Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements

A WARNING TO ALL WOULD-BE ARBITRATORS

Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Wikipedia. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism. - Raul's 9th law of Wikipedia

Don't say you weren't warned. →Raul654 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ideal candidate is mad

Seriously, what sane person would want that workload?

If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve. --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. We just need some creative people on it. If the work-load gets too big, create sub-committees. That's what a business would do if it had Wikipedia's unlimited pool of free labor along with the Arbcom's workload. 172 | Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" (Emerson) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 20:14, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate statements

Since the matter of candidate statements comes up in this week's Signpost, I assume it's not to early to post one. If I am wrong, please go ahead and revert my changes to this project page. 172 | Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's about time, as there are only two months left until the election. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Word limit

The page suggests that statements are about 250 words in length. I have added a notice saying that anything over 300 will be cut off, but I'd welcome views on this. At present there are 10 candidates, whose statements are of the following lengths (based on the Microsoft Works word count):

172 - 303 words
Ambi - 356 words
Carbonite - 311 words
Filiocht - 201 words
Ilyanep - 324 words
Jtkiefer - 222 words
Luigi30 - 96 words
Merovingian - 247 words
Ral315 - 354 words
Redwolf24 - 224 words

A cut-off of 300 words would mean that 5 of the existing 10 statements are trimmed. Interestingly, so would a cut-off of 250 words.

If the statements are cut-off the candidates should be notified on their talk pages so they can make any adjustments they deem appropriate, jguk 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really necessary to cut anything off? I'd perfer that we made a mandatory cut-off at 350, because I would have trouble cutting off 24 words (however, 350 would make Ambi and Ral315's too long). Our other option is no cut-off. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with 400 words. If that's how much it takes to make yourself articulate, so be it. R e dwolf24 (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a word limit? Personally, I don't see a problem with someone going +/- one or two hundred words. I can see the need for a limit, though. I don't have a problem with anyone going over, as long as no one writes a novel here. ;-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. Personally, I didn't even think about my statement going over 250 words, but I feel that a strict limit is bad. As long as we don't get 5,000 word manifestos, I think we're fine. Ral 315 W_S 06:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with that, so long as we don't see "Username's Extended War and Peace Reponse and Criticism on the Role of the Arbitration Committee and why I should be an Arbiter" essay (to think that's just the title!) I don't think anyone will really mind reading a tad more to make the RIGHT choice (if that exists, as they all seem to be great choices). Sasquatcht|c 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

250 is okay, but 200 would be better. Candidates maunder on when they're allowed to. Give them a short leash and they'll stick to what they think is most important. Hopefully they'll ditch the platitudes and tell you more about what they really think. And if they don't, don't vote for them! (52 words) --Tony Sidaway ^Talk 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

People unable to conform to a simple word count probably don't care much about those doing the reading (and voting). Sam Spade 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it below 300 words. Notify the candidates first, and if they do not trim their statements after a few days (three?), then trim it for them. If they really need or want to say more, they can always add a link to a user subpage. BlankVerse ∅ 02:30, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Questions

Jguk, you asked every candidate Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.) I fail to see how this is pertinent to the ArbCom elections. The candidate's age shouldn't matter; indeed, this is a personal detail some may feel hesistant in disclosing. Knowing someone's age should not be a factor; it doesn't matter if the candidate is two, twelve, twenty-two, or (heaven forbid) two-hundred and twenty-two. If you're concerned about the maturity of the users, people should be able to evaluate that regardless of the age. Someone at fourteen or fifteen (which we have several candidates) can be just as mature as someone fourty or fifty, if not more. It shouldn't matter. You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, and you shouldn't judge someone by his/her age, especially if someone is unwilling to disclose that piece of personal information. Also, you ask students to state what subjects they are taking. Again, it shouldn't matter. I really don't care if someone is taking underwater basket weaving 101, advanced literature, nuclear physics, or is working towards a Ph.D. in the arts; you don't need any qualifications to sit on the ArbCom, and I frankly don't see how the classes someone is taking should be included. If you're worried that a candidate might not have enough time, why not ask them so directly? Do you feel that you will have enough time throughout your term to accomplish the tasks of ArbCom? Jguk, I ask that you reconsider your first question. Of course, I respect your opinion, and I don't mind if candidates want to reply to that question, but I also ask that if someone does not wish to answer that question, that it not be held against him/her. Thanks very much for listening to me, and as always, I value your opinion. Thanks very much for your understanding! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't go outright in disclosing it in my statement, but I believe that if someone wants to know I will tell them. As for classes, I don't think anything I say will really tell you anything much. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I personally am 15 and I know it may hurt my chances a bit, but I still think its a good question. Arbitrators all ahve to give out their full name, so giving out their age shouldn't be too bad. R e dwolf24 (talk) 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't think you have to disclose your full name — take a look at WP:AC; I don't know Neutrality's full name, or Sannse's name, if I am correct. In either case, I am just worried that people will hold not answering this question against a candidate; I think every candidate should have a right to refuse to answer it, because it (in my humble opinion) is not pertinent to the ArbCom, and is also asking private details that some may be hesistant to give out. I don't mind if candidates (such as you) want to answer, I just want to make sure that no one holds this question against a candidate if s/he doesn't want to answer it. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flcelloguy, there is a space explicitly set aside for questions and comments on candidates and I chose to ask some questions that I feel will better give me a view of the candidates. I'd be surprised if other wikipedians don't ask their own questions as well before the election's over. Candidates may, if they wish, answer them, and I hope that they will, but that is their free choice. Whether anyone else finds value in the answers to the questions I asked, I don't know - I guess some will, some won't. As far as what determines any wikipedian's vote, that is entirely up to that wikipedian, jguk 23:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's fine with me. I just ask that people respect a candidate's right not to answer some questions, if the candidate feels uncomfortable answering it, and ask that people not hold that against them. For example, if I asked every candidate Where do you live? What is your phone number, your employer (if you have one), and your social security number?, all the candidates would clearly refuse to answer. I just don't think that someone refusing to answer any type of question that is not directly pertinent to the ArbCom should be held against him/her. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 23:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one reason I prefer not to disclose my age: [1]. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty and moved your comment to the bottom, Ingoolemo. That's exactly my point — I've seen multiple times where people have looked down on someone or believed that they were superior based on age. I've seen people say that because someone was younger then him, that his version had to be right. I don't think age should be a factor; judge the candidates by their actions, not their age. In addition, with the candidates giving their ages, some people might lose respect for the ArbCom — the same people who scorned those younger then them would scorn people younger then them judging them. I urge that people not take a candidate's age, occupation, or classes into account here. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I have a view of this from another angle. I considered not answering this question for a different reason. Many of the electorate are likely to view me as a bit old and boring and probably not all that good at the technical stuff. But I decided in the end that I would answer it, because being a bit old and boring and probably not all that good at the technical stuff is part of what I am and influences the way I operate and interact. I think, though I may be wrong, that if I was young and energetic and good at the technical stuff, as many of the other candidates clearly are, I'd make that plain, too. I do agree most strongly that it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of age here. But I would reserve the right to be put off a candidate with a track record of immature behaviour, be they 50 or 15. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my. I'm young and boring and not good at the technical stuff. Is that worse? Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all, at least you might become interesting; I'm way beyond that. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a valid question. There's no way I'd vote for a minor to be an arbitrator. Grace Note 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To ask the obvious - why? Ambi 01:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

kids are stupid. I know this because I was one once, have 2 now, and have never found a lack of them in my life. They shouldn't be allowed to decide what shirt to wear, much less the conduct guidelines of a leading non-profit. just because we can't see each other easilly doesn't make this a magical cybertopia utterly lacking in common sense and rational business practices. Sam Spade 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I don't rule out voting for someone who is young, I just think it is a fActor that needs to be taken into account. I would however rule out voting for someone who refused to give us their age, or other basic info, or who had been showed to have lied about it. Sam Spade 02:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just curious, but why would you rule out someone who refused to give his/her age? I can understand regarding users who lie, but if some is uncomfortable or unwilling to disclose such information, I don't see why it should be held against him/her. It's not like we're filing a job application here - ArbCom members aren't "employed" by the Wikimedia Foundation, they aren't paid, they're volunteers. Age is an extremely sensitive piece of personal information that some may be unwilling or be hesistant to disclose, and I don't see why that should be held against him/her. Judge the candidates by their actions, not by their ages. Just my little opinion. :-) Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 20:28, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are filling out a job aplication, or at least a volunteer form. Age is a normal question to ask. Weirdo's who won't supply basic info are naturally disregarded. Sam Spade 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I do supply my age, as I don't see it as an issue, but equally, I - nor anyone else - should be under any obligation to reveal any personal information whatsoever on this site, as it has absolutely nothing to do with their ability to perform the tasks. Ambi 06:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have no obligation to provide it, but likewise noone else has an obligation to avoid considering that in whatever voting process Jimbo works up for the coming election. There are a few reasons some people might consider age to be relevant, e.g. countering systemic bias or if someone is about to go to university for the first time and may have a hard time judging their workload. There are plenty of reasons to think other information might concievably lead to good reasons for judging candicates, and so I think it's very fair to ask for the info and judge based on the response or lack thereof. The SSN is obviously a red herring -- it's obvious that that information is dangerous to the giver and useless on Wikipedia. Age/Sex/etc should not be considered naturally sensitive -- they are things one gets a rough impression of immediately when meeting someone on the street. If they're sensitive to specific people, I understand, but consider it a minus if not disclosed. --Improv 13:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Real-world qualifications have never been an issue in the past, and it disturbs me that they've suddenly come up now. I fail to see how voting a certain group of often potentially very good candidates for a reason that they can do nothing about does anything to solve systemic bias. I also think the study load example is a red herring - I was elected in December, three months before beginning university, and had no trouble at all handling study load and arbitration duties. In any case, I believe that should be an issue for the candidate, as they're the ones in the position to judge. Ambi 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ambi on this one, as I've stated above. I don't see how real-world qualifications should deal with this. What's next, asking candidates to submit a resume? Should we elect a Wikipedian automatically to the ArbCom if s/he has served as a judge? Age, contrary to what you say, is a highly sensisitive issue. If you're worried about the candidate's time, why not just ask, as other users have done? I still fail to see how age - or the classes someone is taking - is pertinent. Thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | W_S 19:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different WPians will vote for different reasons - just as in real-life. They have different priorities and different views on what is relevant. To me, background is interesting - it tells you something of how someone will think and react in a given situation - without it, all we have is their edits, which may or may not say much about the individual. Have a look at what happens in America when there is a Supreme Court nominee - Congress becomes very interested in how they will react and whether they will react properly. I really have no problems at all in allowing any Wikipedian to ask any question (subject to decency and libel laws). It's up to the candidates what questions they answer - and then up to the voters as to whether any answer, or failure to answer, is important to them. Hey - I just suppose it's an election!!! jguk 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit wary of the comparison to the US Supreme Court (!) but I otherwise agree. I have no objection to people asking me whatever questions they wish to ask. I'll answer the questions which are sensible. Wikipedians voting when the election comes should be the ones to decide whether I should have answered the particular question or not, when they choose whether or not to vote for me. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If Kids are stupid explain the following:

User:Redwolf24 -- definately done a lot of good work around WP especially with mediation and related.
User:Ral315 -- a college student a 15? That makes me jealous.
User:Merovingian -- Another young wikipedian who's done a lot of good work.

There are definately more...but need I really go on? The level of teenagers on Wikipedia is definately different than that of teenagers in the general public (as it is with most respected adults on Wikipedia as well). Kids who are on the general level who only worry about their next dance, girlfriend, or how to solve their next math problem (3+5) don't generally get involved in Wikipedia to the level of admin, mediator, or even bureaucrat. Thank you for listening to my rant of sorts, now I'm going to go do my homework ;) (not really...I don't have any) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:37, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What Sam said is true: kids are stupid, generally. But at wiki most of the kids here are exceptions, we're like those people who are 7 and a half feet tall... rare, but still around. I'm more annoyed at Grace Note saying he would never support a minor for an arbitrator. I'll tell you one thing: minors would speed up the process, we don't spend 40 hours a week at a job, and we got a lot of free time. Though it's agreeable that having a majority be children would be bad, only about 4 people running are minors, and to be honest, I only think one or two has a chance. R e dwolf24 (talk) 01:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyanep- you forgot yourself in that list :) Ral315 (talk) 03:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did, but I didn't want to make it seem entirely selfish (it's not) by alluding to myself. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that Ilyanep was a bureaucrat at like...12. --Phroziac _. o º^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last call

I would strongly suggest to anyone who wishes to be considered for the arbitration committee, that you list yourself on the candidates page immediately (like 3 hours ago). Raul654 22:28, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Kim Bruning 22:46, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an Arbitrator, but from the general gist of discussions here and on AN/I, I have a feeling that the ArbCom and Jimbo will begin discussions soon on the candidates. Am I correct? Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:48, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Raul654 22:49, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

so you expect people to list themselves before the full selection prosess is revealed. This is not exactly logical.Geni 23:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be that as it may, my point stands - if they want *any* chance of being on the committee, however it will be selected (because quite frankly, even the arbitration committee isn't fully aware of how it will happen), people need to list themselves here in the very, very near future. Raul654 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Elections would take two weeks. If you assume 1 week of campaining or whatever prior to the vote they have got until about 1st December. Apointments require zero run up so give you even more time. The current sitution is not condusive to getting people to nominate themselves. The result is that any attempt to close nominations before a selection system is decided will result in a poorer arbcom.Geni 23:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with Geni. This process is patently unfair to the community. I notice several candidacies that mention in their statement or edit sums that they are wary of this lack of process, or that they believe their candadicy will not be given fair consideration (Kim Bruning, Jtkiefer, Sam Korn, Filiocht's withdrawal). Also, the extreme brevity of Kelly Martin's candidate statement seems to indicate that she already knows it's not important to tell the community who she is and why she's running. The implications are extremely worrying. Radiant_>|< 16:27, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you think my statement is too brief, you can look at the one I drafted back in October, before Jimbo nominated me to the Committee. Frankly, I think the community knows well enough who I am and that a long statement would be wasted verbiage that certain people would merely use as a starting point to launch personal attacks and other forms of the nastiness that so deeply marred the last elections. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You shouldn't confuse the IRC with the community, that is a particularly frivolous and transitory forum.--Silverback 14:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that fear hasn't stopped anyone else from talking about themselves here. Most of them actually get questions and reasonable criticism, rather than the nastiness you allege to. R adiant _>|< 10:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

on the basis that User:Anthere thinks there are admins who have not heard of her you may wish to revise your position.Geni 13:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, the reason I haven't made a statement is that I don't know to whom I am addressing myself. My writing style to the community would be different to that to Jimbo/the current Committee. That considered, I would like to know what I'm to say asap, but I'm not too bothered. [[Sam Korn]] 22:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for change

Please note that there is no scope for incoming or current Arbitrators to change the fundamental nature of the Committee in this appointment cycle, such as the whether it sits en banc or whether it considers content disputes. If this is the focus of your energies, getting elected is by far the worst way to proceed both for yourself and your position - you will have no time nor inclination to do either. James F. (talk)

I disagree with this. I think a candidate should boldly advocate making changes, but should realize that once you are selected that there will be a substantial burden of work and considerable inertia among the arbitration committee as to how they do things. However it is from the position of an arbitrator that you can most effectively change procedures and advocate for changes. Fred Bauder 00:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

however if you do the job properly you will probably be so snowed under with work that you will not have much enegy left to advocate for change.Geni 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[Gah, edit conflict]

The burden of work is less that of Hercules, more that of Atlas. My advice is merely intended as that - it is unfeasible to expect to be able to press for change from within and do the job well. If you intend to join but not do the job well (i.e., to instead advocate for change of the job you're not doing), well... ;-)

James F. (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the arbcom can set precedents and make interpretations that can change the culture and perception of fairness. See the discussion on the page where I answer questions.--Silverback 08:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. When it comes to diseplining admins the only role arbcom has is an exicutioner.Geni 23:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the executions are in public, so the community knows what behavior leads to it. Consistent sanctions against abuse of power and authority by admins, will reduce its prevalence in the community. If they don't learn from the public "executions" of others, then their own "execution" will reduce the level of abuse. Frankly, I don't view de-adminning as a severe sanction, if the person receiving the sanction does view the deadmining rather than the abuse of community trust that led to it as severe, then they probably should not be an admin. So, I would be more likely to recommend a week or two deadminning for even small abuses, than I would in the case of a more fundamental participation in the community such as editing. Adminship is merely an opportunity to serve.--Silverback 04:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only a tiny percentage of abcom cases involve admins. What about all the others? Arbcom membership is also a chance to serve. It is not a chance to try and declare war on the admins (a war which you would lose).Geni 11:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is selected to the arbcom who is openly committed to not treating admins as a privileged class above the rules or given immunity by IAR, there will probably be more cases involved admins for awhile, until the culture is changed.--Silverback 15:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

didn't happen last time.Geni 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If I had known, I would have brought a couple of cases. Perhaps the arbcom needs to be more proactive soliciting cases against admins.--Silverback 07:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines for candidate questions

There appears to be limits (~300 words) on candidate statements, but I don't see any guidelines for candidate questions. I've noticed a barrage of highly negative leading questions, some of which may be veiled personal attacks approaching 1000 words. Are there any limits on questions or how they are posed, and is refactoring considered legitimate in particular instances? --Viriditas 00:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Marsden found out, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Raul654 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, Raul. That's not what I found out. Marsden 22:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've just moved the rest of his non-questions to talk, as well as FuelWagon's 1000 word content-dispute. I would like FuelWagon to add a brief question for Jayjg, but he was treating the page as an RfC. --Viriditas 00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't add "read more" links at 250 words. While I see the point, I made my evaluation before 250 words was a set limit, and I don't think that making me and other users condense our statements in order to make them fit on one page is proper. Ral315 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I kind of misunderstood the intent of the 250 word guideline, reading it as a limit instead. I still think that those with very long statements (>400 words) should trim them down to make this page a more useful overview. rspeer 21:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I should think candidates for ArbCom would be willing to accept a simply practical standard like 250-300 words. To state so plainly that you do not intend to honor that speaks right to character. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions of paramount importance

I would like to thank the editors who requested that each candidate take a position for or against the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct and Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. We need arbitrators who will support and adhere to these proposed policies, to stop the rapid devolution of Wikipedia. --HK 22:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that many people from the community disagree with these proposed guidelines on grounds of instruction creep, excessive legalism and bureaucraticness, one cannot seriously expect all arb candidates to agree with them. R adiant _>|< 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Those proposals are still being drafted and have not been formally proposed yet. It would be premature to ask that people take a stance on them. -Willmcw 23:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, the matters being addressed are very serious. I would certainly appreciate knowing the views of of ArbCom candidates on these issues. --HK 16:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have replied in the appropriate place. These are counter-manifestoes, aren't they? They are moving targets, since the draft may be changed without notice. They are about tying the ArbCom's hands, not about making it more effective. I hope they are not taken too seriously. Charles Matthews 16:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for questions

I would like to encorge anyone that wants to ask people questions *most notably me* to do so quickly so candidates have time to resopond to you. --Kylehamilton 11:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General commentary

Overall I am dismayed with this undertaking. Those Wikipedians who are known for their evenhandedness, trustworthiness, and understanding appear (with a few notable exceptions) to have declined to put their names forward. The few questions being asked betray a misguided effort to further politicize the election, when in actual fact the AC has no legislative role. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's because those who are generally evenhanded, trustworthy and understanding are also aware that being elected into the ArbCom means devoting your life to it. Unless there were changes made that would streamline the ArbCom, I think people would shy away.. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If... and only if... I was somehow convinced that ArbCom would be somewhat streamlined and made so that the Arbitrators don't grow grey hairs, then I would consider reentering the ArbCom race. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 17:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the pool of arbitrators was large enough that breaks had minimal effect. For example, if there were 3 panels, each with 5 arbitrators, the ArbCom would be 3x as efficient. If there were 20-25 arbitrators in the pool, a few being on break or otherwise inactive wouldn't cause any harm. Allowing for ample "time-off" might encourage more users to run for ArbCom. Carbonite | Talk 17:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the job sucks and the only reward is power. It is to be expected that you will get less than ideal candidates.Geni 17:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My reasons for entering the election is to help Wikipedia, not to gain power. Please don't tar all people running with the same brush. [[Sam Korn]] 17:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True there is also the option of insanity. Ok seriously yes we will get some people doing it out of the goodness of their hearts but a lot are put off by the workload.Geni 17:56, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have to plead guilty to the charge of insanity. [[Sam Korn]] 18:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Gentlemen, are the candidate-statements permitted to shorter(such as one paragraph)? For, I am quite occupied at the moment(at least until next Friday).--Anglius 18:51, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A candidate's statement can be as long or as short as he or she likes. Obviously, too long and it gets ignored; too short and it doesn't give enough information. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you, Mr. Jenkinson.--Anglius 20:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jtkiefer question

I asked my questions in the approperiate subpage (above link) but Jtkiefer removed it. Look at the history you can find the question. [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OceanSplash (talk • contribs) 03:55, 7 January 2006

It's up to him which questions he answers; if you are unhappy that he did not answer your question then you can vote against him when the election starts, and possibly leave a comment saying that he chose not to respond to your question. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't answer his question because there wasn't a question in the entire edit. The entire thing was a rant against me and him urging people to vote against me. I felt that this was innapropriate for a subpage devoted to actual questions for the candidates so I reverted his edits. He knows that if he wants he can leave messages like that on my talk page. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:02, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Talrias for moving my question to the right page.

"Dear Jtkiefer

Yes indeed these are questions. They might be troubling questions for you that you would rather not want to answer, but nonetheless they are my questions. Here they are again. You may choose not to answer, but I appreciate if you do not remove them. Even though you may think they are worthless rants, I feel I have been abused by you and think to have the right to ask why.

You blocked me for one week with no just cause and accused me of using a sockpuppet with no evidence. This is libel and a lie Sir. You also blocked Nosharia’s account assuming he is my stockpuppet. So you wronged two people. I asked you for proof and I ask you again. Where is your proof Sir that Nosharia was my sockpuppet? Just the fact that he agreed with me is enough to convict both of us? If you can’t produce any proof, which certainly you can’t (It is very likely Nosharia posts from a different country than I do and this can be verified by checking our IP numbers) are you willing to acknowledge that you judged hastily and apologize to both of us? Can you overcome your pride and do the right thing? Will you also tell us if you are in the habit to “first shoot and then ask the question” how can you be trusted for the office you are seeking? Before voting for the respected Jtkiefer I suggest he should be investigated more thoroughly. He is the author of many blockings. Are all of them justifiable or are they the result of his abuse of power? Is the honorable Jtkiefer utterly fair-minded or is he motivated by religious and/or political zeal that undermine his capacity to serve as an unbiased arbitrator? I also wrote a complaint against you to Jimbo.[[3]]Looks like he has no time to read the messages that people write to him. I will wait your response before taking my complaint to the arbitration committee. I remain cordially yours."

A message to other administrators. Our dear Jtkiefer quick to block those whom he think are "bothersome" to him. He might block me indefinately for writing these questions/complaints. Will one of you stand for me and restore my account should he block me again? Remember "evil triumphs when good people do nothing". All dictators became dictators because no one stoped them. This might seem a minor thing but abuse is abuse it it should not be tolerated or it will only increase. Thanks! I hope it is all a misunderstanding and Jtkiefer will be able to clarify everything..OceanSplash 7, Jan 2006 04:36

As per OceanSplash's request to have the blocks looked into I have requested a sock check on AN/I here Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 04:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'No disendorsements' for this election - would seem to cover the candidate's action here. Charles Matthews 12:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deadline for answers to questions

is the deadline for answers to question different or the same as the deadline for candidate statements? Kingturtle 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say you can answer questions whenever you want. They're not really obligatory. You could answer in March if you wanted, but that woudn't do much good. The sooner the better, but I don't see a "deadline" :-) Dmcdevit·t 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The deadline for asking and answering questions is the end of the election. Or a least there is no reason for it to be sooner.Geni 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how many

how many people will i be able to vote for? Kingturtle 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. I'll let someone else answer it. My question is when we vote, will we have to give a reason why we are voting yes/no. Also is the any rules in terms of responses by those we vote for or against and their responses. What I mean, is this going to turn into a free for all having people attack people that vote no against a candidate and give a reason that maybe the person running (or their supporters) don't like.

Hopefully that won't be the case. Davidpdx 04:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can vote for or against as many candidates as you like. The system is approval voting. When voting, you may give a short comment if you choose, but any lengthy comments may be moved to the talk page. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can all nominated people vote?

On the vote page, it says nobody registered after 30 September 2005 can vote. I know of at least four of us who are registered after that date (me, LawAndOrder, Ajwebb, Rowlan). Can we vote? Skyscrap27 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No.Geni 15:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that against the democratic right to choose and to be chosen? We obviously can be chosen, but we can't choose. Thank you. Skyscrap27 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Improv 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok the honest answer. Other than a slight increase in the work needed to put the elections together no hoper candidates are not a problem. Socks and meatpupets are.Geni 16:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for an honest answer. I still fail too see how hard it would be to make an exception for like 4-5 people, you just need to look at the list of the nominees. But, never mind. It's OK. Thanks. Skyscrap27 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Becuase it would have stopped being 4-5 people in very short order.Geni 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Skyscrap27 18:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]