Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements

message: I am currently reviewing the edit histories of the candidates in random order. I doubt I'll finish this in time, but voters may be interested in my notes. Comments are welcome on the talk page, though I may delete them at a whim.  If you decide to write reviews of the candidates of this type, do put a link here. For other types, The endorsements page may be more appropriate. Mr. Jones 17:17, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit history reviews 

message: I do not know if this decision is of much interest or note to many, but given the already excellent slate of candidates (combined with the likely additions of David Gerard, Ambi, Michael Snow -- yes, all of you should run, in my opinion -- and probably several other good candidates I haven't envisioned), I think I should announce my intentions and this seemed as good a place as any.  I do not choose to run for reelection.  I have spent many a frustrating (but, I hope, productive) hour on arbitration -- I am moderately proud of my accomplishments (and humbled by the mistakes I have made).  I am positive I don't want to spend the next 2 or 3 years doing this -- besides, given my apparent penchant for jumping into disputes in an attempt to settle them (and as my efforts normally fail to resolve the argument), I have to recuse myself too often to be as useful as I should be.  I will likely endorse several candidates once this thing is under way, but not yet.  I apologize for this long note, and I wish the current candidates well.  They are taking on a noble and vital role in this wonderful project, of which no praise can be too effusive, in my opinion.  Happy editing and arbitrating to all, Jwrosenzweig 02:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for all you've done, Jw. In your short term on the committee, you've been fair, just, and helped keep the process moving. Furthermore, you clearly deserve the credit for the burst of activity in the last week which has seen several long-running cases closed. I had hoped you'd run for re-election, but alas, it looks like it's not to be. Ambi 04:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret your decision not to run again as well. A division of labor has emerged on Wikipedia leaving a new bureaucratic hierarchy of users involved in the Foundation, the mailing list, and IRC discussions increasingly detached from the users writing our articles. Yet, you remained an active editor while still managing to emerge as one of the most accessible arbitrators. Your membership in the Arbitration Committee has been an invaluable bridge between the purpose of this project, i.e. producing a credible encyclopedia, and the governance of this project... If you're considering endorsements, I recommend users who are similarly active writers/editors and who are scholars of similar caliber (e.g., User:Mirv and User:Neutrality)... Perhaps endorsements can go on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements? 172 00:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: I am indeed running again ;-) I've been a little busy since my ceiling fell in ... - David Gerard 20:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jwrosenzweig's decisions on standing for the committee 

message: Re: As a member of the arbitration committee, I would actively seek the resignations of 172, Tim Starling, mav, Jimbo, and Angela -- I would enforce anti-cabalist legislation; and ensure that the wikipedia is run by the people, and not by the losers who have nothing better to do with their lives than dominate the irc/mailing list discussions. (From Lir's statement)
::Perhaps you can get rid of Tim, mav, and me; but I don't think that the jurisdiction of the arbitration committee extends to the foundation. 172 04:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: We'll worry about this when Lir wins. VeryVerily 06:21, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does the jurisdiction of the ArbCom extend to who runs the foundation? 

message: I don't know who, how, or why my statement was removed and my signature messed w, and I'm not terribly interested. Please just be more careful. Sam [Spade] 16:13, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  My statement was removed:Sam Spade 

message: Look, I don't know what the procedure is here, but do we put the votes on another page, or do we put them on the talk page?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: They aren't votes, voting will be done using the Boardvote software. If people want to make endorsements, they can put them on a page in their user namespace. --Michael Snow 16:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sigh. Revert war on arbitration page. 

message: 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 03:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Get Out the Vote 

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 11:16, 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 14:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Controling campaign messages

message: The so-called disendorsements are now deprecated, but I believe one aspect of the page was useful. Exactly as Organizers say - it was as a handy index of candidate's past conflicts. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and I want to know how candidates themselves resolved disputes in which they were personaly involved. Because locating such examples in thousands of edits may be time consuming, I'd like to ask candidates, if they wish, to include here sample reference to past conflict/dispute/complain/... they had and resolved in a good way. 
I allready know this info about many candidates, but because it may be useful also for other voters with different experience, I list all candidates. If you don't want to paticipate in this disclosure, please leave a short note. 
Thank you. 
--Wikimol 09:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Past conflicts

message: Why was this method of voting chosen? I'd prefer to rank the candidates myself. Where was the decision taken, when and by whom? How could it be changed for next time? Mr. Jones 20:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know who made the decision, but it's built-in into the voting software we use. Johnleemk | Talk 21:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: There was discussion about rewriting the software somewhere before. I think on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. But generally the voting method (if I'm not mistaken) is decided by those in charge of the election. This time, it's Danny, Elian and one more person (I think it's UninvitedCompany). Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: In the end, there was apparently a lack of interest in making a dramatic change to the voting method so close to the election.  I, too, would prefer some kind of ranked method, so I think we should continue to pursue this topic with regard to the next Wikimedia Foundation and Arbitration Committee elections. - Nat Krause 12:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting method