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

message: Quadell, I really do respect your opinion.  However, I must say that I don't think your cut-and-paste, standardised oppose statement serves any purpose rather than to make broad comments about a group of people.  Also, I really don't take kindly to being lumped in the same category as 172, Sam Spade, and VeryVerily.  That said, it is all your opinion, and your opinions are ones I have come to respect... I just hadn't expected this from you. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on your talk. (To those watching at home, I have removed all my disendorsements upon careful reflection.)  – Quadell (talk) (help) 21:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
----
*I very much agree with you, Jimbo.  This page is not at all conducive to the election process, and IMO serves little purpose save for serving as an arena for flame wars.  That said, instead of being bold and removing oppositions on the endorsements page, I moved them all here, in an attempt to rescue organisation whilst avoiding any appearance of impropriety. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 16:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: To Quadell

message: And would give her a barnstar if she deleted the page entirely :D. If there needs to be a page to discuss the election, one can be made, but this page is conterproductive to our community. As far as her being called a vandal, I will point out that we need a wikipedia:Police force, and if we had one, they'd be rounding up trolls on this page so fast as to have the arbitration overbooked for a month ;) Anthere is not a vandal, and this page is riddled with trolls and rogue users.
Sam Spade Arb Com election 18:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: hmmm, thanks. But I would never have deleted the page, for not everyone could have restored it. It would have been wrong not to allow anyone to do so. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Who are these "trolls" and "rogue users"? --Mrfixter 01:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: What's up with some of the nominees calling other users names, while wanting us to believe they are actually civil?  And yet our actions are trollish? Look at Wikipedia:What_is_a_troll, and evaluate your own actions. millerc 02:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, just FYI, a substantial amount of the users who made disendorsements are/were involved in arbitration cases and are widely viewed as trolls, such as Shorne, VeryVerily, Xed, Gzornenplatz, Ruy Lopez, and a couple of borderline folks like Chuck F. So I don't think Jimbo and Sam are completely unjustified in calling this page "riddled with trolls". Note that neither of them claimed everyone who uses this page is a troll; they just noted that a substantial amount of people who do use this page are trolls. FWIW, I don't have a particularly good view of Sam Spade, as he's been rude in a few situations when our paths have crossed, but I think in this case that he is quite justified in calling this page "riddled with trolls". Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Shorne, VeryVerily, and Chuck F may be hard to get along with (I don't really know much about the others), but calling them trolls?  Revert wars alone don't constitute trolling.  Unless you can prove a strong case for malice, then calling someone a troll is nothing but a disguised personal attack. millerc 20:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: VeryVerily is borderline maybe. I specifically avoided calling Chuck a troll, but from what I've seen, I'd say Shorne definitely trolls occasionally. His comments and edits in this (dis)endorsement debate were definitely incendiary enough to be counted as flamebait. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a troll is someone who sticks up for democracy, and is against bigotry and corruption then I'm a troll. If a troll is someone who criticises administrators then I'm a troll  - Xed 13:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: If a troll is someone who disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point and brings up old, healed wounds, for no reason, then yes, you're a troll. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Healed? -Xed 13:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Sure, there are some trolls on this page, and thankfully some of them are not wasting everyones times by running for the arbcom. I still don't know what a rogue user is...? --Mrfixter 09:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: Two wrongs don't make a right. Did you read my edit summary? Just because Anthere was wrong gives you no licence to commit the same crime as her. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I did see you loose your temper and swear. Pathetic. CheeseDreams 13:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wee, let's focus on human error instead of the fact that both you and Anthere had no right to delete discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "I don't care what the fuck anyone thinks" - sounds like one of those trolls - Xed 14:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  I support Antheres page blanking 

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 on the Disendorsements page is beyond useful, it is  required reading. The Disendorsements page should not be deleted.--FeloniousMonk 09:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, I'd just like to note that "information" should be "opinions" — opinions are all that is really on the page. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: "Information" found on the Disendorsements page encompasses both opinion and factual data. All opinions as well as any purported facts are subject to fact-checking by voters as they see fit. The fact is that the more credible opinions provide links to relevant background information, which establishes that those same opinions are often well-grounded in fact.--FeloniousMonk 10:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands the Disendorsements page

message: I have nothing else to say except to look at the title of this section. Johnleemk | Talk 18:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content has been merged with [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements]]