Talk:2016 Green Party of England and Wales leadership election

Deputy Leader Results Table
There appears to be an error in the table. Party rules on internal elections state that RON cannot be eliminated at any stage, yet it is only included on the first count. Can anybody confirm if this is a mistake on the part of whoever is reporting this (I note there's no reference), or because the count was conducted incorrectly? 87.243.193.13 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right, the data was contributed without a reference. I can only assume it was added by someone with knowledge of the election, but without a specific citation it may be best to remove it until a public source provides that data... FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Full breakdown now since provided, will add citation: http://bright-green.org/2016/09/03/revealed-full-breakdown-of-the-green-party-leadership-election/ FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Untitled
Should people who have not been members for 3 years continously be left in the Potential Candidates category? They cannot stand for Green Party leader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.51.47 (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Malone endorsements
On Leadership endorsements I have made edits for notable endorsements for David H Malone. The positions of the endorsements and sources are given and noteable as official positions in Green Party are stated and of equal rank to other cited noteable endorsements Further Ian Fraser is a Noted National Journalist and Author again the noteriety of Mr Fraser is of course subjective but no more so than say Mr Tatchell.Bondegezou (talk | contribs)‎. . (20,462 bytes) (-1,797)‎. . (→‎Leadership endorsements: only list notable endorsers) please note this comment and do not vandalise the edits I have made without supporting the notebility of the other referred endorsors for other candidates. David Malone is a front runner in the extant election and any edits for spurious reasons will be escalated for independent editing. (talk • contribs) 13:17, 15 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 13:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved.* David Malone
 * Dan Lee Chair Tower Hamlets Green Party (@thgreenparty)
 * Ian Fraser award-winning journalist, commentator and broadcaster who writes about business, finance, politics and economics. He has written for titles including The Economist, Financial Times, The Sunday Times, The Times, Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday, Independent on Sunday, the Herald, Sunday Herald, BBC News, Thomson Reuters, Dow Jones, Accountancy, CA Magazine and Citywire
 * John Knight, Convenor, Cheshire East Green Party at Green Party of England and Wales
 * Dave Plummer Chair/Coordinator at Epping Forest Green Party RogerGLewis (talk) 13:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * To note, the above is RogerGLewis quoting my edit comment, not by me.
 * When listing endorsements on Wikipedia articles -- see e.g. List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016 or Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016 -- we only list notable endorsements. As a rule of thumb, notability is determined by whether the person/organisation is considered notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article of their own. That's why I trimmed the endorsements list and got rid of all the endorsements for David Malone. Compare also Labour_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2016 and Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2016: local chairs don't get listed. We had this same discussion at UK Independence Party leadership election, 2016 and agreed on this approach.
 * Nearly all the endorsers for other candidates are notable people in themselves (i.e. they have Wikipedia articles), or are leadership candidates supporting deputy leadership candidates and vice versa. The exceptions are:


 * Elise Benjamin, Chair of the Association of Green Councillors
 * Maggie Chapman, Co-Convener, Scottish Green Party
 * Pippa Bartolotti, former Leader of the Wales Green Party
 * These three, while not notable in themselves, appear to me to be more significant party figures than merely local constituency chairs, so I have erred on the side of leaving them in. If others feel they do not meet eligibility criteria, I won't contest that.

RogerGLewis (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)  Bondegezou (talk Regarding The Conservative, Labour and UKIP elections, each are very different and very much top down democracy done to the Electorate rather than Democracy participated in by the electorate. The distinction I have already made for the Green Party process as Sui Generis to the Green Party may be reinforced thus It is SPV AV voting. Labour Party. PLP voting is clearly done by MP´s of course they will all have wikipedia articles. As an Establishment party ingrained in the institutions of State and political Economy again Block votes will be noteable organisations. It is an interesting point that the 2015 Labour leadership was not a two horse race and employed STV AV voting although of course there are block and PLP votes to consider. There is an interesting comparison to make here but is outside the scope of this article and our dispute. The Green Party is demonstrably Grass roots up, The PLP faction in the Labour Party want top down whilst one member one vote is the aim of the Corbyn/Scoialist/Red Labour Wing. On UKIP,This is a First Past the post election and again Top down in nature, this I find quite at odds with UKIP policy on supporting Proportional Representation the process is clearly distinguished from the Green Party case on this basis. The Conservative election is again Top Down with the Vote in the Hands of MPs until Two Candidates go to the membership, Of course the Vote did not get that far. The point I make regarding Nomination, Constituency Party and Diversity sections of the Green Party and also the fact that The GP has only one MP will of course mean that Noteability in the Green Party is of a different nature and thus subject to a different standard to that in the other three contests offered as precedents. On The referenda examples, these are first past the post races and again refer to a plebisite of millions not 60,000. RogerGLewis (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

None of the Endorsements for Bartley or Lucas are supported by independant evidence where are the links confirming those endorsements they are on the candidates campaign web site which of course is not officialy green party endorsed. The other list of endorsements are supported by facebook or Twitter endorsements and or links to individual campaign sites again not independant in any way. Linking to the source facebook pages is slightly less convienient than just posting them to twitter which then links back to the source of endorsements out of the horses mouth so to speak. Your definition of noteable is ill defined and arbitrary. If there are to be a list of endorsements on this page then the Rules should be clearly stated and evenly applied, here they clearly are not being. This article i see is classed as a stub, I would like a further indeopendent look at my complaint as I feel that your changes are arbitrary and based upon your own POV which is unacceptable. I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days. Meanwhile you have not substantiated your edit and a wikipedia page of their own is hardly a valid argument to level against notewortyness of individuals. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * RogerGLewis: can you clarify your relationship with Malone's campaign? If you have any connection, please read and follow the advice at WP:COI.
 * I also note that no independent, reliable sources are given for Malone's endorsers: they all fail WP:BLP. That's an issue with some of the other endorsements too, but I think an individual's own Twitter account passes muster better than the Facebook pages used for most of Malone's endorsers. I am thus removing Malone's endorsers again. Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The policies you cite are not applied equally and your own POV is actually dominant in your own removal of some endorsements indeed all given in support of David Malone. I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment which is in the field of monetary reform ( this is not a party political issue). I will re instate the Malone endorsemenrts pending third party edit adjudication your previous involvement with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bondegezou#Ekklesia_.28think_tank.29 page leads me to assume your involvement in this page is less than independant. The sources cited are verifiable by facebook or twitter accounts of the persons involved and Their noteability is based upon Public or official offices held in the Green Party which make them noteable for the purposes of this leadership election. With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis. Endorsements are factual matters and the same standard of evidence should be applied for all candidates none of the Lucas/Bartley endorsements are supported by links to actual endorsements they are all heresay and yet you do not mention them or hold them to a standard that the Malone endorsements clearly are being held to  independant evidence is surely a requirement for the claimed endorsement of people noteable in that they have a wikipedia page about themselves?. Arbitrary editing can not be allowed to stand on Wikipedia and that is what these current edits are, I will re instate the Malone endorsements and provide further links to the same standard as provided by the other Claimed endorsements if necessary. Further links should be requested at least to the standard provided by the other other candidates and meanwhile all endorsements or non should be removed. For simple practicality I will re instate the Malone endorsements as is and await 3rd party edit intervention regarding the standard to apply to all candidates.RogerGLewis (talk) 14:20, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * All actions on Wikipedia are always open to review by everyone else. That's how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia also works by sticking to certain policies. As you are assisting Malone with his campaign, it is advised, as per WP:COI, that you refrain from editing articles pertaining to him directly, although you may if you wish. It is recommended that you suggest edits here, on the Talk page, and let uninvolved editors decide whether to add them or not.
 * I have no connection to Bartley or the Green Party, although I do know someone who works with him in the Ekklesia think tank.
 * I will bring this discussion to the attention of an appropriate noticeboard to encourage input from other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Having an existing Wikipedia page is a commonly used criterion for various topics. See Common Selection Criteria (CSC). Recommend selecting one of the CSC by consensus. Allowing a list of endorsers with Wikipedia pages, consistent with the first bullet of the CSC, as proposed by User:Only in death, seems reasonable to me. - Brianhe (talk) 21:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As per User:Brianhe and User:Only in death (commenting at WP:COIN), practice and consensus supports only including endorsements from individuals (or organisations) who are themselves notable. I will thus remove the Malone endorsements and other non-notable endorsers listed. Bondegezou (talk) 13:56, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

″ ″Bondegezou Only in death does duty end Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. [1] Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is [2]

if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable. For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play. [3] [4]

It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs.[5][6][7] A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. [8] I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.[9][10] RogerGLewis (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 09:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

Regarding notability of Ian fraser heres his profile at the Glasgow Herald should some one wish to add it http://www.heraldscotland.com/author/profile/74966.Ian_Fraser/ regarding the template on the main page, I will put further links regarding endorsements of David Malone here for inclusion, with respect to the original author of this article where does one find the authors of other sections, I find it hard to accept that a section of Malone endorsements constitutes a major contribution when the Bartley Lucas entries would not however be classified as less than substantial to any independent observer and are certainly dominant. I will message Davids endorsees both mentioned here and the others regarding their claims to noteriety and so forth. A wikipeida page is a low bar in my opinion all I am doing is making the point that the bar should not be arbitrarily set by one editor with a passing interest in Politics and a main interest in Prog Rock.RogerGLewis (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have not set the bar. I am reflecting practice seen on many other Wikipedia articles over many years: see List of endorsements in the Scottish independence referendum, 2014, Endorsements_in_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum,_2016, Jeb_Bush_presidential_campaign,_2016, Conservative_Party_(UK)_leadership_election,_2016 etc. Wikipedia is not here to record everything that ever happens: as per WP:DUE, we should give due weight to significant endorsements. The rule of thumb is that an endorsement is sufficiently notable if by someone who is sufficient notable themself in that they have their own Wikipedia article.
 * The History tab shows everyone who has edited the article, but I don't understand the point you are making...? The endorsers for Lucas/Bartley are, bar Elise Benjamin, individuals with their own Wikipedia articles who are clearly notable. They are not mere chairs of local constituency parties.
 * As per WP:CIV and WP:AGF, I encourage you to focus on article content and not on making disparaging remarks about other editors. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry if you have construed any of my remarks as disparaging, I have merely questioned your poisition as you have quite rightly questioned mine. Characterising Green Party local officials as mere anything is I think in the order of the pot calling the kettle black, Although I choose to interpret your intemperate language as a matter of style and not attitude and as such take your point but with the imnportant proviso that I disagree with the contruction you place upon who is and who is not of note in Green Party constituencies and the party at large. Shahrar Ali has memorably stated following sentiments also stated by Natalie Bennet that we are all leaders in the Green party and as such equally noteworthy. Many greens probably reject the politics of personality and ego projection that leads to the placement of importance upon such fickle and moveable metrics as the existence of a Wikipedia Article. Reminds me of a silly old joke about the scarecrow who was Outstanding in his field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The History tab shows everyone who has edited the article, but I don't understand the point you are making...? The point I make here is that the Lucas / Bartley web page is less traceable than a face book page for an endorser with respect to the varifiability of its contents, None of the statement contained within any web site constitute no more evidence of proveable truth claims than a random Twitter tweet or Facebook post. The Quality of sources links you have already posted and which are familiar to me make this point quite clearly.Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves[edit] Shortcut: WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met:

The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook.

I have contended that the endorsements I have quoted are not mere puffery they are from elected senior green party officials and officiers of equal rank to unchallenged officers and officials given as endorsees of all the other candidates including those of Bartley and Lucas. I too welcome dioscussion on the point in the talk pages but as I have said for removal of like for like endorsements or maintainance of them there should be a common standard.bar Elise Benjamin thanks for this reference I will follow up and see who is as enthusiastic as me for Caroline and Jonathan as I am For David Malone And Shahrar Ali and Amelia Womack all of who I have dubbed the #GreenPistols and spent time doing a bit of online cheerleading for. This I might add does not make me Portland Communications .RogerGLewis (talk) 17:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The source of the Barltey / Lucas Endorsements is from an untraceable IP adress account (cur | prev) 22:08, 2 July 2016‎ 2.27.79.48 (talk)‎. . (How do you know that this is not Portland Communications or the Lucas /Bartlett equivalent I have no way of telling, Have you yourself checked? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs)


 * User:RogerGLewis: two other editors have adjudicated on this issue, here and at WP:COIN, and agreed that non-notable endorsers should be excluded. We have referred you to past practice on other articles and to WP:CSC. You have no support for your position. Why are you persisting to edit-war over this and making false claims of vandalism? Bondegezou (talk) 14:46, 16 August 2016 (

Bondegezou The process which you claim has taken place has done so without due process afforded for me to make my own arguments, as such it falls foul of the most basic rules of Natural Justice. I disagree with your view and the Policies you have linked too are not universal and clear cut and I have distinguished my arguments regarding what should apply in the case of a democratic grass roots up party such as the green Party. Having an endorsements section where many of the candidates are shown as having no endorsements of note at all is clearly absurd to any independant observer Stroum for instance has lots of endorsements. Your edits are insisting on an inaccurate portrayal of this Leadership and Deputy leadership contest that is objectionable to me. There are two questions Notability and second evidence provided regarding links to the actual endorsements. Shahrah Ali and Amelia Womack are very high porfile in the green Party as too is David Malone, this article as you wish to edit it gives a completely wrong impression as to the State of the leadership election this is not helpful to Green Party memebrs or to interested people that wish to reference what this leadership election was all about. I am unhappy that you have edited out reference to the STV AV system of voting and to your refusal to accept that the RON campaign is significant enough to warrant a mention, Te RON point is all the more obvious  when considered in the STV AV system of voting context. These are not partisan points which I have made they are factual and I have pointed to evidence supporting the case as I have presented it, constructive editing is to offer further clarification or refutation of false claims this you have not 'done youarefailing to meet any sensible standard of proof or indeed to offer one.. You accuse me of being Biased and that is simply not supported by the evidence as peresented bythe Edits I have been making, This is a stub article by definition it requires a lot of work for it to become meaningful and helpful, I am interested to achieve that aim. This is not an edit war I wish to achieve a better reflection of how the Green Party system of leadership election actaually is, and that is democratic, something which could perhaps be used to inspire some cooperation to a fellow editor instead of trying to alledge some sort of Partisan Subjective spinning editing on my part. The history of edits shows this is not the case. I welcome the opportunity to work with you to improve the article regarding endorsements I feel you have not engaged constructively in the dialogue I have been trying to have with you. Please make Arguments on the facts that is what I have been doing and that is also what you yourself and other editors should also do. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

With respect to all editors involved, I don't see a substantiated COI issue here. This looks like a content dispute which is to be conducted on the article's talkpage. - Brianhe (talk) 15:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC Brianhe I acknowledge your input and agree it is a content dispute and I have read the relevant articles on Notability and the cited comparable articles such as the Scottish Indie referendum and Jeb Bushes campaign in 2016. The Green Party is a sui generis case in a sense in that the number of candidates, the voting system and the RON option in STV AV systems are all quite different to other first past the post or single issue campaigns in referenda. Distinguishing the Green PArty of Engalnd and Wales as a specific class of campaign and the make up of the green party itself with co leaders or co deputy leaders and gender balance as well as LGBT inclusion policies with also the Greens of Colour BAME grouping means that each of these contituencies as well as the local party constituencies do have key roles that make party officers noteable.This structure in the US Democratic party would seem lowly given their Hierarchical top down constitutions of old fashioned patriarchal establishment parties. The Green party simply is not like that and one of the campaign questions is it it worth adopting a patrifocal structure to get elected or should Matrifocal and grassroots up ideals prevail as a point of principle. I will endeavour to work out a workable solution and metric with Bondegezou and continue my efforts to improve the article and get it into some sort of balance based upon consensus I have asked other greens interested in Wikipedia to get involved as well, of course electroal reform is a core issue in Green Party politics.RogerGLewis (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC).RogerGLewis (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC) To add needed context on the allegation of COI. User:Brianhe closed this discussion, but agreed to re-open it on my request.
 * While there are content disputes, I don't feel the COI issue has been resolved. Specifically, User:RogerGLewis made the followings comments at Talk:Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016, having added a set of endorsements for candidate David Malone:
 * "Here are the endorsements I have listed I am awaiting a further list from David Malone and crosschecking both his endorsements of deputy leadership candidates and other endorsements he has also recieved" diff
 * "I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days." diff
 * But also said: "I am not a member of the Green party and whilst I support David Malone this is based upon my own area of political involvment [...] With independant endorsements suitably cited it is actually irrelevant whether or not I personally support or am employed by Malone. In fact I am not employed and do not act in any official capacity for Malone but have been doing some social media support for Malone purley on a voluntary and independant basis." diff
 * The former comments imply an active involvement with a campaign team, a clear conflict of interest, although the last quote may suggest otherwise. Further comments from RogerGLewis have not explained the earlier quotes, but have denied a COI or indeed the validity of the concept. The most detailed are at User_talk:RogerGLewis. RogerGLewis: what did you mean by the first two quotes? Are you in regular contact with Malone about his campaign?
 * O wise minds of COIN, input on the content dispute of course welcome, but what do you think of the COI issue? Thanks.
 * PS: RogerGLewis, please note WP:CANVASS. Bondegezou (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Andrewdwilliams#Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election.2C_2016  Andrew Williams asked to comment.invited to comment ?09:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) Bondegezou talk I have spoken to David Malone 3 times since the end of June I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process ( This I have counted in my 3 conversations via Skype ) I have never met David Malone in person and shaken hands let alone broken bread or shared a cup of tea or had a Coffee purchased for me at whatever coffee houses there are in Scarborough.I participate and have done since 2011 in the active and lively comments section of Davids Blog where Davids running was announced other readers there have gone further than me in that they have joined the Green party specifically to vote for him, I do not engage in party political politics and have political opinions which are negative against the illusion of choice democracy that masquerades as real democracy, I have explained this elsewhere but a discourse on my own politics is surely not necessary is this the new inquisition, ( see Ekklesia, for good faith assumptions and also)  I am not formally directed by or allied to the Malone Campaign and have no financial, political or filial interest in the outcome of this Election and therefore no conflict of interest within the Wikipedia definitions and the wider professional and legal definitions of the term. I am a Member of the RICS and have studied Conflicts of interest as they apply to my professional Field of expertise as a past admissions assessor for the RICS membership board I have professional experience of interviewing candidates on their obligations with regard to conflicts of interest. I have also studied Ethics and Jurisprudence as part of my Philosophy studies. I do not have a conflict of interest.Should my editing indicate a possibility of Bias I could understand your continuing questioning on this issue, Andrew Williams sent me an e mail this morning saying he is returning from Hols at the weekend and will sort out the links for the endorsements I have added should they indeed need sorting out?, perhaps you would hold this in abeyance and settle the question of Notability and Source reference with Andrew. I have accepted your explanation on Ekklesia, and possible connection COI to the Bartley/Lucas campaign in good faith, I see no reason why you will not reciprocate in kind, but that is a matter for you. I respect that you must act according to your own volition. I have exchanged comments on blogs with Clive Lord and I have also posted a series of Blogs on my own blog which I have of course not referred to as it would be improper to do so, I have promoted and engaged in discussion on the Leadership to ensure that Monetary reform and Green Party Manifesto Policy EC661 I blogged about this policy in 2015 and have many posts in comments sections on many publications referring to it and explaining its import to Political Economy, I support David Malone as he wishes to expand and explain this part of green policy and that coincides with my own political objectives as informed by my own activism which is unaffiliated to any organisation or other individual although I do identify as a supporter of various campaigns including the Malone Green Party Leadership campaign Supporting a candidate and declaring support does not constitute a conflict of interest, one also realises that ones editing should not be biased and I think it is safe to say there is no indication of Bias in my interventions here whilst I do have concerns that the Article is unbalanced and gives a bias in the Direction of Lucas/Bartley which I am sure they would also be horrified by. With respect to Lists and wikipedia not being one, I expect that David Malone will receive more votes than Natalie Bennet secured to win the leadership in 2012 Bartley and Lucas will similarly get more votes, Williams is likely also to poll a larger number as well Clive Lord Martie Warin and Simon Cross will also I think poll between them more votes than the winning tally from 2012. As the turnout is unlikely to be lower than 2012 and the membership is enlarged to 60,000 and with declared support for Davids Campaign already having been counted in the order of several hundred messages, 5 endorsements hardly count's as a list and as I have said before it is absurd to have an article which suggests that The front runners and other Candidates have no notable endorsements In politics notability must also be in the eye of the beholder, for instance Nigel Farage would not consider an endorsement from Marie Le Penn or Tommy Robinson for instance to be noteable, in a good way at least. No candidate would wish to give the impression of scraping the bottom of the barrel by citing a bloke up the pub, that said he thought the policies of x were mint. I 'have expanded on my reasoning elsewhere regarding the distinguishing features for a sui-generis approach to the extant election. Again I invite you to await input form Andrew when he returns from Hols. Meanwhile shall we do some constructive work on a metric for more Democratic elections for parties like the Greens.I will have a look at the Labour Leadership, UKIP leadership and other STV AV examples and put something up for discussion in the Elections and referenda talk page if you think that is a good idea? RogerGLewis (talk) 07:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk) 09:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For ease of reference here are the unanswered rebuttals to Policy stated by Bondegezou'' (talk that remain unanswered.

Regarding The Conservative, Labour and UKIP elections, each are very different and very much top down democracy done to the Electorate rather than Democracy participated in by the electorate. The distinction I have already made for the Green Party process as Sui Generis to the Green Party may be reinforced thus It is SPV AV voting. Labour Party. PLP voting is clearly done by MP´s of course they will all have wikipedia articles. As an Establishment party ingrained in the institutions of State and political Economy again Block votes will be noteable organisations. It is an interesting point that the 2015 Labour leadership was not a two horse race and employed STV AV voting although of course there are block and PLP votes to consider. There is an interesting comparison to make here but is outside the scope of this article and our dispute. The Green Party is demonstrably Grass roots up, The PLP faction in the Labour Party want top down whilst one member one vote is the aim of the Corbyn/Scoialist/Red Labour Wing. On UKIP,This is a First Past the post election and again Top down in nature, this I find quite at odds with UKIP policy on supporting Proportional Representation the process is clearly distinguished from the Green Party case on this basis. The Conservative election is again Top Down with the Vote in the Hands of MPs until Two Candidates go to the membership, Of course the Vote did not get that far. The point I make regarding Nomination, Constituency Party and Diversity sections of the Green Party and also the fact that The GP has only one MP will of course mean that Noteability in the Green Party is of a different nature and thus subject to a different standard to that in the other three contests offered as precedents. On The referenda examples, these are first past the post races and again refer to a plebisite of millions not 60,000. RogerGLewis (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

None of the Endorsements for Bartley or Lucas are supported by independant evidence where are the links confirming those endorsements they are on the candidates campaign web site which of course is not officialy green party endorsed. The other list of endorsements are supported by facebook or Twitter endorsements and or links to individual campaign sites again not independant in any way. Linking to the source facebook pages is slightly less convienient than just posting them to twitter which then links back to the source of endorsements out of the horses mouth so to speak. Your definition of noteable is ill defined and arbitrary. If there are to be a list of endorsements on this page then the Rules should be clearly stated and evenly applied, here they clearly are not being. This article i see is classed as a stub, I would like a further indeopendent look at my complaint as I feel that your changes are arbitrary and based upon your own POV which is unacceptable. I am assisting David Malone with his campaign media and there is a legnthy list of other endorsements which i hope to be updating over the next few days. Meanwhile you have not substantiated your edit and a wikipedia page of their own is hardly a valid argument to level against notewortyness of individuals. RogerGLewis (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Some input from other editors would be appreciated in this case. The question concerns what endorsements to list for the Green Party leadership election. User:RogerGLewis has added various endorsers for one candidate, David Malone, but describes a relationship with Malone's campaign on the Talk page. I have twice removed the material as I felt the endorsements were not notable and insufficiently supported. Is there a COI issue here? And, irrespective, what endorsements should be listed? Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally in a situation like this I go with 'Is the endorser notable?' as an easy cut-off. Basically, do they have a wikipedia biography. Otherwise you just end up with a list as long as your arm with non-notable endorsements. The question of 'should endorsements be listed' is a content discussion for the article talkpage really. As assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou Only in death does duty end Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play''. It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. ''The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs''. A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
 * '' if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable.

On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. RogerGLewis (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) Thanks. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside our disagreement over whether you have a conflict of interest (discussed at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard), non-notable endorsements should not be listed. You have made your case at length, we have been through a process and no-one has agreed with you. I am thus removing the material for now. You are welcome to continue discussing the point here and trying to establish a WP:consensus in support, but please do not WP:EDITWAR over the article. Bondegezou (talk) 20:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou I have already stated above that my reversal of your inconsistent edititing does not constitute editing war. I have also advised you that Andrew Williams Andrewdwilliams who has edited this article substantially from its inception is presently on Holiday but will look at our difference of opinion and interpretation of various wikipedia policy, on his return and add his contribution. Andrew sent me this e mail, he refers to providing endorsements for the article. '''Roger, Yes, that is me. I've been editing bits on Wikipedia for a while now, as you can see. I'm on holiday at the moment in Slovenia, which is why I have not been responding very rapidly. I'm afraid I don't have any more endorsements, but I am happy to help add the ones we already have when I get back. Twitter can suffice as a source, as long as it is done properly. Andrew'Italic text'' I have also set out the points of policy regarding Lists and noteable persons in the list in depth( I have in an attempt to make it convienient for you added the points you have failed to answer at the bootom of the Talk section),The points I refer to show how specific particulars of the GP leadership election distinguish it from those other Elections and leader ship constests you cite regarding those other arguments. To claim a consensus when there are essentially only two of us disagreeing on these points is a false argument. To make your case in discussion between two of us you must address the specific policy points which I contend support my view where each of us continue to disagree a larger number of contributions will be required to claim consensus against my edits which do not relate solely to David Malones endorsements the also apply to Womack, Ali and cooper. As yet I have not removed the Lucas Bartley List which is contrary to rules rergarding being self referentiaI, but using common sense it is silly to take a position that any candidate would claim an endorsement on their web site which is not note worthy and genuine. I have asked you to engage with the arguements and ask again that you respect that convention rather than retreating into an intellectually lazy position of claiming edit war and further claiming a consensus when none has emerged. As I have also pointed out inconsistency in application of self referential material for balance all endorsements or no endorsements should either remain or be removed at this point. I will agree to removal of all endorsements or non, until we hear from Andrewdwilliams with 3 opinions what emerges is a tie break and not a consensus although neither Only in death does duty end or User:Brianhe have suppoorted your arguments which are actually very general, if anything the consensus argument is actually against you even at this stage, if Andrew concurs with the consensus you are actually in a minority of one and claiming the editing privelidge of an Ephor whilst I have engaged in much more detail on policy as applied to the extant case, I stand ready to add further arguments which may be of little use,(as it seeems you have already made up your mind whilst being unable to find anyone else who agrees with you),whilst we await for Andrewdwilliams to give his view. 07:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)


 * You have not demonstrated that Andrewdwilliams supports your position here. If and when he chooses to weigh in on this matter, his input will of course be considered, but he hasn't yet done so. The manner in which you have contacted him over this is not entirely consistent with advice in WP:CANVASS. Please review WP:CANVASS and try to stick to Wikipedia guidelines. You said, "I have also spoken with Andrew Williams who has been editing on this page we both had a conference call with David [Malone] at the beginning of the campaign to discuss informally how social media works in the modern political process". That also suggests Andrewdwilliams may have a connection to Malone's campaign and a conflict of interest, which it would be valuable to clarify with him should he wish to edit this page.
 * Two editors have reviewed this dispute and commented. User:Only in death wrote (at WP:COIN), "Personally in a situation like this I go with 'Is the endorser notable?' as an easy cut-off. Basically, do they have a wikipedia biography." User:Brianhe wrote, "Having an existing Wikipedia page is a commonly used criterion for various topics. See Common Selection Criteria (CSC). Recommend selecting one of the CSC by consensus. Allowing a list of endorsers with Wikipedia pages, consistent with the first bullet of the CSC, as proposed by User:Only in death, seems reasonable to me." Both of these support excluding non-notable endorsements. No-one has shown any agreement with your position on Wikipedia.
 * Relevant policy, guidance and practice have been cited above. You have presented your arguments at length and may continue to do so. But you do not get to dictate article content against WP:CONSENSUS. You do not WP:OWN this article. You are editing in a disruptive manner. Please stop. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Bondegezou (talk again you fail to address the arguments regarding what Wikipedia policy is and accuse me of inproper conduct against Wikipedia policy. Your continued ad hominen does not improve the case you are making. Andrew will no doubt make his own comments all I would add is that again your default assumptions of bad faith do not do credit to your own conduct. Looking at the facts, I have applied advised wikipedia policy by adding a leader under the title to the list, do you disagree with this aproach?''The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs''. A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. would you please engage with the arguments and refrain from ad hominen please.RogerGLewis (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC) Bondegezou If I may trouble you with some other Factual matters. I have added endorsements on other candidates not merely made additional links to those already existing. You have selectively quoted two other editors both of who addressed rpimarily the COI accusation and clearly have not reviewed the discussiion based upon the evidence I have presented and also the solution offered. Going on to make a false claim that consensus should dictate a removal of all Malones endorsements and no one elses is plainly a very muddled conclusion to jump to. I await further engagement on the facts if you wish.RogerGLewis (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I never enjoy engaging in petty editing disputes on talk pages, and prefer just to edit the pages. I am aware of the COI guidelines and I am happy to make clear my involvement with this election. I am a Green Party member, and the current Internal Communications Coordinator for the North West Green Party. I have openly endorsed David Malone for leader in this election as well. With that in mind, I have not made any edits that I believe could be classed as controversial in the course of this article. I am still on holiday until tomorrow and so I am unable to offer a full response, but I will say that my own policy and interpretation of the rules is that when it comes to endorsements, endorsers should either have their own Wikipedia page or be notable enough within the party to warrant inclusion (people I would class in that category would include Pippa Bartoletti, Maggie Chapman and the Chair of the AGC). As much as it pains me to say it, as far as I am aware, none of Malone's endorsements fit in this notability category. The only one I would suggest is notable enough is Ian Fraser, who has served as business\finance editor for a couple of relatively major newspapers in the UK. That's all I'm saying for now, besides the fact I don't think RogerGLewis's egregiously long comments are not particularly helpful. Andrewdwilliams (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Gender balance rules
Can anyone supply details of the Party's current rules around gender balance in the leadership team? I know this has changed since 2012, but can't work out what the current situation is. Bondegezou (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2016

The party elects a Leader and two Deputy Leaders, or two Co-Leaders and a Deputy leader. The 2012 constitution is materially diffent to 2015 for leadership matters particularly the question of Joint Leaders and a single deputy or single leader and joint deputies and particulalry on Gender balance. the 2015 constitution should be linked to for this article the link I have is blocked by the wikipedia bot.Here is the paragraph ´•	PARTY LEADER AND DEPUTY LEADER •	There shall be a leader and two deputy leaders of the party. The leader shall be a voting member of the Executive and the deputy leaders be treated as a job-share. •	The Leader and Deputy or Co-Leaders will be the primary public faces of the party, responsible for presenting Green Party policy and promoting its electoral activity and campaigns to the public on a daily basis. •	Candidates for Leader and Deputy Leader(s) or Co-Leader shall have been a member of the Party for the three complete years preceding the date of close of nominations, and shall be required to complete a standard application form. Nominations of candidates must be supported by the signatures of a minimum of twenty members of the Party. •	The post of deputy leader will be held as a job share with two individuals of a different gender, noting that gender is self-determined.

Two members of a different gender may together stand for the office of Leader in order to hold the post as a jobshare in which case they shall be known as 'Co-Leaders'. In this case a single Deputy, the individual who polls the highest vote, regardless of gender, will be elected. Members standing to be Co-Leaders may not simultaneously be candidates as individuals for either Leader or Deputy Leader.´´The present link is confusing as this section of the constitution has changed completely from 2012 so the link is useless and axctually misleading.


 * Thanks for that explanation. Do you have any sources for this? We cannot include material in an article without sources. Also, please try to remember to sign your posts on the Talk page and keep an eye on formatting. Otherwise it becomes difficult to see who said what. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

The source is the 2015 constitution which was voted for and passed at conference in 2015, heres the download link — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerGLewis (talk • contribs) 20:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Diversity and RON question on hustings and in the Questionaires answered by candidates and published on line.
I have agreed to several removals at initial attempts to get this paragraph right, Hopefully others can chip in to get the tone right and also add the other key issues of the campaign.

As part of the election process all candidates have been invited to answer a diverse range of questions related to green party policy by various party organisations and affiliates. One consistent question at hustings and in the questionaires is the question of Identity, Diversity and LGBT BAME representation in the party and how noticably Homogenous the Leadership race is in particular. All candidates have acknowledged this and it is not a point of contention. The Question was put in the electoral reform societies questionaire and all candidates answers and views on this issue are represented in the published document. ´4. What methods would you support to improve diversity in politics? There’s a lot that can be done to make politics truly represent the public, from better female representation to increasing the number of BME people in public life – please let me know your ideas on ideas for both the Green Party and politics more widely´´. - See more at: The RON campaign is highly relevant to this question and is founded upon the marked lack of diversity in the Make up of the Leadership candidates particularly.

I would like to see a paragraph referring to the Reddit questionaires and the other online questionaires and q and e´s. RON and Diversity are intimately related, Lack of one being the motivation for the other. This along with the issues of Climate Change, Sustainability economics and Basic Income I think could all usefully be added to demonstrate the Policy debate inherent to the Green Leadership process as well as the Positions of candidates on existing Manifesto policies from 2015.RogerGLewis (talk) 12:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Other major Questionaires were on Reddit from the UK Greens Reddit Climate Action Group. The Green Party Trade union Group and from Bright Green  one of Britain’s leading left wing blogs. 13:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)

Notability and Wikipedia List Policy.
I am starting a new talk section on this matter and hope other editors will contribute to the question, preferably editors who are interested in STV AV voting and Flat structured organisational and collective Cooperative participative leadership models. I.e Matrifocal and not Patriarchal Hierarchical stuctures and institutions in political economy. Regarding Lists and notability I feel these references are worth applying as a test. [1] Notability[edit] While it is best to re-establish notability within the list, it is not always necessary. Some lists are notable because the topic itself is notable. If the topic is notable then a list dealing with the topic is notable and vice versa. the opposite is [2] if a topic does not meet the notability guideline, then a list on the topic is also not notable. For more complex lists where there is a qualifier, such as List of birds of Canada and the United States other factors come into play. [3] [4] It is clear that a wikipedia article on the subjects of the list is not necessary where the subject is noteable in itself and deserves an article here there is no challenge to the notability of the article. For lists containing entries not suitable for articles in themselves their belonging to a sub set of a notebale group or article is sufficient for inclusion in a list. This suggests that the Wiki Article on the persons involved is not the only criteraia to apply, if applied at all and common sense is cautioned. The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs.[5][6][7] A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. [8] I think you failed to give due weight in your reasoning to this aspect of Only in death does duty end opinion Bondegezou ´´ assuming the facts can be reliably sourced, it is rarely going to be a controversial addition. Someone working for a candidate insisting on including *ALL* their endorsements in order to engage in candidate puffery would be an issue, but absent a discussion saying not to... Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC) On Common sense see here. Common selection criteria[edit] As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a directory, repository of links, or means of promotion, and should not contain indiscriminate lists, only certain types of list should be exhaustive. Criteria for inclusion should thus factor in encyclopedic and topical relevance, not just verifiable existence. For example, all known species within a taxonomic family are relevant enough to include in a list of them; but List of Norwegian musicians would not be encyclopedically useful if it indiscriminately included every garage band mentioned in a local Norwegian newspaper. While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever.[9][10] RogerGLewis (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 09:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC) 09:07, 17 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)
 * Regarding The Conservative, Labour and UKIP elections, each are very different and very much top down democracy done to the Electorate rather than Democracy participated in by the electorate. The distinction I have already made for the Green Party process as Sui Generis to the Green Party may be reinforced thus It is SPV AV voting. Labour Party. PLP voting is clearly done by MP´s of course they will all have wikipedia articles. As an Establishment party ingrained in the institutions of State and political Economy again Block votes will be noteable organisations. It is an interesting point that the 2015 Labour leadership was not a two horse race and employed STV AV voting although of course there are block and PLP votes to consider. There is an interesting comparison to make here but is outside the scope of this article and our dispute. The Green Party is demonstrably Grass roots up, The PLP faction in the Labour Party want top down whilst one member one vote is the aim of the Corbyn/Scoialist/Red Labour Wing. On UKIP,This is a First Past the post election and again Top down in nature, this I find quite at odds with UKIP policy on supporting Proportional Representation the process is clearly distinguished from the Green Party case on this basis. The Conservative election is again Top Down with the Vote in the Hands of MPs until Two Candidates go to the membership, Of course the Vote did not get that far. The point I make regarding Nomination, Constituency Party and Diversity sections of the Green Party and also the fact that The GP has only one MP will of course mean that Noteability in the Green Party is of a different nature and thus subject to a different standard to that in the other three contests offered as precedents. On The referenda examples, these are first past the post races and again refer to a plebisite of millions not 60,000. RogerGLewis (talk) 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)Looking at the facts, I have applied advised wikipedia policy by adding a leader under the title to the list, do you disagree with this aproach?The title is not expected to contain a complete description of the list's subject. Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself. For example, the correct choice is List of people from the Isle of Wight, not List of people who were born on or strongly associated with the Isle of Wight and about whom Wikipedia has an article. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs.   A leader to the list stating criteria is what is advised in all of the souces of guidance wikipedia offers. .RogerGLewis (talk) 10:01, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Title Is. Leadership Endorsements Lead In is this sentence. All endorsements are as noted by candidates in their campaign materials or social media sites. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WPLIST https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Viability_of_listsalso true https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone_lists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTESAL WP:LISTNAME WP:NCLIST WP:NCSAL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SALLEAD WP:LSC RogerGLewis (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC) RogerGLewis (talk) 15:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * We should not have different policies for an article on one party leadership election than on an article for another party leadership election. WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is relevant here. The Green Party leadership election is a smaller affair, with fewer people voting and fewer reliable source articles covering events. The solution to that is that we have a shorter article about the Green Party leadership election: not that we abandon basic Wikipedia principles of WP:V and WP:DUE here.
 * WP:CSC has three options:
 * Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia.
 * Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. (Note that this criterion is never used for living people.)
 * Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.
 * The second clearly does not apply. The third cannot apply: we cannot obtain complete lists of everyone supporting each candidate, and those lists would not be short. The first, therefore, is the most applicable. It is the principle I and others have repeatedly worked with. It is what is currently being used for the Labour and UKIP leadership elections, and was used for the recent Conservative process. I see no need for a change here. Bondegezou (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou (talk It will be interesting to see what others think. I think you are missing the point that a title and a lead defining critieria will keep the Article short and importantly the import of the list will be balanced. It is noticeable that Candidates do not have massively long lists obn their own web sites this is because as I have previously said no politician running for office wishes to appear absurd. The methodology in the Labour article is quite different there is a seperate article for endorsements, that is clearly unnecessary for the green party. For the UKIP election the quality of that article is I think quite poor and needs some hard work to bring it up to snuff. With respect to the policy for this Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums colection of articles I do not see that the policy as set out above regarding llists, Leads and critieria offends Wikipedia policy, in fact far from it applying common sense as advised very often in Wikipedia policy the Article is rather more informative and balanced than it was previously. I am confident that with Andrew Willaims return and the contributions of others we can improves things further perhaps some UKIP editors will take inspiration and put in the work required to improve things with their article as well. RogerGLewis (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding Lists and self verified sources and also not using wikipedia itself as a source. These Points all from Wikipedia articles suggest that the Original criteria regarding notability for endorsement lists falls foul of Wikipedia Policy and is also weak in foundational first order Logic. Please Consider these extracts.

Wikipedia and sources that mirror or use it Policy shortcuts: WP:CIRC, WP:CIRCULAR, WP:REFLOOP, WP:CIRCULAR See also: WP:COPYWITHIN and Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources. Also, do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources. Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.[10] (There is also a risk of circular reference/circular reporting when using a Wikipedia article or derivative work as a source.) An exception is allowed when Wikipedia itself is being discussed in the article, which may cite an article, guideline, discussion, statistic, or other content from Wikipedia (or a sister project) to support a statement about Wikipedia. Wikipedia or the sister project is a primary source in this case, and may be used following the policy for primary sources. Any such use should avoid original research, undue emphasis on Wikipedia's role or views, and inappropriate self-reference. The article text should make it clear that the material is sourced from Wikipedia so the reader is made aware of the potential bias. Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves. WP:SELFSOURCE Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as the following criteria are met: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities). It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject. There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. The article is not based primarily on such sources. These requirements also apply to pages from social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. Statements of opinion. WP:RSOPINION Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a blog-style format for some or all of their content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format. There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source. Using search engines The single most useful search engine tool may be the use of quotation marks to find an exact match for a phrase. However, a search engine such as Google has both an easy, and an advanced search with further search options. The advanced search makes it easier to enter advanced options, that may help your searching. The following collapsible sections cover basic examples and help for using search engines with Wikipedia Interpreting results WP:HITSA raw hit count should never be relied upon to prove notability. Attention should instead be paid to what (the books, news articles, scholarly articles, and web pages) is found, and whether they actually do demonstrate notability or non-notability, case by case. Hit counts have always been, and very likely always will remain, an extremely erroneous tool for measuring notability, and should not be considered either definitive or conclusive. A manageable sample of results found should be opened individually and read, to actually verify their relevance. Other useful considerations in interpreting results are: Article scope: If narrow, fewer references are required. Try to categorize the point of view, whether it is NPOV, or other; e.g., notice the difference between Ontology and Ontology (computer science). Article subject: If it's about some historical person, one or two mentions in reliable texts might be enough; if it's some Internet neologism or a pop song, it may be on 700 pages and might still not be considered 'existing' enough to show any notability, for Wikipedia's purposes. Ontology and language[edit] Hirsch interprets Hilary Putnam as asserting that different concepts of "the existence of something" can be correct.[22] This position does not contradict the view that some things do exist, but points out that different 'languages' will have different rules about assigning this property.[22][23] How to determine the 'fitness' of a 'language' to the world then becomes a subject for investigation. Ontology and human geography In human geography there are two types of ontology: small "o" which accounts for the practical orientation, describing functions of being a part of the group, thought to oversimplify and ignore key activities. The other "o", or big "O", systematically, logically, and rationally describes the essential characteristics and universal traits. This concept relates closely to Plato's view that the human mind can only perceive a bigger world if they continue to live within the confines of their "caves". However, in spite of the differences, ontology relies on the symbolic agreements among members. That said, ontology is crucial for the axiomatic language frameworks.[24] Reality and actuality: According to A.N. Whitehead, for ontology, it is useful to distinguish the terms 'reality' and 'actuality'. Causation between actual entities is essential to their actuality. Consequently, for Whitehead, each actual entity has its distinct and definite extension in physical Minkowski space, and so is uniquely identifiable. A description in Minkowski space supports descriptions in time and space for particular observers. It is part of the aim of the philosophy of such an ontology as Whitehead's that the actual entities should be all alike, qua actual entities; they should all satisfy a single definite set of well stated ontological criteria of actuality. Ontology (information science) In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal naming and definition of the types, properties, and interrelationships of the entities that really or fundamentally exist for a particular domain of discourse. It is thus a practical application of philosophical ontology, with a taxonomy.An ontology compartmentalizes the variables needed for some set of computations and establishes the relationships between them.[1][2] Components Common components of ontologies include: Individuals: instances or objects (the basic or "ground level" objects) Classes: sets, collections, concepts, classes in programming, types of objects, or kinds of things. Attributes: aspects, properties, features, characteristics, or parameters that objects (and classes) can have, Relations: ways in which classes and individuals can be related to one another RogerGLewis (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

COI concerns. regarding Bondegezou
Bondegezou would you care to comment on whether you are a member of a political party, and have you ever stood for election for any political party WP:COI. would it be proper to edit on relevant party matters and further to participate in the article of a rival party if you had indeed sought public office for and are a current or former member of a rival political party? Please draw any potential conflict of interest to the appropriate authorities. I am happy to leave this question here, thank you. 06:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)RogerGLewis (talk)
 * I am a member of the Liberal Democrats and have in the past stood for election at a local level, although I never came close to winning. Bondegezou (talk) 06:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou how would you like to proceed with the complaint I wish to make regarding a clear conflict of interest? edit warring or sock puppetry WP:COI Bbb23  (talk  talk   RogerGLewis (talk) 07:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no problem under WP:COIPOLITICAL. I've never sock'ed. Sock-puppetry is a serious allegation: what evidence are you presenting? This all appears to be a ploy to distract from the fact that you admit to having been in regular contact with David Malone over his candidacy. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Should the 'endorsements' list contain only notable endorsements?
For 'notable' take 'has article on wikipedia'. A yes/support means all non-notable endorsements of *any* candidate would be removed.

I note User:Brianhe gave support for this position in the above discussion. That's the only other person to have commented above and not here. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As proposer. Non-notable endorsements are not of encyclopedic value and add no benefit to the reader, as well as being routinely excluded to prevent article bloat, possibility of undue weight etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support As proposed. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  13:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support as previously. Bondegezou (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like a sensible suggestion otherwise the lists could be almost endless. However, I think it should also be made clear that the list is not exhaustive. Number   5  7  12:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Edit request
Due to an ongoing dispute (see Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents), I am holding off myself from editing this article and would like to request the following edit be made to the "Endorsements" section of the article:


 * Replace the opening line with the following sentence: "Significant endorsements are listed below. The candidates have noted additional endorsements." (As per User:Number 57's suggestion.)
 * Remove the COI tag.
 * Retain only endorsements by people with Wikipedia articles themselves, or who are also candidates (so deputy leader candidates supporting leader candidates & vice versa). That means, delete the following:
 * for Jonathan Bartley/Caroline Lucas: remove Elise Benjamin
 * for David Williams: remove Pritam Singh, Mark Hollinrake, Craig Simmons and Sam Coates
 * for David Malone: remove all, and thus the section
 * for Andrew Cooper: remove Alison Teal and Councillor Magid
 * for Amelia Womack: remove Maggie Chapman and Tina Louise Rothery
 * for Shahrar Ali: remove Pippa Bartolotti, Dan Lee and Tina Louise Rothery
 * for Störm Poorun: remove Thomas Tibbits and Andrea Carey Fuller
 * for Alan Borgars: remove all, and thus the section

This approach has been discussed at length. It follows standard practice on other election articles and WP:CSC. Five favour this change (inc. me), as detailed above. One opposes the change, as discussed below. User:Only in death, you started this section: would you care to proceed? Or anyone else? Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Generally in these situations (where there has been vocal opposition) I prefer to give it at least 7 days to prevent accusations of 'speedily closing' 'not enough time' etc. I doubt there will be much change, but for a 'snow' close you usually need at least 10 editors all voting in one direction. (This isnt a policy, just common practice) Assuming after 7 days I would close it myself if the situation was the same as now - clear consensus etc. If it was unclear, I would ping someone uninvolved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Per my comment below I think it is time to implement this. I agree largely with your general rules of thumb, but in this case I feel this discussion, and its precursors above do demonstrate a consensus, and that this is basically a case of filibustering, which has become, by now, damaging. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support for now with the proviso of a ongoing discussion to seek a consensus in line with wikipedia policy. As there is not another Green Party election of a leader for two years I am concerned that the article will be better balanced but accept that at this point consensus is against my position and I accept it will take several weeks to re present my case which I am happy to do. thank you gentlemen ( and ladies if there are any.) RogerGLewis (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Given User:RogerGLewis's new position -- thanks for that -- and that he has deleted the non-notable endorsements for Malone, I will make the other changes as above for consistency. If opinions change following RogerGLewis's re-presentation of a case, I am of course happy to accept any new consensus that emerges. Bondegezou (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The opening sentence I've used for the Endorsements section, I'm not very happy with how I worded it. I gather from the edit history that User:RogerGLewis isn't either. User:Number 57: this was kinda your idea -- any better wording come to your mind? Or anyone else? Bondegezou (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * talk Bondegezou The lead in does not fairly describe the list and the qualification threshold. ´´The other candidates have noted additional endorsements that do not have wikipedia articles.'' remains my simple sugggestion for now. I have some timne this nex week and will makes some further suggestions on this in due course. RogerGLewis (talk) 07:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * To make a somewhat tangential suggestion, should we not have an external links section with links to each candidate's campaign's online presence? That, then, would also act as a pointer to candidates' less notable endorsements. Bondegezou (talk) 07:39, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou (talk) I think an external link to all candidates endorsement claims is a good idea Support. RogerGLewis (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Could you please explain what this process is? Can we also look at the framing of the question for context and allow a sensible period of time in which the arguments can be considered fully. The article will stand for many years at the end of this process and the matter should be afforded due consideration by the community, who has a vote, is it a vote?.RogerGLewis (talk) 11:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Second Proposal.(Draft) Wikipedia policy has this to say on lists. common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list. Avoid red-linking list entries that are not likely to have their own article soon or ever. WP:LSC WP:LISTCRITERIA. Instead, the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list. Best practice is usually to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent, etc. in the title of a list article. Similarly, avoid titles like List of all Xs WP:LISTNAME,  WP:NCLIST , WP:NCSAL The proposal should therfore be the following alternative. Title . ´Leadership Endorsements´  Lead in . ´All endorsements are as noted by candidates in their campaign materials or social media sites´. . RogerGLewis (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I support this second proposal on the following grounds. If Lists and references inside Wikipedia articles are limited to mentioning that which also has a Wikpiedia article. That would be absurd in many cases, and would defeat the point of not having articles for everything - for example each variety of a species, or each member of a famous band. The possibility of endorsement bloat is demonstrably limited and the better balanced criteria result in a better article. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Each variety of a species or each member of a famous band are clearly limited lists that can be comprehensively covered in a short space. The endorsers that I and others consider not notable that are currently listed in this article includes councillors, local party chairs and general election candidates. The Green Party has 165 councillors. Presumably there is one party chair per constituency and one general election candidate per constituency, so that makes 573(?) party chairs and an overlapping 573 general election candidates. Depending on precisely how overlapping those sets are, we're talking at least 600-1000 people who could be listed. That does not appear practical to me, nor to accord with WP:DUE. Bondegezou (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou I see your point and do not disagree with it completely, you are forgetting that not all councillors will declare an endorsement and candidates and readers alike all have their own ranking metric some broadly similar others quite unusual I am sure. A simple solution is to define those with Wikipedia articles special in some way, the ability to highlight an endorsement linking to a wikipedia article does badge them as distinguished by the fact they are highlighted and clickable, Gold tickets for the Chocalate factory in a way and I presume candidates with commonal garden types of endorsements or parochial ones will not wish to highlight that their support base is un-distinguished in Wikipedia terms at least ( some candidates in the green party emphasise their grass roots support and it should be their choice not ours. It is not the job of the encyclopedia though to impose value judgements on catagories. hence the advice to avoid words like notable, famous, noted, prominent. Common sense is also cautioned and where a list is obviously puffed up it would be much easier to challenge by consensus editing than the present prosed and customary regime set out as option 1. another solution might be to allow unlimited numbers of your definition: 'notable' take 'has article on wikipedia',but limit un noteable by that definition to say 3 4 or 8 choices(less than ten at least 1 ). I would be interested on your views in this regard. As there have not been 1000 endorsement reversals in the edit history it also suggests that whilst emphasising an absurd extreme which stresses the point for argumentation it is not,I am sure you agree, likely conduct in a serious Political contest. Look forward to discussing further. RogerGLewis (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is entirely the role of a Wikipedia article to decide what is notable enough to be covered in a Wikipedia article.
 * You bring up consensus. Consensus is and has for some days been clearly for option 1: an endorsement is notable if by someone with their own Wikipedia article. It's an approach that has proven to be workable time again on multiple articles. It remains the case that no-one agrees with your alternatives. You're not going to win every argument you have on Wikipedia: if you can't accept that, Wikipedia editing's not for you. Bondegezou (talk) 16:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou (talk Consensus is about reaching common ground and listening to points of view one disagrees with, your claim of consensus does not fit with my understanding of the definition of the word. noun a general agreement."there is a growing consensus that the current regime has failed"
 * synonyms:agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity, concert
 * Reaching Consent is a broader process than what has happened here and the process we are engaging in now is what can lead to consensus which is an emergent quality of accord not a kangarroo court shot gun judgement. WP:CON WP:CONS The goal of a consensus-building discussion is to resolve disputes in a way that reflects Wikipedia's goals and policies while angering as few contributors as possible. Contributors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others.RogerGLewis (talk) 18:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

User:RogerGLewis, you've made your case, at length. I and others have listened to the points raised. We've allowed time for discussion. No-one has agreed with you. Several times, other editors have reviewed the situation and agreed that non-notable endorsements should be removed. Most recently, User:Only in death is very clear about that above. User:Number 57 has also supported my position. We have followed an appropriate process and all except you are happy with the common practice of only listing endorsing individuals who are notable in themselves, as assessed by possessing a Wikipedia article.

Do you, therefore, accept a decision to remove non-notable endorsements? Bondegezou (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou For there to be a proper consultation to claim a consensus I do not think there has been sufficient time for a quorate and meaningfull number of contributions. User:Number 57 explained that more people might have participated if the comments had been shorter (and the well left un poisened as it were). As I am not as experienced as you are yourself in wikipedia arcania, the presentation of the arguments should be re cast. I think if we can do a virtual hand shake, drop or withdraw accusations of COI and leave a period of say 10 days, during which we both agree to accept the consensus which emerges by the end of that time, I will be happy to admit that a consensus has emerged what ever that consensus proves to be. The section on the talk page you started as it stands is I think very good . Is it possible to put a poll on it so that any editor could add their vote anonomously? RogerGLewis (talk) 13:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It's been >5 days since we started this debate. Requests for input have gone to multiple places (WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, COIN, ANI, user Talk pages). Multiple editors have waded in: User:Begoon is the latest, above. No-one has backed your position. The same debate's happened multiple times on other election articles and, every time I've seen it, has come to the same conclusion. Thus, I am personally reluctant to delay enacting the current WP:CONSENSUS for an additional process that is unlikely to draw in significant further views. I say that particularly because in 10 days' time, the election will be over and the WP:UNDUE and non-neutral coverage of certain candidates will have 'done its job'.
 * WP:CONSENSUS states: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process."
 * I recognise that you still have a different view of what endorsements to cover. A common approach is to err on the side of omitting contentious material, so let's do that. Take out the non-notable endorsements for now. You can go on arguing here for your desired approach. WP:CONSENSUS can change. If it did, I would respect that.
 * As for voting, see WP:NOTVOTE. Wikipedia does not use polls with anonymous voting, but individuals can of course edit Wikipedia anonymously.
 * I accept User:Bbb23's assessment at WP:ANI that you do not have a COI. I recognise you have made useful inputs. It would be appreciated if you withdrew all your accusations against me -- the accusations that I have violated WP:COI, sock-puppeted, vandalised, been "trolling" -- and repudiated all legal threats and plans to "advise" the Green Party or UKIP of my actions. It would also be beneficial if you did not cast aspersions on the process here (like calling it a "kangarroo court shot gun judgement" yesterday) or on other editors (e.g., "The source of the Barltey / Lucas Endorsements is from an untraceable IP adress account [...] How do you know that this is not Portland Communications"). I appreciate you have been making an effort to input better and understand the arcana of Wikipedia, which are many and complex. Bondegezou (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou 5 days is not any time at all to reach a consensus, my interest in the Green Party articles and not only this one is to ensure that they are balanced and reflect The green party politically and the political landscape in which it sits. A consensus process is a very green thing, it is also a common critisism of the Swedish way of doing things, I have lived here for 6 years now and I am still not fully used to the Swedish approach and philosophy of Lagom. With respect to timetables, 5 days is simply not enough time to claim consensus, and the definition of non-noteable is contentious and as I have argued actually contrary to wikipedia policy, noteable is a term to be avoided as far as lists goes.I think we should follow the Wiki guidlines for building consensus WP:WHATISCONSENSUS and prepare a very neutral set of options based on the two we already have and a third way between the two or if you feel able a joint single compromise criteria ammending, quote,The current WP:CONSENSUS un-quote, I put this in quotes as we clearly differ on what constitutes a consensus. There is not another Green Party Leadership election until 2018 and this article will be referred to then.I have referred to all of the previous ones and suspect that many others have also done so. For the article to be informative getting this notability question nailed is very important for a balanced view of this contest and others before, this as Bbb23 says is the First and foremost, the issue of who should be listed as an endorser should be resolved.Please accept that this post withdraws un reservedly all accusations against you, That other editors were aware of your political affiliations and did not mind is good enough for me.I have not made any Legal threats, the opinions of others is not in my gift although I expect the assurances of the other editors would be enough to set even the most suspicious of minds at rest. User:Number 57 ´´There is no COI on the UKIP page – as you've already been told by other editors, being a member of a party is not a conflict of interest when it comes to editing other parties' articles. As it so happens, I am a Green Party member and I wholly agree with Bondegezou's efforts to try and sort out your edits to the Green Party leadership election page, is very persuasive. As you accept I have no COI and also as other editors have also come to the same conclusion ´´WP:UNDUE and non-neutral coverage of certain candidates will have 'done its job'. is not an issue that need trouble anyone any further and I will not address that here for that reason. As there is no consensus and there has not been a consensus process I think perhaps we should try the process as suggested but for the sake of compromise I would be happy to accept a period of 7 days, from when the new questions are framed and presented, without the well having been poisened.RogerGLewis (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Both RogerGLewis and I have referenced you in the above discussion. It would be of benefit if you could clarify your views on this matter here or in the sub-section just before this one. Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Bondegezou talk Hi, could you help me post the appropriate neutral message for 'Requests for input' from those participating in this discussion, they may be able to illuminate our discussion and are clearly searching their own consensus. If you take a look their disagreement it seems fairly analogous to what your position is and what my position is.Adding ways to assess Systemic Bias to WP:N RogerGLewis (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Those participating in this discussion are already participating: we don't need to request their input when they've already given it. If I look at what other people in this discussion are saying, they're not searching for their own consensus: we've got a consensus. At some point, you're going to have to recognise that you're out of step with everyone else!
 * WP:CANVASS has advice on how to attract greater input, but we've largely followed it so far, e.g. we've contacted the obvious project page. Bondegezou (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Bondegezou talk We do not agree on what a consensus is or how long the process shoould last. I am keen to seek wider input and perhaps what would be helpful is this. I propose that we delete the endorsements section of the article completely as it stands for a period of 14 days I have no objection to any editor deleting the section completely as of now. I suggest we get an admin to collapse all discussion on this page save this section. We should then post in all the relevant discussion project talk pages related to lists, noteability, NPOV, article deletion, section deletion and false consensus. AFter the period of two weeks we can then assess all input and see if there is indeed a consensus if there is not we will re -add the section for a period of two weeks and try the consensus process for a further two weeks. If at the end of two rounds of seeking a consensus non emerges we should seek a compromise or leave the list off all together. As long all candidates are treated equally I have no obejection to an endorsements section being on the article or not. The section itself is I think of limited encyclopedic value, lack of balance makes it non encyclopedic.RogerGLewis (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No, that would be silly. Endorsements are a standard part of election articles. I see no rationale for removing the list entirely.
 * Consensus in the sense used here is defined by the community at WP:CONSENSUS and through related practice. It is not for us to re-interpret what it means. If you really want, you can go to Wikipedia talk:Consensus and seek a change in that policy there.
 * We have an ongoing process to discuss this article's content immediately above. There is no need to re-start that.
 * Collapsing all prior Talk page discussion is unnecessary and would go against WP:TALK. If you wish to collapse specific sections that strayed from discussing the article content, that would be sensible: I suggest you talk to an admin about that. If you wish to re-state your arguments more succinctly, or present new arguments, you can do so in the section immediately above.
 * Posting to "all" project pages related to "lists, noteability, NPOV, article deletion, section deletion and false consensus" would not be welcomed by the community. When WP:CANVASS talks of posting to relevant project pages, it means those that are directly relevant to the article at hand, not general policy forums. By all means, seek out further project pages that are relevant and ask for input in a neutral manner, e.g. as at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums. If you have general issues with how Wikipedia works, you can discuss those at the relevant project pages.
 * The proposal to remove all non-notable endorsements does treat the candidates equally. It's one rule for everyone. Bondegezou (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's really time that this was just implemented. The WP:CONSENSUS process is well defined and attempting to litigate it here is not productive. We have one editor endlessly attempting to wikilawyer and filibustering, and nobody else who agrees. As quoted above:WP:CONSENSUS states: "Editors who refuse to allow any consensus except the one they insist on, and who filibuster indefinitely to attain that goal, risk damaging the consensus process.". Time to implement this and move on. Far too much time has been wasted. Any more would become seriously disruptive, imo., you have had your say, practically a short novel's worth. Other editors have been patient, but nobody agrees with you. Enough, I think. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  10:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence to support your comment Begoon. I have made several good faith suggestions at compromise and the consensus process in wikipedia is well defined. I will draftsomething neutral to be posted as suggested above and post it. If either of you wish to delete the whole endorsements section for now I am happy for this to be done as I describe above. RogerGLewis (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Roger, I stand by my opinions about the way this discussion has progressed, and I do think you need to become much more concise in future. I do thank you, however, for accepting the current consensus above. That was a positive thing to do. -- Begoon &thinsp; talk  15:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I accept that you stand by your own opinions and respect your right and anyone elses to do so. Later interjections including yours have been most helpful I do differ of course and have changed the lead following bold editing advice in the wikipedia policies. removing the word significant is I think the minimum that is necessary I) hope it can stand.RogerGLewis (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see my ammendment has already be reverted, just to note that Titles and lead ins need some work and I will not revert but make my arguments in a new section in due course. Thanks to all RogerGLewis (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Candidates' campaign websites
As per discussion above, I've added an external links section with links to the candidates' official sites. Buuuuuuuuuuut I've only added 3 that I've found so far. Please join in and add more. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Infoboxes
With the election results, the infoboxes have become rather large. Is there something we can do to make them more manageable? Bondegezou (talk) 20:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I've been thinking this myself, but didn't want to make a big decision without discussion as am rather new around here. As there are a lot of candidates, many without Wikipedia pictures, it looks a little unwieldy. It also seems strange to include all the leadership candidates in the infobox, given that only two got above 5% of the vote, as well as all the Deputy candidates given that only three made it into the final round.

There's not much precedent, but I would propose we include the top three in each ballot in each infobox. FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * On Parliamentary by-election articles, we only include those candidates getting 5% or more, and general election infoboxes only include the major parties, so there is precedent for not including every candidate in an infobox. That said, in leadership contests, we have tended to include everyone. With the leadership election, Bartley/Lucas were so far ahead of everyone else, there's not much point including any other candidate, but that would be a slightly odd infobox!
 * I have a suggestion. Drop the deputy leadership box. The focus of the article is on the leadership. The full deputy results are covered in the text. There is no need to repeat the information at the top in this bulky manner.
 * Another approach is to switch to an infobox format that doesn't use pictures, given we have so few pictures! These are much more compact. Something like here: Dutch general election, 2012. Bondegezou (talk) 08:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Very sensible suggestion, I would agree. As long as no-one objects I shall remove the Deputy box.FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I am happy to drop the deputy infobox, but I'm split about the leadership infobox. Someone has removed all but the top two candidates, which gives the false impression only two candidates contested the election. The leadership infobox should include all the candidates. However, the images are included elsewhere, so I would be happy for a more minimalist infobox style, such as the one Bondegezou referred to, to be included instead.Andrewdwilliams (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I removed all but those who won above 5%, using Bondegezou's precedent of parliamentary by-elections, while adding a clarification in the summary that 5 other candidates contested the ballot. I would assume the purpose of the infobox is to give a summary of the results, and including candidates who received 0.7% of the vote seems redundant to that purpose. I would be happy to include the top 3 candidates instead? It just seems unnecessary to me to include *every* candidate when some barely registered. As Bondegezou points out, in general election articles we don't include parties that won 0.7% of the vote, even if they won seats - it doesn't contribute to the information the reader is looking for, which is who won and by how much.
 * I think it's also worth pointing out that Bartley/Lucas and Malone between them recieved a combined 92% of the vote - including David Williams would bring this up to a total of 95%. I can see an argument for including everyone who came above 're-open nominations'? FriendlyDataNerd (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a strong view here, but I think the current solution with the candidates scoring over 5% tells the story fine. Bondegezou (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161021094410/http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/ers-quiz-green-party-leadership-candidates-democratic-reform to http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/blog/ers-quiz-green-party-leadership-candidates-democratic-reform

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Deputy leadership election infobox
Hi. There's a consensus above to exclude the infobox for the deputy leadership election, as well as the argument in favour of including candidates above a 5% threshold. Consensus is preferable to precedent. I've started a discussion on the topic of inclusion of a deputy leadership infobox on the current election's Talk page, and I'd appreciate your input there.

It wouldn't be helpful to have the same discussion in two places at the same time, so I don't think it's worth discussing the inclusion of the deputy leadership election here, though I would like to discuss the inclusion criteria for candidates in the leadership infobox. Per the discussion above and common practice in other party leadership elections, I think including candidates who receive more than 5% of the vote only is the most appropriate way to keep the infobox easy-to-read and fulfil its purpose of conveying the key information from the article. Ralbegen (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The 5% threshold is fair enough but their needs to be a deputy leadership election box as it's a separate election and often more hotly contested. Maybe if it was separated from the leadership box it would make the page easier to follow whilst keeping all the important information?
 * I've implemented the 5% threshold now, thanks. I'm not sure what the deputy leadership adds to the article that isn't covered by the Candidates section or the Results summary section, whereas it does create clutter. Ralbegen (talk) 08:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I fail to see any sensible reason for the addition of a second infobox. It looks terrible on he page. It adds nothing. It's not the focus of the article. Claims that it is more "hotly contested" are irrelevant: we focus on what reliable sources focus on, as per WP:BALANCE. Bondegezou (talk) 12:32, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Shahrai Ali.jpeg