Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Should this page exist? 2 Endorsements page considered harmful 3 Camembert 4 Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements AND PERSONAL ATTACKS 5 Farewell, NPOV! 6 Endorsements and anti-endorsements 7 Deletions: I thought so 8 "Discussion" 9 Formatting 10 Subpages 11 Just one list 12 Survey 12.1 The Appropriateness of Lobbying Sympathetic Support for the Survey 12.2 Requirement for Full Disclosure & Noting Conflict Interest for Arbcom candidates voting 13 VeryVerily, I was following Michael Snow's suggestion 14 Abstention 15 Election Campaigning - What is the Spam Threshold? 16 A better organized framework for discussion of campaign messages 17 Get Out the Vote! 18 Indiscriminate reversion and subpages 19 If candidates don't want any opinions posted under their name 20 Suggestion 21 Moved from Endorsements Page 22 Exciting new feature to control campaign messages 23 Opposition to Raul 24 Talk from Sam Spade's endorsements 25 The new "endorsement" and "opposition" dual page edit 26 "Disendorsement" page? 27 Quick strawpoll 27.1 Split 27.2 Combine 27.3 Delete both pages 27.4 Comments 28 Unblemished record 29 Troll 30 Regarding Sam Spade's Recent Removal of All Comments Pertaining to his Candidacy 31 Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands Airing of Opposition Statements 32 This experiment is a failure, let's end it. 32.1 This experiment is a failure, let's end it (II) 33 One line per vote 34 Keep backups of this page and others 34.1 FM's Compromise Solution 35 Poll regarding the use of these pages 36 Bug? Or just another oops by me? 37 New Candidates 38 Problems with the election

[edit] Should this page exist?

Can someone clarify whether this page is even meant to exist? I think it's a fine idea, but I don't want to go endorsing anyone unless it's supposed to be part of the process. Who can endorse people, for example? Only people running? Can people run a negative campaign here where the specifically disendorse other candidates? I hope not on the last one! Or are we to make up the procedure as we go along and set a precident? Arg, too many questions, I think I'll err on the side of conservatism and wait. Shane King 10:38, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

I think those are good questions, but... too bad, I already endorsed you ;) Sam [Spade] 11:14, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some people made public endorsements as part of the last election. Certainly if we have endorsements, then anyone can make them, not just the candidates. I would just point out that there are at least six positions open (actually seven now, because Camembert has indicated that he will not continue after the end of the year), so even if some people only endorse three or four candidates, they need to think hard about who else they are willing to support. --Michael Snow 18:33, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone neutral repair the page? I tried, and was reverted by 172. [[User:Sam Spade|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deleting other users' comments-- comments by Mirv and two other users-- does not constitute 'repairing' anything. That is why you were reverted. 172 23:45, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't like the section—I'd prefer to see this run entirely by secret ballot—but since there was support for it, I tried to mitigate its effects. Whoever our anonymous friend is (and his style is familiar), I'm not happy with the way he dragged up Sam's political views, and I don't think a user's political views should have any bearing on their candidacy. Those arbitrators with strong and unpopular opinions have not shown any faults in their arbitration. —No-One Jones ^(m) 23:57, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When I saw his/her posting, I did not see it as dragging up Sam Spade's political views but rather highlighting his trollish behavioral patters. (The link added User:Spleeman/Sam Spade which focuses on behavior as opposed to politics.) The anon could've expressed himself/herself more clearly, though. 172 00:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, the better part of that page is about biases, with only a few notes on behavior. It's fair to express concerns about a candidate's behavior, yes, but linking to a page that goes on at length about a user's political and religious biases isn't the best way to do that I think. —No-One Jones ^(m) 00:55, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I personally was ambivalent about endorsements in August, but I've made my peace with them. In a field of so many candidates (and considering how many positions we have to fill), I think it's very reasonable that a user would want guidance on which of these names truly have the respect of the community. While this endorsements page is perhaps not an ideal way of handling that problem, I can't think of a better one. It is difficult, of course, to endorse without feeling as though you are slighting the other candidates. I'm simply relying on the fact that, with a very few exceptions, I respect and like all of these candidates and would not be upset to think that they were a part of the AC -- I hope and trust that the users I do not endorse are aware of my respect for them, and that they will not take my silence on their behalf as an intended slight. I try to endorse only where I feel there are significant reasons why a user is particularly well-suited to the AC, and I hope I offend no one by doing so....if I do, please tell me. As far as "oppose" votes, I would prefer that they not appear (I hate all forms of negative campaigning) -- they create too much friction, and I don't think they're necessary. But I don't see any reason to remove them unless they take the form of a personal attack. Jwrosenzweig 00:58, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm very surprised you'd not be upset were someone who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard" would be part of the AC. I can understand you personally excusing that sort of behavior from an editor who is a friend, but for a position of trust and responsibility such as a seat on the AC, I'd think any ethicly-inclined person would insist on only seating AC members who lack even a hint of trollishness, much less established histories. --FeloniousMonk 19:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two comments -- one, I did note there were "a very few exceptions", so please don't pretend that I have blanket-endorsed every candidate in this field (nor that it is obvious who I feel the exceptions are). Secondly, I don't think this is the right forum to reopen that conversation and issue with me -- you've already made your comments on the endorsements page, and I'm getting tired of being badgered by you over who I do and don't like here, and over which misbehaviors you wish me to attend to. Jwrosenzweig 20:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider that page a personal attack. I have been wondering, actually, and perhaps this is a good time to ask, can I have pages from inactive user accounts which I feel constitute a personal attack deleted? If so, how so? VfD doesn't seem the right place... [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doing so smacks of censorship, cover up or pro-active revisionism. I will actively oppose editors deleting anything from other editors personal pages, especially inactive editors who are not present to protect their pages.--FeloniousMonk 19:40, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements page considered harmful

Because people can be bullied around based on endorsements they have made. See: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ShaneKing and User_talk:ShaneKing#Your_adminship.

I most strongly reccomend we do anon voting only. Kim Bruning 00:05, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the endorsements page should be for endorsements only. I would very much like to remove the "opposing endorsements", though I'm sure someone would revert me on the matter. And yes, anonymous voting in a situation like this is absolutely the best way to go. func(talk) 00:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it is possible to give a negative endorsement, not just positive. Unilateral censorship in this case is unwarranted. --Mrfixter 00:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I completely agree. Only allowing positive comments would only benefit those few who count on knowledge of their troublesome histories not being commonplace. An open, free market of knowledge of every candidates history is the only fair and responsible way to consider each candidate. That some candidates find their history burdensome or their alliances to be albatrosses about their necks is proof enough that candidate histories are relevant and should be available to all interested parties on the endorsement page. As in real politics, candidates with skeletons in their closets should be prepared to face and account for their past actions; it's only reasonable. And also like real politics, it's generally those with the ugliest pasts or most embarrassing alliances that cry the loudest for censorship.--FeloniousMonk 02:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that these so called skeletons in people's closets can just be figments of other people's imaginations. I encourage you to take any candidate that you feel has a skeleton in their closet through the arbitration process itself, so the presence or lack of such skeletons can be decided in a fair and impartial venue. Until someone is taken through arbitration, any such allegations about misbehaviour are really just FUD in my book.

As far as "alliances" go, I hope that's not in reference to myself, but as I'm the one listed at the top of this section, I guess there's a strong posibility that it is. I strongly reject the idea I have anything to hide. I could have very easily not endorsed Sam, and nobody would be any the wiser. It's quite possible some of the candidates running have chosen not to endorse people on the basis that doing so would harm their candidacy, I don't know. All I know is that I knew it would likely harm my candidacy, but I decided to do so anyway, because I believed (and still believe) it's unethical to not do so. Shane King 03:06, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I have little to say about specific candidates that I have not already said on the endorsements page. Considering the state of the arbitration process and the low esteem a good number of wikipedians have for it, that a candidate has so far not been through arbitration is not a good indication of the quality or desirability of that candidate. But their history is. Learning about a user's history at wikipedia is a difficult, time consuming and risky process, and not all editors are capable enough to perform a comprehensive discovery. Add to that the intentional efforts of some to bury or disguise their past and mislead newbies with false pretenses. That is one simple reason why censorship in the form you proposed in any relevant discussion on wikipedia is a poor idea.

I applaud that you followed your conscience when you spoke in endorsement of Sam and stated why; it's only fair that others have the equal right to speak thusly in not endorsing candidates as well.--FeloniousMonk 03:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What censorship have I proposed? I'm genuinely confused here. Shane King 04:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I thought your position was you didn't support the purpose of the Endorsements page and as well as the right of editors to state why they do not endorse a particular candidate. If I am mistaken about your position, then I apologize.--FeloniousMonk 05:13, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the rules should have been made clear before the page was openned. I obviously have opinions as to what the rules should be, but I'm more concerned that they be made explicit next time rather than advocating any particular position. As there are no rules layed out, I obviously have to agree that anything goes for this election. Hence my confusion as to why I was considered to be pro-censorship, because I don't think I am. Appology accepted, I just wanted to make my position clear. 05:18, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I'll survive, don't worry too much about it. It is the reason why I asked whether this page should exist right at the top. Perhaps we could be more organised and decide on these issues beforehand next time? Shane King 01:28, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that having an endorsements page creates a large loophole for abuse :-/ . I just happened to name the one instance that I'd noticed so far. Kim Bruning 12:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Camembert

Just noticed "Camembert has indicated that he will not continue after the end of the year" above. Sorry to appear flighty, but it's not actually certain whether I'll be continuing beyond the end of the year or not. I'll know for sure one way or another in the next few days, and when I do, I'll make sure all interested parties know. --Camembert 01:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you haven't been an active participant, on what grounds do you even consider holding onto your position? Shorne 04:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you considered the remote possibility he may suddenly have free time again next year? Johnleemk | Talk 04:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too bad. I don't accept this speculative reason for failing to relinquish the position. Shorne 05:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point is taken, John - but at the same time, I believe it is only respectful that if a Committee member no longer has time to do the job, that they resign. If Camembert is going to have the time, that's fine - but I don't believe an "umm...wait and see..." answer is acceptable - at least unless the answer is given before the elections take place. It's been our biggest problem so far - if he doesn't have the time to do the job - or isn't sure he'll have time - then perhaps it's time he stood aside in favour of someone else. Ambi 08:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, if he does feel that he will have the time to discharge his responsibilities, he should stand for election like everyone else. The public can decide how likely that is to be true and whether his holding onto the position for so long was becoming of an arbitrator. Shorne 08:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Camembert was appointed by Jimbo for a two or three year period (I can't recall which). Accordingly, he does not need to seek re-election, and he can resign if and when he pleases. If you disagree with his actions, you will have the opportunity to refrain from voting for him when his term expires. Martin 22:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements AND PERSONAL ATTACKS

I now suggest that we change the name of this page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements AND PERSONAL ATTACKS. There is no point in inventing phrases like "opposing endorsments", such a contradiction in terms has no place on Wikipedia. func(talk) 03:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So any opposition is ipso facto a personal attack? Typical: the arbitration committee is held to be a superhuman élite, beyond reproach. Shorne 03:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK.... So we should just remove all those comments in opposition to candidates as you previously did and call it: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements AND CENSORSHIP?--FeloniousMonk 03:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why would someone vote for a nominee whom they have never heard of and don't know anything about? People who are going to vote will do so for the candidates who they are familiar with, who they have a good history with. There is no reason to create a smear page, where you get to engage in your favorite activity of yelling at people that you don't like. func(talk) 03:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So promoting someone is fine but speaking out against him is smearing? Again, very typical of the administration here. Shorne 04:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I stated above, by only allowing positive comments you would only benefit those few who count on knowledge of their troublesome histories not being commonplace. An open forum of information that includes discussion of a candidate's history, even when it is negative, is certainly fair and balanced if editors are being allowed provide their endorsement and justification thereof. That some candidates find their history burdensome or their alliances to be albatrosses about their necks is proof enough that candidate histories are relevant and should be available to all interested parties on the endorsement page. Candidates with skeletons in their closets should be prepared to face and account for their past actions; their own candidacy makes discussions of relevant facts a matter of good netizenship, not ad hominem.--FeloniousMonk 05:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne's arrival here lays bare the very real possibility that this page could simply become a trolls' playground. Erasing it may be too much, but perhaps not delinking it if/when/before it's become ruined. VeryVerily 04:31, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wouldn't delinking the page preclude further "public" comment? Wouldn't doing so thus limit the ability to endorse to those already in the know? I'm unclear on what you meant.--FeloniousMonk 05:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Farewell, NPOV!

Sam Spade and his cronies support NPOV policy... or do they? According to policy, both sides of an argument must be present for a set of data to be considered neutral; however, when "candidates" censor opinions they deem threatening and contrary to their position the NPOV policy falls flat on its face while the "candidates" demonize protestors by labeling their opinions "personal attacks." Quite humorous that these candidates for the Arbitration Committee only support policy when it benefits them most. Adraeus 05:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We won't laugh, however, when hypocrites like these get elected. Shorne 05:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm not even laughing now.--FeloniousMonk 06:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hah! That's so funny I forgot to laugh. Except for that first "hah". —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 23:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements and anti-endorsements

Since the level of dialogue and civility here is getting dangerously low, I suggest we address it by moving all statements on this page to the user namespaces of the people who have posted on it, and reduce the page to a list of users who have such "endorsement pages". This means that instead of exposing everyone to the toxic atmosphere that is developing, anyone wishing to consult the endorsements of others can choose to view specifically those he or she is interested in. Any objections if we do this? --Michael Snow 07:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As my own level of dialogue and civility has entered into full-blown rant mode, I endorse Michael Snow's proposal. (It's a shame that Shorne and the Monk guy are simply going to anti-endorse it out of spite). func(talk) 07:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why would anyone want to oppose this proposal? If anyone thinks their comments and endorsements will have any effect on a secret ballot election, it must be because they believe people are interested in hearing what they have to say. Certainly interested enough to seek out the link that leads them to this particular person's list of endorsements. --Michael Snow 07:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable compromise to me. The atmosphere here isn't really helpful to the goals of the project, I don't think. Shane King 08:09, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why we should scatter the information onto "user namespaces", where it would be harder to find, harder to use, and subject to destruction. Keeping all the information together makes sense. Shorne 08:19, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Subject to destruction? The only basis for speedy-deleting a user subpage is upon request of the user themselves, in which case I don't think anybody has a right to complain if that particular user's endorsements are no longer visible. Keeping it together does not make sense because at this rate the page will turn into an unwieldy, acrimonious dump as bad as the worst of VfDs. --Michael Snow 09:07, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If a user gets primarily negative comments, he may choose to delete them. Why should that be his prerogative? I also find it outrageous that you asked for comments here on your proposal and then proceeded to implement it without further discussion once I raised a serious objection. Shorne 09:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The endorsements were moved to subpages of the endorser's userpage (for example, mine). If someone goes about deleting negative comments about himself from others' user space, he's going to make a lot of people very angry—so yes, he has a choice to delete them, but that choice will have profoundly negative consequences, I think. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:28, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maybe so, but I don't see any place here to discuss such deletions. If there were a page to discuss the election, I wouldn't mind the change so much, although I still feel that it scatters the information across too many pages and makes it harder to use. It may also tend to favour the more famous candidates, since the lazier users will not bother to look up endorsements on two dozen pages. Shorne 09:41, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For general discussion there's Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004; for discussion of candidate statements there's Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements; and there's this page. There's no longer a place for a centralized discussion of the merit, or lack thereof, of each candidate, but maybe that's for the best; heated thread-mode discussions with too many participants tend to become gawdawful messes on Wiki pages, and I'm not sure the voter is served by having to slog through lengthy shouting matches—is watching Crossfire really the best way to inform oneself about the candidates in an election?

On the other hand, if each user gives their endorsements on a personal subpage, we end up with something more like a newspaper's editorial-page endorsement: a clean, ordered exposition of a single point of view on each candidate. Nothing is lost and much is gained. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of this became an issue until a few opposing comments were posted. Then suddenly the change was carried out without discussion. I strongly disapprove. Shorne 12:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I am quite strongly opposed to this practice. Sorting the comments by the user who posted them is wrong. It favours the big names over the little ones. It also breaks up the discussion that was going on in a few cases. I'm strongly opposed to this new scheme and want the old one to be restored. The only reason for this new one seems to be that a few people wanted to neutralise the opposition to certain candidates. Shorne 09:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It also neutralizes the support (which is in some cases resounding), and the total apathy, that some people have received. Nobody gets preferential treatment. —No-One Jones ^(m) 09:59, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It mitigates in favour of the status quo. That's POV, and it's unfair to the underdogs in the election. Shorne 12:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This was a very good move IMO. I was uncomfortable with this page and the way it was developing, although very grateful for the endorsements I received. Moving them to personal sub-pages seems to me to be exactly the right thing to do. -- sannse (talk) 12:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps because someone spoke out against you? Shorne 12:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps you and others can prevent Shorne from trying to singlehandedly undo this by force or by stealth. VeryVerily 12:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am restoring the information in the original format on a separate page. There is nothing wrong with that. It was fine a few hours ago; I see no reason to suppress it. Then again, someone whose only two endorsements were negative may well have an ulterior motive to do so. Shorne 12:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support the changes and the discussion page. There needs to be a centralised area for debate. This is supposed to be an election. --Mrfixter 13:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While leaving Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements as it is (the new version), I have created Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion for discussion. As you say, we do need a page for this purpose. Shorne 13:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support the changes, but I do feel there needs to be some discussion about the candidates. However, I feel this would be best served by either this page or the talk page for the candidates' statements. Johnleemk | Talk 13:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

I openly restored the text as "Discussion" while leaving the changes in place as "Endorsements". The large amount of activity on "Discussion" seems to justify the page's existence. Someone even chastised VeryVerily for deleting the page multiple times. I construe this as evidence that the page fills a useful rôle. Shorne 15:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Deletions: I thought so

With his tail between his legs, Sam Spade deleted the comments about him on the "Discussion" page. This is precisely why I wanted to have the information here: so that it would be public. People who throw their hats into the ring should expect to have to withstand public scrutiny.

Shall I restore the deleted material? Shorne 16:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unilateral censorship is unwarranted. If Sam Spade wants to be on the ArbCom, then there has to be discussion. Restore the deleted material. --Mrfixter 16:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Thanks for restoring it. Shorne 16:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Discussion"

Someone just removed this page, turning it into a link to "Endorsements". People were holding discussions there. I think that it should be restored. Shorne 16:48, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There has to be a discussion page for each ArbCom candidate, at least. I can understand the page that has now vanished swelling unmanageably. Does such a page exist for each candidate? If not, why not? --Mrfixter 17:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If someone wants to make all those pages, he may. But it is highly indecent to come along and remove that page when people here agree that it is valuable. Would someone please restore the page (and also the links from "Candidate statements" and "Endorsements") until some other design is implemented? Shorne 17:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amazing. Apparently wikipedians are to rely solely on the candidate's own statements as to whether to endorse or not since the free exchange of information about candidate qualifications and suitability is discouraged at wikipedia. Again I'm profoundly disappointed at the level of censorship and cynical manipulation here. I'm for removing the redirect and restoring the discussion; it was a valuable source of independent information on the candidates, that is not available anywhere else.--FeloniousMonk 17:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Each candidate has a talk page, and many have created pages in their user namespaces for discussion of their candidacies. Those would be the best places to have discussions related to specific candidates. --Michael Snow 17:15, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's fine, but what do we do when our comments about a candidate in their namespace is deleted? --Mrfixter 17:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can think of one candidate in particular who deletes anything negative left in his user namespace. A central clearinghouse of free information and discussion is what is needed and the purpose the discussion page served. Effectively removing it was wrong, it's censorship, and does a great disservice to wikipedia.--FeloniousMonk 17:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. The system now is confusing, although the discussions page wasn't much better, as people may have thought it was where people voted for a candidate. There has to be a central discussion area specifically for the ArbCom elections and about the candidates. This is an election, is it not? Making it difficult to have a free flow of information seems very strange. --Mrfixter 17:30, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's already a "central clearinghouse" of endorsements, and if you want to add to the information you can add more endorsements of your own, and if you want to have discussion prompted by those endorsements, each of those endorsement pages has (or can have) a talk page. Nothing has been censored, and if you think centralization is necessary for freedom of information and discussion, I think you are seriously misunderstanding the way Wikipedia works at all. We do not have one central place for anything, really. By this kind of logic, we would prohibit everybody from discussing the election anywhere but on the one "authorized" discussion page, because that's the "proper" place where such discussions "belong". Not exactly what I would call freedom. --Michael Snow 17:35, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But you prohibit a centralized, area specifically for the discussion of candidates. I don't have the freedom to choose, the decision has been made for me. Also, there is clear support for a centralized discussion area. --Mrfixter 17:44, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It hasn't been prohibited. What I've done is distribute the material that was simply endorsements (or anti-endorsements) of candidates. If you want to have actual discussions instead, not Requests-for-adminship style dueling supports and opposes, see my comments on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion. But if all I see there is more endorsements, then I will continue to refactor them as I have been doing. --Michael Snow 17:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you really think it's an improvement that users now have to click and visit 35 pages to get the same information they previously did on just one? Do you think that users will have the patience to make all those clicks to reach all those separate pages in the user namespaces? No. It now ambiguates the information, not disambiguates. Breaking it out in a manner done nowhere else on wikipedia that I've seen is censorship, pure and simple. It's prevents interaction and discussion. It's a cynical attempt at marginalizing discussions that some people do not want to take place. And no one has said that discussion could not take place elsewhere, that's a straw man.--FeloniousMonk 17:49, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Felonious. Spreading discussion over many namespaces is an attempt at censorship, it is a needless hindrance for voters to go through and is totally counter-intuitive. Each candidate having a page of discussion within the ArbCom process is not limiting other discussions from taking place, and to suggest that it is is laughable. --Mrfixter 19:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the definitions of censorship being thrown about here are what's laughable. The presentation of a mass endorsement page has created an atmosphere that is contrary to Wikipedia policy, in particular Wikipedia:Civility. Several people above agreed that the page was being problematic. As I've repeatedly said, if you want to have real discussion, you can try that approach on an appropriate page, but the endorsements need to be better organized and this will actually be more helpful to voters who don't have the inclination to wade through a laundry list of all endorsements on one page. --Michael Snow 19:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The original format of the endorsements page, prior to it's ambiguation to the user name spaces, was the proper venue to present endorsements and justifications for granting or withholding them. I support Gzornenplatz' reversion to the original format and also agree that having another editor create a page in my namespace without my permission was offensive.

As I've said elsewhere, if you're offended by having your own endorsements presented in your own words in your own user namespace, by all means blank the page or have it speedily deleted. --Michael Snow 20:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm amazed anyone actually thinks people will believe that it's an improvement that users click 70 times to visit 35 pages to get the same information they previously did on just one. No one honestly thinks that users will have the patience to make all those clicks to reach all those separate pages in the user namespaces. Breaking the comments out to individual pages also prevents any further discussion. So the purpose is clear: prevent further discussion and make it difficult for interested readers to find all relevant information. Your version ambiguates the information, not disambiguates.--FeloniousMonk 20:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This isn't about "disambiguation", and I fail to see how there's anything ambiguous about putting the endorsements on linked pages. It's about having a manageable page (already approaching 32 KB and just wait when more endorsements come in). The distributed version keeps the playing field level and makes it easier for interested readers to select the information they consider relevant, instead of having to slog through all of it. It's also far more conducive to a civil atmosphere. --Michael Snow 20:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh please. That's as threadbare a rationalization for stiffling honest discussion as I've ever read here. No. I'm not buying it. I used "ambiguates" to discribe your version because it describes exactly what you're attempting to do to discussion and relevent information here. I cannot accept it; it's censorship, plain and simple. --FeloniousMonk 20:24, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

I still do not consider the current format of the page acceptable, but in the meantime I have removed the excessive use of formatting (bold and italics), which was overwhelmingly being used in negative comments and contributed greatly to the toxic atmosphere of the page. --Michael Snow 20:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put my bold formatting on before I read this comment, honestly. However, I don't believe there was a consensus for your altering peoples posts either. It is not your responsibility to defuse so-called "toxic" atmospheres, or to alter posts in this way. This is still censorship, if people want to use bold, let them. --Mrfixter 21:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I consider any changing of my comments, either in wording or in format, done without my consent to be vandalism. I always defend my postings against vandalism. Vigorously.

What's toxic here is your incessant censorship and constant manipulation of any discussion. I for one bitterly resent it and will oppose it at every turn.--FeloniousMonk 23:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Subpages

I have now created subpages for each candidate as well as each endorser. That should satisfy the issues that have been raised. --Michael Snow 21:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Just one list

Seeing the list of endorsers and the list of candidates, I think it is plain to see how ridiculous, pointless and confusing it is have a list of endorsers on this page. I would like to see only the candidates pages, it is simple and straightforward. There has been enough unilateral action, though, so lets consensus build :) --Mrfixter 21:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When endorsements were initially posted, they were grouped by the endorser. It was also done this way in the last election. Only later was the listing grouped by candidates added. The point of having a list by endorser is that many people will be just as interested in seeing all of the candidates endorsed by X as they are in seeing how many people endorse candidate Y. After all, we are electing at least six and quite possibly more people here, and it can be helpful to get an idea of the slate of candidates an endorser would recommend. --Michael Snow 21:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for doing both lists. Would it be possible to put the lists side by side? Also, it would be a show of good faith if you could delete the ArbCom page in my namespace and delete my name from the list of endorsers. Thanks --Mrfixter 21:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Deletion is done, but I'm not going to do side by side lists, as it would take time that I don't have and require me to brush up skills I almost never use. If someone else wants to try, they can. --Michael Snow 21:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting my name and things. Also, what about a warning on each candidate subpage that it is NOT for voting, but for discussion/endorsement only? And for the text above the candidate list, a suggestion:

This is a list of candidates for the Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. If you wish to make public endorsements of a candidate, you can do on these pages.

Mega-clunky, I know. Opinions? Alterations? --Mrfixter 21:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should end, "you can do so on these pages", but sure, sounds fine to me. Feel free to go ahead. --Michael Snow 21:57, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Again, Michael Snow's repeated insistance on stiffling discussion by forcing his own personal format that moves any discussion off the this main page is outright censorship. There is no rational justification for it. I oppose it in the strongest of terms. The original format of the endorsements page was the proper venue to present endorsements and justifications for granting or withholding them. It's current format creates ambiguation prevents discussion. I support any reversion to the original format and also propose that Michael Snow has been a disruptive and contentious user, engaging in multiple reverts and ignoring a lack of consensus for his opinion on how the page. --FeloniousMonk 23:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we can pull back from the brink if we talk about problems with this page. A compromise has been reached, which I agree is not perfect but I am willing to sacrifice perfection for consensus and stability. I want to try and show good faith. My only comment would be to put the list of candidates above the list of endorsers. --Mrfixter 23:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Compromise? Only you agreed to a compromise, not I, and a profoundly flawed one at that. Only I speak for myself. My points above are valid and they stand. To summarize, the current format:

• stifles discussion - moving any potential discussion to remote pages inhibits the free exchange of ideas
• obfuscates - users now must click on 49 links and visit 49 pages, each time returning here (98 clicks in all), just to get the same information they previously did on just one page.
• censors - removing formatting from the comments left by users is nothing more than vandalism conducted under a false pretense. Each of us has the right to speak our mind regarding candidates and their competency (or incompetency) in whatever voice or tone we choose within the terms of the policies. If someone feels strongly either way, they should be able to convey that, either by words or by formatting.

I see no compromise here. I see one side censoring and running roughshod over discussions and views it does not approve of, despite 5 other editors here opposing it over the last 24 hours. I do not condone your compromise with Michael Smith, indeed I oppose it and move to reinstate the page in it's original format and eliminate censorship on this page in any form.--FeloniousMonk 00:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So then, FeloniousMonk, do you have the ability to negotiate and engage in reasonable discussion that could lead to an acceptable solution? Would you like to offer a different compromise, since apparently you don't like the one I have offered? --Michael Snow 00:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is still my position, and that of a significant number of users here, that the original version of the page was the most simple and balanced way to provide a forum for endorsements and justifications for granting or withholding them.--FeloniousMonk 00:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not a compromise, and your position fails to take into account the concerns expressed above by a similarly significant number of users about that version of the page. This kind of reactionary insistence on going back to flawed ideas is not a good way to reach consensus. --Michael Snow 00:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see anything like a "a similarly significant number of users" that oppose the original page at all. As you can see below and on your own user Talk page, I am neither alone nor being reactionary in my support of returning to the original format. Which BTW, you failed to establish that it is indeed flawed. And not one of your comments here address the numerous and quite specific objections to the obvious flaws of your version of the page; hence I too could say with even more authority "that kind of reactionary insistence on flawed ideas is not a good way to reach consensus."

So answer this for us... Do you have any official authority or mandate to control these discussions and pages? Or are you enforcing your particular POV on how discussions are conducted here in a unofficial capacity?--FeloniousMonk 01:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you don't see the other users that oppose the original format, then you haven't read this talk page very carefully. If you go back and re-read it, perhaps you'll also see where we have pointed out the original version's flaws. No, I'm not claiming any official authority, but neither do you have any right to dismiss our concerns. I have tried to address the problems by offering and suggesting several compromises. You have not. --Michael Snow 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Considering that I have been participating in this discussion a full day longer than you have, I'm very aware of the various positions of the contributors here, and no, you do not represent or speak for any majority position at this time. Your claims of alleged flaws of the original version are specious and contrived; they are the most inadequate of fig leaves meant to cover blatant censorship of the endorsement page.

Thank you for answering honestly about the capacity in which you contribute here. Being that it's not official in any way, please understand when I say that the vigorousness of your insistence on having the page your way, taken with your creating pages in our personal user name space without our permission and editing our comments is trolling and vandalism of the worst sort. Any further attempts to do so on your part will result my seeking official recourse.

Regarding compromise: Since you've held yourself out as an example and standard of compromise here, and considering your own actions here today- one revert war, vandalism of other editor's comments, forcing your unique formatting on the discussion and hence, thereby effectively killing all discussion, then no, by that measure, I do not compromise in any way like you do. I only seek to have the page remain in it's original, standard format, not your highly unusual format. I ask for nothing more than the page being left as it was originally intended. It is you who seek a special exemption from the norm, and so it is you who need to compromise instead of the trollish inflexibility and intractability that you've demonstrated today.--FeloniousMonk 06:06, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Snow also admitted, at "Talk:Discussions", that he had been aware of the discussion in this forum. Yet he just unilaterally deleted "Discussions" without even mentioning his action here, let alone discussing it and seeking anything like consensus. FeloniousMonk is absolutely right in pointing to Snow's transparent attempts to stifle discussion and censor comments that may be inimical to the personal interests of certain members of the cabal. Snow's attempts to look democratic here ring hollow in view of his unilateralism. Shorne 19:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Do you prefer to have this page listed by people making endorsements first, or by candidates first?

By people making endorsements

1. Michael Snow 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (1st choice)
2. I found the listing by "People making endorsements" much more useful; I thought that 1) Mav's links to the candidates' statements and 2) Neutrality's non-neutral :) "disendorsement" listings were very helpful and succinct. All of that said, however, I found the listing by candidates was much more fun reading. :)) I can definitely see the disadvantage to this new format--if I wanted to besmirch a lot of good people's names, this new page format would definitely slow me down to a snail's pace. 8(( On the other hand, heaven forbid that I would want to express my support for all the worthy people in the "By candidates" section! I guess I would have to list all those worthy people on the "People making endorsements" page under my name. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 01:25, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By candidates

1. --Mrfixter 23:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (2nd choice)
3. —No-One Jones ^(m) 03:07, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Johnleemk | Talk 05:01, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. --DV 06:26, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) Second choice. Better than no endorsements page at all.
6. makes it much clearer as to what peoples concerns/appraisals for a particular candidate is CheeseDreams 00:11, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes in support of returning to the original page format

1. --FeloniousMonk 00:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. --DV 00:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Gzornenplatz 03:11, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
4. Doesn't make sense to have people worry about their endorsements in two different places. -- Grunt   ҈  03:55, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
5. Shorne 19:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) The original format promoted discussion; the one imposed by Snow makes discussion impossible and is also difficult to use. The effect is to suppress interaction and to turn the vote into a popularity contest. Shorne 01:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
6. Adraeus 21:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. Improv 20:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) Original format is less confusing, better organized, with less duplicated information.
8. Fred Bauder 10:54, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

Votes in support of not having an endorsement page at all

1. Michael Snow 01:29, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) (3rd choice)
2. Maurreen 06:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:49, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Adraeus 21:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) [ There should not be such a one-sided endorsements page. Such a page is obviously POV. ]

• In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that Sam Spade is a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, and would benefit directly from the page being deleted. A number of editors believe that candidates voting on this issue is a conflict of interest.--FeloniousMonk 18:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that "No-One Jones" is Mirv, who is a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, and would benefit from the page remaining intact. FeloniousMonk believes that candidates voting in this issue is a conflict of interest, but it is uncertain how many people share his opinion. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:54, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• In the interest of full disclosure it should be noted that Grunt is a candidate for the Arbitration Committee, and he would likely benefit directly from the page remaining in either form. A number of editors believe that candidates voting on this issue is a conflict of interest.--FeloniousMonk 18:34, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Too confused to understand all the options

1. Rebroad 14:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Comments

• Side by side would be a neater solution (although of course, which list would go on the left? ;) ). I am technically incompetent and unfortunately unable to execute this solution. --Mrfixter 23:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I don't appreciate the unilateral decision to bury my endorsements and opposition on an obscure subpage under my user page, where no one will ever read them, especially before asking me if it was OK. What was the motivation for wanting to hide my comments about the candidates?

If this election is to be free and fair, then in the "public square" that the candidate discussion page represents, everyone should be allowed to make their opinions known. Please restore my comments to the public discussion page where potential voters can read them without having to click on dozens of links before a potential voter can see what I have to say.

As for the comment someone made about how clicking on subpages only requires a click on one link. This comment is demonstrably dishonest - potential voters will have to click on dozens of links above mine, or below mine, (depending on the order they are going through the other user's endorsements) before they get to mine. Most users will become impatient and stop clicking long before they get to my endorsements. Hence why I posted on the central discussion in the first place - so my comments would be read!

Excerpts from other pages get read much more frequently than links. (Many popular news sites and blogs illustrate this every day, by excerpting what they link to in order to entice the reader to bother clicking on the link.)

Also, I made endorsements of Neutrality and blankfaze, and they do not appear on the candidate subpages that were recently created. Since the person doing this move wasn't super careful about moving this material around without losing some of it, those two candidates lost some endorsements that they would otherwise have.

The "consensus" on redistributing comments on a single page into many subpages seems weak. And who appointed Michael Snow the "boss" of the candidate endorsements discussion page in the first place? His statements that he would continue his actions despite the wishes of others doesn't seem very wiki-like. --DV 00:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Michael Snow suggested that I "pipe" my endorsements into my link on his centralized link page of endorsements. I disagree with his assessment of linking vs. a central page (for the reasons I gave above), but if this is as far as he is willing to compromise, so be it. (I still vote to return to the original centralized format.) --DV 00:43, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well Michael Snow also saw fit to create and edit pages in our personal name spaces without our permission, an act I consider highly inappropriate and trollish at best and vandalism at worst. Taken with his his revert war earlier today and repeated refusal to compromise or take seriously anyone's concerns that do not align with his plan, and you can see a pattern that establishes what sort of reasonableness you can expect from him. I'm trying to determine if he is acting in some sort of official capacity and therefore just enforcing mandate, or just his personal notions.--FeloniousMonk 01:24, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Why I do not support Michael Snow's version of endorsement page:

• • stifles discussion - moving any potential discussion to remote pages inhibits the free exchange of ideas
  • obfuscates - users now must click on 49 links and visit 49 pages, each time returning here (98 clicks in all), just to get the same information they previously did on just one page.
  • censors - removing formatting from the comments left by users is nothing more than vandalism conducted under a false pretense. Each of us has the right to speak our mind regarding candidates and their competency (or incompetency) in whatever voice or tone we choose within the terms of the policies. If someone feels strongly either way, they should be able to convey that, either by words or by formatting.

--FeloniousMonk 00:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd support any solution where identical contents is at one place. I´m little upset my addition is now spread to several pages, and if I want to add something I have to find where it have gone and edit several copies. And due to redirs and reverts to "one big page" new instances may occur.

IMO the endorsements and discussion are different enough to allow existence of distinct pages. Endorsement lists should be located in user namespaces. And in election space I'd like discussion pages, possibly structured similarly to RfC pages. --Wikimol 00:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• An endorsement page appears to be too contentious; maybe it's not worth the trouble. Maurreen 06:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What are you suggesting as an alternative?

Any election is contentious, because an election represents a clash of points of view. An election is not the same activity as writing an article.

If we didn't want any contention, why not just ask Jimbo to appoint a few good buddies of his to the committee, and avoid the hassle altogether? (Personally, I would have no problem with that, because he's the one paying for the site!)

Short of dispensing with the election and appointing folks, the election should be run fairly for both the candidates AND the voters.

I'm hoping this campaign has room for the opinions of the voters to be expressed freely, openly, and without repression. And if those opinions can be expressed in a "public square" for all to see, all the better. If we are to keep our opinions to ourselves, what's the point of campaigning for election? --DV 06:23, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with this page, but I am not going to argue about it. But, my main concern is that it should not appear to the casual viewer to be a votes page. Not only will mean that the page becomes a pre-vote-vote but it may mean that some legitimate votes will be put here instead of made using Special:Boardvote. I would not like to think that some contributors might not get their say in the election because of this potential confusion. If at any time, this page looks too much like the request for adminship page - then this could be the result. Please keep this in mind as you decide how this page should look. -- sannse (talk) 00:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC) (candidate)

[edit] The Appropriateness of Lobbying Sympathetic Support for the Survey

It is ethically indefensible for any user, much less an aggressively determined one such as yourself Michael, to lobby other users likely to be sympathetic to your position here, while ignoring other discussion participants who may not be so sympathetic. Though you lobbied the usual suspects, you ignored Shorne, Adraeus, etc. I've stepped in and rectified the situation. --FeloniousMonk 06:40, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Gee, FeloniousMonk, it's nice to see that you were able to recognize in my contributions list the existence of those users opposing your position whom you so recently denied amounted to any significant number. I don't think anyone should be obligated to rally support for a position they oppose, and nothing prevents anyone on the other side from seeking out their own like-minded individuals, as you have done. --Michael Snow 06:57, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is there a policy on Wikipedia concerning how strong the pre-existing affiliation must be in order for lobbying not to qualify as "spamming"?

Obviously, I would likely be called out if I set a 'bot lose, posting messages on the user talk pages of everyone who contributed to Wikipedia within the past 30 days, asking them to vote on this survey.

On the other hand, how about if I lobby everyone I have worked on an article with since I started contributing as an editor?

How strong does the pre-existing affiliation need to be before lobbying crosses the threshold into spamming? I looked in the policy pages and had little luck finding any guidance on this issue. I believe that a policy must be quickly agreed upon, if there isn't one already, for effective, but not overly disruptive, lobbying to be allowed on Wikipedia during campaign cycles. --DV 07:12, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, there is nothing preventing anyone on my side from seeking out their own like-minded support- other than behaving ethically. Isn't that what you meant? That you fail to recognize that your behavior is ethically challenged is not surprising considering your past actions today here, the liberties you've taken in our personal user name spaces, as well as your censorship in editing endorsements other than your own. Your arrogation of other's positions is as galling as your assuming that no one here would object. The abject unethical of nature of your POV lobbying suffices to rebut your arrogation of support, and heavily discounts any that may respond to your overtures.--FeloniousMonk 07:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Requirement for Full Disclosure & Noting Conflict Interest for Arbcom candidates voting

Basic ethics and fair play dictate at a minimum full disclosure from candidates for the Arbitration Committee who vote in this survey. Giving ethical concerns their full due would require the candidates to abstain from voting in the survey, as it is a clear conflict of interest. Since one already has, and I'm dithering whether the ethical requirement for avoiding conflicts of interest actually trumps the need to avoid the perception of censorship, I've placed a disclosure and potential conflict of interest footnote for that vote, and suggest all other Arbcom candidates who may yet vote in the survey receive similar footnotes.--FeloniousMonk 18:47, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC) ä

[edit] VeryVerily, I was following Michael Snow's suggestion

VeryVerily, please do not unilaterally revert other user's contributions without discussion on the talk page.

Michael Snow suggested that I "pipe" my endorsements into my link on his centralized link page of endorsements. I disagree with his assessment of linking vs. a central page of endorsements (for the reasons I gave above), but if this is as far as he is willing to compromise, so be it.

If you delete my posting on the endorsements page again, without first gaining a consensus to do so, you are only further illustrating why it is a good idea to oppose your candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. --DV 05:36, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree. I feel piping is an excellent compromise; see who people endorse, and if you want to know why, then you click. Johnleemk | Talk 05:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I too could live with piping for the reasons Johnleemk mentions if Michael insists on remaining inflexible and continuing to revert any attempts to restore the page to it's previous format.--FeloniousMonk 07:42, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, at the time there was only one user (DV) who had done this, which made it rather one-sided: all other users had their endorsements on a separate linked page, but a single one featured with great prominence. This was obviously not a very equitable arrangement. Anyway, one should be civil about this regardless of one's feelings. VeryVerily 13:06, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Abstention

I would love to endorse several people here, but my endorsement would only cause others to vote against my selections because they don't like me. Unfortunately. RickK 06:45, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

So you'll be endorsing Lir, then? :-p Johnleemk | Talk 08:31, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, the people that would be voting against most of us will vote against us whether or not you choose to endorse us because we're those kinds of people - so it doesn't really matter what you do here. -- Grunt   ҈  23:17, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)

I would support Grunt if not for the fact that the entire mediation committee completely ignored my complaint against VeryVerily last month—for days, until finally I moved it to arbitration. Shorne 01:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For days? I has assumed from the fact that you chose to anti endorse (What a word) everyone on the MC that they had ignored you for weeks at the very least. What do want Shorne? You say jump, they say "how high"? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Election Campaigning - What is the Spam Threshold?

moved to Wikipedia talk:Spam/arbcom elections

[edit] A better organized framework for discussion of campaign messages

Here is a link to a better organized framework for a discussion of campaign messages. If you have some time to navigate to this subpage and read any of this, I would be encouraged to hear from you. --DV 02:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Get Out the Vote!

While we are waiting for a consensus to develop as to whether an active, free, and open campaign will be permitted (via messages freely shared between users on their user talk pages during the campaign period), everyone is welcome to copy and paste the following banner and links onto their own user page, to help publicize the upcoming December 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections:

Election Info — Candidates — Voting

Getting out the vote will help to diversify the number of viewpoints that are represented during this election, and insure that candidates who are equally qualified, though perhaps not always a part of the "in crowd", can have a fair chance of winning.

Don't let the insiders control this election. Please vote!

--DV 03:02, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Indiscriminate reversion and subpages

Gzornenplatz reverted this page to its original format, citing the will of a majority of users here on talk. In doing so, he ignored all the discussion which had been carried out on subpages. I copied the subpages back in with MediaWiki's transclusion function (using {{subst:Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. . ./[Candidate subpage]}}, so I think everything should be where it belongs. Nevertheless, if you made any edits between 07:04, 22 Nov 2004 and 07:43, 22 Nov 2004, you may want to make sure that they haven't been lost. —No-One Jones ^(m) 07:51, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Let's see...I've lost my endorsement to Theresa knott, and I've lost two endorsements (one from Plato and one from Mrfixter) as well as a "good luck" wish from Theresa. I'm adding these back in, but... I really don't like this format. I think we've gone too far down the old path to suddenly change horses midstream; I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg, regarding lost endorsements/comments. Anyone else agree? Johnleemk | Talk 09:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There was an interval of time during which there were some edit conflicts, because Gzornenplatz didn't carefully merge the current state of the subpages back into the main page (he reverted to an older version of the page).

I started working from the bottom up updating the merge to match the subpages, but then Mirv came in with a faster way to do it (something called "transclusion"). I double-checked some of the entries after that and they matched the state of the subpages prior to the merge, so I trusted that Mirv knew what he was doing.

Did you find any errors after Mirv's last edit? If so, I'll be happy to go back and double-check the entries. Perhaps this fancy "transclusion" feature isn't all its cracked up to be, but it sure sounds cool, doesn't it? --DV 09:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, looking at your last edit, I see what the source of the confusion is. Johnleemk, the folks endorsing you are listed in the first section up above.

The second main section is the list of individuals who themselves are making endorsements of one or more of the candidates.

If you look under your entry in the "Endorsements listed by candidate" section, Theresa Knott's endorsement of you was successfully merged into your entry.

Your entry in the second section is where you are support to make endorsements of other candidates.

The confusion arises because you are both a candidate and an individual endorser of other candidates.

In the second section, please only list those candidates who you are endorsing.

Sorry about the confusion.

Cheers,

--DV 09:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm well aware of all this; the thing is that I've also endorsed Theresa knott, and she's wished me luck (but not given a full endorsement). So in my endorsement of other users section, I added a Theresa knott subsection (just cut and pasting from the original page). I know that other users' endorsements of me are now succesfully merged, because I did it myself. Anyway, sorry for the confusion everyone. Johnleemk | Talk 09:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Seems we've lost quite a few endorsements... Johnleemk | Talk 10:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Per my explanation on your user talk page of what went wrong, please check it out again. If you compare it to the version before the merge (and what was on the subpages), you should find that everything now matches.

Cheers, --DV 10:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(from Johnleemk's talk page) Mirv appears to have used the transclusion feature on the "Endorsements listed by candidates" section, but not on the "Listing of individuals making endorsements" section.

(I subsequently fixed that, so all endorsements that were on subpages before the merge should now appear on the centralized page.) --DV 10:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] If candidates don't want any opinions posted under their name

Some candidates may not want any endorsements, nor opposition, listed under their name.

If a candidate indicates that they do not want opinions posted under their name, how about the following proposed template to be used under the names of those candidates:

This candidate does not want any endorsements, nor opposition, listed under their name.

Please refrain from posting any opinions about this candidacy in this section.

You are still free to post your endorsements under your own user name in the Listing_of_individuals_making_endorsements section, and of course, on your own user pages.

This compromise can act to prevent any edit wars by candidates who are trying to suppress opposition to their candidacy from appearing directly under their name, while still providing a local section on the same page for individual users to post their own endorsements and opposition.

I have used this template under the name of the first candidate who has indicated this preference.

--DV 11:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Suppress opposition" = "censorship". This is an election, not a users namespace, and there should be open and frank debate. What is written about a candidate should not be subject to their censoring gaze. There was no consensus for this policy as far as I can see. This is more unwarranted unilateral censorship. --Mrfixter 12:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking this matter up on the talk page after your revertion of my changes, Mrfixter.

There was no censorship, because you could post the exact same opinions on the same page under your own user name.

I find it fascinating that you have not bothered to add your own endorsements, under your own name on this very page.

I refuse to participate in a revert war. I will however defer to the current Administration.

As a professional I have often had to throw out a lot of work and start again. I just spent a good couple of hours trying to accomodate the need for a free and fair exchange of viewpoints on a single page, but you are now nitpicking about where on that page your comments should go.

If you are going to turn such a trivial matter into an edit war, I will walk away and let the Admins deal with it.

But I hope the benefits to the wider audience of having this single page with all the viewpoints on it will outweigh your need to nitpick over whether your views of Sam Spade go under his name or under your name, on the same frickin' page.

I am troubled that you think I am in favor of censorship. I am not, and my history shows that I am not. I was one of the prime movers behind trying to get this single page in the first place, (instead of the ridiculous subpages that "refactored" our viewpoints into oblivion) and now you are walking right over me as if I am trying to "censor" you?

Please rethink whether you really think I am censoring you by asking for a compromise that will avoid an edit war.

Again, thank you for taking this up on the talk page.

Peace. --DV 13:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How I choose to express myself is my concern, although I am grateful for the interest, finally. It is not a trivial matter, and I would like a discussion, before deleting people's comments. I do not want a revert war, and talking about admins does not really set a conciliatory(sp?) note. There was no consensus for your policy, DV. Let's get one. --Mrfixter 13:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did not make any policy. I merely added a written explanation under Sam Spade's candidate entry, for Sam Spade's blanking of the comments under his name, so folks would not start inventing strange reasons why his entry was missing. Again, I do not see your endorsement nor your opposition, listed under your name, on the same page. Is this really too much of a compromise?

You fail to realize that there are powerful insiders at work behind the scenes who would just as soon come in and delete this entire page if they can use some misbehavior as an excuse to do so.

How can I be any more plain about it? I'm on your side when it comes to whether or not there will be a central "public square" where everyone can post their endorsements or opposition to each of the candidates without being sent off to some obscure subpage.

But if you persist in nitpicking over such a trivial thing as to the physical position of your endorsements or opposition on that single page, you seriously run the risk of one of those insiders waltzing in here and shutting down the entire page.

Is it really worth risking that just to post under Sam Spade's name?

I don't think it is, and I'm willing to accomodate Sam Spade's request in this regard, especially because it's an exception, it makes him look bad in comparison to all the other candidates (why does his entry not have any comments? will be the typical negative reaction), and you can still have your say on the same page.

If you can think of a better answer that doesn't cause Sam Spade to get into a revert war with you, nor risk Snow waltzing in here and deleting the whole page, I'm all ears.

But this is the best we could do so far while working under those constraints.

What do you say?

--DV 13:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The level of discussion here seems really low. Everyone is crying "censorship" at other people's good faith efforts to find a workable solution for these pages. I'm not picking on you, Mrfixter; DV is an offender in this regard as well, as witness his comments towards me. I think this discussion should proceed without using such heavy language and AssumingGoodFaith about what others are trying to accomplish. VeryVerily 12:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And VeryVerily, please point to even one example where I have ever reverted your changes or told you to do anything other than what you please. I have only offered you encouragement to become more of a team player. Heck, for all you know, I agree with your point of view and I would otherwise be pre-disposed to help you out on the articles you have trouble with. But you throw so much vinegar around that no one wants to help you out.

Teamwork. Try it out, OK?

Thank you for taking your concerns up on this talk page. --DV 13:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're saying. I did not accuse you of reverting anything; I stated that you have used heavy and accusatory language towards people making good-faith efforts to improve the election pages. You seem to be on some wholly other issue, and, on that note, please don't talk down to me. VeryVerily 13:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You stated in your previous paragraph, "DV is an offender in this regard as well" in your response to Mrfixter's complaints of censorship. If you do not think I am censoring the opposition after all, thanks for clearing that up.

And thanks for making the effort to have a conversation instead of reverting me. --DV 13:56, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I oppose any such attempts to allow candidates to get away with controlling how other people choose to organise their comments. This is a public page, and people should be free to organise their endorsements based on how they (the community) want and not the person they're endorsing wants. While this is almost certainly not censorship, it certainly smacks of it. Johnleemk | Talk 15:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

I have a suggestion. I propose that the "Endorsements listed by candidate" section only include endorsements – not anti-endorsements, long comments, rebuttals, etc. But the "Listing of individuals making endorsements" section may include anything. This seems like a happy medium to me, and solves the Sam Spade problem too. What do you think? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 15:00, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

I think to get around this whole issue, we just rename this as "Comments on the candidates" or something like that, because I think including "anti-endorsements" on a page titled "Endorsements" is just weird and quite non-descriptive. Johnleemk | Talk 15:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur with Johnleemk -- it's helpful to have a place to leave any kind of comment on those running, positive, negative, or other. Life is messy, but it's important to be able to face one's critics, fair or not, in an open forum. When we're running for office of some kind, we should expect people to talk about us. This is a better spot than any other for that conversation to take place. The bottom section is too split up for conversation to occur. --Improv 20:49, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This idea seems weighed in favour of the candidate, only positive endorsements? You will be sanctioning a huge rewrite of this page. Free discussion of a candidate must occur in the ArbCom election space, and be free of a candidates desire for "blanking". A candidate can enter a debate at will, that is a free exchange of opinions. Ambiguation of informatiom about a candidate is not something I support. --Mrfixter 15:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea, Quadell.

If a candidate only wants endorsements on their own user page, that is quite fair.

The problem is that both sections on the common endorsements page are tentatively free for any user to post their opinions on, either for or against.

The exceptional case of Sam Spade wanting to delete all declarations of opposition from the shared candidate endorsement listing only reflects poorly on his candidacy. Somehow all of the other candidates have a thick enough skin that they can take a little criticism, but not Sam Spade. So, I don't see why some users are upset and want to prevent Sam from doing this to himself.

For my own part, I'm unsure why Sam Spade thinks it's to his benefit to appear to want to censor what people have to say about him, but if he wants to do so, why not let him? We aren't really being censored by this, because we can still offer our endorsement or opposition under our own name, on the same page.

If the users who object are intractable on this issue, I suspect this entire page is doomed, as a power user will shortly come in and delete the thing, refactoring everyone's opinions back into subpage oblivion.

I like your motivation of trying to address this issue creatively, Quadell, but changing the entire page format just to suit Sam Spade shooting himself in the foot seems to be a bit much.

Please, do you have another idea in that bag of ideas you have sitting there?

--DV 15:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it isn't just for Sam. That's more of a happy side-effect for me. The problem, as I see it, is that people are treating this as a vote or a strawpoll. It's neither. An endorsement page is useful -- it shows what people or groups support a candidate. But a pre-vote? An open declaration of how people will vote? I'm not sure that's useful.

Perhaps a separate page is warranted? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Attack_ads or Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/dirt or something. But "comments on the candidates" is looking like a "support" vs. "oppose" straw poll, and it's hard to see how that serves the voter or the candidate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

No fair-minded or constructive suggestions along these lines will be acceptable to users Shorne or FeloniousMonk. This is a wiki, and as such, there will always be disruptive elements to content with. There are some users who will take any oppertunity to yell their venom at others. You will notice that user Lir, who is not one of the better liked users among us, is also running, yet no one is placing a thousand "opposing endorsements" under his section. To do so would just be silly and trollish, a waste of everyone's time. One can only hope that a fair-minded set of guidelines can be established before the next vote of this nature occurs. func(talk) 21:25, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support Quadell's suggestion, but after what happened with Shane King I still don't want any more endorsements. I want to be left out of this obscene troll war entirely. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 15:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not want a candidate to delete anyones opinion. There IS censorship! Just because a person COULD post their opinion somewhere else on the same page, why SHOULD they? And if it doesn't really matter cos its all on the same page, then it doesn't really matter that they are in the same area. People should be able to post and read information on the candidates in the way they see fit. --Mrfixter 15:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I second Mrfixter's opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 15:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam, it's rather clever of you to "want to be left out of this obscene troll war" when it hinges entirely upon your demand that nothing appear under your name (no other candidate has demanded this), and some other users equally intractable demand that they must be allowed to post in that spot.

Surely you knew when you blanked your candidacy section there would be some objections, so it's rather late for you to now start throwing the "troll" label around, isn't it?

If you want to be left out of "this obscene troll war" why don't you just ignore the rantings of what you deem are "trolls" and just put a notice under their "endorse" and "oppose" comments that you think they are just trolls, obscenely warring with each other?

Otherwise, please help to come up with some creative ideas and please refrain from calling other users "trolls".

--DV 15:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would be intruiged if you can cite an example of my having made the personal attack of having called another user a troll. Outside of that, I am very dubious as to your involvement here, you certainly arn't striking me as a peacemaker or seeker of consensus. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You called this fiasco a troll war, implying that some trolls are warring. That's an attack, but as you named no names, I don't think it strictly fits the definition of a personal attack. However, DV did not accuse you of having made a personal attack. Johnleemk | Talk 15:32, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam is asking that nobody endorses him. This is because 172 and shorne both opposed ShaneKings adminship because he endorsed Sam. Now it's quite possible that Sam would rather not see negative comments either, but that's not actually what he said. Consider the following senario - happyuser sees this page and decides to endorse Sam. Sam cannot put "This user is a troll obscenly warring with other trolls" under the endorsement because happyuser is just a geniune straight up user who is unaware of the danger he is putting himself in (I'm exageratting for dramatic effect here, please humour me). Some time later, happy user is nominated for adminship and is opposed because of his endorsement of Sam. This is what sam is saying he is trying to prevent. (Well that's my interpretation of it). Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:57, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The tart is correct ;) I also don't want anti-endorsements, but feel much less strongly about them. With anti-endorsements, the only person hurt is me (theoretically), and the user who chooses to embaress themselves by making it. Actual endorsements have had negative effects, and I'm very unhappy about that. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Without anti-endorsements all of wikipedia may be hurt. Just because you might act politely to some people doesn't mean that you always act civily. Others deserve to know about a nominee's past actions. If you don't want people to be hurt by positive comments then they can make them with their IP address attached. What matters isn't the number of good vs bad comments or if their from some big name user or from someone who rarely edits, but the type of information given, and how it relates to a candidate's ability to serve the community. millerc 20:41, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What matters is I don't want anything to do with you people, nor do I want those who might endorse me put on your hitlist. There is no need for endorsements, and no need for me to accept them. There is no need for this page at all, really. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 00:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"you people...", what people would that be? Again with the lack of basic respect for other users. Why would I put those who endorse you on a hit list (have I ever, if not then don't blame me for something I haven't done)? Your concerns are why I suggested that the endorsements or anti-endorsements be by IP address. If those people want extra security they could use a computer that they usually don't use for wikipedia. But you dismiss IP addresses as unworthy of any respect. I want to know if there's anything about a candidate that I don't already know, that is important, and I don't care who says it. Some people think that pointing out the history of a canidate for whatever position on other users pages is spamming, but electoriial propaganda isn't? Come on. Well then, we need somewhere to voice our concerns, without such a public forum this election would be a fraud. If the users here don't want real democracy, then they should at least admit it. millerc 20:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion, it doesn't matter what the candicate feels about it -- the relevant portion of the endorsement page does not belong, in any sense, to the person involved, and everyone should be free to comment on anyone they want. The comments are not for you to accept or reject, nor can you set policy about them. They're just there, and you can reply to them, comment on them, or state that you find them meaningless, but you should not be deleting them. --Improv 04:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dittoed. Johnleemk | Talk 07:05, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What matters is I don't want anything to do with you people, nor do I want those who might endorse me put on your hitlist. (bold is my emphasis).

Thirded. Mr. Spade seems to have neglected to account for the distinctly public realm his candidacy places him in. It dosen't matter to me, and the editors directly above, whether he wants anything to do with us people or not; I take issue with his unilateral deletions of other's opinions, opinions which outline whether he is worthy of an endorsement or its opposite – as is the case for every other candidate. El_C

Quadell said, "An endorsement page is useful -- it shows what people or groups support a candidate." Of what use is colorblinding and sugarcoating the candidates? The Arbitration Committee is, unfortunately, an important component of the Wikipedia judicial system and deserves a fair and balanced election process. A reasonable election process requires checks and balances. The combination of countenance and opposition within discussion create balance. Censorship of that discussion in favor of only endorsement is detrimental to the election process since such a behavior creates an imbalance through the removal of opposition, a check. If you are a candidate, you are a "public figure" and you are subject to public scrutiny. There is no escaping that. Adraeus 10:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that this page is titled "endorsements". The placement of opposition on a page titled "endorsements" is an oxymoron. Johnleemk | Talk 11:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This isn't an article, its only a forum for wikipedia internal politics. Who cares what the title is. Other users saw a chance to voice their concerns about a matter that affects all of wikipedia, those concerns should stay public. Wikipedia's inner circle shouldn't be in the buisiness of telling other users what they can or can't say. Real democracy, requires real dialogue. Period! millerc 20:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...hence my opposition to this page altogether; however, the oxymoronic state is dependent on the definition of "endorsements." If, for instance, "endorsements" means "signatures that validate something" then any signed opinion of a candidate counts a signature that validates a candidate... as a candidate. If "endorsements" means "promotional statements" regarding candidates, then that is simply contrary to Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Adraeus 11:27, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia's NPOV policy is for articles. I don't see how it's relavent here, the whole point of having a page like this is for people to express thier POV. The title of this page is certainly a problem. Note that some users have recieved no endorsements at all yet. Take Lir for example. I could write under Lir's heading - oppose - candidate is not serious.But that isn't to my mind an endorsement, so i wouldn't do it. Some other people may have no endorsements because they are simply not well known. If we go for a ranking system then I would rank an unknown but serious candidate over a well known but joke candidate, but I wonder how a user who doesn't know lir would vote? They have nothing on this page to go on. Perhaps if we moved the page to "Wikipedian's discussion of the candidates" or some such thing we would reflect how the page is actually beoing used rather than how it was intended to be used when initially set up? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's the exact course of action I would support, and have supported from the beginning. Johnleemk | Talk 12:01, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ditto. Adraeus 20:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By the way, Theresa, NPOV policy dictates that Wikipedia editors present information in a manner befitting an encyclopedia. That is, the display of the major opinions concerning candidates must be allowed in order for readers to construct informed ideas about candidates. Wikipedia's NPOV policy regards the display of information and it certainly applies to how candidates are seen on this "endorsements" page. Adraeus 21:03, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note to all interested: I have forked (moved) all disendorsements and/or oppositions to a separate page, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements. I don't believe disendorsements belong on a page set aside for endorsements. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 12:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK I can live with that. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 12:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this measure. It's better to keep all the information in one place, and to allow endorsements and disendorsements to smoothly reference each other if needed. --Improv 13:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Another fraud by admins unwiling to allow, yet alone act on, criticism - Xed 13:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this action constitute vandalism? After all, there has been no consensus. Adraeus 20:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xed has just accused me of election fraud on the endorsement page because I made the above comment supporting blankfazes reorganisation. Xed did not say anthying under Blankfazes name and did not accuse him of election fraud. Normally i don't care what Xed says of does, but this is reasonably serious. I'm fine with people critisizing me, but when they out and out lie, then I feel something should be done about it. Xed your election fraud comment is not a critism of me, it's a personal attack. Please withdraw your statement Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:46, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Moved from Endorsements Page

In fairness to user Dante Alighieri, I've moved these comments from under his endorsements section, as they were not related to him:

• • Since we are following Shorne's policy of "no censorship", I would strongly encourge everyone to look over Shorne's long and fascinating edit history before placing any stock in his "opposing endorsements". func(talk) 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not standing for election. People are welcome to look at my edit history; indeed, following me around and reverting everything I do has become a popular sport in certain trolling circles. But I can prove the charge against Dante Alighieri and the other mediators with facts. Personalities should not enter into this discussion. Shorne 05:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Wow, and you accuse others here of ad hominems?--FeloniousMonk 05:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Sometimes, an eye for an eye is just a cigar.... func(talk) 05:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Hypocrisy and shamelessness blended in equal parts make a potent combination. Shorne 05:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Exciting new feature to control campaign messages

Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. --DV 11:28, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, but you still support the general idea of indicating your willingness to accept campaign-related messages, please feel free to copy the {{AcceptCampaignMessages}} tag onto your own user talk page. --DV 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Opposition to Raul

Four different users have complained of Raul being highhanded and condescending. But when I looked over his record, I didn't find many instances of this. Can anyone give examples of Raul acting in a high-handed or condescending manner? (I don't mean to embarrass anyone here, but I simply wonder what's behind this.) Curious, – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:46, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)

• Raul has made many enemies among trolls and vandals. It's as simple as that. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 00:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So are 172 and I trolls, or vandals? (Of course, the term enemy is rather strong. Critic is more on point.) VeryVerily 14:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As both of you are standing for election with me, I will not disclose my specific personal opinions about either of you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my support for Blankfaze. His supercilious behaviour reminds me of that of the cabal. Shorne 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well HECK, it ought to! I'm IN the cabal! You didn't know that?! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Yes, yes. It's very easy to label anyone you disagree with as a "troll" or a "vandal", isn't it? I've only been here a few days, and I'm already of the opinion that Raul knows not where to draw the line. --Rebroad 15:40, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Talk from Sam Spade's endorsements

• • If people can speak in favour, others can speak against. Otherwise this would merely be a POV page biased in favour of the candidates. See the talk page. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• My Lord there is a lot of opposition here! I suppose other people must see a very different side of Sam than me, but in my dealings with him I've gone from thinking of him as a right twat (Sorry Sam, that was my first impression) to respect. It's true that he has some negative qualities, but he has some positive ones too. He is brave, is not intimidated by anyone, and stands up for what he believes in. Always going up for election? What are you talking about? Oh do you mean admin? If that's the case then you should no that he was nominated by someone else. Questionable tactics? He put Vote Sam for Arbiter in his signature - I suppose you could argue that anything anyone questions is questionable, but it should at least be clearly stated here what he did. (Otherwise casual visitors might think it was something much worse). I honestly don't know if Sam would make a good arbitrator or not. I suspect he probably would but I'm not sure enough to endorse him. I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this page that he is not hated by everyone, and to wish him best of luck. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oh yeah - one more thing, Sam is right about "mailing lists". There were certain people who tried to rally opposition against him for adminship. (Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you) by posting messages on lots of peoples talk page. See this vote on VFA "Support - I wasn't going to vote here because from the time I first saw the vote it has been clear that consensus isn't going to be reached this time round (and I very rarely vote here anyway). But with the recent posts to various talk pages - something I can only describe as a smear campaign - I have decided to belatedly add my support for Sam. I disagree with his views on many subjects but do not doubt his good intent and believe he would be fully capable of separating his views from any admin duties. -- sannse (talk) 14:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)" So Mrfixter you appear to be mistaken on that count.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Those are fair points you have made:

1. You should know that he accepted the nomination for the adminship, and he was under no obligation to do so...
2. I did clearly state what he did, or at least provided a link to what was said. I have provided links so people can make up their own minds. "Questionable tactics" is a far more polite term than could have been used, and it is disingenuous to suggest that the opinions expressed about the "questionable tactics" should not be aired and do not reflect on the candidate.
3. "Extensive "mailing lists"" is a statement he had no proof for, or who he thought "they" were. --Mrfixter 12:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1True, I was simply pointing out that he didn't instigate it. Also since he came 8th in the last AC election and there are possibly 9 places up for grabs is it so unreasonable to run again? Is it really OK to say that the fact that he is putting his name forwards again means that "his understanding and acceptance of consensus" needs to be questioned?

2I am not suggesting that your opinions should not be aired (and if I gave that impression then I apologise). I was merely trying to make sure a casual reader was clear about what he had actually done.

3 He doesn't need proof for a comment he made on a persons talk page. It's not as if he was making a formal complaint - he was just chatting. He doesn't need to say who he thinks "they" are. Saying the names would probably inflame things. I know who "they" were, as do most people who were involved with the admin nomination. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh jeez, another Sam Spade cronie... Adraeus 20:48, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] The new "endorsement" and "opposition" dual page edit

I support the "endorsement" and "disendorsement" dual-page edit, creating a separate page for each set of opinions. (Although I'm not so sure about the word "disendorsement" - my dictionary doesn't have that word - perhaps it would be better to rename "disendorsement" to "opposition"?)

For my part in authoring this page, I will admit that it was starting to creak under its own weight.

Now that I can see the unified opposition on the "disendorsements" page, without a bunch of "support" entries interleaved that dilutes their overall effect, I think the opposition would do well to leave this new organization as is.

The original problem I had with Michael Snow's subpage organization onto many user pages was that one would conceivably have to click through dozens of links to read everyone's comments.

This edit has only added one additional link, so it's still possible to read everyone's comments without getting out a compass to navigate your way around.

Cheers,

--DV 12:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't give a flying crap either way, because I'm quite annoyed by all this endorsement and disendorsement business. However, I've reverted Gzornenplatz's edit that reinstated the disendorsements, as consensus appears to be to put this stuff on a separate page — even Jimbo and the organising committee have stepped in, so I suppose that's good enough reason to revert. Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

May I highly recommend, however, that at the very least the "Endorsements" page should have a direct link to the "Disendorsements" page? It would actually be preferable to have a link at the head of each candidate's section to the corresponding section on the opposing page. I realize that many people are not happy that we have such 'disendorsements' at all but I am afraid that trying to discourage people's expressions of misgivings or distrust, treat them as inherently less valuable, et cetera, leaves at best a bad taste of shady dealing in people's mouths (and could there be a situation where that is more important to be avoided than the ArbCom election??) And at worst it is shooting the messenger, ignoring warnings about people who truly shouldn't be on the ArbCom.

I am afraid that all the moving-around and removal and restoral and refactoring of disendorsements has already created an impression that those of us who have strongly-felt reasons for opposing someone are being marginalized. I stand by my words; I would not have said them if I wasn't willing to stand behind them; I would like it if I didn't every day have to check to see where those words have been moved to now. If I'm the one who wrote them and I have trouble finding them, how is any voter supposed to find them? -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's no consensus, several people clearly disagree with this. I will revert it unless Jimbo officially intervenes. Unless he makes that clear, he's a user like any other. Gzornenplatz 18:25, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

The only ones I know of are you and Xed. The election organisers and Jimbo have made official statements on that page, implicitly indicating they prefer its usage than this one for disendorsements, although they also made it clear they'd rather not have any disendorsements at all. At least two users on this page have explicitly stated they prefer this format. Two plus one plus plus three equals six. One plus one equals two. I'm rolling back your edit, in particular because of the loss of quite a bit of discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 18:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Make that seven. Gzornenplatz, if you're going to restore all the disendorsements, you can't just revert to the last version that has them; in doing so you are wiping out others' comments and discussion, and if you do that again (you've removed comments what, three times now?) you will be reverted. —No-One Jones ^(m) 18:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Make that eight --Mrfixter 18:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is a safe assumption that the people who have included critical comments on that page do not want those to be removed. And it's no surprise, but should be ignored, that the candidates who have received such criticism want to have it removed. And the election organizers should concern themselves only with the technical aspects of the election itself, not prevent people from openly discussing the merits of the candidates. Gzornenplatz 19:08, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Can they not support this decision as ordinary users instead of in their official positions? Johnleemk | Talk 19:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but that still doesn't mean there's a consensus. This wasn't even discussed long enough to possibly come to that conclusion. I'm sure there are people who will object to it and haven't even seen the removal of the material. This is an attempt at a fait accompli, especially since you seem to think those who want to revert it are responsible for merging in the changes made after your nonconsensual removal. I dispute this; it was wrong to do such a change without properly discussing and waiting for consensus, so it's up to you to repair it. Gzornenplatz 19:19, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

At first, when someone suggested that endorsements be relegated to user spaces only, I was very much against it. Yet in light of what an utter joke this page and its sibling have become I think I may have grown to favour it. I strongly suggest everyone who supports disendorsements being allowed read Jimbo's statement on the disses page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:18, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Disendorsement" page?

Call me crazy, but SHOULDN'T there be a centralized place for people to voice their criticisms and concerns about those running? --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:55, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there should be. This page used to have that --Mrfixter 20:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How about a strawpoll then? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

The fact that we're even discussing this shows how hopelessly oppressive Wikipedia has become. It should be obvious that open discussion—positive, negative, and neutral—is essential if the election is to be meaningful. Yet efforts by fair-minded people like me to provide a single forum (I called it "Discussion") have been crushed, and now the ghetto called "Disendorsements" is prefaced with all sorts of nasty commentary that practically likens dissenters to axe murderers. Very Orwellian. Sadly, also very typical of Wikipedia. Shorne 04:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Quick strawpoll

Since this page is getting lots of edits from lots of users, this shouldn't take long. I propose this poll be closed November 28 at noon, Eastern Standard Time. (This is not a binding vote; it's merely a strawpoll to determine consensus.)

A 2-1 majority supports merging. I have taken necessary measures to do so, and now propose we move this page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Discussion or something akin to it. Johnleemk | Talk 18:40, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Split

I would prefer that candidate endorsements be listed on the endorsement page, and candidate criticisms and other non-endorsement comments be listed on a separate page, with both pages clearly linking to each other at the top.

1. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
2. I prefer this mode, although I wouldn't mind the other one either. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
3. I favor deleteing both the endorsements page and the opposition page. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. First preference. —No-One Jones ^(m) 21:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
5. I liked the old endorsements-only form we used for the July election. Though it doesn't matter much to me, I've been quite pissed by the revert warring and personal attacks we've had over the past few days. Johnleemk | Talk 08:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
   • Word. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Combine

I would prefer that all comments, whether endorsements or criticisms, be listed on the same page, with each candidate having a Pro section and Con section (or equivalents).

1. Mrfixter 20:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Adraeus 20:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) (I support the replacement of the sugarcoating endorsements page with a NPOV discussion page. Allowing only endorsements is unfair, imbalanced and detrimental to the election process.)
3. Would prefer each candicate have a single comment section into which everything goes. --Improv 20:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. millerc 21:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) with the exception of splitting pro and con. Users' comments should be left in the order given, and users' should be allowed to respond to previous comments while endorsing or criticising at the same time.
5. El_C 21:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) I voting in this straw poll in favour of (re)combination mostly because, more than anything, I am dissatisfied with the manner in which it has been recently 'de-sanitized.' Perhaps we need to clearly establish the consensus whether a critical discussion should exist – I argue it must — beforehand though (?).
6. I think it is not healthy for democracy on Wikipedia to treat the endorsements and disendorsements of each candidate as "separate but equal" -- and we have several users testifying that they don't even want to treat them as equal in the first place. I have to favor keeping the pros and cons together; I can really support the other arrangement if, and only if, there is a clearly marked link to the disendorsements page in every place there is a link to the endorsements page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:00, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
7. I think its important that users ought to be able to inform voters of potential concerns and lack of neutrality of some of the candidates CheeseDreams 23:08, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
8. (This is not a binding vote; it's merely a strawpoll to determine consensus.) - I see. Xed 00:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
9. Gzornenplatz 04:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)
10. Shorne 04:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC) Knowing full well that this vote is meaningless, I am nonetheless casting it. Please see my comments in the previous section. Shorne 04:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
11. Fred Bauder 22:56, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
12. I note I'm a candidate. Combine the statements - let those interested in them have the full picture together in one place. jguk 13:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
13. Combine. Anything less is a disservice to wikipedians who are not involved enough to track down all relevant information.--FeloniousMonk 19:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
14. Combine. --Josiah 22:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Delete both pages

Jimbo made it known that he disapproves of what is happening on these two pages several days ago, and yet an amazing number of contributors have chosen to ignore him completely. I'm still getting the hang of the Wiki way, and I guess part of the Wiki way is that anyone should feel comfortable ignoring Jimbo.

But while you go on ignoring Jimbo's advice, please consider these points for a moment:

• Several experienced users have surprised and disappointed me, by managing to embarass themselves on these pages. I wish I hadn't seen some of it.

• The original, utopian possibility that these pages could serve as a forum for the free and fair exchange of ideas, about the candidates and their views, centered around questions that would help to reveal the inner character and thought processes of the candidates, is now in shambles. It was naive to expect a thoughtful, public examination of the candidates, in such a large Wiki.

• If I didn't know better from editing the articles I have participated in, and from looking at so many other article edit histories, these pages would mistakenly lead me to think that this community is rife with back-stabbing dirty tricks, paranoia, hypocrisy, and all manner of acrimony and bitterness. But the truth is that the vast majority of editors respect and admire each other.

• These pages are being archived on many mirrors and forks for posterity, and for many other purposes you may not be aware of. Do you really want the archives of this site, far into the future, to reflect that your name was attached to some petty alliance, grievance, or perceived slight? Do you realize how easily anyone on the internet can find these pages using Google?

Although I will continue discussions in other forums, about other ways to reform this site, I have come around to respect Jimbo's judgment that these pages are doomed to failure, and will not improve the site.

I don't expect that anyone who is still reading these pages will change their minds, but I sign my name below under the following statement:

Good grief. Life is too short for this argument. Please delete both pages.

1. --DV 19:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

This is a rather simple decision, and it shouldn't be too hard to come to an agreement on. We're supposed to be the creme-of-the-crop here, conflict-wise. Most of us are Arbitration Committee candidates, and many of the rest of us are highly-involved sysops. If we can't come to an agreement over something as simple as this without getting into an editwar or taking things personally, it reflects really poorly on us. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the problem here is not between highly involved sysops or arbitration committee candidates, but rather w some rogue users trolling the process in a manner contrary to the wishes of the election committee and Jimbo. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 20:51, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

:Speaking of trolls, I remember a user with multiple accounts who frequently abuses Wikipedia policy to corrupt articles with blatantly ignorant POV. Oh yes, that user is you, Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)  +  

- ::Cut out the irrelevant personal attacks. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:43, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC) + - :::Cut out the ignorant accusations. Adraeus 23:34, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) +

:Well you could say that, Sam.  

Well you could say that, Sam. But as many on Disinfopedia and Anarchopedia have mentioned, Wikipedia is becoming well known for the pushy behaviour of certain "respected" users. And who cares what the election committee or Jimbo want; to call this an election, while denying people the right to public forum is fraudulent. If you don't want democracy, then you shouldn't pretend that you do. millerc 21:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There's a public forum either way. The only question is how that forum is organized. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 21:53, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

Getting stability and free and open discussion would be nice. --Mrfixter 20:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 21:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And exactly who are you including in that pool of "rogue users", Sam? Is this the way you plan to deal with things inconvenient to you if you get elected to ArbCom, to dismiss them as the concerns of "rogue users"? Not promising behavior from you, Sam. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I would also like to urge people NOT to take unilateral action in deleting or adding any official sounding wording to this obviously controversial page. There needs to be consensus. --Mrfixter 23:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• If by "official-sounding" you refer to the note I added to the page, I would simply like to note that I was merely echoing the sentiments of Jimbo Wales, who just so happens to own this website. I suppose that is as offical as it gets, amigo. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am not criticising what jimbo said, merely questioning the consensus you had to post Jimbo's comment on this page, amigo. --Mrfixter 23:42, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Be bold in editing pages. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Since this is 'WIKIPEDIA we could just create a new rival endorsements/disendorsements page ourselves, and list the current endorsements only for deletion.

But that would be cheating. Wouldn't it? CheeseDreams 23:22, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some things are bigger than their creators. CheeseDreams 23:23, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sure, but also remember the golden rule: he who has the gold makes the rules. He runs the site, he can set whatever rules he wants. If you don't like that, you're welcome to leave and/or fork the project. Shane King 04:51, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Without editors, what is Wikipedia? Remember the golden rule of community management: there are no dictators. Jimbo Wales is merely a player on this stage. The editors run this site. Adraeus 04:56, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's mostly what I said, in a different way. If people get upset with Jimbo, they can leave and/or fork the project. Jimbo's the benevolent dictator, much like Linus is with Linux. So long as people mostly agree with his decisions and don't create enough momentum behind a fork, he retains that power. Shane King 06:12, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Read the top of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements and tell me if that disclaimer sounds "benevolent." Adraeus 07:20, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If enough people think Jimbo isn't sufficiently benevolent, they'll fork wikipedia with success. I don't think there's anything to worry about, any problems are self correcting. The fact that there's currently no forks that have anywhere near the popularity of wikipedia suggests Jimbo doesn't overstep the bounds of benevolence in the minds of most users. Since you asked for my view, I think that Jimbo probably errs too far on the side of benevolence and not far enough on the side of dictator at times. Even here, he hasn't forced the disendorsements to stop, he's only asked people not make them. Shane King 07:33, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Unblemished record

How about a policy of disallowing from standing for election anyone who has a record of reverting non-obvious vandalism, or allowing any preference to a particular POV to affect their role as a sysop or an arbitrator? --Rebroad 15:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's too subjective. I don't think it'd be a good idea. Johnleemk | Talk 17:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many things are. The 3RR is pretty subjective (as in what constitutes a revert, compared with a revision). --Rebroad 17:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is quite possibly the worst idea ever, for any one of a thousand reasons. →Raul654 17:50, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

If we put it into effect, we'd likely have to elect new users to become our arbitrators ;) [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:30, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No offence, Rebroad, but I cannot think of a single candidate who meets your criteria. As such, your plan is unfeasible, I believe. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 19:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, if what you say is true, then I agree with Sam Spade (above). I think the ability to be impartial and non-judgemental to be of pivotal importance for this role, but I also admire Raul654's and Blankfaze's honesty in saying that they would not be able to do this. --Rebroad 19:55, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Voting will weed out POV warriors. I'm against dissalowing anyone from standing -it's cabalish. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If voting will weed out POV Warriors, why do you endorse one? Adraeus 21:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you don't know, then you shouldn't be endorsing people you know little about. That's why allowing criticism on this page is so important. Adraeus 21:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Talk straight and stop playing games please. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 21:52, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What a strange request coming from you... Adraeus 04:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Explain yourself, and you gain the moral high ground. If you don't elaborate, you risk being viewed as a troll. Johnleemk | Talk 06:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Depends on who's doing the viewing. Sam Spade already thinks I'm troll. Hell, that POV Warrior thought I was troll in Talk:atheism where he is still trying to infect the article with his "divine" "thoughts." Adraeus 07:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. If anyone who a troll calls a troll is not a troll, then I suppose warring trolls like VeryVerily and Shorne are both not trolls? Johnleemk | Talk 07:41, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get over yourself. Neither VeryVerily nor Shorne are trolls. As you lectured, assume good faith. Adraeus 13:44, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You do not have to troll all the time to be a troll. Having reviewed their actions, I believe Shorne has certainly trolled on this arbcom election's pages, while VeryVerily has too mixed a record to be categorised appropriately. And assume good faith applies only when it's unclear if someone edited in good or bad faith. If it's clear the other edited in bad faith, then why on earth would anyone assume good faith? Haven't you not assumed good faith when you called Sam Spade a POV warrior? You didn't assume good faith because you know he has edited in bad faith before. Johnleemk | Talk 07:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 ? VeryVerily 08:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, your conduct in revert warring hasn't done your image any good. I do respect you for not dropping to the level of Shorne and Ruy Lopez, and admit I was perhaps a bit too rash in categorising you as a troll, but your harsh wording sometimes doesn't exactly endear you to anyone else. Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but I do tend to tell it like it is; maybe that's it. I'm simply not so concerned about my "image" anymore, as judgement has for so long been passed on me by the utterly uninformed as to make me numb to further piling on. I barely batted an eye when you dumped the troll label on me, but it did make me wonder who the hell you are and what your beef is. My curiosity has faded now, so you can go back to savaging Sam Spade or whoever else is on your hitlist. Oh, and not revert warring got me zero respect and dumped on anyway, with Wikipedia suffering to boot. VeryVerily 10:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Do you know what I think? I think Andreus is talking about Sam Spade (I looked over you edit history Andreus and I can't see other person who we've talked about). I think when you wrote "why do you endorse one" you thought I had endorsed him. In the meantime you have checked what I wrote and realised that I never did endorse him and are so are trying to act all mysterious in order to save face. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 06:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, you don't endorse Sam Spade, you "respect" him. Whatever that means... probably for all the wrong reasons too. I was mistaken; however, my judgment stands. Adraeus 07:35, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's a bit Rude Adraeus. I don't think Sam's a saint, by any means. But I do think he has some good qualities.My respect mostly comes from the interaction I had with him over irismeister. Sam did his best to bring peace and reasonableness amid rudeness and personal attacks. I've had run ins with him as well - that was a long time ago now though. I'm not saying you have to love him, but you should respect the fact that not everyone has the same view of him as you do, and you really should say that I respect him for the wrong reasons. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by "respect"? Do you even know? I think not. Try this on for size. Honestly, after reading that I'm extremely cautious with how I use such an overly popularized term. R.E.S.P.E.C.T. Adraeus 13:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus, please assume good faith. Is it not momentous that Theresa avoided endorsing Sam Spade in the first place? There are lots of users I respect, but respect does not mean they would make a good arbitrator. For example, I respect RickK, but I don't think he'd be a good arbitrator because of his shortcomings in the area of civility. Johnleemk | Talk 13:19, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk, don't lecture me. Assume good faith. Adraeus 13:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How did I lecture you or fail to assume good faith? All I did was explain my opinion that you are reading way too much into Theresa's respect of Sam Spade (I did not state that you have bad intentions; there's a difference between what you intend and what you do to achieve that intention. You seem to be terribly harsh on Theresa simply because she said she respects Sam Spade). We all have our weaknesses, and people view them differently, while some may not even have viewed them yet. Theresa may respect Sam because she has not come across his uncivil side yet like I (and some others) have (at least, that's the perception I get, since she's stated before that she hasn't come across his rudeness yet). Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Clearly, you're awaiting an apology from me. Tough luck. I admitted I was mistaken. That's all you're going to get. Adraeus 13:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus, I've tried to explain already and I don't know how I can word it differently.All I can say is - the fact that I think differently about Sam than you do, does not mean that I don't know what I am talking about, or don't know what the words I use mean. My opinion of him, is based on my experience of him. Clearly you have a very different opinion, probably because you have had a different experience of him. The fact that we differ in this matter doesn't make me right and you wrong, or me wrong and you right.We just going to have to agree to disagree on this point. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 13:37, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A person who sends e-mails via Wikipedia to valuable editors that contain insults such as "rat bastard" is hardly respectable. Your experiences with Sam Spade are limited. That is why a place for criticism among endorsements must be maintained. Ignorance must be obliterated. Adraeus 13:42, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's a far cry from what you said at the beginning of this conversation. You started it with "If voting will weed out POV Warriors, why do you endorse one?", nary a whiff of anything to do with maintaining a place for criticism among endorsements. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps if you were involved in this so-called debate during its beginnings, you wouldn't be so blind to the details of my contributive history. Adraeus 13:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa. Thanks. Can you define what you mean by cabalish please? Cheers, --Rebroad 22:49, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Consider the following fictional senario. The whole AC are a bunch of powergrabbing corrupt idioctic morons, who are in cahoots with the board of trustees - who are also morons and corrupt. The ordinary wikipedians are very unhappy about this and want to get rid of the lot of them. Several users put themselves up for election. The AC decrees that all those candidates are disqualified for being POV pushers. (The AC decides on people's behaviour, if they decide someone has a history of POV pushing then that's it) Everyone except the current members of the AC is disqualified by them so the ordinary voters have no choice but to vote the old AC back in.

I know that this is a complete exaggeration, and the above senario will never actually happen, but i don't want to go even 1% this way. If we are going to have elections, they should be fair and free. The only people who should decide someone should not be an abitrator are the voters. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As one of the quite possibly idiotic but not really that cabal-ish current Arbitrators, I have to say that I fully agree here with Theresa (of course) ;-).

Jdforrester 23:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well in that case I wont make you taste the Korn. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But doesn't that make the voters a cabal? ;) Shane King 23:52, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but it's a civic duty to vote, so that means everybody should be in the cabal. Anyone who doesn't vote in the election will be banned! --Michael Snow 06:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Instead, everyone who does vote should be banned. That would filter out many unnecessary users. Adraeus 07:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Who would do the banning though? Only the AC can ban someone, but they will have been voted in by the people they are now banning, which would surely invalidate the authority to ban. Does not compute, does not compute ....The answer to this problem is............ 42. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 08:34, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Alienation and disregard of voters is standard practice. Our American presidents have been demonstrating the concept of "bait and switch" for many decades. Adraeus 13:47, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Troll

People have callled me a troll a time or two myself, particularly when I first came here (now only the least agreeabl;e of users do it, which tells me more about them than it does about myself). The term is almost never used as defined @ internet troll, but when I do use it, I try very hard to use it according to that definition. Maybe thats because I never heard the word in that usage before coming here. The message boards and so forth I have used promptly banned anyone making trouble, something we could learn from, they didn't need to make up words to describe them. All this talk of "censorship" and "freedom of speech" is a joke, nobody is stopping you (those invoking those terms) from making your own "troll-o-pedia", but we ought to do something about removing you from our Wikipedia, so that we can go back to trying to make an encyclopedia. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 08:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please go easy on the self righteous indignation, the hypocrisy is grating. I'm speaking from recent personal experience with you when I say I can understand how some feel you earned the title of troll, considering how you recently abused the wikipedia email system to send me vulgar, insulting emails while at the same time proclaiming "Civility is vital" as a campaign plank. And your words here "...but we ought to do something about removing you from our Wikipedia..." are proof enough for me that my disendorsement of you is well-founded and only confirms the concern voiced by others that you'd would abuse power to serve your own purposes.--FeloniousMonk 09:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade reminds me of the outspoken fanatic Christian snakecharming preachers in the Deep South. He'll probably start challenging people to a duel soon if he doesn't get his way. Instead of being more capable of abusing power, which he's already shown intent to do, perhaps he should be president of the United States? After all, it is a position worthy of his imagination. What we ought to do with Wikipedia is ban POV Warriors, like Sam Spade, or at least prohibit them from editing articles. Personal mediation, public mediation and arbitration hasn't worked thus far with Sam Spade and is unlikely to work in the future. The cure to his illness is to not satiate his desires. Vote against Sam Spade for the sake of intelligence. Adraeus 11:22, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My philosophy on use of the word Troll is that I would always avoid using it. Most newbies wouldn't understand what it meant anyway, different people have different understandings of what it means, plus it's a label, and I prefer not to label people if I can help it. --Rebroad 14:39, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Sam Spade's Recent Removal of All Comments Pertaining to his Candidacy

Judging by your recent deletion of all comments related to your candidacy, apparently Sam you don't consider it vandalism to remove the comments of others from a Talk page. But vandalism it is. People have just as much a right express why they do not support a candidate as they have the right why support a candidate; indeed such freedom of speech is a necessary adjunct to a fair and competitive election. That you do not care for the public scrutiny of your behavior that comes with a public election is no justification for deleting the comments of others regarding your competency for the office for which you run. Your removing yourself as a candidate would be the only justification for such an action.--FeloniousMonk 19:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When was the removal done? If, and only if this can be verified then I would second this motion. --Rebroad 14:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He has done so repeatedly, this is easily varifiable through the page's history (you do not need an historian to reveal these). Latest blanking was at 14:46, 28 Nov 2004. I argue that Sam Spade's conduct on this front has been highly out of order, and I strongly object to it. If he is to persist to un-publicize himself in this public election, I will be supporting the call for him to forfeit his candidacy. El_C 15:27, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. 18:46, 28 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking) [1]
2. 16:10, 29 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (blank unwanted endorsements) [2]
3. 16:23, 27 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam - blanking) [3]
4. 21:50, 19 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (I want none of this) [4]
5. 12:28, 24 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - moving talk to talk page) [5]
6. 12:26, 24 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - moving oppose to disendorsements) [6]
7. 18:24, 23 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking unwanted endorsements) [7]
8. 13:11, 22 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (Sam Spade - blanking unwanted "endorsements") [8]
9. 21:08, 17 Nov 2004 Sam Spade (rm crazy section) [9]

Nine blankings of other editor's comments has got to be some sort of record. Unfavorable comments are quickly deleted from his Talk page as well.--FeloniousMonk 20:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands Airing of Opposition Statements

As I wrote earlier in response to Jimbo's opinion at the Candidate statements/Disendorsements page, I strongly believe in the free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal.

In order for democratic elections to be fair and competitive, opposition must enjoy the right to freedom of speech as necessary to voice their criticisms of the candidates openly and to bring relevant information to the voters. If this freedom is not granted or is in any way restricted, the election will not reflect the legitimate views of the voters. In other words, voters must has free access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, in order to make informed decisions and place an informed vote. Thus, for any voter to cast an informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to (using Jimbo's words) "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?

If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found in the opposition statements is beyond useful, it is required reading. The opposition statements should not be deleted.--FeloniousMonk 19:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Hear hear! Can I vote for FeloniousMonk? --Rebroad 14:48, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This experiment is a failure, let's end it.

I think that we can agree that the current endorsements page is not working in the way its designers had envisioned. Letting a flawed process drag on is not serving any purpose that is useful to wikipedia. I suggest we immediately (no later than 30 November):

• Put a large banner on the page, marking it as a failed experiment.
• Protect the page
• Let VfD decide its fate.

comments?

Kim Bruning 20:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't see why you call it a failure. Naturally, we all should be making our own choices, digging through the user pages, contributions, and recalling all of our interactions with each candicate, to determine character and suitability for office, when we're voting. The endorsement/disendorsement ability can provide handy pointers for other angles and ways to get started, and I don't see the problem with that. Those of us who have acted childish, provided leadership, or similarly with regards to the endorsement handling have actually participated in a handy microcosm of Wikipedia society/governance, and I see no reason to freeze this process. For completeness' sake, we even have some guidance from above on the conflict. --Improv 20:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd object strongly to its deletion. I don't know what "its designers had envisioned," but such is the nature of collaborative media: The community wields each tool differently, often in ways unimagined by their creators. The page does contain unfortunate attacks, but it also contains useful information and insightful discussion. Moreover, it will become moot and (presumably) subject to deletion on December 18 anyway, along with all other election material. I see absolutely no reason to hurry the process. Cribcage 21:06, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I say it's definitely been a failure. First of all we had people putting up criticisms or downright attacks of people on a page designated for endorsements. ( To endorse is: To give approval of or support to, especially by public statement; sanction. ) Second of all the page is a complete mess. Third of all, this page serves little purpose anymore other than to provide a battleground for flame wars. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 21:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Blankfaze has a point. Given the method of voting being used-- the approval vote software used in the last arbitration race-- we are not going to be voting "against" anyone but rather "for" as many candidates as we choose. So not stating an endorsement for a particular candidate says everything that needs to be said. Disendorsements seem pretty irrelevant. 172 21:23, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's not valid reasoning. Every election requires voting "for" a candidate. The more salient point not addressed is the role wikipedia itself plays as a medium for the election. Is it fair and conducive to creating informed voters for wikipedia to only allow the candidate's own statements and those of supporters? Or is an open forum for the free, unhindered exchange of information about candidates more informative and fair? If wikipedia acts as a filter that only lets preordained views be heard by the public by excluding opposing and alternative viewpoints will create a structural bias in the election. Simply permitting those opposing certain candidates access to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which opposing viewpoints are not given access to the medium of discussion create biases. It seems like some here were asleep during Poli Sci.--FeloniousMonk 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

An endorsement is also a "a signature that validates something" or "a promotional statement." Even the definition Blankfazed recognized doesn't specify the object of endorsement. I endorse the opposition to censorship. Adraeus 22:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To reply to your first point, I don't see any problem with redesignating it for a new purpose. It's useful information we would have. Would you have been happier if someone had moved the page from endorsements to comments? On the second point, it looks pretty well organized to me. Sections for each person's name, and presently, separate sections for different types of commentary. Third, it's useful discussion, both because it's relevant to each person to see different pictures different people paint of them with their discussion, and because the conduct of the people on the page itself says something about how they perform under stress and public scrutiny. Useful stuff. --Improv 21:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd add to the above that the best way for a candidate to perform well under the stress and public scrutiny offered by the "disendorsements" comment is to ignore them. The method of voting being used only considers the sum positive support; so it makes more sense for a candidate to build brides with potential supporters, listening to their concerns about the role and the efficacy of the arbitration process rather than letting the hecklers get to him/her. 172 21:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd reply that characterizing all objections as heckling that should be ignored is hardly dignified, and that legitimate points shouldn't be lumped together with trolls in an attempt to discredit them. It's odd to suggest that candidates shouldn't expect public scrutiny, particularly when asking voters to endorse their tact and diplomacy. Cribcage 22:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Excellent points. I agree.--FeloniousMonk 23:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think it is a useful page, people should be able to post supportive and opposing viewpoints on the same page. That need has been made clear and the desire for it is obviously there. I think we should try and maintain the pages stability for more than two days. --Mrfixter 21:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Adraeus 22:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also agreed.--FeloniousMonk 23:10, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, I don't think you'll find much support for the sort of censorship you suggest here. By curtailing free speech you'll seal the fate that this election would be a sad farce; it would not be fair and competitive. By allowing candidate statements to stand but denying voters a central venue to voice criticisms of the candidates openly and to bring relevant information regarding the candidates is censorship of the highest order. Ending any centralized venue for candidates competency, both pro and con, only benefits those few candidates who dishonestly claim a high level of dedication to wikipedia's policies and ideals yet constantly abuse them, hoping that refractory voters will remain unaware of their history of transgressions. Once freedom of speech is denied or in any way restricted, the election will only reflect the will of an uninformed constituency. It will be a sham.

I suggest anyone that thinks denying voters a centralized forum to present their opinions pro and con with relevant facts about the candidates profoundly misunderstands what a free and fair election is. They should start by reading wikipedia's own Election article, then continue by reading about what constitutes a free and fair election.

BTW, nobody has established that the ability of voters to discuss both the pros and cons of candidates here is indeed an experiment as you claim. If this election is to be as fair and competitive as it's claimed, then a forum for the free exchange of candidate information other than than the sales pitches from the candidates themselves is a necessary part of reaching the goal of a and competitive election.--FeloniousMonk 22:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the ability to edit Wikipedia is a privilege that has been extended to you, it's not a right. If at any point there are edits which are not in line with wikipedias' goals, they can, will be, and in fact are removed (via for instance VfD, which happens to be what I'm proposing here). I think it's a bit funny to be talking about censorship in such a situation.

I've not seen any actual arguments why this endorsements page is useful to wikipedia so far, so I'll stay with my position for now. I will certainly listen to overriding arguments. Kim Bruning 23:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I find several "actual arguments" above, made by several people. The bottom line seems to be that the endorsements may help inform people's votes. If you disagree, that's fine. But pretending the argument hasn't been made isn't particularly constructive. Nor is suggesting people leave Wikipedia. Cribcage 23:30, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd better explain a bit better. I'm specifically looking for arguments&comments to not do what I intend, based on policy (something like either "it's forbidden to do so because..." or "this policy specifically allows this kind of page to exist"), or based on other overriding arguments ("Argh no! That'd destroy wikipedia if you do that!"). Or comments to the effect of "Well, it'd be great if you could take along considerations x,y, and z". There's been plenty of discussion, this is the action I intend to boldly do, based on that discussion. Kim Bruning 01:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact there is no policy on the existence of this page is no reason to delete it. There is substantial support for this page to exist. Putting this page up for VfD after you have read the arguments for it and seen the support for it, may be bold, but would be an act of bad faith. Look how many users have posted on the page. Why is that not justification enough for its existence in the context of an election? I will say again, this page needs stability. A consensus was reached, yet the attempts to delete it continue. Sigh. Ok then. If this is the way it has to be. Funny how the first comment section on this talk page has a strange symmetry with this section. Even bigger sigh --Mrfixter 01:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I'm specifically looking for arguments&comments to not do what I intend..." Anyone is free to bring any article to VfD. Having said that: Your comment seems completely backward to me. Where I come from, a person needs a reason to take action. Asking people to justify why you shouldn't do something is just loopy. No offense. Cribcage 02:29, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well the entire discussion since the page was set up can be read to support banner+protection+deleting it, but see also below for a summary of the overriding reasons. I'm giving folks a last chance at providing some input before I actually take action. That's apparently the polite thing to do :-) . That's all there is to it. Comments before Nov 30th please.Kim Bruning 02:34, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"I'm giving folks a last chance at providing some input before I actually take action. That's apparently the polite thing to do..." Then let me try this. In this thread, your opinion is outnumbered by those who disagree, whether or not you like their reasons. That's to say nothing of the many people who, by posting (dis)endorsements, evidently consider the page valuable. Your answer seems to be, "I don't care. I'm deleting them anyway; and if you don't like it, you can leave." You hardly seem concerned with being polite -- or participating in a community, for that matter. "That's all there is to it." Indeed. Cribcage 03:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales and the organisers of the arbcom election have spoken out, and there are 3 different problems with the current page wrt wikipedia policy (which has been decided on by *all* of us, not just the couple of people who are replying here). So I'm weighing input from several sources, not just this thread alone. My intent is to convert whatever consensus I can determine into action on Nov 30th, and that will be the end of it, one way or the other. I welcome input on exactly what that action should be. Currently I'm defaulting to banner+protect+delete. Hopefully this slightly unpleasent default will add enough urgency for people to gain a consensus well and proper on how to fix the page. (As opposed to chatting about chatting about chatting and making a mess of it). This is often how VfD gets (ab)used on its own, but there's a bit more urgency here, hence the additional protection and banner. You can get all mad at me, and risk me succeeding, or you can try to fix the page. Sorry about this, but we're getting kinda low on time, and the page really isn't too great, I think you'll agree. Kim Bruning 04:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most here think the page is acceptable. More have spoken out in favor of maintaining the endorsements page as is, as a forum available for presenting both pro and con regarding the candidates, than against it. And Jimbo's suggestion was just that, a suggestion. Though he is the founder, his vote still only counts as one vote. So I do not recognize your urgency or see why we should accept your ultimatum. Without an official mandate no one here is compelled to recognize it. Do you have some form of special mandate to reform the Endorsement page? Are you operating in an official capacity allows you to dictate terms to us here, Kim? If so, what is it, and who appointed you and by what process? You are implying that a secretive cabal has decided the fate of the Endorsements page, against popular consensus.--FeloniousMonk 07:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim, if you are unable to see why having voters educated and informed by their peers is useful to wikipedia, then perhaps you should reconsider your advocating the deletion of the page. That you and a few others find no benefit in having a forum for voters to express both their pro and con opinions and to present relevant facts does not mean that others share your opinion. Clearly many do not.

That informed votes are the only valid votes is the reason why wikipedia should not restrict information about the candidates. It is a point I've made repeatedly here.--FeloniousMonk 23:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh no no, there's absolutely no problem with people making informed votes. It's just that this particular form or way of doing it definately isn't it. It's the first time this particular way of doing things has been tried, and it has caused rather more heat than light. No worries, back to the drawing board and all that. If you have suggestions for alternate ways of going about informing voters, I'd love to hear them. If you have overriding reasons why this method is the One True Way, I'd love to hear them too. Please answer the questions I'm asking, not the ones you think I'm asking. I'm kind of busy this week, so I don't have as much time to explain several times over that no, I really meant literally what I said, and not a letter more or less. Kim Bruning 00:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To continue with your metaphor, heat and light are two aspects of the same thing; you're not likely to get one without the other in any election. Anyone who thinks that they can conduct a competitive and fair election without having the ugly histories of candidates brought up and discussed is living in a fantasy. To your questions, the current format is likely the best solution as possible here for a forum that allows voters post their opinions, both pro and con, learn the opinions of other voters and their justifications for holding them. It's certainly better then previous attempts and iterations. There likely is no way to make positive the necessary presentation of negative information regarding candidates considering the nature of the activities in some candidates histories. Discussing trolling, insults or dishonesty is perforce a negative activity. I see no way to make it any more palatable than it is now on the endorsements page. None the less, it is still useful and necessary despite being negative in tone; such is the nature of politics and elections.--FeloniousMonk 01:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feloniousmonk, thank you for your excellent answer. It's clear, thoughtful and to the point. (there, that has to be said too sometimes :-) ). Previous arbcom elections and RfA's have typically been carried out in the manner that Shorne describes below. You look through the edit histories of each of the candidates.

The current endorsements page style has several advantages (which you named), specifically in the realm of making things very clear for people who are voting. There are also 3 disadvantages:

1. it politicises : people are becoming divided into factions
2. it spills over : activities outside arbcom elections have been affected
3. it allows personal attacks: as we can clearly see under Oppose votes

All three these things are considered anathema to wikipedia, and rightly so. To remove them, several courses of action might be available. I've been bold and declared I'd use the most drastic course (deletion). Perhaps other means are possible to solve these problems. I'm willing to listen to suggestions. Kim Bruning 01:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd oppose in the strongest possible terms any attempt to delete or alter the present Endorsements page, as would many others here I'm sure. I pointed out below that the flaws of relying on candidate histories are all too obvious. That voters will recognize candidates behavioral patterns from a history alone is reduced to a very low order of probability considering the difficulties and the dishonesty of some candidate statements. Relying on "official" histories to judge candidates is a fatally flawed system that fails to provide for the introduction of additional insight and evidence that comes from free discourse.

What you consider flaws with the current Endorsement page are the costs of doing business (which I seem to need to remind you and others that polical elections are historically a very rancorous and disruptive business):

1. it politicises : People were already divided into factions; they always have been, now it's just all on one page.
2. it spills over : Arbcom elections have historically affected other activities, that's nothing new. There's also little consensus that previous arbcom elections were particularly fair or competitive, either.
3. it allows personal attacks: Personal attacks occur and are dealt with throughout wikipedia daily. There's no reason why genuine personal attacks are to be tolerated on the Endorsements page. Further, this is a political election; when someone stands for office, they can and should expect personal attacks, any claim that personal attacks on the Endorsements page are justification for deletion of the page is a specious attempt at censorship or indicates a truly naive understanding of what goes on in politics.

Other systems and methods have their own costs, the most common and notable of those the restrict the flow of information being the failure to provide a fair and competitive election due to uninformed voting. You may think that perferable to divisive, rancorous discourse, but I and many others do not. I'll take ugly but honest political debate and mud-slinging any day over officially controlled and sanctioned spin of of the candidates and their supporters.

Censorship and restricting the ability to freely discuss relevant topics are also considered anathema to wikipedia, even more so than contentious discussions over political candidacies. To argue otherwise is to ignore the myriad ongoing heated debates occuring right now across hundreds of article Talk pages on wikipedia. The Endorsement page and the opinions and information found on it, both pro and con, positive and negative, serve a useful purpose: they inform voters. No other proposed or attempted solution has matched it's ability to do so. I for one will resist any attempt to delete it or to stifle the free exchange of information of candidates.--FeloniousMonk 02:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedias founders specifically reject politicisation, spillover, and personal attacks. They specifically permit certain (limited) forms of censorship and in fact specifically to prevent the above. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to do experiments in online governance or anarchy or lawyering or ensuring free flow of information (try kazaa) or whatever else people make up. The arbcom is functional, and the arbcom election is intended to be functional in nature, not political. I'd like to bring the election back into that scope. Kim Bruning 03:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Any thinking that holding a semi-public election can be anything but political in nature indicates a flawed understanding of the process and naive, unrealistic expectations. Your efforts are misguided here. You may indeed like to restrict the dissemination for whatever personal reason, but I'm not finding your invocation of the founders for restricting what you've decided is undesirable speech compelling. Politicization, spillover, and personal attacks are all perforce negative activities, as are nearly all politics. Concerns over them do not trump concerns over a fair and competitive election. If the powers that be want the process of seating an arbcom to be functional and so wish to avoid the mess of the political campaigns that come with elections, then they should drop the pretense of holding fair elections altogether and just appoint their friends and cronies.--FeloniousMonk 06:46, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like we agree on something: appointing people would be less messy, although we disagree whether it would be a good thing. I think wikipedia would be better served by Jimbo appointing the AC (or even better, performing their function himself) than this election. I think there's a very good reason why judges are appointed rather than elected. I don't want the AC making decisions on the basis of "what will help me get re-elected", but I fear that scenario is likely to come to pass. What we need right now is an AC willing to make tough decisions in a timely manner, not one that tries to be populist. Shane King 06:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Crap, Shane, will you reenter the election? Please? Pretty please? It's such a gigantic shame you're not running, because I perfectly agree with just about everything you've said throughout the course of this campaigning period. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How can you agree with Mrfixter and Shane King? Both hold contrary opinions. I'm with Mrfixter. Shane wants what Spade and Bruning want. Those three seem to agree no matter the subject. Adraeus 09:15, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe I agreed with Mrfixter purely on the proposal below there, not on this issue. Anyway, so now we're playing guilt by association aren't we? Johnleemk | Talk 17:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Are we? Adraeus 22:50, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shane wants what Spade and Bruning want. Those three seem to agree no matter the subject. That smacks of the implication these people edit/comment in bad faith. I have nothing else to say. Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] This experiment is a failure, let's end it (II)

Everyone's entire edit history is available via the wiki software. People already have the tools to inform themselves. All the endorsements/disendorsements does is allow people to provide spin on that history. As such, it seems that this page is much more about disinformation than information. Shane King 00:21, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Not all voters have the knowledge or the time to engage in such tedious form of discovery, which conducted as you suggest would be lengthy and incomplete. A candidate's edit history leaves big gaps- it does not reflect activity in any additional accounts/sock puppets or their activities in their mailing list posts, irc chats, and in their emails. Without reading each individual post, literally thousands, and the context in which it is made, there's no easy way to tell if they are cagey trolls masquerading as legitimate users. It's easier for readers to glean useful information from the endorsements page while discerning and discounting the personal attacks (which are obvious enough on their face) than reading and understanding a candidates edit history.--FeloniousMonk 01:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So allow people to do the same thing as I wish the Arb Comm was changed to: post links to diffs displaying the user's behaviour, but without any editorialising allowed. My point is that people's actions should speak for themselves, and that's not actually happening. In an open community (which is hopefully what wikipedia is supposed to be), there's no need for muck raking because there's no way for people to hide things such that muck raking is required.

Besides, even if what you suggest is true, and this page does help us to get a better election result (whatever better might be), that's not enough for it to exist. The benefit has to be worth the cost. I don't think the displays of bad faith that have gone on here are worth whatever informing of the wikipedia populace it has provided. Not to mention it seems to have deeply politicised what should in theory be an apolitical position: the AC needs to not be involved in politics if it is to be (and appear to be) fair and just. Shane King 01:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, well, welcome to the world of politics. I'd think an open community would support and protect open discussion on matters as critical as electing it's officers. Voters must be free to determine for themselves what constitutes muckraking and what is useful information. Each individual's idea of what is useful information and what is muckraking are likely very different. What you call "editorializing" others call stating their case, and I did not see you complaining about "editorializing" early on when the comments were all positive.

To apply the logic of your suggestion to actual governmental elections, all public discussion of political candidate's histories and fitness for office would be silenced and replaced by an "official" history. That does not sound like anywhere I'd want to live, nor does it sound like an open community.

The flaws with what you suggest are obvious. There are cagey candidates whose history consists of 95% outwardly positive contributions, but 5% that are incredibly disruptive POV trolling and cynical abuse of policy and the system. Being that the 5% destructive, trollish behavior is spread out throughout the history and masked by dishonest proclamations, how are voters supposed to recognize the pattern?--FeloniousMonk 01:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How are voters supposed to recognize the pattern? They're not. That's what Bruning and Spade want. If candidates are allowed to promote themselves with their spin on their behavior, we should be permitted to counter-balance their spin with ours. A concept of fairness doesn't seem to be in the Spade Posse vocabulary. Adraeus 01:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not a member of any posse, thank you very much! :-P In fact I've removed my participation from the endorsements page proper to make sure that it is seen that I am not endorsing or opposing any candidate. That seemed to be the right thing to do. Hmm, It is quite possible to counterbalance other people's spin using the means already available to you I think. The endorsements page is really nice for what you want, but there's some downsides, unfortunately, and they outweigh the upsides. Especially since people have changed it to a format that's even less good than before comments had been made on this page. *sigh* See above for what's wrong with the current endorsements process, and why I think it needs to be terminated as quickly as possible. Kim Bruning 02:51, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That the downsides outweigh the upsides of the Endorsements page has not been sufficiently established for many here to accept what you claim at face value. It has not even been established that they are indeed genuine downsides.--FeloniousMonk 07:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kim Brunings claim of impartiality, of not being part of a posse, is open to question.

• Jolly good show! Next time, you'll definately get admin I think ;-) Kim Bruning 23:41, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC) What current candidate is Kim Bruning talking about? 1 & 2.

The user in question has exactly the same view on this page as Kim Bruning. There is an esablished, personal relationship between the two users. There is a personal conflict of interest in Kim Bruning attempt to delete and protect this page.

• The flip-side is Kim Brunings various encounters with Felonious Monk here and here.

To quote Wikipedia Protection Policy:

Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page).

Any actions taken by Kim Bruning on this page would be a disgraceful ignoring of community consensus and a shocking conflict of interest.

I think we can agree that Kim Bruning is not an impartial admin in this case and should, in all good faith, recuse himself from any attempts to delete and especially protect this page.

Comments?

--Mrfixter 16:53, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I fully agree. I was unable to bring these points up myself being a party to the pending issue, and the one time I did refer to it here, Kim quickly deleted my comments. BTW, Kim is a man, not a woman.--FeloniousMonk 17:32, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[inserted a day after the comments directly above/bellow were issued] It certainly inspires little confidence in the impartiality of Kim Bruning with respect to this 'experiment' and its alleged failure/success. Since he is in such an overwhelming minority here, I don't see how his proposal fares a viable chance without extra- judicial powers. The question, then, perhaps should be phrased as whether wikipedians acting in an official capacity have more of a say (not the weight of their words, that is subject to interpertation – but real power) over the processes underwhich this election will be carried out vis-à-vis ordinary, non-official wikipedians. I am very strongly against ShaneKing's appeals for Jimbo Wales to take control as a dues ex machina. Perhaps I am mistaken (I hope so) and mis-interperting, but SK's approach here throughout, for that matter, strikes me as highly sycophantic. No offence. El_C 21:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would have to be the first time in my life I've been called sycophantic. Generally I'm considered to be quite the opposite. :)

I'll make it clear that I think these elections only exist because Jimbo is shirking his responsibilities as a benevolent dictator. I'm sure handing the selection of the AC off to an election is easier for him, but I do not feel that it's the best thing for wikipedia. In fact, I think it shows poor judgement in this case. So I wasn't trying to suck up to Jimbo, I was criticising his actions. Sorry if that was not clear.

That's really a side issue anyway. My biggest complaint is that too many people are priviledging the process above the result. Democracy isn't something sacred, it's a tool. It's only useful if it gets useful results. In many scenarios it doesn't, but we've been brought up to believe "the system works" and not to question it. It's become the end rather than the means, twisted into some stupid ideology. If challenging that notion makes me a sycophant, then I'm a sycophant with a capital S. Shane King 23:36, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the clarification. El_C 01:12, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't say anything in the early stages? Why do I have first comment on this page asking about what the ground rules are then? When things were all positive, no damage was being done, so there wasn't any harm in having the page, even if there wasn't much benefit. Now I've seen there is harm (in both having endorsements and disendorsements), so I've changed my position somewhat. I think that's a reasonable thing to do. I'm not going to cling to some ideological position if I find it doesn't work in practice how I thought it would in theory. Throughout the process I've spoken my mind, so I reject the idea I didn't speak up.

I didn't say anything about having an "offical" history. You did. You've turned what I've said into a straw man, which I'm not going to debate. Lets just say that we clearly have different views about the utility of this election and what it means for wikipedia and leave it at that. Shane King 02:57, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

1. Elections must be open and public.
2. Candidates must be subjects open to discussion.

If you're a candidate and you don't want to be discussed, run away. Adraeus 05:26, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

It really is that simple. If anything, these must be the cardinal rules. All the confusion and diversions aside, the rest is largely procedural. There needs to be a page, a central page, for discussions involving criticisms/oppositions and their refutations. Whether it is combined in the endorsement page or not, notwithstanding my vote on the matter, is relatively unimportant. That the 'disendorsement' page, if it is to exist on its own, needs to be accorded the same prominance as the endorsement one, is. El_C 06:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

You can have that as your ideology, that's fine. All I care about is whether that actually helps wikipedia. I don't think it does, but you're welcome to differ on that point. Shane King 06:59, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Considering that the opposition to fairness is vastly outnumbered, the only question I have for you is, "Why do you think fairness does not help Wikipedia?" Fairness in opinon has long been the basis of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:NPOV policy, which does apply to how the information on candidates is presented. Fairness is a Wikipedian virtue. You treat it like a sin. I want to know why. Adraeus 09:24, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It would be pointless for me to even attempt a rebuttal when I'm being told I'm against "fairness". I don't play games that are loaded against me from the start. Shane King 23:11, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

You think of this as a game. I do not. Adraeus 09:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, this page should not be frozen and submitted to VfD because doing so would violate the spirit and letter of "Our Founder's" intent which says: "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. . . . If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." If we think that trolls have taken over this page, then it is our job, I would say, to figure out how to accomplish our goals without letting the trolls block us. Does this page do its job? When I look at this page's history and current version from Improv's viewpoint above, I must say that it does. This page 1) informs us well--maybe too well--of the duties and candidates for the Arbitration Committee, 2) demonstrates in a "handy microcosm" exactly the dysfunctions with which the Arbitration Committee must deal, 3) gives us, as 172 implies, the opportunity to see how each candidate deals with the kind of stress and public scrutiny that being on the Arbitration Committee would invite, and, as User:Mrfixter suggests, this page 4) provides an important learning function for the voters because so many voters devoted so much time to scrutinizing and reacting to Arbitration Committee issues on this page. I also definitely agree with Kim's observation that this page has too much 1) politicization, 2) spilling over to affect other activities, and 3) allowing personal attacks. I very much wish that would not happen here or on the Wikipedia pages. But it does 8(( --here and on the Wikipedia pages where the politicization, spilling over, and personal attacks are very destructive, in my opinion. However, I see my job and our job to be finding some way to "love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. . . . If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." If we would freeze this page and delete it despite this page supporting incredibly the live demonstration of the candidates' abilities to do the job of the Arbitration Committee, then we would be sinking to their level of letting the trolls stop us from our job--our job of selecting and supporting a strong and effective Arbitration Committee. We may think of a better way to do that job in the future. But for now, let's not let the trolls stop us. ---Rednblu | Talk 07:09, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here's what I think. I know it will be unpopular, because this is a very touchy issue (I got two disendorsements based on one edit alone to this page, one from an arbitrator, and one from another user who IMO has violated the rule of civility a few times based purely on looking at his user and user talk pages), but I'll say it anyway. I believe that if we are to keep endorsements and disendorsements on the same page, we should make it a point to demand evidence (or at least a reference to the basis for one's opposition) from those who make disendorsements. Not providing evidence (i.e. just saying "Strongly oppose" or "Fox in the henhouse") is tantamount to a personal attack, because it is an attack on the character of the person being disendorsed. It is saying, "This person is not trustworthy or responsible enough to hold the job of an arbitrator". Not providing evidence or even a reference for this lack of trust is a slap to the candidate's honour. I believe that disendorsers should either provide evidence or retract what I view as a personal attack. Oh, and FWIW, I think this page should be renamed "Discussion". Even "Disendorsements" is a better title — there's about 70+ kilobytes worth of disendorsements (subtract 10kb if you believe the various statements from Jimbo, et. al should not be counted) and only 50kb+ worth of endorsements. Johnleemk | Talk 09:02, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Expanding on this, I also think that merely alluding to the candidate's actions and not providing a specific instance should also count as a personal attack. How do you expect a candidate to respond to statements like "Oppose. POV warrior" when there's no diff, not even a mention of a specific incident? If the candidate is irresponsible enough not to be trusted with the position, digging up evidence should be no problem. One or two instances is enough, as many others will have their own bones to pick if there is real dissatisfaction with the candidate. Johnleemk | Talk 09:06, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I rather like the Rule: "If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." Why wouldn't the application of the Rule here be: Ignore the attack party, not respond to the attack party, and expect me, Rednblu, and the others to have the intelligence to notice that it was an attack party and apply the Rule? "If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level."  :)) ---Rednblu | Talk 15:38, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that these aren't any personal attacks. These are attacks which could influence the outcome of an election. With so many good candidates running, it's going to be close. Let's not forget those of us actively involved in this election represent a very small minority of the actual voters. Over 500 users voted in the July elections. I think it's likely there are going to be quite a bit more voters this time around. If these voters merely glance around the page (which is almost guaranteed — most of them are definitely not as interested in politicking as the average troll/cabalist), they might vote based purely on the number of "support" or "oppose" "votes". Johnleemk | Talk 16:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes. You are right. Many of the "500 users" will find it difficult to apply the Rule: "If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." That is true. I agree. But I hate to see anybody "sink to their level" just because we know that some of the "500 users" will "sink to their level."  :)) That is how I read the rule. And that is why I say that freezing this page and submitting it to VfD is a violation of the Rule. "If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." The mere freezing of this page and submitting it to VfD is "sinking to their level"--in my opinion. But in this case I am looking in from the "outside." I know that, when I am "inside," it is much more difficult to follow the Rule. :) ---Rednblu | Talk 17:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Um...I never pushed for any such thing. That was Kim's idea. My idea was to prohibit personal attacks. Johnleemk | Talk 18:14, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, you are right. I intended to respond both to you and to Kim and did not make a clear transition. How would you interpret the Rule--"If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level."--for the particular situation of Kim's proposal to freeze this page and then submit it to VfD? ---Rednblu | Talk 20:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I consider that an extreme sort of action, and I wouldn't condone it. However, I wouldn't condemn it either. I'm actually pretty much a fencesitter on this; I don't care about the specifics too much, but I've been thoroughly pissed off by the personal attacks I've seen. Still, I wouldn't throw a tantrum if nobody listened to me. I don't mind it very much. So although I consider Kim's approach a little too extreme, I don't feel strongly enough on this issue to either support or oppose it. And by the way, I think the correct way to refer to "the rule" is "the guideline", because Jimbo specifically did not issue this as a command — "Thou shalt not post disendorsements" — instead, he merely strongly recommended people avoid doing so. That doesn't mean we can't or shouldn't disobey him. However, I think that some people have taken this whole disendorsing thing too far, as if the right were sacred. Lest anyone forget, this whole election is going on solely because Jimbo permits it. This is not democracy — this is Jimbocracy. Sure, it's a dictatorship, but Jimbo runs the Foundation. He can do whatever he likes, whether it's fair or not. I personally agree with Shane that things would work a lot smoother if Jimbo was the arbcom or Jimbo appointed the arbcom. However, like him, I understand why we need these elections. What I don't understand is why people insist on turning this into a race for Congress or something. Factionalism is bad. Disendorsements, in particular those which don't contain any rationale for the disendorsement, create bad blood. If we're going to permit them (I believe there's a reason we didn't have disendorsements in the July election), the least we could do is to forbid obvious personal attacks. Johnleemk | Talk 08:11, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, in my opinion. :) We are discussing. I am learning my way through this with your help.  ;) Rule. I guess I was thinking of Rule in the sense of Rule of thumb, a very practical generality--a much more practical form of Turn the other cheek and the Golden rule. Clearly, what I would like to call "the Rule"-- If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. --is not policy. It is even better than policy because it is not a "Thou shalt not." Therefore, it is useable. :)) Factionalism is bad. Yep. But apparently God and evolution made us wrong. Since I take the evolutionism prong, I would say that unfortunately we human males inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees the 1) politicization by factionalism, 2) spilling over of important politics to interrupt necessary routine destructively, and 3) personal attacks--all three behaviors as the instinctive means of accomplishment. [10] So it is difficult to love this part of ourselves--especially when it manifests in our opponent  :)) --and we easily get sucked back into the cesspool of our primordial instincts. It is difficult to love that part of us. It takes incredible amounts of 1) intelligence and 2) discipline to resist the primordial hungers we inherited from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. The challenge for any enlightened human male is thus stated succinctly by what, in the last few days, I have come to like calling "the Rule." "If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level." This is just what I see at the moment. Thanks for discussing this with me. ---Rednblu | Talk 18:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

'It is saying, "This person is not trustworthy or responsible enough to hold the job of an arbitrator" Indeed it is, after years of experience in dealing with them one can come to such a conclusion. Why people like 172 or VeryVerily, having been before the arbitration committee as defendants, think they ought to be elected to the Committee in order to further their war on Wikipedia policies is obvious enough. Diffs are nice, but hardly necessary in the case of notorious POV warriors. I will leave it to you to try to provide some rationale for trying to stifle debate; you had the option of leaving it alone. Fred Bauder 12:13, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

If you think I was singling you out in particular (or that incident), you are mistaken. I merely mentioned the incident to provide context for my statement that any change to the structure of this page will be highly disputed (incidentally, I'm curious as to why/how Anthere escaped criticism from the general community, and only ended up being criticised by trolls when she removed all disendorsements). Indeed it is, after years of experience in dealing with them one can come to such a conclusion. Why people like 172 or VeryVerily, having been before the arbitration committee as defendants, think they ought to be elected to the Committee in order to further their war on Wikipedia policies is obvious enough. Diffs are nice, but hardly necessary in the case of notorious POV warriors. Of course it's obvious. However, you could have given the reason, "VeryVerily has been involved in constant revert warring, and has appeared in many arbitration cases for this very crime", because that provides enough context for someone to go out and easily locate more information on this. I will leave it to you to try to provide some rationale for trying to stifle debate; you had the option of leaving it alone. Uh... I was the one who put the effort into merging the two pages after the strawpoll closed yesterday. I'm not sure what you're talking about, unless you're referring to the incident of me reverting you, which I have already responded to in two different places on the main endorsements page. Was it a mistake? Even I remain unsure. However, the fact that the strawpoll had not yet closed (leaving room for more votes to prevent a consensus) I believe created enough ambiguity to prevent outright condemnation. Johnleemk | Talk 12:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] One line per vote

How about a rule that for each vote for and against a candidate that no one goes over one line:

• No one is allowed to start a discussion under a vote line.
• If someone wants to explain reasons for a vote, they provide a link to the relevant section of their talk page, within their talk page they can have links to histories, etc, to substantiate their reason for their vote. Additionally, no one should start a discussion within these pages also.

If the above two guidelines/rules can be followed, everyone will be able to easily vote, see votes, and see reasons for votes. Any discussions should be kept strictly seperate to the votes (and the separate "vote reasons" pages).

Comments? --Rebroad 15:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The page is not for voting, but for expressing your opinion about a candidate. I also think limiting peoples ability to express themselves is fraught with danger and difficulty. Keeping everything in one place is easier. --Mrfixter 15:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Mrfixter said. Voting is done by secret ballot. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Keep backups of this page and others

As a safety mechanism against User:Kim Bruning's intent to eventually send this page to VfD, I am keeping a copy of this page, the endorsement/disendorsement pages, and others both on my laptop's mediawiki and on a subpage of my user page. Currently, I only have a snapshot I made earlier this morning -- I will be collecting important historical snapshots as well. I am doing this because:

• I feel that, as part of due process, the records of this election must be kept visible to people
• These records may be of historical interest, not unlike how we have a lot of articles detailing presidential elections in various countries
• I worry that improper procedure will be followed to delete the archives

Anyone else who wishes to note that they're keeping archives can do so here --Improv 17:25, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I'm threatening to send the page to VfD is to force people to address quite strong concerns that have been made as to the current format. People seem to have replied by taking a lot of time arguing as to my "cabal membership" or something like that.

Hey, how about directing your efforts to fixing the page folks? Try to make it untenable for me to delete at all!

I'll admit it would save me a lot of work sorting out "How VfD Works Today" again, since I hardly ever use VfD at all. I'll wait 'till Dec 4 and see what's happened by then.

Even if I do eventually propose the page on VfD, I'd certainly be requesting a copy + edit history be kept in my personal namespace at least. So that's like my notification that I'll be keeping an archival copy too.

Note that articles deleted using vfd (or speedy) deletion can still be recalled for some time after the event, so at no time would the data remain lost for long if you'd like a copy.

I have indeed encouraged Sam Spade with comments as to him passing his next RfA if he improves his behaviour just a bit more. In the interests of full disclosure I'd best point out that I've also actually offered to personally nominate FeloniousMonk on RfA (pending a small amount of work from him to make that possible).

In fact I know most of the people participating in the Arbcom election to some degree or other (even if they don't always know me), I think that's typical of someone who has been on wikipedia for over a year. :)

Take home messages:

* I'd be following procedures to the letter and ensuring backups where required, so no worries there. If you feel like keeping Multiple Redundant Copies, well, Multiple Redundant Copies is always a good idea wrt backup procedures.

* I'd much rather see folks working on fixing the remaining problems with the page, rather than that I'd VfD it (I'm not a deletionist by a long shot).

* I'll wait and see 'till december 4 and with a bit of luck, folks will have worked on improvements by then.

Kim Bruning 19:05, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are some issues that will prevent you from doing what you intend to do here, Kim:

1. There is a clear majority consensus here that page is acceptable, useful and necessary as it stands.
2. As far as we can tell, you are not acting in any official capacity here, and so have no authority or mandate to act unilaterally to delete the page or even to move for it's deletion through VfD. There is even a clear majority consensus that even nominating the page for VfD goes against the policies and spirit of wikipedia.
3. Mrfixter pointed out yesterday that policy indicates you have a conflict of interest that precludes you from taking unilateral action that would protect/freeze the page as you threaten: From the Wikipedia Protection Policy: Admins should not protect pages which they have been involved with (involvement includes making substantive edits to the page or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page). By carrying out your threatened action, you'd be violating policy many here feel.
4. That Endorsements page current format is actually flawed has not been sufficiently established for many here to accept what you claim at face value. It has not even been established that there is a better alternative; indeed, you've offered no alternative. Complete loss of a free fair forum in which the electorate can voice support or concern over candidate qualifications is completely unacceptable.

Many here do not agree with your opinion of the Endorsements page, recognize your urgency or see why we should accept your ultimatums. Without an official mandate no one here is compelled to recognize your attempts at unilateral action in the face of a clear community majority consensus. Unless you produce some form of special authority that allows you to unilaterally reform the Endorsement page as you see fit and exempts you from the policy violation that doing so would likely entail, you should just abide by community consensus just like anyone else here.--FeloniousMonk 19:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a "majority consensus". That's an oxymoron. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are correct. I was thinking about the difference between relative majority and absolute majority.--FeloniousMonk 05:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

This is not a "The Emperor has no clothes" comment. This is a "We are all naked under our clothes" comment.

Here we four are--on the field of battle--again--each of the four of us defending what we think is "Wikipedia Quality" against the onslaughts of the "Destroyers of quality."

And I say again that we inherited this instinctive behavior pattern from the ancestors of the chimpanzees. And given our intelligence, in five more moves we could all have nuclear missiles aimed to where it would hurt; we think they are just deterrents against the "Destroyers of Wikipedia quality." Even our language--at least our English--makes it almost impossible to make the kind of observation statement I am trying to make here without implying "I am right. See I won. You are wrong."

I agree with Kim that the pattern on the "Endorsement?" page is despicable. But I notice that this is a very human pattern that takes incredible amounts of 1) love and 2) discipline to keep from joining. "Have we hereby joined this despicable pattern?" I ask. I would suggest that all of us would benefit from what I have come to like to call "the Rule"--If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Have we sunk to their level in fighting for and against this VfD? As a remedy, I suggest that the four of us each and every one should depart this discussion and proposed action over this VfD both for and against altogether and work elsewhere on Wikipedia. :)) That, in my opinion, would be a straight-forward application of "the Rule." ---Rednblu | Talk 20:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's helpful or fair your characterizing anyone who opposes what may be a cynical misuse of VfD process as having sunk to the level of troll. Yes, some of us may have very quaint ideas about free speech being a part of fair and valid elections, but as Jefferson said: "Information is the currency of democracy."--FeloniousMonk 05:48, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FM's Compromise Solution

Are some comments left in opposition personal attacks? Likely. Are some of those despicable? Maybe. Some may even be dastardly. Are there informative, useful facts for voters found in the oppose comments on the Endorsements page? Certainly. Is that information available grouped together elsewhere for voters? No. Should genuine personal attacks be allowed to stand? No.

That there are despicable personal attacks on the page is no reason to unilaterally delete all opposing comments, particularly those that are factually informative and not personal attacks.

So I propose the following simple compromise: Let's fix those comments that are personal attacks while leaving informative opposing comments that are not personal attacks as they are. Comments that do not characterize candidates using pejorative terms and comments that present verifiable relevant information and that do not use pejorative terms can stand and continue to be made in the future. Comments that characterize candidates using pejorative terms or present unverifiable evidence should have the pejorative terms and dubious evidence removed by their originating editor, or failing that, reduced to a simple "Oppose." by one of us after giving that editor the opportunity to correct it themselves.

I feel this is a fair solution that addresses the concerns of both camps here.

Comments? Endorsements ;-)?--FeloniousMonk 20:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support your proposal, FeloniousMonk (I am also a fan of your music!). All personal attacks should be removed, these serves no productive purpose whatsoever. I did not even realize the extent of some of these until lastnight, and frankly, I was appaled by what I read. El_C 22:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Define "pejorative terms." Adraeus 22:53, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Defining what is "pejorative" and a genuine personal attack is something we will all have to work on together and reach some consensus on as a group, I hope. I'm against anyone one person or group dictating what is and is not an inexcusable insult. I anticipate that there will be plenty of gray areas that need discussion. For example, "candidate X is a jerk" is a statement that is little more than personal opinion and difficult to defend as not being a personal attack. But "candidate X has acted like a jerk" may indeed be a statement of fact that is backed up by the candidates record and thus could easily remain with a little moderating of the language. At least that's my line of thinking. It will take some discussion and contacting of the various editors and allowing them sufficient time to respond, of course.--FeloniousMonk 01:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't regard "Person X is a jerk" or "Person X is a troll" as pejorative or personal attacks since both refer to Person X's behavior. The labels we give each other are subjective interpretations. While those interpretations often produce negative results through miscommunication (or misunderstanding), they remain useful if evidence is provided to demonstrate how Person X behaved in a jerkish or trollish manner. Of course, absolutes are logical impossibilities; therefore, if a critic argues that Person X behaved in a jerkish or trollish manner with supporting evidence, and readers are not convinced, then readers are left alone to decide their interpretation of Person X's behavior given the alternative opinions of Person X. In General Semantics, I would say, "I am anything that behaves in an Adraeus-ish way." Being that perception is infinite yet singular, there will always be interpretations which claim that something or another behaves in an Adraeus-ish way and is then Adraeus. With that in mind, I disregard the entire concept of a "personal attack" as a mere product of the meek (or weak) unless, of course, that attack is accompanied by some form of weaponry. Adraeus 04:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you think personal attacks are a product of the weak or meek, it's wikipedia policy to disallow them. If you don't like it, take it up on the policy talk page. Until you get the policy changed, you're going to have to live with it. Shane King 04:33, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Ohhhh, scarrry! You're soooo scarrry. Oh please... If my opinion doesn't matter, then neither does yours... especially considering you're against fairness in presentation of information. No wonder you're on Spade and Bruning's tag team. Adraeus

I never said anyone's opinion didn't matter. Clearly they do matter: hence my suggestion that if you want to change the "no personal attacks" policy, you attempt to do so on the talk page for the policy. If opinions didn't matter, there'd be no way to change policy. I'm merely suggesting that policy applies until it is changed, whether you, I or anyone else likes it or not. You're not meant to be scared by that, because there's no threat intended. Shane King 05:46, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

You said, "It doesn't matter whether you think personal attacks are a product of the weak or meek..." Simplified, you said, "Your opinion on personal attacks doesn't matter."

You also issued an ultimatum: "If you don't like it, take it up on the policy talk page. Until you get the policy changed, you're going to have to live with it." I don't care much for "pejorative" terminology. What is most detrimental to communication is how things are said rather than what. For instance, a black woman is passing by a church with her baby son in her arms when a white Irish priest walks up to her and says, "They are so cute when they're little." Fine, right? Instead of speaking to the mother, perhaps instead he turned around to another person after conversing with the woman and said, "They are so cute when they're little." The implications are far worse. Context over content. How information is presented is often more important than the information itself. Adraeus 06:41, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're inferring a whole bunch of ill-will where none exists. As such I'm not sure what exactly to say. All I can do is to apologise for not expressing myself as clearly as I would like to be able to. Language can be a poor vehicle for thoughts and intentions sometimes. I'm sorry if my lack of precision has caused any offense. Shane King 10:06, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see what any of that had to do with Shane's original comment. That "ultimatum" is exactly how policy is decided on. It's factually correct. And that "Your opinion doesn't matter" is extremely tenuous. Have you considered taking your own advice and looking at the context? I quote: "It doesn't matter whether you think personal attacks are a product of the weak or meek, it's wikipedia policy to disallow them." His statement clearly meant that current policy cannot be altered by your opinion. Shane then went on to say that future policy can be altered by your opinion. But for now, personal attacks are banned, regardless of what any of us think about it. Sheesh, pedants these days. Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I suppose, Johnleemk, you want me to apologize to Shane King for misunderstanding him now, eh? Not going to happen. I neither apologize for thinking rationally nor do I apologize for making mistakes that result from others' miscommunicated ideas. The phrase "if you don't like it, do this" is haughty and memetically negative since it is consistently used sarcastically. For instance, "if you don't like it, kill yourself." Adraeus 10:50, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't gain anything by forcing you to apologise, would I? Johnleemk | Talk 10:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Depends on your agenda and/or whether you're one of Sam Spade's cronies. Adraeus 12:26, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

For the record, I found Sam to be a tad uncivil when I ran across him a few times. I don't fault his disendorsers for disendorsing him. Johnleemk | Talk 12:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That leaves your agenda which is apparently egocentric. Adraeus 13:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Elections are by their very nature ugly business. If candidates can't stand the intense scrutiny and unfavorable comments that are only natural to an election, then they should withdraw. I totally agree with your points Adraeus, particularly your point that the concept of personal attack is a sham. Unfortunately wikipedia policy doesn't see it that way. As it is, the existing policy unfairly allows those with an agenda to cynically misuse claims of personal attacks as a bludgeon against anyone who speaks out the slightest bit critically of them, much the same way the NPOV policy is misused by POV warriors to leverage a bigger and better seat at the table. I still insist that opposing comments must remain, and will continue to see that they do. But to maintain the page in light of Kim Bruning's threat of unilateral action, I'm comfortable working with the group we have here to define which comments are indeed "personal attacks" per policy and working to get those comments to align with the policy. That is only if there is community consensus here to adopt my solution. If you oppose it, I respect that.--FeloniousMonk 05:22, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Elections must be open and public.
2. Candidates must be subjects open to discussion.

If candidates do not desire themselves discussed, then they should step down from the podium and away from the spotlight. "Personal attacks" don't even factor into this equation. Attempts to conceal a candidate's history of ignorance and "evil" aspirations through abuse of policy is wrong, unjustified and irresponsible! Adraeus 05:37, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do have to say I fully agree with you here. And I've only seen coming from the other side specious reasoning to support deletion and no alternative being offered to accommodate commentary on candidates; in other words, full censorship. While you were writing this I was quoting Jefferson to Rednblu: ""Information is the currency of democracy." Funny. I thought we'd still be able to discuss a candidates history fully without the name calling, that's all.--FeloniousMonk 06:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would not regard removal of this page as censorship. Free speach only means accepting people's right to say things, it doesn't mean they have to be given a vehicle to say it. A person's own user space is their castle as far as I'm concerned, you can write anything you like there. When people start telling you that you can't endorse or disendorse people in your user space, then I'll be behind you 100% on the censorship issue.

Anyway, removal isn't something I really support at this point, nor is restriction. The rules should have been made before the fact, not after them. What I do support is a policy to be put in place about what can and can't be done for any future elections, and that the state of this page isn't used as precident in them. I have already said this explicitly, maybe my mistake is to assume that people realise I'm talking about the future because of this.

I also don't care either way what impact it has on democracy. I've said several times that I don't believe democracy is the end we're aiming for here, an effective AC is. Your argument is compelling, but to my mind, besides the point. Shane King 10:06, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

We do have a policy to lean back on called Wikipedia:NPOV policy. NPOV policy is applicable to how information on candidates is presented. Allowing only endorsements creates a promotional vehicle, not an informational resource. A smart voter will read the supporting and opposing statements regarding a candidate, do a little research to verify claims and vote (or not vote) based on their decision. Adraeus 10:43, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

To quote the NPOV page: "Wikipedia policy is that all articles should have a neutral point of view." (emphasis mine). The NPOV policy only applies to articles, not items in the Wikipedia namespace. While your argument is completely valid, it unfortunately does not apply here. Shane King 10:52, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, an article is:

1. "A paragraph, section, or distinct item of any document."
2. "A literary composition forming materially part of a journal, magazine, encyclopædia, or other collection, but treating a specific topic distinctly and independently."

NPOV policy applies regardless of your vocabulary's inadequacy. Your emphasis remains irrelevant. Adraeus 12:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

ROFL! This is such a stacked argument, I'm beginning to wonder if Shane and I are just feeding a troll. Wikipedia convention defines an article as a page in the main namespace. Something encompassing all pages regardless of namespace is the word "page". This has been a dispute on RFAr before — in a temporary injunction for Gzornenplatz, it was found that his revert parole only applied to articles and not pages in general (as a result, the final decision was amended to encompass all pages). That's good enough for me. Johnleemk | Talk 12:33, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You really should read the entire NPOV policy article before posting such irrelevant nonsense. Wikipedia also prohibits the implementation of "original research." Redefinition of a term to complement your agenda is "original research;" thus, inapplicable and a violation of policy. Adraeus 12:51, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You should understand community convention before making groundless claims. OED's definition of an article doesn't matter. What matters is our definition for the purposes of Wikipedia. Convention and precedent both agree: There are no grounds for stating an article and a page are the same thing. Johnleemk | Talk 12:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Such a definition is a violation of policy. Adraeus 12:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't feed trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

By the way, for someone who supports neutrality and fairness in the presentation of information on candidates only if personal attacks are avoided, you tend to indulge in that which you claim to be against. Practice what you preach. Adraeus 13:02, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I won't feed trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not that ethnocentric nor am I that stingy. Trolls need food too... as do orcs, elves and dwarves. Okay, is fantasy time over or do you still want to play your game? Adraeus 14:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with this (as anyone can see above). What pissed me off about disendorsements is that people were using them as an official sanction to make personal attacks or bringing personal feuds into play. If the feud has basis in policy, you shouldn't have to be afraid to present a link to a page summarising the dispute (RFC, RFAr) or even just a diff or two. Oh, and FWIW, I'm also in complete agreement with Shane again (except for the little bit about restriction, since I think personal attacks are banned everywhere). Johnleemk | Talk 10:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I meant restriction of the ability to write supporting or opposing views on this page. Of course I think personal attacks are banned on this page, as per policy. Shane King 10:54, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

As they should be. Adraeus, I (now) feel you are conducting yourself in an unecessarily combative and insultive manner, and I am taking you to task over this. El_C 14:39, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Would you prefer I produce a few witty retorts to Johnleemk's ad hominem name-calling? Or perhaps the classic "I know you are but what am I" would do the trick, hrm? Whatever you desire. I'm here to appease. ... Get your facts straight, bub. Johnleemk is attacking me and I'm hurting; yet, you feel I am conducting myself in an "unnecessarily combative and insultive manner." If by not appeasing Johnleemk's ego is what you deem "combative and insultive," then yes, I am a raging bloodthirsty beast. Hear me roar! Adraeus 14:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I would prefer a measure of composure, I could care less about wit. And please do not refer to me as bub. El_C 15:13, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just don't feed the troll, El_C. Johnleemk | Talk 16:05, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't think characterizations of each other are fair or helpful. Adraeus raises valids points, as do you both. So let's just discuss the issues, not the person raising them, anything else is little more than ad hominem.--FeloniousMonk 17:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The last time he raised a valid point was a screenful of text or two back up. NPOV policy and no original research don't apply to pages outside the main namespace except in his dreams. If so, I would imagine we'd have to amend every talk and user talk page on Wikipedia to appropriately NPOV it. Statistics and various research like those Tim Starling and others keep on their user subpages would have to be deleted too. Utter ludicrosity only capable of being conceived by a troll. Johnleemk | Talk 18:07, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"We'd have to amend every talk and user talk page on Wikipedia to appropriately NPOV it."

False. You misunderstand how NPOV policy applies to how information on candidates is presented. From Wikipedia:NPOV policy: "The policy says that we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute..."

In order to fairly represent all sides of a dispute — in this case, support of and opposition to a candidate since a candidate is the object of dispute — all viewpoints regarding a candidate must be presented in an easily considerable fashion. We've made the case for this presentation and, I think, you support it (or so you claim) "only as long as personal attacks are forbidden," which is a strange, apparently highly political, position considering your tendency to call me names... I find it ironic that you agree with me in one form yet label me a "troll" and my conclusions a "nice joke." Adraeus 02:11, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nice strawman there bub. I support free speech on the condition that it helps build a free encyclopedia. You haven't responded at all to the quote you took from me. Very nice. If I fill my user page with accusations against you, does that mean it must be NPOVed? After all, NPOV policy applies to pages outside the main namespace. What if I fill it with a list of articles I've found that are substubs? Isn't that original research? Well, I've had enough of feeding trolls for now. Hope you enjoyed your supper. Johnleemk | Talk 08:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Get some sleep. Come back and then read my response again until it clicks. If I made the connection between NPOV policy and fair presentation of information on candidates any clearer, it'd be transparent. Adraeus 09:42, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Poll regarding the use of these pages

I've started a poll to determine whether endorsements should be used in ArbCom elections. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 09:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Thank you! .ôô. Here is the link. ---Rednblu | Talk 10:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Bug? Or just another oops by me?

Hey, I tried to edit a section of the endorsements page, but the resulting edit changed another page, not the main endorsements page but a candidates endorsement subpage. Can someone explain to me what went wrong? Thanks in advance --Mrfixter 20:38, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That was supposed to happen. The endorsements are written up on subpages and transcluded onto this page; when you click the section edit link on this page you edit that section on the subpage. Take a look at VFD and RFA for other examples of this system. —No-One Jones ^(m) 20:56, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right, but how come edits i do to a section do not appear on the main endorsements page? --Mrfixter 21:10, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They do, but you may need to clear the wikipedia cache to see them. One issue I've noted on VfD is that changes to template inclusions is that they don't refresh the wikipedia cache of the main page until/unless the main page itself is edited by someone. We should perhaps have a prominent link to purge the cache on the top of the page. Even if, however, we were to stop using subpages, DO NOT simply revert back to the last version that was done that way. Instead, copy the entire page source into a text editor, replace all the template inclusion with template substitution inclusion, and replace back into the edit window that way. Submitting that will de-templatize the page while substituting the template content back in. It's the best technical solution, were we to want to go that way, as no comments would be lost. I'm a Unixhead, and would do it in vim as shown below. --Improv 21:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

morose$ vim -g
(paste text in from the edit window, clearing the edit window afterwards)
:%s/{{/{{subst:/g
(mark all the text back, and paste back into edit window)
(submit)

I'd suggest just turning off the page caching setting in the misc section of your preferences. If you're a regular editor, it's probably worth the speed hit you take when browsing for the benefits of always seeing what's really there no matter what. Shane King 23:44, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for being gentle with a techno-ignoramus, and thanks for reverting my panicked lunacy. I would support a purge cache link on this page.

Thanks for the tips, acting in good faith and please accept my apologies. --Mrfixter 22:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] New Candidates

On a semi-related note, it seems that there are candidates listed on the candidates page who are not on the endorsements page. Could someone add them, please? I feel I am not the best person to attempt this, thanks in advance --Mrfixter 22:25, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with the election

I won't be surprised if some people say in the future that a particular successful candidate is not suitable to be on the arbcom committee. As the election had some problems as discussed at great length above. They didn't plan the rules of the election before they started it. Most importantly: there was no announcement on the main page and so it wasn't made known properly to the "electorate". We were told that only a link on the "community portal" page was needed to make the election fair.

Also the "election managers", Danny etc. didn't monitor the election and user "Neutrality", and others, see above, went about removing comments posted against them. (Mirv had to do the tasks for the "election managers".) They didn't stop people like Michael Snow taking control of the election. Again, other users had to work to stop him. The candidates were given an unfair advantage for a while at the start with only pro comments allowed in the "election". Even afterwords the page was still called "candidate endorsements" and some people going to the candidate page from the link we were told was all that was needed - will have only seen "Endorsements can be added at /Endorsements." and maybe not moved on. This is clear as anybody who knows the wikipedia knows how hard it is to find/find out about things on it. (It was changed after two weeks.)

Also the candidates are allowed to "choose the length of their term after the election," - funny election. "The election will last from December 4 to December 18." - but they only say when it closes on a detail page. Also the voting page doesn't say whether you can come back and vote for more candidates later. "Show your disapproval at the ballot, and offer the good faith belief that everyone who is running has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart," This is from the election organisers. They shouldn't be running it if they're expressing biased views like that. WikiUser 21:40, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I think you misunderstand the "choose their terms after the election" thing. It's because ArbCom terms are staggered (some are one year, some two, some three, I believe). Not all of the open seats are for the same term length. So the idea is to let the winners pick which of the seats they want to hold in order of finishing. It's not like we're letting the winners just arbitrarily pick some length of time for which to serve. [[User:Blankfaze|VOTE BLANKFAZE]] | (что??) 21:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thankyou. I did know though what they meant, and it's that that I'm against. I forgot to mention also that there was a section for people to give their endorsements "2 Listing of individuals making endorsements", but no equivalent space for someone like me to list their endorsements/opposition. WikiUser 18:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)