Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Lorem ipsum 2 Pipe or no pipe? 3 how many 4 Questions for all candidates 5 Candidate edit counts? 6 Eligibility Requirement Update 7 Edit count question 8 Arbitrators not seeking re-election 9 No humor please 9.1 AntiVandalBot 10 Petition to draft Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs) 11 Does anyone else think this is out of hand? 12 Withdraw 13 Questions posed by sockpuppet/alternate account 14 Date of first edit; Date of adminship 14.1 Summary table for ArbCom Elections 2006 14.2 More information? 15 Involvement in past ArbCom cases 16 The block log and me 17 Draft Jayjg 18 Withdraw: Avraham 19 All the Best

[edit] Lorem ipsum

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)

User:Lorem Ipsum doesn't have the required 1000 edits to run this year. Newyorkbrad 02:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. [1] Sarah Ewart (Talk) 13:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

That's okay. It's not really Latin, either. :) --ElKevbo 17:33, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah - I should have read lorem ipsum before guessing. Newyorkbrad 17:43, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Should that not be "non necessaria est"? Rwxrwxrwx 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Pipe or no pipe?

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)

Done. Picaroon9288 02:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you; the same thing was bothering me, too. Newyorkbrad 02:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

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) hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 03:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Updated with a free-use image from commons. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Re-updated. Thanks Xaos. -- Avi 03:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] how many

seats are open? Derex 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

At this time the number of seats that will be up for election is unknown but will probably be at least 5…

—Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006

-- Avi 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Questions for all candidates

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)

No. The effort to ask the questions of all the candidates should make sure that most such questions are worth asking.Geni 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Candidate edit counts?

"Editcountitis" should be no more welcome here than on RfA, but I am sure a fair number of users will want to at least scan the candidates' edit counts (plus there may be one or two candidates who are under the eligibility minimum). I am advised that overuse of the edit counter tools uses significant server resources and results in delays for everyone, so we don't want a couple of hundred voters each individually running a count for each of a few dozen candidates. Would it make sense for the election officials to run the edit counter for each candidate as of a particular date and post the results somewhere (as is currently done on the talk page for RfA's)? Again, this is not to endorse overemphasis on anyone's edit count, but I am sure that it is information that some voters will want to have available conveniently as background information. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh lord, no no no no no no no. Raul654 23:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to take the non-pragmatic approach. Lets just deny recognition of editcount, like we do to vandals. Granted, its a longshot that we can manage to keep it from infecting the elections, but why not try? What's there to lose? If the editcount tools get delayed, let them; less people capable of making numeral-based votes. Picaroon9288 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

No, my main concern isn't that the edit counter tool gets delayed; I've read that there is drag on the Wikipedia server (where the database with the text of Wikipedia lives) when too many people are running the count program at once. Not a big deal either way. Newyorkbrad 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

edit counts don't matter since anyone with half a chance will have quite a significant one.Geni 01:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Editcount is no big deal but the current gizmo [2] does a nice job of breaking down edits, a quick contribs summary. Doesn't show the long tail, of course.

There's an issue with posting tool results once, then again as new candidates come in later. Suggest waiting until candidacy closes, then run the tool once for each and copy the results to per-candidate subpages. Do not summarize results, just link to them. Let voting editors draw their own conclusions. John Reid ° 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Again no. Edit counts are un important. Any attempt to make the data availible in that way is not acceptable. This is arbcom not adminship. The stakes are much higher.Geni 14:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, what are we hoping for? That nobody will look? The tool is there; you can't destroy it. People have an interest, like it or not. The issue is not whether anybody will see edit counts; only: Do we make it easy on the toolserver and the editor? John Reid ° 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I am trying hard to keep up with the statements and questions. I am making and remaking my idea of what will determine my votes. I am quite certain, btw, that I will learn enough, teach myself enough, ask enough questions, to cast a full set of informed votes. And I will certainly not vote based on "edit count." But I would like to get a rough idea of how active a candidate is, and in what space, and how long they have been editing, and how long an admin. I have been running FlCelloguy's tool, which must be the wrong way to do it, since each one takes a while, and sometimes it dies mid-run. Maybe someone could point me to a tool that runs easier? Because the issue is not whether it is easy to see the numbers. The issue is, will the numbers only be available to more experienced users. Jd2718 02:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, the numbers will eb available to as few people as possible.--Doc^g 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

none of the edit counting tools really work that well once you get over a few thousand edits. Rather a lot of the people entering will have edit counts of over 10K.Geni 04:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

All the more reason to run them only once, rather than waste resources on 25-45 minute checks by numerous users. --tjstrf talk 18:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

system will crash for most users so all but the most persistant will give up which suits me fine.Geni 11:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, for those over 10K, I'm prepared to assume they have wide experience (seeing how long they've been around ties into that). For those with lower edits counts, I'd want to use an edit tool to look in more detail at where they've been editing. Then I would add these to the notes I am making on my user pages. As this will help me decide how to vote, I hope using my user pages in this way would be considered OK. Carcharoth 18:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Yoiu really think that the number of edits to various namespaces will let you know how good an arbcom member someone will make?Geni 11:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

No, but they will help create the full picture of who the candidate is. Jd2718 13:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A dozen numbers? Not in a million years. Where and how often canadiates have edited is of no significance compared to say background in dispute resolution and evidence of being able to make good judgements. Arbcom elections are not just an enhanced RFA.Geni 16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm feeling a bit frustrated here. The info exists, and some users have easier access than others. By not posting the data, there ends up being a closed group with information that is not generally available. This seems counter to the way Wikipedia should operate.

Yell at me if I cross a line, but, with all due respect, when you tell me what to consider and what not to consider, it only seems a step removed from telling me how to allocate my support. Deny me information if it is somehow in Wikipedia's best interests. Raise the edit count for sufferage to keep me from participating if novice users (400 edits, never participated in a RFA) should not be involved. But if I have a voice, I will decide for myself how to use it. I will decide for myself what matters and what does not. That's what I've been trying to hash out on User:Jd2718/jd2718 ArbCom notes. And yes, edit counts would help draw a clearer picture.

I have been running individual edit counts, with difficulty, as they keep crashing. But without them I would not have found Radiant's break in service. Was someone going to supply me with that information? Jd2718 18:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of information that is not generaly availible. Deletion histories for example. I will not tell you who to support and who not to support. I'm sure others will try to do so but I have no comment to make on the candidates other than those I have already made. I do retain the right to advise you as to what information to take into account. Histories of involvement in disputes is and places where they have had to make judgment calls are however you slice infinitely more significant than a candidate's edit count. I cannot not of course prevent you from using this flawed method to decide on candidates nor can I prevent you from spreading this information (well Ok I could but it is extreamly unlikely I would do so). If you want to know if candidates have taken breaks from the project then the logical thing to do would be to read through their talk page archives. This would have the advantage that you would learn far more about the candidate than you could from even the most broken down edit count.Geni 22:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Back to one colon. And when I found Radiant/Radiant!'s gap, I did read the logs and realize that I missed that departure (tied up with the mess around the pedophilia user box wheel wars and aftermath). The counts are not coming? Then they are not coming. But I wanted them to help me do my homework, not instead of doing my homework. In this case the counts directed me to an anomaly. Too bad they are not being made generally available. I, of course, accept this, but with disappointment. Jd2718 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

What I would do, once I'd looked at the spread of edits, is ask the candidate if they can explain any particular imbalance. If they can explain this, then it shows a good level of self-awareness, in my opinion. I agree that some data can be misleading when just presented as pure stats in a table, which is why I'd encourage people to come up with their own, extended versions of the table being worked on below, but to put them in their user space, not here. It would be nice if an objective version of the table remained here, or in fact be moved somewhere more visible (I'm hoping the people over at WP:SIGNPOST might run with this sort of thing in their articles). Any 'semi-official' version should obviously purely present data and not be misleading. In particular, having all the links to the statements and questions in one place is very useful to me. Also, I am pleased that the data on who has previously run for ArbCom is in the table, along with other accounts. This was not always clear from the candidate statements, though it was usually stated on the candidate's user pages. I think a certain amount of 'investigation' is to be expected for those running for ArbCom. Plus hard, tough questions based on those investigations. Carcharoth 14:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

TJ is right. John Reid ° 18:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing to stop people "making notes" on the candidates on their own user pages, as a prelude to surveying them, reading their questions and statements, and then using a pin to select which ones to vote for, er, I mean carefully chose which ones to vote for. This could include pasting edit count tool results if a user wanted to compare different candidates. I made a brief start at this at User:Carcharoth/ArbCom_Elections because I was interested in seeing the spread across ages of the candidates. Actually publicising such notes would be more problematic. I'm going to add a disclaimer to my notes before any candidate turns up and complains that I'm misrepresenting them...

Also, the Signpost two-part feature article on the candidates will do a better job of this, and they might summarise stuff such as age, gender and location (where known) and number of edits. Carcharoth 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to ask me questions if you wish. I'll be happy to answer any you have. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eligibility Requirement Update

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Edit count question

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Arbitrators not seeking re-election

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)

All 5 seats will be open. Someone decideing to run again doesn't effect that.Geni 22:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] No humor please

Please refrain from nominating your bots. Humor is not acceptable. Please don't even crack smiles. ArbCom elections are serious business.

P.S. I do have a soft-spot for user:Zorglbot... - crz crztalk 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

all work and no play...ST47Talk 11:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Aww, and I was writing a Robo-Arb :( --Doc^g 12:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Arbcom elections are a time for many thing but not so much silly stuff. Try uncyclopedia.Geni 12:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think a 7 word humorous comment on a talk page is hardly disruptive. --Doc^g 13:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about bot candidates.Geni 14:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Well, since I'm neither a bot nor a candidate, I won't take offence. ;)

I think bot candidates are fine as long as they are self nominations. I think it is very unfair to the bot to nominate it for a job it may not want. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol :) -- Tawker 17:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I hereby state that the nomination is my own. Nobody is making me write it -- AntiVandalBot 19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Quoting from "your" statement: "I have the most of [sic] edits of any account", Bots making typos? I don't think so. Paul August ☎ 19:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The typos are there to make it seem more human, helps break past the Uncanny valley. I think it gives a nice touch. (Next, teach it to say Hasta la Vista, baby!) --tjstrf talk 19:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

When people start a small edit war over a joke, the joke stops being funny. This is so not worth fighting over. --Conti|✉ 19:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's funny. But it's in the wrong place. I'm moving it to the talk page. If anti-vandal bot reverts me, somebody please block it. Thanks, Ben Aveling 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

It ain't code doing it, it's a human using a web browser :) - Do you seriously wanna block AVB though..... I get enough complaints as is when it breaks and stops running :) -- Tawker 22:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I found it rather funny, at any rate :) Raul654 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Petition to draft Newyorkbrad (talk • contribs)

Sign the petition!

1. - crz crztalk 05:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC) What a tremendously thoughtful user. Already heavily involved in RfAr, will be a sysop before the end of the calendar year. A perfect choice for the ArbCom.
2. Support: Agreed. Brad, I will not hassle you about your decision to delay running for admin. However, please run for ArbComm. You owe it to the Wikipedia community. (On a related note, are we allowed to vote for Brad even if he doesn't run?) TheronJ 16:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
3. Support AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
4. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
5. Ridiculous. Perhaps he'd make great arb, I might even have voted for him. If he wants to stand, he can. If you want to try to persuade him, go to his talk page. I can think of at least 20 of our million users I'd like to see standing, but that aren't. Shall I start petitions here for all of them? --Doc^g 12:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A very good editor, without a doubt. If he were a sysop, it would be different, but I would say it is better for him to obtain adminship and then run for arbitrator.--Certified.Gangsta 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a little more info as to why? Where is the connection between adminship and arbitratorship? Should every judge be a janitor? --Ghirla ^{-߉߂ß◊ß·-} 08:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us a little more info as to why? Thx. --A. B. 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Erm... I think he is eminently qualified and has both the temperament and the interest. But time is running out to file. - crz crztalk 06:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A petition to draft is a terrible idea. ArbCom is a big time commitment and if someone isn't interested in doing it then trying to force them into doing it is a bad idea. I'm sure Newyorkbrad is aware of the upcoming elections and he will throw his hat into the ring if he wishes. Until then, don't try to pressure him into something he may not want to do. --Cyde Weys 06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine. Nevermind. I'll go nominate a bot then :( - crz crztalk 07:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Cyde here—there is a reason ArbCom uses self-nominations. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

No, he's a lawyer, therefore a partisan advocate. My personal opinion. A fine editor and a good grasp of policy. Push him towards Association of Members' Advocates. John Reid ° 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was very pleasantly surprised to see this, so thank you very much to Crzrussian. I considered running, and would find the time, but decided that I am probably still too new an editor (I became active around the beginning of July) to be the best choice. (I think even an RfA from me right now would draw some "too new, not enough edits yet" type opposes.) I intend to stay involved and may well run in 2007. (I am almost goaded into running right now after all by John Reid's comment, as I couldn't disagree more with the assumptions it makes, but I won't let that sway me.) Newyorkbrad 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

We could always start a Wikipedia:WikiProject/Benicetolawyers - but then I have perhaps a small vested interest there. --Doc^g 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

A petition to draft isn't binding. If he doesn't want it, he'll just refuse. He seems to have refused already in fact, so this is more symbolic than anything... but here I am, signing. NYB for AC! AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I have always thought that Brad would make a fine Arbitrator and I disagree with John's view that being a lawyer would make Brad partisan. The only reason I'm not signing the petition is I don't agree with conscription. ;) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Well said. --Ghirla ^{-߉߂ß◊ß·-} 08:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, please! Don't mangle my words that way. I didn't say that being trained as a partisan would make anybody partisan; I said it was poor experience to play the part of an impartial judge.

In some cases, yes, lawyers who judge are perfectly impartial -- as between plaintiff and defendant. They may be trained partisans but most of them have played both sides of the fence and are also trained to be professionally partisan. Some lawyers do actually take moral careers but most are cheerfully immoral; if you walk in with cash in hand they will take your case. Sometimes, you don't even need money. In some ways, this is the foundation of the adversarial system: You can always get a lawyer to argue your side, even if it's patently absurd. If not for lawyers, every homebody picked up for walking down the street with a handgun in his pocket ten minutes after the local bottle shop clerk got capped would fry. A lawyer is on your side only while he's in court (or otherwise working for you); as soon as the gavel falls, he's out the door. It's a distinction that's lost on most laymen.

Note that your local Bar Association has little to say about morality but much to say about professional ethics.

My objection has nothing to do with whether a lawyer comes to the bench with an ingrained bias in favor of, say, large awards to handgun victims -- or the reverse. I say a lawyer comes to the bench with a very strong, ineradicable bias in favor of legalese, legal maneuvers and trickery. A lawyer can tie up a courtroom for days with all kinds of ridiculous arguments, simply because the judge will entertain them. The judge won't say the arguments are silly any more than the attorney making them -- but you or I would, even after we understand them fully. Even if in the end, the judge raps the silly arguments down, justice delayed is justice denied (Gladstone). A layman judge will call a halt to this monkeybusiness; he can see it for what it is and has little tolerance for it. Lawyers are technicality junkies; their heads don't even begin to clear in the morning until they've had a strong shot of it.

I don't think the public is well served by judges who entertain weird arguments creeping in on tiny feet. Judges need to understand law right up to the point where it begins to become absurd. At that point, a little ignorance is good for all of us. I don't worry about Maximum Bob; he's not all that common. Most judges are as fair as they know how to be; it's a form of repentance, I believe, for a lifetime of battling by any means, fair or foul. But they're generally inclined to be lenient to attorneys with their legal fictions and that is harsh to all the rest of us. John Reid ° 03:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Once again, thanks very much to those who have newly posted (and a couple who have e-mailed) for your comments in this thread. They are very sincerely appreciated and I will bear them in mind when it's time to make decisions in the future. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Scanning the table below confirms that my time active on Wikipedia is less than just about all the candidates, so that reinforces the decision I made, but thanks again. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Does anyone else think this is out of hand?

As of approx. 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) there are 28 candidates for ArbCom. The total number of questions asked of these candidates is 1,100. Between the candidate statements and the questions and answers for each candidate, there is approximately 1,385K of text. I started to wade through all this to attempt to form my views on this, but frankly, it's just too much. The scary thing is, it's still growing. Here are the statistics:

The candidate statements total 43K.

Candidate	Questions	Size (K)
Alex Bakharev	34	45
Avraham	56	98
Daniel.Bryant	53	41
Flcelloguy	33	48
FloNight	35	41
freakofnurture	41	64
Geogre	44	87
Harvestman	26	30
HeirToPendragon	26	20
Improv	39	57
John Reid	50	104
JzG	33	47
Kirill Lokshin	54	69
Kylu	42	68
Matt Yeager	12	12
Merovingian	37	31
Messedrocker	50	51
MONGO	55	78
Nandesuka	44	44
Paul August	26	20
Phil Sandifer	73	69
PMA	42	15
Sam Blanning	31	47
Shell Kinney	26	32
The prophet wizard of the crayon cake	30	30
UninvitedCompany	53	44
Voice of All	25	29
Wildthing61476	30	21
TOTAL	1100	1342

Note: Some of the question counts might not be accurate because inconsistent formatting sometimes made it difficult to identify the questions from the answers. Also, in some cases there was a great deal of back-and-forth between the questioner and the candidate—in general, I only counted follow-up questions when they were separately identified as a question.

—Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Answering the question in the header, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. (I guess I'm part of the problem: I asked each candidate two questions, which I thought were good questions, but imagine if everybody asked each candidate two questions.... :) ) I don't know quite what can be done about it, though, either this year or for the future. Any ideas? Newyorkbrad 13:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

It would be useful if the candidates would either amend or supplement their statements with a synopsis of important points raised in the questions. Very few people will wade through that mess.

Also, in one past election (maybe the 1st?), there was an endorsements page. I found that useful, because I know whose judgement I trust even if I don't know the candidate. Is there some reason that's not happening this time. Derex 13:35, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes the disendorsements page that went with it.13:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geni (talk • contribs) .

First, any candidates that take it upon themselves to update their statement with important points from the questioning will, no doubt, be rewarded for it with votes. Hint, hint.

Second, there are people who will be willing to wade through all those questions, and who will put up summaries with actual recommendations for other interested voters to read, and follow or not. That's not quite the same as just a list of names and endorsemers, just as an AfD or RfA isn't quite the same as a vote. (Mine isn't ready for public consumption yet, in case anyone is curious, and won't be at least until new candidates stop showing up, December 1, I believe.) AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I did something like that last election and am considering doing it again this election. I haven't started it yet as there IS a lot to wade through, and I'm not sure if it would be useful (i.e. if people are interested in my biases)... Comments to my talk page welcomed. ++Lar: t/c 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the first election I'll be voting in, so anyone with longer-term experience should correct me, but my understanding is that the endorsement and disendorsement pages would have related to a year in which the voting was done secretly (a la the recent Board election). This election is to be comparable to last year's, in which users posted supports or opposes to the candidates' voting pages, a bit more analogous to an RfA. So as I understand it, it will be possible for those who wish to hold off on voting and scan the votes and comments already cast. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please. Newyorkbrad 16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the same questions should not have been asked over and over again, by people who didn't read the previous questions or the associated answers. Someone should just not answer the questions, fill the space with lorem ipsum text and see if anyone notices. —Centrx→talk • 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey look: I won! John Reid ° 03:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Careful there (see next-above thread) ... filibustering is a very lawyerly trait. :) Newyorkbrad 03:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends, on number of questions, Phil Sandifer is the winner. :-P

Yes, Brad, I admit it; I've not only been accused of a legal turn of mind, I've actually considered the bar. Fortunately, I was scared straight. John Reid ° 18:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Two ways to make things less "out of hand". (1) The voters can work together in the wiki-way (many hands make light work) to produce summaries like the table below. (2) The candidates can demonstrate their suitability (or even their unsuitability) for ArbCom by refactoring and packaging and presenting the material, in a similar way that they may have to do if elected to ArbCom. Carcharoth 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

A few points. Firstly, the initial candidate page requested a 400 word entry. Adding this information to the statements will likely exceed that limit. Secondly, "refactoring" the material on the talk page implicitly invalidates the individual user's questions. If user Z asks a question for the third time, the better response, IMO, is to point him or her to where the question was answered the first time. Thirdly, similart sounding questions may have subtle but significant differences. Refactoring would remove this nuance. Perhaps wikipedia should also be interested in arbitors who are sensitive to nuance and subtelty wen dealing with interpersonal issues, than just ones who can synopsize main points. An ArbCom ruling needs to be clear and unambiguous; the discsussion need not, and perhaps should not, be bound to the same rigid guidelines. The questions here, I believe, are not meant to be in the form of ArbCom rulings; rather, they should ennable richer insight into the judgement of the candidates in order for each and every one of us to make the best decision that we can. In that vein, I feel that removing information would be counterproductive. If someone feels that they need to make a decision based on "headlines" instead of "story", that is their perogative, but it should not interfere with those of us who would like to gain the best understanding of the candidates that we can. Thanks. BTW, nice job on the tables! . -- Avi 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I appear to have lucked out as far as questions go. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I guess I don't need to wade through all those answers, I just need to see one of these and then I'll know how to vote. Does anyone else think these are a bit ridiculous? —Doug Bell ^talk 08:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not I. This is a very silly rationale for voting (or non-voting). If some candidate's supporters are good at drawing stickers, it's their right to use promotional material for expressing opinions on their talk pages. This has nothing to do with the candidate. Furthermore, the stickers are applied on a very limited scope. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I was being facetious about knowing how to vote. What's next, animated GIF commercials? Election campaign committees? Do we really want to decorate these elections with all the window dressing of political campaigns? —Doug Bell ^talk 09:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is called reductio ad absurdum. So far this is not out of hand. If there is some massive campaigning in the future, the community may want to ban it. Furthermore, I am told there is massive campaigning on IRC by the channel's regulars. We should not forget about that aspect, too. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 09:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw

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)

[edit] Questions posed by sockpuppet/alternate account

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)

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)

DNFT comes to mind, destructive kiln-fired, mortar-using, building materials defenestration notwithstanding -- Avi 19:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

It could have something to do with the nature of the questions he or she is asking. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Date of first edit; Date of adminship

I understand that edit counts won't be posted. How about these two? Some candidates, but not all, have posted this info. Can it be published for all? Jd2718 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

How's this:

Earlier table removed to page history as having two tables is confusing

I haven't quite got all of the data for people who were sysopped a long time ago, and the table doesn't take into account any username changes that occured, but I hope it helps. Tra (Talk) 03:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Perfect. Thank you very much! Jd2718 03:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Snowspinner, Shell Kinney: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jareth, Will Beback: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Willmcw. You will also find that Sam Blanning is an admin, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Samuel Blanning. – Chacor 03:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• Without endorsing this table as the be-all and end-all, thanks for doing the work. Here's a revision filling in the additional dates:

table since updated further and much expanded by others

[edit] Summary table for ArbCom Elections 2006

Table moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table. (I moved it because I want it to be more prominent and, as someone said above, it is like a collaborative wiki project, so it should have its own page and talk page. — Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC))

---

For some reason Will beback's older edits seem lost, but I can see one from Jan 3, 2005... – Chacor 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

he says he was once user:user2004. Does that help? (and thanks for filling in the gaps) Jd2718 03:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Willmcw shows a welcome message from July 2004.... Newyorkbrad 03:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Found it, # 04:30, May 17, 2006 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Changing username (user:Willmcw to user:User2004)

July 13, 2004. – Chacor 03:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at User:Radiant!'s first contributions, he appears to also be User:Radiant, making his first edit to be 2004-12-18. Tra (Talk) 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

• That is correct. I've also got prior edits without an account, but I'd appreciate not listing those here :) (Radiant) 01:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The candidates who addressed their length of service all gave dates that agree with this. It appears, though, that there is a problem with Sam Blanning's first edit. Jd2718 03:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It's User:Sam Blanning vs User:Samuel Blanning. Carcharoth 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Tra, go ahead and change the table, then, it's a wiki. :) But I don't even want to think about what the bureaucrats would say now if an editor came to WP:CHU with a request to change their username by adding a punctuation mark. :) Newyorkbrad 03:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Much neater way of linking to a user's permissions. Use the following, and insert the candidate name at the end (with underscored for spaces).

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Listusers&limit=1&username=
  • eg. Permissions for UninvitedCompany

Could someone add this to the table? Carcharoth 21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More information?

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 {{Admin}} to help people look at what the candidates have done (for the admin candidates), and/or some variant of {{User}} (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)

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)

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)

I've added links to the statements and questions, though not all the links work, due to varying naming practices. I'll check them now, but if I miss any, can someone correct them. Carcharoth 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added block log links to candidates who have been blocked at least once. Bear in mind that some of these blocks were by mistake or as a test so the existance of this link shouldn't bear any reflection on the candidate. Tra (Talk) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've added a note below the table. Tra (Talk) 19:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I just added ages (where available) to the notes column. I'm looking at the results, and I'm no longer sure if this was a good idea. I find the age range of the candidates interesting (14-56 where given), but I am now thinking that the actual ages of individual candidates are not that relevant. What would be the best way to handle this? I am particularly concerned about how to handle the information on the two candidates under 18. Those two candidates, ironically, may typify, in my opinion, the best and worst of allowing Wikipedia to be edited by anyone (of any age). Carcharoth 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

OK. Second question. If age is not that relevant, surely gender is even more irrelevant. Again, this is something I'd be interested in finding out (purely to see if more females than males are running - of course, with the age range, we can't say men/women!), but I wouldn't be that bothered about this. Following up on the comment about ages of current ArbCom members, what is the age and gender spread among the current ArbCom? Anyone know? Carcharoth 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

(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)

Third question. Location. Might be of interest to some, but probably irrelevant again for the purposes of deciding on votes. These questions of mine were prompted by looking at the age, gender and nationality spread among the recent WMF Board election candidates. And yes, I know that this is en-Wikipedia ArbCom, not WMF Board, but I thought the comparison might be of interest. Carcharoth 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

Should this table be moved into Wikipedia namespace now, so that people can make use of it? Tra (Talk) 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

I've removed UninvitedCompany's quote, as this table is more for facts than the circumstances surrounding these. Any objections? Tra (Talk) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Just found {{ArbCom candidate}}. This, or a variant of it, could be useful in the above. This template was used for the Signpost series of articles in January 2006. Carcharoth 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Involvement in past ArbCom cases

I recently found Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests/Involved_parties. It feels like it might be relevant, but I'm not 100% sure. Does anyone want to go through this and see if any of the candidates have been involved in past ArbCom cases? Either that, or ask all of them. Carcharoth 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Done. Tra (Talk) 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. It does mess up the formatting of the table a bit, and the amount of involvment varies. The ArbCom case links need abbreviating, or relegating to a footnote at the bottom of the table. Not all notes have to go in the notes column. Carcharoth 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I've shortened the links to the word 'here'. Tra (Talk) 02:35, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you re-add "in arbitration cases" or something? Carcharoth 02:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That list of cases is definitely incomplete. JzG was involved in the St. Christopher case and has commented (not sure whether he was a party) in at least two others. MONGO was involved (not surprisingly) in the MONGO case. Geogre and John Reid were both involved in the Giano case. I'm sure there are others.

I also fear that posting those links could be really misleading. I don't know whether they will suggest that users have experience with the arbitration process (which would be a positive) or have been called into arbitration for bad user conduct (which would be a negative). For example, in some cases these editors have been involved in cases purely because they were the victims of vicious personal attacks and had to bring the cases to defend themselves. Newyorkbrad 02:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I would say remove the links. Leave it to people to ask the candidates what cases they were involved in. Carcharoth 02:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

In any case, the Signpost interviews (see candidate talk pages for details) are asking which ArbCom cases candidates have been involved with, so the table doesn't really need to get too bloated. I'll take the links out. Carcharoth 03:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

That list is definitely not being kept up and should probably not be used as the basis for anything. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Completed requests can be searched via ctrl-F to find if anyone has been a named party or is subject to a decision. Thatcher131 16:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Are you one of the ArbCom clerks? If so, could you update the "out of date" page to show that it is not being maintained, and link back to the more up-to-date page? Carcharoth 00:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The block log and me

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)

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)

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)

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)

Don't use the Administrator/root account while browsing the Internet. —Centrx→talk • 05:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The lesson is, donate lots so we can get SSL login up AFAP -- Tawker 06:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Let's draft the next United States president, too! Anomo 03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdraw: Avraham

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)

[edit] All the Best

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)

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)