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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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... Sam Spade Arb Com election 01:15, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Should this page exist?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Have you considered the remote possibility he may suddenly have free time again next year? Johnleemk | Talk 04:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Too bad. I don't accept this speculative reason for failing to relinquish the position. Shorne 05:09, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Camembert

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: We won't laugh, however, when hypocrites like these get elected. Shorne 05:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I'm not even laughing now.--FeloniousMonk 06:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hah!  That's so funny I forgot to laugh.  Except for that first "hah".  —RaD Man (talk) 23:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Farewell, NPOV! 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree. Thanks for restoring it. Shorne 16:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletions: I thought so 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Subpages 

message: 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)
thread_title: Requirement for Full Disclosure & Noting Conflict Interest for Arbcom  candidates voting

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  VeryVerily, I was following Michael Snow's suggestion 

message: 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)
thread_title: A better organized framework for discussion of campaign messages

message: 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)
thread_title: Get Out the Vote!

message: :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)
thread_title:  Moved from Endorsements Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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  tag onto your own user talk page. --DV 14:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exciting new feature to control campaign messages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I am withdrawing my support for Blankfaze. His supercilious behaviour reminds me of that of the cabal. Shorne 04:38, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well HECK, it ought to!  I'm IN the cabal!  You didn't know that?! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition to Raul 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  "Disendorsement" page? 

message: :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.
# – Quadell (talk) (help) 20:32, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
#I prefer this mode, although I wouldn't mind the other one either. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 20:48, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
#I favor deleteing both the endorsements page and the opposition page. Sam Spade Arb Com election 20:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Split

message: :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).
#Mrfixter 20:50, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Combine

message: 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.
#--DV 19:29, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete both pages

message: 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. Sam Spade Arb Com election 08:28, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Troll 

message: 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)
thread_title: Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands Airing of Opposition Statements

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: What Mrfixter said. Voting is done by secret ballot. Johnleemk | Talk 15:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  One line per vote 

message: I've started a poll to determine whether endorsements should be used in ArbCom elections.  --ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 09:44, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll regarding the use of these pages 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Bug? Or just another oops by me?

message: 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)
thread_title:  New Candidates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Problems with the election