Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements

I hate to sound like I'm whining, but can I be listed first? After all, I think that I announced first. 172 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They currently seem to be in nomination order ;-) I think there's a quality selection here - David Gerard 21:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A question

Is anyone supposed to post directly on the candidate statements page? I find Hadal's response to Raul off-putting -- that's Raul's space, I think. But I don't know what the guidelines are, and don't want to be accused of censorship if I revert Hadal's edit. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 22:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that was a vandal with the name Hada-capital I. But my question stands in theory. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think having a separate "questions" page would be more appropriate. This could be a subpage of each candidate's user page in same way as the Board elections were done. Angela . 00:37, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Angela. However, no one has seemed to have anything to say so far. Ambivalenthysteria 02:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements

from UninvitedCompany

As many readers know, I take an active interest in policy issues at Wikipedia and served for a time as a member of the arbitration committee before resigning last February. I would like to encourage the Wikipedia community to consider closely the qualifications of candidates in certain crucial areas prior to casting their votes:

Committee members would ideally have experience in several other online communities in addition to Wikipedia itself, preferably as a sponsor, moderator, or administrator.

To work together most effectively with other committee members, the best candidates would have practical experience with group decisionmaking. Since true group decisionmaking in online communities is rare, such experience in most cases would come from real-world activities.

The ideal candidate would have some sort of real-world experience in dealing with behavior problems, whether as a bouncer at a bar, a camp counselor, a parent, a Sunday school teacher, or a member of the United States Secret Service.

Since the term of office is substantially longer than most Wikipedians' duration of participation, and since some arbitration committee members have all but left Wikipedia, candidates should be prepared to explain the depth of their commitment to Wikipedia, their likely duration of participation, and whether they intend to take numerous or lengthy Wikiholidays.

I would encourage all candidates to address these points in their Candidate Statement or in a linked page.

While I respect all candidates and believe that each could serve the community well as a member of the committee, two exemplary candidates stand out. I would encourage the community to support:

User:David Gerard, and
User:Jwrosenzweig

UninvitedCompany 19:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I humbly thank UC for the endorsement. For UC's information (and anyone else's who wishes), I have replied to UC's points at User:Jwrosenzweig/AC candidacy, as my statement is already a bit long. If you have questions about my comments there, please note them at User talk:Jwrosenzweig and I'm happy to discuss them. Jwrosenzweig 22:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from blankfaze

As I believe him to be a user who holds the best interests of Wikipedia in his mind at all times, and someone who is more than capable of fulfilling the duties of the position, I hereby officially endorse Raul654 and Jwrosenzweig as candidates for the open Arbitration Committee seats, and encourage all members of the community to strongly consider supporting them. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from Neutrality

We have a fine selection of candidates to choose from. Each has contributed the Wiki in their own way, and has gained distinction among the community for their achievements. However, two users in as particular are the most well-suited and well-qualified. Both are experienced, sensible users who are in touch with a firm notion of should Wikipedia is and what it should be. I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC:

Good luck to all, and may the best users win! Neutrality 01:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from 172

In recent months we've been seeing the rise of a bureaucratic caste on Wikipedia, reminding me of Max Weber's concept of "politics as a vocation." [1]. Users who instead primarily write articles (as opposed to those who sit on all these committees and spend a lot of time on IRC) are becoming increasingly detached from the governance of Wikipedia. Yet, trying to write quality, NPOV articles on controversial subjects (the source of conflict on Wikipedia)-- esp. on contemporary and modern history and politics-- is necessary for seeing the bigger picture that I allude to in my candidate statement. (Many seem to think that minimizing disruption is more important than cleaning up the mess left by users who are impeding efforts to make Wikipedia into a scholarly, quality sourcebook, as opposed to a social club.)

While all but one of the candidates are excellent users, Jwrosenzweig's commitment to scholarly standards and his vast contributions to writing scores of articles stand out. [I now add User:Sj, who is a new entry in the race, to this list]

Thus, I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC:

~~User:Jwrosenzweig~~ User:Sj (I'm now supporting Sj, who is a new entry in the race. I totally concur with his candidate statement, which really articulates well the need to focus more on the edits and less on the personality.)172 11:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)
172 (well, we are casting two votes (: )

from David Gerard

I love everyone - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Discussion on the very idea of endorsements and where they belong

I strongly oppose endorsements of particular candidates appearing on this talk page. I mean no offense or disrespect to the users above or to the candidates they have endorsed, but I must request that the endorsements be moved to individual user pages and off of this talk page. It seems to me that this page should be used to discuss matters relating to the election statements page, like the creation of candidate questions pages. I believe that placing official endorsements for individual candidates here is unfair to the candidates and to potential voters.

Most sincerely,

Acegikmo1 22:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I endorse Acegikmo's statement above. ;-) In all seriousness, I think it would be wise -- if 30 people wish to chime in, it will overwhelm this page. User and user talk pages, however, are so rarely traveled in many instances that I wonder if a third option is possible? A subpage of this talk page? Or perhaps each candidate could create a subpage for the purpose of listing endorsements? I'm open to any solution, I'm just wondering if a solution other than user or user talk pages would be wiser -- this election is happening swiftly enough that I worry we're going to miss wise courses of action. And I hope everyone knows I'm saying this out of a desire to let everyone's voice be heard (I'm a little hesitant to speak up as I'm a recipient of two endorsements, and don't want to be seen as simply asking for my horn to be tooted more loudly) -- if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, please use my underutilized talk page to politely inform me so. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I started this, so I'll respond. Traditionally, people have been chosen for special roles through a process of discussion, voting, and consensus. Traditionally, this has been a very open process, with substantially all votes and rationale and discussion occuring in public. This has been true, for example, with administrators, bureaucrats, and to a lesser degree with developers. Since it is proposed that this election will be by secret ballot (something I do not necessarily endorse), I feel that it is highly appropriate for there to be a public discussion of the merits of the candidates prior to the election itself -- both because of tradition, and because we'll have a better decision with more community buy-in.

UninvitedCompany 01:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regarding ballot types - there's a significant difference between admins/bureaucrats/developers and the Arbitration Committee (and for that matter, the Board of Trustees). For the former group, there is no limitation on numbers, so it's more practical to operate by consensus and a fully open voting process. You're simply voting yes or no on the question of whether a particular candidate is qualified. But when a limited number of positions are available, some candidates will necessarily be excluded, even well-qualified ones. In order to discourage animosity and recrimination, I believe that a secret ballot is preferable in this situation.

However, a secret ballot does not imply that there should be no discussion of the merits of the candidates. The problem is not with people making endorsements - it's a question of whether this is the right place to do it. For the Board of Trustees election, I noted several people who published endorsements on their user pages. I think this is the best solution. A list of people who have chosen to make endorsements might also be compiled on an election subpage, as Jwrosenzweig suggested.

By the way, may I remind everyone that we are using approval voting? In other words, you can vote for (and endorse) as many candidates as you consider qualified. Yes, there are only two positions open, but that shouldn't mean that endorsers need to feel limited to making only two endorsements. I'm not going to make any endorsements here myself, but if I did, I'm pretty sure I could find more than two candidates to recommend. --Michael Snow 17:07, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User pages? I disagree. I think at the very most these should be moved to a subpage of this talk page. I really don't see what the problem is. And yeah, most of the candidates are good users, but the two I endorsed are the only ones I really feel comfortable... endorsing. blankfaze | (беседа!) 18:11, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

well I really appreciate the endorsements as I have actually dealt with very few of the candidates. While I support "no personal attacks" I do think it is also reasonable for critics of the candidates to list URLS to diffs the candidates have made that may not show them in good light. If people put themselves forward as AC candidates then it is important that their histories are explored. I know it's a bit late now but its a thought. best wishes Erich 14:05, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Questions

May we ask questions to the candidates, and if so, where can we do so ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 00:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can ask me any questions you like, here or on my talk. If the other candidates agree, I will create a special portion of my user name space for this purpose, otherwise I will simply keep it in an unarchived (at least until the election is over) portion of my talk page (assuming you don't ask me here :) Sam [Spade] 01:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ask away! - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Answers on my talk page - David Gerard 14:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What they said. As there don't seem to be many questions, I guess talk pages will do for the moment. Ambi 10:27, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What they said again. I also welcome any questions on my talk page. 172 11:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm happy to answer questions at User talk:Jwrosenzweig -- if there become too many, I'd move all questions and answers to a subpage (and announce that fact here and on my talk page). Thanks. :-) Jwrosenzweig 15:56, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I welcome questions - if you have any, just leave 'em on my talk page. →Raul654 16:52, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Hi! I have a question. :) I would like to know which one of you are not sysops so I can use my vote to increase diversion (or dispersion?). Eric B. and Rakim 23:07, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:List of administrators indicates that 172, Raul654, Ambi, David Gerard, Jwrosenzweig, Merovingian, and Sj are administrators. Sam Spade, Misterrick, and Lir are not. Acegikmo1 23:34, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Page Freezing

According to my clock at this time it is 02:18 (UTC) and a notice on the page says it will be frozen on 2 August 2004 at 24:00 hours. So shouldn't the Candidate Statements page now be frozen? Misterrick 02:18, 2 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

If you read on, the context makes clear that it means that the page is to be frozen at 24:00 UTC on the 2nd === 00:00 UTC on the 3rd:

"Candidates must present themselves before 24:00 UTC on Monday, 2 August, 2004. [...] The list of candidates will be frozen starting 3 August."

So, no, it'll be frozen in 22 hours and 33 minutes. :-)

James F. (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I didn't see anything about August 3rd on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_July_2004/Candidate_statements can you point me to exactly where it states that? because I only see a statement that says the "This page will be declared frozen at 24:00 UTC on Monday, August 2, 2004". Thank you. Misterrick, 02:34, 2 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that 2400 UTC on 2 August is the same thing as 0 UTC on 3 August. I think you're mistakenly under the impression that 2400 is the start of 2 August rather than the end. So, anyway, like James said, the page won't be frozen for 22½ hours. blankfaze | (беседа!) 02:28, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm. The list is frozen, but the text? I clarified my statement by linking to my en: page, not my comparatively irrelevant meta: page, and added a line. +sj + 03:02, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, in that case presumably you should also be prepared to make any changes requested by candidates who aren't admins, and therefore can't edit the page while it's protected. --Michael Snow 20:27, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Of course. +sj +

Response to questions

Please see: User_talk:Sam_Spade#Arbcom_questions if you are interested.

Feel free to ask other questions of me as well, but SnowSpinners questions (and I hope my answers ;) are quite comprehensive. Sam [Spade] 18:29, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

To all concerned, please see Misterrick for my responses to these questions posted by Sam. Misterrick 20:40, 2 August 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Voting question

So I have 2 votes? Can I vote for more than 2 people if I want to? Sam [Spade] 01:54, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Sam -- it's Approval voting -- so you can vote for as many of the candidates as you like. The two candidates with the greatest number of votes will be elected. In the event of a tie, a run-off election between the leading candidates will be held. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 02:13, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Sam [Spade] 02:20, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)