Wikipedia ArbCom Elections 2009 - My Picks

I tell you who I voted for, and why


If you have comments on this page, you may comment far below, you may also send an email to me at

It is once again that time where we vote for the Wikipedia ArbCom members.  Since Wikipedia loves to hide things like this in obscure places, I will point you exactly to the voting page at this link.  Of course, in the obtuse style that underlies most Wikipedian efforts, they do not tell you that voting has even started, much less when it's going to end!  But I can tell you at least, that voting has started.  Update: Since Wikipedia evidently delights in being as obscure as possible, I've only just discovered when voting ends.  "Voting is open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009."  And where did I find this?  On the voting page? On the candidates page?  On the bleeping Main page?  No... but anyway I digress.

Below I list every candidate for ArbCom2009 with direct hard links to their userpage, their initial candidate statement, questions from the audience, discussion about the candidate and comment.  (I'm not yet sure what "comment" vs "discussion" actually means... maybe comment is their's while discussion is everyone else's?  I haven't looked.  If you know, tell me quick before I look.)  At any rate, I will be shortly displaying for each one, why I voted for them, why I voted against them, or why I was neutral.

One of my initial criteria was to look for ArbCom candidates who actually have a clear idea of what Wikipedia policies are, and why, and that they have this idea because they actually helped create those policies in the first place.  Last year, probably in direct response to a outrageous comment by myself, that I'd helped create some of the policy language, Pixelface made the page at this link at which Mr or Ms Face counts up how many edits each unique editor made to each policy page as of Nov 2008.  I below state that in shorthand as "edits to policy".  One critique you might have is "Oh yeah sure mister, but that was a year ago", to which I respond "New Wikipedians don't made good ArbCom members, they have not yet been as-salted." (that's a Wiki-in-joke)  If you haven't come through the fire, you don't deserve to be cast in pewter quite yet.  Another metric was posted on Wikipedia Review by Sarcasticidealist at this link "candidates by number of featured articles".  Wikipedia Review has a forum (or sub-form) devoted just to the 2009 ArbCom Elections at this link.

Note:  Below where I state "him/her/it/goat", that is because in the main, I have no idea if the candidates are male, female, intelligent computer programs, or well-trained non-human mammals.  So if any candidate wants to declare their persuasion, feel free to contact me!

There are twenty-three candidates in total.

RMHED • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits. RMHED edits on WR (the site which no one shall mention), under this same username. RMHED about Miriam Sakewitz (make up your own mind)  RMHED is/was under mentorship, but blanked his/her/its/goats page, possibly to avoid that being known. (I don't yet know why he was under mentorship.  Do you?)  In his questions, he states that ArbCom does not go far enough with BLP policy.  That's a bit ambiguous, I assume he means they should be harder in-favor of those subjects who feel we're prying too much into their personal details, or creating additional notability that they shouldn't enjoy.  I assume that, because other WR's who support him, seem to fall on this side of the BLP line.  At any rate, links like this one disturb me for some reason.  Flip back and forth, note the number of reverts with no edit summary except "rvv", note the number of constructive edits.  I admit this was three years ago, but I'm just poking about here and there to see what I can find.  I like his answer to Lar (5) at this link. (And Lar 6 !)  However this block log is disturbing.  "Abusing multiple accounts" could account for the link I posted earlier.  His user and talk pages are surprisingly content-free.

I have to go with Neutral so far, maybe even slightly oppose... I'm still thinking on it.

Secret • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Secret is the same person as Jaranda, and as Jaranda edits WR (the site which no one shall mention.)  Evidently there is some issue about Secret's admin rights.  Secret evidently voluntarily gave up the bit some time ago, but recently wanted it back. (I've now found the thread that WJBScribe begun on the crat's discussion board in the archives, which explains the hooha.)  This link disturbs me.  I really hope that Secret is not claiming that a deletion tag placed for "hours" actually qualifies as some sort of valid "notice".  Evidently it was a C7 ("does not assert notability"), so perhaps this is excusable as a speedy delete.  To me this bit about copyright seems a little illogical and heavy-handed.  How exactly do you prove what something... isn't?  I really hope Secret's wording was a bit confused there. I give kudos however for the treatment of the whole "newbie research initiative" which showed that a certain editor (who I shall not name) was a complete tard and unrepentant about it.  Block log is content free.  Hmmm the Jaranda block log is also content free (except for silliness).

Neutral, leaning toward positive at the moment.  Still researching.  Oops wait... just found that he has an entry at Encyclopedia Dramatica, full of course with the usual vicious snarkiness, but also, pointing at lots of inWiki diffs to review. (Warning: ED is full of vicious, disgusting and sexual images.  Do not read it, if you are sensitive to those, you've been warned.)  That's enough.  I've read about a dozen of the diffs they point at.  Just say no to Jaranda.  Addendum: evidently Jaranda sees the ED expose as "harassment". If harassment means pointing out edits like this one, and many many more examples like that (see the ED article), then Jaranda is exactly who we don't need on board.  If he pledges to never again use the F-bomb, no matter what the circumstance, I might reconsider.

I have one more thing to say, the comments at this link are totally off-base.


Fritzpoll • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  At his RfA linked here, he had 69 supports and 10 opposes.  Many of the opposes there however are only related to his newness inWiki, not to any specific friction.  Fritzpoll edits on WR as Fritz.  Fritz has made comments in Arb cases like his comment here that seem sensible, balanced and community-focused.  The action by Fritzpoll here is very disturbing.  I reviewed the content that the user wanted to add to the Talk page, it seemed mild to me, even interesting.  That another user removed it was bizarre.  The enforcement actions that then followed, were severe to the point of absurdity.  This is completely ridiculous.  That Fritzpoll upheld it, can only mean that he did not bother to investigate what actually occurred. Blind trust is disturbing.

No vote yet.  I have had a brief e-mail exchange with Fritzpoll which has convinced me that he is an excellent candidate for ArbCom.  Several people have asked me to explain this.  No money changed hands.  I had emailed Fritz over something I had concerns about. His response, made it clear to me that he puts user grievances in front of any other inWiki concern.  He gave me the impression of sincere sympathy to the plight of users who are abused by process.  That is exactly the sort of mind-set we need on the ArbCom, and inWiki in general.


SirFozzie • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  SirFozzie took a break back here and had his admin bit removed.  Interestingly it was just after the Fringe Science ArbCom issue and evidently SirFozzie had some kind of involvement there.  I'm pretty disturbed that anyone would think 1RR was "useful".  It was essentially systematized abuse by the powerful over the powerless.  That's not a solution to anything unless you live in Uruguay.  He however agrees that ArbCom cannot create policy.  I'm disturbed however by his thinking that Arb members should work on policy whatsoever, even as editors.  Once you are on ArbCom there should be a bright line separating you from the common laborer, in terms of editing.  That's my belief.

I'm disturbed by SirFozzie saying twice in his answers that the Undertow's appeal "slipped through the cracks".  Is this the new way of saying "was ignored" ?  Not that I'm a supporter of Undertow, but I'm a supporter of truthfulness and plain speech.  He seems to have support from a varied spectrum of people.  His response on the question of "Outing" tipped the balance.  Once the genie is out of the bottle, you can't put it back.  In addition, I so-far haven't found any inWiki drama that Fozzie has caused or escalated.  Let me know if you know of any!


Unomi • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Unomi has certainly come through the fire.  OrangeMarlin, was the subject of a secret ArbCom ruling in 2008, which in itself is sickening.  Not just the secretiveness of it, but what OrangeMarlin was accused of doing. OrangeMarlin did not, as he promised, change his methods.  The constant and vicious attacks on Unomi by OrangeMarlin are enough in my book to give Unomi my vote.  Orange, one of the fifty worst abusers to ever happen to the project, appears to be gone and good riddance.  (Orange subscribes to a belief in "The Truth", which is antithetical to our project.) The baiting, the refusal to discuss appropriate edits, the constant attacks of "trolling" and "pov-pushing" and so on without any serious discussion.  The blocking based on Sockpuppetry was so over-the-top and disgusting.  "Mistake" hardly covers... "oops sorry we beat you unconscious, here's a candy bar."  People on the attacking end do not seem to have a full appreciation of the way the community-at-large views these sort of attacks.  So from sympathy alone, Unomi gets my...


Hersfold • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Hersfold supports community de-adminship at his/her/its/goats platform page, which is an absolutely excellent suggestion.  I can think of one or fifty admins I'd like to submit to it right away.  (That's a joke).  I'm leaning toward support just on that position alone, but I've just spent the last two days at the flea market picking out more useless junk to clutter my hovel, so I haven't been working on this article too much.  But enough about me, tell me about you, or better still tell me some dirt on Hersfold if you know any.

No vote yet

Fred Bauder • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
Policy edits (15).  Fred has a history which stretches across Wikiland like the tentacles of an octopus.  If you like that sort of thing.  Recently on Foundation-L Fred (and others) asserted a non-existent "policy" and tried to convince readers of its existence.  Threads in that discussion pointed out that the very links being used to prove it's existence, say the exact opposite. I need to find something more substantial on Fred however, so I'll refrain from casting a vote just yet on him.

Fred Bauder is the guy who created the fork Wikinfo, and thanks to the folks at WR for reminding me that Fred has an article at Encyclopedia Dramatica at this link. (Warning: Encyclopedia Dramatic hosts offensive, disgusting and sexual images and a lot of sarcastic and ridiculous commentary.  But in addition they link up some Wiki diffs, which are useful.  So you been warned.)  Hmm checking over there there really isn't a whole lot relevant (in my mind) to his being elected to ArbCom.  I'm not interested in outWorld hoohaw only inWiki failings myself.  I.E. I don't care if you beat your dog, I care if you use power to beat up powerless Wikipedians.

Fred was on the ArbCom during the Badsites case.  Those who know about this, or read up on it at that link, can decide for themselves whether or not to support him.  I cannot support him, because of that.

Oppose.  After hearing Fred's audio interview, I have to change my vote to neutral.  Do you agree ?  He seemed somewhat apologetic for all that nonsense.

Cla68 • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  An interview with Cla68 was initially added to his candidate questions page, but removed by another editor, who is evidently in opposition to his candidacy.  Here is a link directly to that audio interview. Feel free to go to the discussion page and protest loudly at the removal of the link.  Cla68 has written thirty Featured Articles, more than any other candidate.  Cla68 was one of the subjects of this Cla68/FM/Slimvirgin ArbCom case at this link.  Very enlightening isn't it?  Cla68 makes it clear that he/she/it can dig and dig and dig into history and pull up examples.  Cla68 makes it clear that he/she/it is in favor of transparency, of holding ArbCom to a consistent standard, and of exercising harsh justice where it's obviously demanded.  No more "friend of a friend so we'll ignore your abuse today" rules. (You have no friends on the internet, just butt-kissers waiting to knife you.  Hit yourself with a clue stick.) Cla68 also supports the creation of an Admin Review Subcommittee, to handle the many cases of reported Abuse by Admins.  So Cla68 gets my vote.


William M. Connolley • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
Policy edits (16).  Well I suppose it's a good thing that I created this here old Wikipedia ArbCom Case Index so the ArbCom can no longer hide behind noindexing.  At any rate, let's take a look shall we? Here is a direct link to the Sep 2009 ArbCom case involving Abd and William M Connolley, also I haven't looked at this one yet, but evidently William M Connolley was the subject of another prior ArbCom case at this link.  Okay, I've read enough.  At this link it's made clear that William M Connolley, edit-warred right on the ArbCom page itself, edited through protection to revert to his preferred version, blocked/unblocked with favoritism, used his tools during a conflict, removed the comments of other users... and so on and so forth.


Shell Kinney • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
Policy edits (14)   If Shell is really proposing more transparency, and that ArbCom should operate even more in-the-open, than I support her.  If anyone has links on this point, please shout them to me.  I don't want to issue a support unless I can link directly to where she states this.

Thanks to my fellow posters over at WikipediaReview (the website which must not be mentioned because it just may be revealing too much truthiness), here is a link to an interesting exchange between two of our ArbCom candidates, Jehochman and Shell Kinney.  And you thought you had drama?  In that heated exchange Shell Kinney suggests that Jehochman should read his "ArbCom candidate questions and discussion page", but she doesn't link to it.  Above I link to it since I'm nothing if not helpful.  I haven't quite found the exact thing Shell is referring to here, but evidently it deals with using off-wiki interaction to cause on-wiki effects.  In other words non-transparency.

No vote yet

Seddon • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  As Eva Destruction pointed out over at WR, I'm having a small problem with the idea that many of the question put to Seddon, in fact evidently most of them, have yet to be answered.  Thanks to ED for pointing this out.  At this link, Seddon appears to be discounting he/she/it/goats own candidacy.

No vote yet.

MBK004 • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  I'm fairly disturbed that MBK004 did not understand the nature of the escalating conflict bewteen Postoak and DesGarçon before he decided to use his ban-hammer at this link.  When two users have been engaged in a pattern of attack-defend-attack to target one side is detrimental to the project.  It teaches the other side that gaming is a fair way to proceed.  Both sides in this dispute were to blame and some form of intervention was obviously in order to calm the waters.  That MBK004 did not see that, is disturbing.  I also find this disturbing: MBK004 blocked Thecolombygroup at this link with an indefinite block after this new user had made two edits.  The edits they made were on an article that MBK004 was also involved in editing at this link.  And this was after MBK004 had just recently reverted their edit to the Chris Botti article, and cautioned them to use sources, on their talk page.  So the claim that MBK004 forget this incident can't be forwarded.  Evidently the block was for creating a user name that matched the promotional company that Chris Botti uses.  Whether or not that's so, that MBK004 would not know that using tools this way is improper disturbs me. For that alone I cannot support MBK004 until he/she/it/goat is willing to explain the use of tools against a co-editor in a content conflict situation. MBK004 should know that at this point, an uninvolved admin should have issued the block.  Since in afterthought I had perhaps been too harsh, I gave MBK004 an opportunity to explain this block in this conversation linked here on my talk page, and also here on his talk page.  You have to go back and forth between the two pages to see the entire thread.  Reviewing the edits he reverted they are perhaps "promotional" in part or even in main, but not entire.  His reverts threw away some information that to me seemed quite useful for the article.  I'm also in the middle of reviewing another MBK004 case, that is in-conflict today and looks to escalate.  This is another situation in which the judgment of MBK004 seems a bit contrary to the project's goals.  For now I have to continue to


Steve Smith • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Edits on WR as Sarcasticidealist.  Steve Smith on his user page here believe in the "indefinite full protection of BLPs upon request." (I need to explain this I'm told.)  To place an article into "full protection" means only admins can edit it.  Steve evidently thinks that all admins are "good" editors, and all non-admins are "bad" editors.  In other words, all animals are good, but pigs are better.  (You need to have read "Animal Farm" to understand my allusion.)  No Steve, you are... right out.  Admins should have no special content rights.  "Full protection" should be reserved solely for articles in the immediate-midst-of-warring.  Anyone advocating for special content rights for admins, will not get my vote.  Change your stance to "semi-protection" and you'll be fine.  But for now, I have to


Wehwalt • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  On WR Sarcasticidealist at this link posts "candidates by number of featured articles", Wehwalt has created 14 Featured Articles.

Kmweber • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Edits on WR as Kurt M. Weber.  There is some discussion on this candidate here on WR where RDH states : "He is the only one who openly promises to try and bring down the attrocity [sic] monstrosity from the inside if elected."  I assume this means something like Kurt thinks that ArbCom is an invalid institution.

Hmmm I must say his statement is quite unique.  The answers to his questions are interesting, even intriguing.  He is running as a maverick candidate to essentially try to render the ArbCom moot.

No vote yet

KnightLago • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
    No policy edits

Coren • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
    Policy edits (18)

Ruslik0 • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  On WR Sarcasticidealist at this link posts "candidates by number of featured articles", Ruslik0 has created 16 Featured Articles.

Jehochman • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
    Policy edits (167)
With this comment Jehochman just lost my vote : "Written policy does not matter very much."  In my mind, ArbCom should not make policy but should only enforce the policy the community has decided upon.  Jehochman appears to be an activist by a comment like this and therefore should be opposed.  What is particularly odd about a statement like that, is that Jehochman, has far more edits to policy pages than any other candidate!  I find that dissonant image disturbing.  I'd have to look more closely into his policy edits to see what they were exactly.  In addition, I had to be reminded (thanks anonymous reader) that Jehochman was instrumental in this utter fiasco.  One of the all-time worst ArbCom cases ever heard in terms of the final decisions.  No Arb in this case should be elected again, since they appear to favor cronyism over substance.

Thanks to my fellow posters over at WikipediaReview (the website which must not be mentioned because it just may be revealing too much truthiness), here is a link to an interesting exchange between two of our ArbCom candidates, Jehochman and Shell Kinney.  And you thought you had drama?  In that heated exchange Shell Kinney suggests that Jehochman should read his "ArbCom candidate questions and discussion page", but she doesn't link to it.  Above I link to it since I'm nothing if not helpful.  I haven't quite found the exact thing Shell is referring to here, but evidently it deals with using off-wiki interaction to cause on-wiki effects.  In other words non-transparency.


Xavexgoem • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
    Policy edits (40)

Kirill Lokshin • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
Policy edits (33)  Kirill was one of the Arbs in this case, and therefore automatically loses my vote.  No Arb in this case should be elected again, since they appear to favor cronyism over substance.


AGK • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
Policy edits (39)  I don't recall anything about this editor.  But this link is very interesting!  Just the fact that Elonka opposes him/her/it/goat might be enough for me to support him/her/it/goat.  But the reference to emails from Dec 2008, quite possibly leaves a trace in the contribs... what do ya think?  Thank we should try to track that one down?  Yes that's the right answer.  Over on WR, Eva Destruction has this to say, and posts up for us this link back to AGK (Anthony)'s RfA which says a lot doesn't it?

AGK certainly likes to talk more than the other Arbs at this link on the PHG case.  I don't like AGK's responses here in his Candidate Questions.  In general AGK talks too much, not necessarily a bad thing, but most people are just not going to read through three paragraphs to boil it down to one main thought.  And here he raises the ridiculous libel boogyman.. please!  Done, over, just a way to stifle.

Some sort of big snoodle over here, don't know what it's about.  I like that AGK opposes BetaCommand (a reckless unrepentent bot-writer if ever there was one), I don't like that AGK makes statements like "What the committee keeps secret is because it needs to" which is such a load of utter junk I can't believe anyone would say it.  Everyone know that the committee keeps things secret which should be open.  That's part of the problem.  That's enough.

Oppose.  Responses are too "everything's OK" when we all know it's not OK.

Mailer diablo • Statement • Questions • Discussion •  Comment
No policy edits.  Mailer diablo at this link (Feb 2009) requests checkuser and oversight powers.  There are 87 supports and 8 opposes.  He has an interesting Manifesto at this link.

Candidates with policy edits, sorted by policy edits : Jehochman (167), Xavexgoem (40), AGK (39), Kirill Lokshin (33), Coren (18), William M Connolley (17), Fred Bauder (15), Shell Kinney (14).  That's eight and if that were the sole criteria that would be the voting list.  However, there are a few caveats that must be observed here.  Sometimes people make a lot of policy edits, because they are trying to covertly change a previously agreed-upon community consensus.  So we need more details on some candidates.

Some readers might feel my aggressive stance for moral integrity within the Wiki-community and especially within the ArbCom, is overboard.  Any hint of cronyism, double-dealing, back-office politics and so on, must be completely stamped out of the project, with cleats on and with blood spilled.  It is not a hard thing to take a hard stand against this sort of thing.  ArbCom should be setting the standard, not becoming a part of it.  Internet friends do not exist, no one on the Internet is your "friend".  However your integrity in the way you deal with others, including strangers, is the paramount concern, and should be for any ArbCom member.  Overlooking the destructive actions of your "friends" is not a qualification that gets you my vote for ArbCom.  The sole way I would vote for those I'm opposing above, is that they re-open two cases and apply justice instead of back-rubs.