I'm disappointed, but hardly surprised, to see that a legitimate self-nomination for ArbCom was quickly erased by YankSox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_El...

When I asked Cyde Weys to lift his block on the "Thekohser", so that I might post the nomination from a signed-in user account, his rather preemptive response was:

"I don't particularly see the point, you really have no chance in hell. None of these free volunteers are going to vote for someone who's trying to make money off of it."

Is it the policy of Wikipedia, or just the bad behavior of over-presumptuous editors, to delete the nomination of someone for a position of authority, just because their account has been blocked, or certain key people disagree with their philosophy? It's not such a far stretch to see how I might imagine YankSox and Cyde Weys operating from a position of fear, because they have self-doubt about the legitimacy of their own philosophy and entitlement to authority. Don't put it to a community vote, because -- gasp! -- what if some in the community take the "wrong" position?!

My realistic expectation is not to "win" the ArbCom election, but I still feel that it's important to gauge community support of my position, regardless. Will the vote be 10-to-1 against? Maybe 20-to-1? Or, possibly, only 2-to-1? If the latter, might it be worth some additional consideration of the point?