After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Standing candidates (scroll up for table of contents). Privatemusings is the first to cross form "likely" to actual candidacy.

Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Jdforrester has an interesting statement that concludes, "I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions."

Does anyone have any information about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=235198954

I mean the jury stuff, not that I think it would work, but just wonder why this was not brought on WR. Have I missed something?

Apart from James F, who I could not imagine would run (then again, he seems to acknowledge how likely he is to be successful), there are no surprises so far.

It's funny how he welcomes questions now, but throughout his ArbCom career he has been almost totally unresponsive. One question that springs to mind for me is: "Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?" Actually, that's a good question for all ArbCom candidates, but I dare not ask it lest I be accused of not having adequately informed myself before commenting.

Well.. here goes.... Wish me luck :/

Good luck. As certain of us are prevented from asking you the same questions on-wiki, would you be prepared to answer any questions here? What for example is your view of a regens arbitrator contributing to Wikipedia Review at all? What is your view on FT2's question about the delicate balance between the need for some decisions to be made in private, and the need for transparency?

Well, I've thrown my hat in the ring now, although Bishzilla is right beneath me, which is scary.

I'm willing to answer questions.

A) I don't see any problem with contributing to WR and being a sitting arbitrator. Brad and others before me have done so in the past. I may be restricted on what I CAN say, (don't expect me to even HINT about private discussions on the ArbCom list), but I won't let it run me off of WP OR WR.

B ) I think it really has to happen on a case by case basis. There has to be a really good reason to take a case private (I understand why ArbCom discussion should be and is private), but I think you can strike a balance between stating what you believe publicly, and keeping what the COMMITTEE is discussing private.

And Neil: don't worry, it's scarier below Bishzilla then above. Above you have to worry only about Bishzilla's atomic breath.. below.. if she falls.. *shudder* we go squit like a pimple

Would there be any value in as many people throwing their hats in the ring as possible in order to dilute the vote, and then perhaps getting someone "unusual" elected?

I really do hope The Fat Man Who Never Comes Back does stand - he'll be a populist pick of sorts, and his sense of humour would appeal.

He also has an ability to see Arbcom for what is is, and to cut through the waffle to make his point.

I really hope privatemusings gets it. It will be interesting to see if there is a showdown between he and jimbo if he wins.

Regardless, he has good ideas and I think he'd do well on the committee.

While I agree with your about some of his ideas, I think you're being more optimistic than privatemusings himself is. His comments make clear that he expects to lose.

At this point, I think Bishzilla is likely to receive less opposition votes (especially if users follow privatemusings wishes and only oppose him).

What is this RFC about, by the way

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Req.../Privatemusings

It doesn't seem very good for him but then nothing is as it seems over there.

I didn't say I expect him to win. I just hope he does.



Looks to me like a sabotage attempt on PM. The timing is impeccable, and the players are right.

Can you unpack this for me?

First, what is being sabotaged? His ArbCom sanctions probably sunk his ArbCom candidacy before it started, if that's what you mean.

Second, what players? There seems to be commentary a very broad spectrum of users here.

His bid for arbcom is being sabotaged. Or rather, it looks that way. It's convenient that the RFC was brought up right before the nominations begin, over what doesn't look to be that serious of an issue. And notably it was an RFC, which I firmly believe does nothing but smear the parties involved without any outcome. Were it an Arbitration, and PM won, he could point to that and say "I was vindicated." Not so easy with an RFC. (thats not to say that the sanctions didn't do the job just as well).

As for the players, I see a number of people who are either on the arbitration committee, are interested in getting on it, have some sort of user rights granted by the arbitration committee, or are interested in getting those user rights.

I could be wrong, he could entirely deserve it. But it seems to me that for many of the RFC commentators, ulterior motives are at play.

Hey, look! White cat is in the running! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...ments#White_Cat

I guess last year wasn't bad enough: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb.../Vote/White_Cat

So who's going to do worse? White Cat or Privatemusings? Or Justice America? I don't really care who wins - I mean, I do care, but I care more that people who aren't competent or disagree with my principles don't get on. In other words, I'd easily take more than five of the folks who have already submitted their names, and aside from Rlevse, I'm not hell-bent on any of them. But for entertainment value, picking up the bottom of the barrel should be fun.

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

Question 14 is interesting; do study the answers the candidates makes.
And yes; Everyking asks a very relevant question, too. Will somebody brave add that question to all candidates?

Would you accept appointment from Jimbo against the community mandate? That's a great question. Anyone who answers "yes" can't expect community support, but I don't expect everyone to answer the question.

Why would anyone want to be a member of ARBCOM?

In my county we have this superior court judge who is like the `ringer' of judges in the entire state. He gets all the hard/sensational cases. A reporter once asked him "How does it feel to rule on all these important cases"? He answered "Very sad; all my cases are very sad".

Now asked. Whether it stays live is another matter, but in the current climate IMO it's a damn good no-right-answer question.

I like privatemusings. I really do. But he had basically no chance of winning anyway.

I get that his opponents might say "look, there's an RFC about you!" but they can already say, "look, you were blocked by ArbCom less than a year a go, and Jimbo personally said he hopes the community doesn't make such a poor choice!"

I honestly think ArbCom elections are not on many of these people's minds.

Jehochman would be a more interesting pick than Rlevse. For those who still think Arbcom worth something.

"Would you accept appointment by Jimbo if you were not one of the top candidates (that is, someone else was passed over so that you could be appointed)?"

If I'm not one of the top 8 candidates, I don't think I would be appointed ANYWAY, but there would have to be a real good reason for someone else to be passed over for me to accept.

Let's say you're in ninth place, and Privatemusings is in seventh place. Jimbo won't appoint Privatemusings, so he excludes him from the list and you therefore move up to eighth place. How would you react in that scenario?

I like Privatemusings, first off. Do I think he has the werewithal to be an arbitrator, however? No. In that case, I'd probably ask to be placed in the one year tranche so that the community may judge in a year or not whether I should continue as an arbitrator.

So the answer is yes, you would accept the appointment. All right. Another question: how do you feel about the arbitration restrictions I've been subjected to for the last three years? If elected, you'll have to deal with that issue, so I'd like to know where you stand.

Hey Everyking, why aren't you running? I bet you could beat Jforrester

Several reasons: I don't think I'd have a realistic chance of winning; I'm almost certain Jimbo would refuse to appoint me even if I did win; and I think ArbCom candidates should be current administrators, at least as a general rule.

Thanks, ED! (And I don´t see any reason to vote for anybody who doesn´t answer the question )

everyking: I will be upfront: I'm not aware of the situation where you were sanctioned, and I'm not going to say something on a situation where I know nothing. I can promise a review, but I cannot promise that I'll see it one way or another.

If elected, you'll have to form an opinion on it, won't you? So why put it off? If you give me an answer prior to the election, that will help me make an informed judgment regarding your candidacy. Last year, I foolishly voted for some people who ended up supporting my sanctions, and you can see why I wouldn't want to make that mistake again.

It would be a wonderful to force his hand, though. As it is now, he's able to deter perhaps a half-dozen people this way without even once having to take the hit to his reputation which would follow - and the reputation of the Arb-elect denied would transcend that of a mere arbitrator.

heh! well I'm a little surprised, to be honest, Foz :-) - I look forward to chatting a bit about this one if you're up for the voice thing at some point....

I know this election is (currently) considered to be a sort of advisory process.. but I really don't think it should be, and it continues to raise my eyebrow a bit that others don't find this a little more remarkable.

You're asking people to vote for you, whilst also stating that if the wrong people (or person!) receive more support you'd be cool ignoring the vote because obviously those voting.. um.. made a mistake?

ps. the chances of my wherewithal being put to the test seem slim, but given your refusal to comment above on matters you don't feel well informed about, I'm also curious as to the basis for your comment - I was under the impression that we didn't really know each other :-)

(although I'm sure we've 'met' somewhere?) PM.

ps. Vote me! :-)

My answer: I don't think it's likely, as anyone likely to be passed over by Jimbo would probably have had enough things thrown at them through questions and voting to cause them to exit the "chosen few" before that situation arose.

Jimbo has the power - for better or worse - to pass on anyone he doesn't consider suitable. As those spots have to be filled, the next person down the list is the obvious choice. If it happens to be me, then so be it. I really don't think it's going to happen, though.

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

At any rate, in the past he hasn't moved down to the next-highest, he's moved down to the highest former arbitrators with more than 50%. Consider that when voting for former arbitrators.


James F. did answer rootology's rather pointed question about this incident:
Regret the concern...raised through being honest...would express concerns differently next time. Hmm.

Well, I do respect James for being straightforward in the past, and I also appreciate that he would not want an arbitrator unsupported by the community. He's at least got that right, although I still don't understand his apparent feelings toward Cla68.

Yeah, it is a hard question. But the candidates should be asked hard questions, reams of them, as long as ArbCom has this kind of power.

That is not to say there is necessarily a right or wrong answer to this question.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

If no one feels strongly about the issue, however, it would be grossly damaging to protest Jimbo's discretion.

So, like all political choices, it is up to the candidate to gauge the popular mood on this issue. It is also up to the populace to ensure the candidates are aware of the strength of feeling over it.

That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates.


In other news, Charles Matthews now also seeks re-election. He cites his backslapping work in the BADSITES ArbCom, but doesn't provide a link. Here it is. It does indeed look like the work of compromise...

Well, I know how *I* would have answered the question when I was running, but no one thought to ask it last year, and it's too late now.

Then do the honest thing and resign in order to seek reconfirmation

Wow George! You'll probably do worse than I did if I ran!

What, and give Neil a chance to oppose me again?

I am a single issue candidate:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arb...orge_The_Dragon

Who expects a single vote. With a one vote margin of error!

It's not so simple as that. I think my answer would be yes as well, if I were running, simply because - Would you rather have whoever was in tenth place get in?

At risk of someone putting a LOLCAT up with the phrase "ARBCOM IZ SERIUZ BIZNESS".. I agree with Jimbo in that Privatemusings should not be considered as a serious candidate for ArbCom. The only way that he WOULD be elected to ArbCom would be through an American Idol style "Vote for the Lulz" wave of voters.

I agree with two statements put forth in the current RFC in PM:

For whatever reason, PM is friendly, affable -- and disruptive

....Cases and issues of the kind Privatemusings involves himself in, are often delicate and sensitive, and may result from serious (often emotive) on-wiki events. Demands of this kind with little tact or understanding of the fact, can often do more harm than good. As commented above, the mentor(s?) seem to view it that they are seen by him as an obstacle, not an aid to improvement. That's fairly worrying, more so as these are extremely level headed users who are "on his side"...

I have not observed many of the other 17 or so candidates for the ArbCom who have declared so far, so I can't say if I would feel the same way about any of the others. But while I feel in general that PM has the best of intentions in doing what he does, I do not think that PM would make a good arbitrator, and I would urge him to withdraw, as well a to take his (now former) mentors concerns to heart, and to improve on Wikipedia.

There's another way to protest though:

"I will not accept appointment to the arbitration committee if any of the top eight vote-getters are passed over by Jimbo."

A person should make a principled decision about something like this. Under certain circumstances, the correct course is to refuse to participate in something even if one knows that he or she will be replaced. The principled thing to do is to say: "No, I will not take the place of someone who received a stronger community mandate than I did." Furthermore, as others have mentioned, forcing Jimbo to go further down the list reduces the credibility of his appointments; he is more likely to refrain from picking and choosing arbitrators if many of the candidates disapprove of it, and particularly if the candidates next in line disapprove of it. If he goes ahead with it anyway, it will increase dissatisfaction with his role and increase the likelihood that he will be forced to relinquish it in the future.

I suppose that's where my other suggestion comes in - you don't have to be ninth to refuse.