Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Candidate statements/Endorsements

message: Q: Given the less than pleasant results of last year's endorsements/disendorsements page, why are we doing this again? I don't think another long list of who likes who and who doesn't like who is really going to make wikipedia a better place, and I'm not sure voting should be done based on what third parties think of the candidate anyway. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 08:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree entirely, but I also don't think it's worth the crapfight that occurred last year over whether or whether not to have a disendorsements page. I simply hope others will join me in refraining from making the process nasty by disendorsing anyone. Ambi 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer a crapfight on issues to a crapfight on people, but I suppose it's too late now. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 13:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

text: There are two points to this page: (1) if we tried to remove it, it would only come back and there would be lots of arguments as to its existence - and the hassle isn't worth it; (2) it gives users an opportunity to draw attention to the merits of a candidacy. Where someone writes "I like X", and offers no further comment, or "I hate X", and no further comment, it will not sway me. If someone instead points to evidence of things that may make someone a good or a bad Arb, or that we would be taking a risk with someone as an Arb, then I find that useful, jguk 17:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it's far better to keep this page up than to take it down and hear months of complaints. It's also acts as a centralized forum to discuss the merits of various candidates. Although perhaps not in direct response to my comment, your points do seem to support my proposal to not use numbered lists. Is there a reason to quantify the endorsements of candidates? Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been bold and changed the numbered list to a bulleted list since nobody seemed to object, it also makes more sense this way since even though it may look like an RFA these are not votes only opinion and having people count the numbers for or against the canidates would be detrimental to the process. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

message: It seems candidacies have gotten underway without any official signal this time. This has undermined efforts at laying ground rules to prevent the problems that broke out over the endorsements last time. Still, I think it would be best to tell people that such comments (pro or con) should be posted in the user namespace, and no more than linked to here. --Michael Snow 02:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like this whole page to be abolished...because it creates so much animosity.  Personally, I'm not going to "Oppose" anyone on this page, and I urge others to do the same.  This creates the anger that we saw last year.  Ral315 WS 02:42, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like that the discussion is going on on a centralized page as opposed to having to go to all the users' talk pages. The latter would make voting for most people similar to voting for court judges; there is barely any centralized information availiable. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 02:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: People can certainly discuss with the candidates to learn their views, and I would strongly encourage the candidates to dedicate a page to this purpose. But a page for endorsements is not the same as a page for discussion, as the animosity that resulted last time shows. Knowing how other people plan to vote is not a discussion, and mostly it seems to facilitate either sheep "voting" or piling on. Why not set things up in a way so that real discussion can actually happen? --Michael Snow 03:04, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relegate to user pages? 

message: Ok, since it seems most people think this page isn't a good idea, would anyone object if we just closed the page and said "Use talk pages instead"? It's a little late, but better than never. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 03:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No objections here. Ambi 03:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd support that but I'd prefer if the instructions were changed from endorsements to only encompass questions or comments directly to each canidate that way people don't flame war each other's talk pages in the name of endorsements, secondly I know it's unusual but I think it might be better if the page was deleted and noted on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005 since there are already comments here that aren't entirely helpful to the process and since this page has been considered a bad idea since the get go it doesn't really need to be archived for all time. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ok, let's have that crapfest on issues 

message: I'd also support deleting the current version and replacing it with a version that only has questions for each canidate to answer since it would be nice to have an organized area for canidate questions, also that way anything that comes even close to being a personal attack could be removed easily. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:23, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that each candidate have a page dedicated to the purpose; links to these pages could be collected on the candidate statements page. --Michael Snow 03:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That would work as well, everyone could link to it right below their statement. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and created such pages for all of the current candidates, simply copying their statements there as a starting point, with a section for questions and comments below. --Michael Snow 03:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Should the endorsements page be modified with a large notice to signify that it's now closed and should no longer be used? Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 03:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think we should replace the current content with a box saying "This page has been superseded by the questions section of the nominee page.". --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 04:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already left a note but please by all means put a better on in it's place, the one I placed is meant to only be temporary until someone figured out a better idea.  Anyway. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 04:02, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The elections haven't started yet. See the main page here. The vote is conducted using Special:ArbComVote, or something like that, not just editing on the page. The elections start in December; these are just candidates starting to list themselves. Flcelloguy | A  note? | Desk |  WS  17:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Anne - this is not an elections page (the election will be conducted in december using the boardvote software Tim Starling wrote). This page was for endorsements and disendorsements - basically saying who you think would or would not make a good arbitrator. We had one last year and it was a disaster of unmitigated proportions, so the people who commented on this page decided (wisely) to do away with the practice for this year. →Raul654 19:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd Proposal 

message: I want to my responses to the various "endorsments" and "disendorsements" on my candidate subpage. Could somebody please access the deleted page and post the comments either on my talk page or my candidate subpage. Thanks. 172 | Talk 03:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you provide a link to the page you are talking about? →Raul654 05:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: He's referring to this page.  Since they were deleted for a reason, I'm not going to post the comments, but any other admin, feel free to post them.  Ral315 WS 05:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The point is to avoid last years bickering (and worse), not just to split it into per-candidate pages. If there are any points or statements you want to make can't you make them without the endorse/disendorse format? If you just write your piece under your statement it'll be there for all to read without there being anyone you're disagreeing or arguing with, just plain your views and plans. --fvw<SMALL>*</SMALL> 13:42, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Viewing deleted page