User:William M. Connolley/Arbcomm 2009 elections

These are my thoughts on the 2009 arbcomm elections. My statement is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/William M. Connolley. All the statements are at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements.

Last year I wrote up some stuff; must try to find that. Ditto Boris's.

From admins, I look for a useful block log. From re-standing arbs, some admission of the current obvious problems. From all, some kind of sane statement. I'm strongly influenced by what I know about people by contact with them. If a candidate isn't an admin, they'd better have a good reason for not having run (or having failed). If you're not ready to do an admins tasks, you're not ready to be an arb.

Yes / No with capital is final; in lower case, tentative. Feel free to ask if you want expansion.

• AGK (talk · contribs). No. answers to questions.
• Chutznik (talk · contribs). No. Silly; see statement.
• Cla68 (talk · contribs). No, obviously.
• Coren (talk · contribs). no. Initially undecided (obvious context) but I believe I, and the committee as a whole, did a fairly good job during the past year is bad.
• Fred Bauder (talk · contribs). Yes. Not entirely happy (anyone really unable to understand short selling is too clueless to be an arb) but commitment to openness is good.
• Fritzpoll (talk · contribs). no, answer to Sandstein: weak, offend-no-one stuff.
• Hersfold (talk · contribs). No. If I think I did as well as I could then you're not good enough.
• Jehochman (talk · contribs). No. Has some of the right enemies, and some of the right views. Insufficiently communicative [1].
• Kirill Lokshin (talk · contribs). Yes. Wish he'd been around for my case.
• Kmweber (talk · contribs). No.
• KnightLago (talk · contribs). neutral (hard to decide, but [2] threw it in the end. Anyone unaware of [3] needs to get out more I can't justify opposing based on that. It was probably an error, but not a critical one).
• Mailer diablo (talk · contribs). weak no. Much good, but questions leave me queasy; Sandsteins the final straw. Disappointing block log.
• MBK004 (talk · contribs). No. General lack of undrestanding (3RR being the most obvious). Dull block log.
• RMHED (talk · contribs). no, reluctantly. I'd favour using really bad puns for case naming. A case name should only be changed if someone comes up with an even worse pun is particularly good. Should take himself a bit more seriously.
• Ruslik0 (talk · contribs). No. Much is weak (lacks any decent enemies) but the overall length of the case does not seem to have been excessive—only three months. will do as a final nail.
• Secret (talk · contribs)</a> [4]
• Seddon (talk · contribs). No. failure to answer; 15 is important but incoherent.
• Shell_Kinney (talk · contribs). yes. But.
• SirFozzie (talk · contribs). maybe. But.
• Steve Smith (talk · contribs). No. Various, but We must do something, and this is something, therefore we must do it. will do.
• Unomi (talk · contribs). No. Any number of reasons, [5] will doom him alone. Should stand down now to avoid wasting time.
• Wehwalt (talk · contribs) Yes. Inclined to support (even if he is a lawyer) and have liked what I've seen. Some troubling answers to questions. At [6] has the right ideas and the right enemies and unlike the current arbcomm, is anti-airbrushing. Talks to much about articles in his statement.
• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs). Yes, of course :-).
• Xavexgoem (talk · contribs). no. Nice chap, probably a decent mediator, less likely to be good on arbcomm. Views on 3RR distinctly unsound.