to mind, destructive kiln-fired, mortar-using, building materials defenestration notwithstanding  -- Avi 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

text: It could have something to do with the nature of the questions he or she is asking. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there irony in an anonymous single-use account asking for potential ArbCom members to reveal their own names? -Will Beback · † · 22:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions posed by sockpuppet/alternate account 

message: Is it possible to add more things to this table? I was thinking of things like:
*Date of self-nomination for this ArbCom election (ie. early on or later in the process)
*Whether anyone is a former admin, or lost/resigned adminship and then regained it.
*Whether anyone is a former (or current) ArbCom committee member
*What other positions the candidates hold (eg. Bureaucrat, Steward, etc) - this could be done using the 'Special:Permissions' thingy, or whatever it is called.
*Whether anyone was a candidate in previous ArbCom elections.
*Whether any candidates have ever been blocked.
*Turning the dates into actual length of time as an editor and as an admin
*Using  to help people look at what the candidates have done (for the admin candidates), and/or some variant of  (which would be more relevant for non-admin candidates).
*Asking the candidates to aid the tracing of their contributions all the way back (as in the examples above) by revealing other accounts they have used to edit Wikipedia.
*A column with a link linking straight to the candidate statement subsection.
*A column with a link linking straight to the candidate's questions subpage.
*A column for "Other accounts".
*Selected personal information (eg. age) where revealed.
*Add details of those who have previously been, or are currently, involved with areas such as the Mediation Cabal and Mediation Committee.
Some of these might require research. Some might not be considered suitable for publication in this form (eg. block stuff should maybe be dealt with on a per candidate basis). Some of these suggestions could be limited to being used in notes made by various users on their userpages, but some could be 'semi-official' by being used here. What do people think? Are all suitable, or only some? Carcharoth 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of these things aren't suitable for a table because they'd only apply to one or two people. For example, I believe that of those listed above, only Uninvited Company was a former arbitrator (and only for a couple of months, see his statement), and also that he's the only bureaucrat running. I don't believe any of the candidates are former (but not current) admins but someone can correct me if I'm wrong. The other information (except maybe the last, but Chacor seems on top of that one) could be compiled easily enough if anyone wanted to do it. Personally I don't think these are the most important issues in evaluating the candidates, but within reason, more information is better than less information. Newyorkbrad 03:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of it is easily dealt with by footnotes. You would have a footnote to Uninvited Company pointing out the "former arbitrator" bit. If Jayjg ran, you would have a footnote saying "current arbitrator" (unless you have to formally step down to run), etc. I agree that some of it seems to be unnecessary, but gathering it all together would allow easier investigation by those who want to do that, and it would also make it easier for people to get an idea of some of the differences between the candidates. If the candidates are worried that people might vote on the basis of such a table, then they should say so. I would say that the "candidate statement" link and the "questions" link should be the first ones, to make clear that they are the important ones. Carcharoth 04:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I had checked those as well, but most of these blocks seem to have been mistakes, minimal infractions, or testing the blocking software, so I'm not sure those links are helpful. Newyorkbrad 18:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that many of those blocks are not really noteworthy. I wouldn't like to judge what a "minimal infraction" is though, so I would suggest linking to the block logs for all the candidates, and let the voters work things out for themselves, and let the candidates state in their candidate statements, or in response to questions, why they were blocked. Carcharoth 19:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My concern is that someone might think the presence of an entry for "block log" signalled a negative for those candidates who have any entries versus those who don't, without checking the logs. Newyorkbrad 19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a disclaimer should be written by the table, encouraging voters to look into the block logs themselves, when reading it. Tra (Talk) 19:12, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Second Tra's suggestion. They are easy enough to sort through, and several are indeed real. People have to click and read. We should be optimistic about Wikipedians' thoughtfulness.Jd2718 19:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a note below the table. Tra (Talk) 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no strong feelings one way or the other on including the age information, although personally I would disclaim any intention to rely much, if at all, on candidate ages as a factor in voting. (Sidenote: It's novel to be able to type "voting" instead of "!voting" on a page in Wikipedia space :) ). To the extent candidates have voluntarily revealed their ages, including on their userpages and/or question pages, the information is out there whether it's included in table or not. Note that we already have one arbitrator who is under 18 (unless he had a birthday recently), so that does not seem to be an issue. Newyorkbrad 20:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This is wikipedia. Generaly trying to narrow down answers to questions about things like gender doesn't work to well.Geni 20:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Age might be relevant. (3 yr commitment with college around the corner?  might motivate a question.)  But I don't see how gender could possibly matter. Jd2718 20:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) For what it's worth, to the best of my knowledge, I believe the age range is from 17 (per User:Sam Korn) to 54 (per User talk:Fred Bauder, see top of page), and I believe the current membership (see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee) consists of 12 males and 2 females. Newyorkbrad 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think this is too important, the arbcom aren't going to have to travel or anything. Tra (Talk) 22:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Tra, but for what it's worth if anything, I believe all current ArbCom members are from either the United States, Canada, or Great Britain. If that's not right I'm sure someone will advise. Newyorkbrad 22:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know where in Wikipedia namespace it would go, and I wouldn't want it to appear that this is an "official" table, since there is a lot of subjectivity into what items are to be included and which criteria might or should matter to voters. But in any event, I would suggest not moving it at least until December 1st, so that the candidates can have a couple of days to make sure the information about themselves is accurate, and so the list of candidates is finalized (December 1 is the deadline for nominations). Newyorkbrad 22:28, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More information?

message: In case anyone is wondering about the "account compromised" thing in the block log for me: that was a moronic mistake by me.  On IRC, I forgot to put in the / when I did "identify" and then the password.  More moronic than that, I used the same password as for Wikipedia.  The compromise lasted about an hour.  I got a password change, went back, set a new and different one, and all was well again.  Still, I had my friend Bishonen block me during that compromised time to be absolutely sure that no abuse could take place.  Other than that, I have not been blocked.  (Well, when I edited from the Netscape ISP, that ran through AOL's modem pool, so I ended up blocked by a mass AOL block from time to time, which gave me a great deal of sympathy for our AOL cousins.)  Geogre 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And a heads-up about mine: my email account was actually comprimised (I don't know how, but I'm suspecting a keylogger, as I don't type my Wiki password but do for my email), and obviously the troublemaker who got in checked my recently recieved mail and responded in an unwitting fashion. This is confirmed by the fact that my father (so annotated by the nickname "Dad") recieved a message in which I "confessed" to using drugs, raping small children and doing other really sick acts which I won't repeat. As I had been in conference with WMF and the OTRS team at the time, this was my #1 recieved mail, and a quick browse of the conversation (it was all Fwd: and Re:'s) would have made it click to whoever did it that pretending that I'm leaving and requesting a block on my account would cause me trouble. Hope you understand :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose the lesson for both of you here (and I mean this in the nicest possible way) would be to say that if elected to the ArbCom, you would be extra-careful about not allowing your accounts to be compromised like this... :-) Carcharoth 00:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course :) I've already installed some anti-virus software (I hadn't been bothered before then), and clean up using Spybot S&D every week. No problems since :) Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't use the Administrator/root account while browsing the Internet. —Centrx→talk • 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lesson is, donate lots so we can get SSL login up AFAP -- Tawker 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. 
As nominations have been closed for days and elections have begun, this is moot, I am afraid. -- Avi 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The block log and me 

message: Does anyone want to join a delegation to Jayjg requesting him to run again? Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. He probably didn't run because of the trolls and banned users who attacked his election page last time, and then the fiasco when he won. Maybe he'd be willing to be drafted, though. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Count me in. FeloniousMonk 18:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: And me too. I've been clicking the nomination page regularly to see if he has added his name. AnnH ♫ 18:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: A good candidate. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Count me in. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, he has been reminded as late as November 27, yet he either hasn't made a decision or hasn't made it public. 19:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 19:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. ←Humus sapiens ну? 19:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope he runs again. -Will Beback · † · 19:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: He's one of the best. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 20:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a shame. You were one of the best. AnnH ♫ 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

text: In lieu of further heartfelt but moot support comments, let's agree to thank Jayjg – and the three other retiring arbitrators – for their efforts and tell them we hope to see them serving the project in other capacities for a long time to come. Newyorkbrad 22:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. They've all spent enormous time and effort on behalf of the project.  -Will Beback · † · 22:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jay could be persuaded to be drafted if he sees there's enough support. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the election is closed to further canditates.Geni 00:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm too late to even offer yet still more irrelevant but nonetheless strong support? I keep showing up late to these things, darnit. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:25, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

text: What a shock.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The difficulty is, he's now too late. Nominations have closed.--Docg 13:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Support.  If it is too late for him to be a candidate, how about a direct appointment???? Elizmr 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.</div>
Let's draft the next United States president, too! Anomo 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft Jayjg 

message: The time demands of my new job are greater than I had thought, and I don't think that I would be able to give the Arbitration Committee the attention and time it deserves at this time, so I regretfully need to withdraw. Thanks. -- Avi 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withdraw: Avraham 

message: All the Best to my Fellow ArbCom noms. My Greatest Hope is that this election will be a time for Thoughtful Reflection and Growth for all involved. Take care, FloNight 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I will second that thought; we are all here to help Wikipedia, and no matter who "wins" or "loses", the encyclopedia will ultimately benefit from the addition of five respected, thoughtful, and capable Arbitrators. Thanks also for the five (including Mackensen) departing Arbitrators and their years of service and dedication. Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: All the Best

message: Please add 2006-12 to the page. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 11 September 2020 

message: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/2006 ArbCom election should be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/January 2006 ArbCom election. jp×g 01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: but  I've unprotected the page so it may be edited as appropriate now. — xaosflux Talk 15:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  FPER