Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements

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

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


 * I am indeed running again ;-) I've been a little busy since my ceiling fell in ... - David Gerard 20:38, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Candidates' debate?
The idea was recently pitched on IRC as to having a debate between the candidates running (if we can think of questions). Thoughts? -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:42, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)
 * Given the number of candidates, and the fact that some people are good at IRC while others might be wholly new to it, I think it's a recipe for chaos and unfairness, personally. The concept is neat, but I don't see that a real time debate has any advantages over asking a question of candidates here and waiting for their responses.  I know we have editors here who have medical conditions that affect how quickly they can type, etc. -- while of course I don't know if any of the candidates are in that position, I think it's being a little too intrusive if we force a candidate to reveal that they have a disability which would make IRC unfeasible.  Maybe I'm being over sensitive, but I think it's an important consideration.  That's just my two cents, Jwrosenzweig 03:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it sounds like a brilliant idea.  Andre  ( talk )A| 02:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

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

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

Ta bu
Ta bu - don't get me wrong, I like you and I know that you're a great user - but are you sure it's the best of ideas to run for a seat on the AC whilst involved in an Arbitration case? BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 16:59, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * He'd simply have to recuse himself from that case if elected, that's all. He's certainly not the only candidate involved in a case. --Michael Snow 18:50, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Mmm... if others think I should, I'll do this. My only concern is that I won't be allowed to participate in Arbitration cases if I become part of the ArcCom. (Obviously I would recuse myself from the Arbs where I am personally involved). - Ta bu shi da yu 20:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Several current members of the AC, myself included, are parties to cases presently in arbitration. In some cases, it is clear that the arbiter is not one of the parties at fault -- they're involved in bringing someone to justice.  In some cases, it is perhaps less clear.  Regardless, though, I don't think it should prevent anyone from running.  I think, in the interests of fairness and honesty, a candidate involved in arbitration (or in past arbitration requests) should make it known, if not also provide links to the cases in question.  I don't think it should be demanded of anyone, though. Jwrosenzweig 20:49, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that's fair enough. Done. - Ta bu shi da yu 21:35, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well I'm cool with that - I just wanted to raise the issue, see what people thought about it... BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 06:00, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I should emphasize that the current members who are running (myself and James) cannot comment on pending cases. And to potential arbitrators - if you comment on them, you open yourselves up to charges of bias and may have to recuse yourselves. →Raul654 06:34, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Are you referring to this Candidacy, or are you referring to the arbitration itself? - Ta bu shi da yu 06:57, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm saying that candidates should refrain from commenting on pending cases which (if elected) they would be expected to participate in. →Raul654 08:02, Nov 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Cool, I thought that's what you meant. Just thought I'd clarify :) Ta bu shi da yu 08:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Interesting, thanks for the head's up, Raul. Should I be elected, I intend on recusing myself from the only current case I mentioned in my statement anyway, so no harm done, I guess. Johnleemk | Talk 09:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reithy's statement
I'm going to tread very lightly when I say this, because I don't want to be seen as sabotaging another person's "campaign" (so to speak). However, I believe Reithy's statement here violates the arbcom injunction against him - "Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case [and their own user and user talk pages].". →Raul654 07:11, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm sure Reithy's figured that out; that's why he's doing it. Just DNFTT, or grant a retroactive exemption if you feel you must. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 07:20, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wow. His entire statement is a joke. Too bad one of us cabal members can't just remove it. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 08:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm totally speechless. I'm pretty sure this is against his temporary injunction, though. Johnleemk | Talk 08:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Blankfaze please withdraw/remove your attack on my candidacy for ArbCom. I am entitled to run just like anyone else. I am not editing pages other than those directly related to ArbCom and my own pages. Any failure to remove your attack will result in arbitration. Reithy 11:03, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Reithy, do your worst mate, do your worst. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:24, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Both Reithy and Chuck F and any sockpuppets are to edit only on their respective arbcom case [and their own user and user talk pages]." Johnleemk | Talk 13:29, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--                      /|  /|  |                          |                       ||__||  |       Please don't       | /  O O\__            feed          | /         \       the trolls        | /     \     \                        |                   /   _    \     \ --                  /    |\____\     \     ||                 /     | | | |\____/     ||                /       \|_|_|/   |    __||               /  /  \            |____| ||              /   |   | /|        |      --|              |   |   |//         |____  --|       * _    |  |_|_|_|          |     \-/    *-- _--\ _ \     //           |      /  _     \\ _ //   |        /    *  /   \_ /- | -     |       |      *      ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________

Ohmigosh, that is just too funny! - Ta bu shi da yu 12:25, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have removed Reithy's statement because it was not made in good faith, and runs counter to community norms on several counts that I do not believe I need to enumerate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:35, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You removed Neutrality's statement, by accident I presume. I'd go ahead and remove Reithy, except I think it would look bad for one candidate to do that to another. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 00:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * UC has fixed the problem, as far as I can see. I just want to note that, as an arbitrator and a non-candidate (so perhaps I am freer to speak than Raul), it is very clear to me that our injunction against Reithy prohibits his editing on this page -- an injunction is only used in the more extreme cases (or ought to be, at least), and it is therefore important that it be followed to the letter.  If Reithy adds his statement back as a candidate, I believe very strongly that anyone removing it is acting in accordance with the AC's ruling (although I certainly understand why candidates might feel it a little improper to do the removing themselves). Jwrosenzweig 01:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My two cents: The injunction... Under the wording there, I think that means he is not allowed to edit here, but if he does anyway, that does not necessarily merit a revert on sight. That said, his candidacy is misguided and will not succeed. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * says he can't edit anywhere but (his arbcom case, his user talk page, his user page).
 * says that edits in the main space should be reverted on sight


 * Well, at least it was funny. I certainly laughed. Jayjg 03:52, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The injunction is a temporary injunction. In general, it's reasonable for the ArbCom to decide to deal with an immediate problem by issuing a temporary injunction even before all the evidence has been received and considered. (If all evidence had been received and considered, the committee could issue its permanent decision.) In fact, the ArbCom should, to borrow a phrase, be bold in doing so. Nevertheless, such a temporary measure is more likely to be erroneous, because it hasn't received full consideration. Therefore, it shouldn't be given effect beyond what's necessary to achieve its purpose. An election for ArbCom shouldn't be affected by the mere coincidence that a temporary injunction happens to overlap with the election period. The ArbCom should modify its injunction to allow Reithy's candidacy. I have no opinon about the merits of this specific arbitration proceeding, but I'll suggest that change at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reithy. JamesMLane 18:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Advice sought
Does my right to remove personal attacks (or at least strike them through) extend to comments in a candidate statement? I think the derogatory statements one candidate has made towards the French people shouldn't appear here, but I don't want to be seen as tampering with an election. Jwrosenzweig 15:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The statement exceeds the stated length slightly. Probably 15 or so words should be struck through at random. Might start making more sense. Charles Matthews 15:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it should stand, as it would advise voters whether or not to vote for this candidate. Additionally, it's not a personal attack, but rather a general attack, as it deals with a nation rather than a specific person. Although, I can't imagine anyone would support the candidate based on his very election premise. However, on principle, I don't think the attack should be removed. The candidate's arbitration ban on editing pages that aren't talk or relating to his case, however, is another matter.  Andre  ( talk )A| 15:54, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it is very important that it stands, if his participation in this election isn't istself a violation of policy, which it likely is. Maybe if the arbitration committee wasn't so unbearably slow, he'd be handled by now? ;) [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 17:03, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Let it stand. No election is complete without extremists, after all. :D -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:01, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * First, before making my comments, I must declare an interest, namely that I have put myself forward as a Candidate.


 * Second, my comment. Candidates should be free to state whatever they like (subject to making libellous statements), but they must accept that if elected they would be open to scrutiny. It is only reasonable to expect them to maintain professional standards at all times. The statement that is being referred to would therefore naturally mean that, if elected, that candidate would have to remove himself from any case where one of the parties is French as that candidate would not otherwise have the appearance of being independent and objective. No doubt voters will, amongst other considerations, consider whether that is an undue impediment to that candidate being an Arbitor.


 * In the interests of balance, it is only fair to give another example. Grunt himself has stated on his own talk page that he is "anti-American". If elected, Grunt would have to remove himself from any case where one of the parties is American, as he would not be able to have the appearance of being independent and objective. No doubt voters will also consider whether that is an undue impediment to Grunt being an Arbitor.


 * I am sure voters will have many reasons for voting the way they do, and no doubt whether any Candidate can assess cases independently and objectively will be amongst the considerations of many voters. jguk 20:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To members of the growing Vote 4 Reithy and Cop 10 Bucks Army, you see above the reason why my election to ArbCom would be so sweet. Look at them, they are beside themselves! So far:


 * They have challenged my right to participate
 * They have wanted to edit or strikethrough my candidate's remarks
 * They have said being anti-American is OK but being anti-French is an international incident
 * They have called me an extremist
 * They have called me a troll


 * To those already indicating support to my email reithy at walla.com, thank you. Together we can show the cabal the door, put cheese-eating surrender monkeys in the gutter and get Wikipedia on the right track. Remember, to close the French version of Wikipedia and to ban the the French from the Internet, Vote Reithy For A French Free Wikipedia Reithy 21:28, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * Dude... are you on some kind of medication??? You are called an extremist and a troll because these are self-evident traits of yours. "Ban the French from the Internet"? How is this not pure and uncontested trollism? Do you really want to get a lot of votes? Run on a platform of "Banning Reithy from the Internet". <tt>func</tt><tt>(talk)</tt> 21:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Dude back at ya, I will carefully consider your suggested campaign tactic, although from the many emails supporting Reithy's Ban France Plan I think it might enjoy more support than you think. As for trollism, I'd say that's very much in the eye of the beholder. Some might think clogging up a Talk page on candidates with the sort of nasty Cabal talk posted here might qualify as Trollism. Look in the mirror func and see if you like what you see. HOW Green with envy will you be if Reithy the troll, the loser, the extremist is elected to ArbCom??? Reithy 22:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I for one will point out that I am not opposing your right to run in this election. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:33, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * For the record - yes, I have stated I am anti-American. This does not mean that I am opposed to any individual American; indeed, I have worked quite peacefully with many American editors without so much as a hint of bias. If I feel that this will become an issue, or someone else believes that this will become an issue, then, yes, I will recuse myself in questionable cases. I don't hold one's nation against one unless they insist on jamming it down other people's throats with the utmost contempt - and the American editors I've seen on the 'pedia do not tend to do this. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:32, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * I think Reithy's candidate statement should stand, I like it. :-) --Conti|✉ 22:42, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

Well, in my country, we try to deal with some candidates by not trying to deal with them. Except by requiring a deposit, of course. Charles Matthews 22:44, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Word count
why are so many people violating this? Not to single him out, but I just saw blankfaze has near to double the allowed number of words. I havn't counted anybody else, but I'm sure he's not alone. I think these should be voluntarilly reduced, or removed to user talk pages. [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004|Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter!]] 23:17, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * First I declare an interest as I have put myself forward as a candidate.


 * Second, may I suggest that where a candidate has exceeded a word count that his statement is cut off at 250 words with the statement "remainder of statement removed as it exceeded the 250 word limit" (or similar)? And that where this happens a note is posted to that Candidate's user page so the Candidate has an opportunity to amend their statement so that it complies with the 250 word limit. jguk 23:28, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't count my words, I just eyeballed it and saw it was shorter than some other peoples. Perhaps that was a poor method of judging length in retrospect. I'll rework my statement when I get the chance since it appears I'm somewhat over. Shane King 00:40, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I cut'n'pasted mine into Word (as text) and did a word count, then cut bits out until it fit again - David Gerard 01:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, Sam, didn't mean to break the rules, I just started off and it ended up kind-of long... If anyone really objects I guess I could trim it down. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:07, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Firstly I didn't mean to make an example of you, you just happen to be near the top, and so the one I counted. I would like you to trim it to within the limits, or move it to your talk page, for one reason. The voters likely (hopefully!) want to be informed, and I don't want them feeling overwhelmed. I think 250 words is reasonable, and still alot to expect if they are going to review each and every one of us. I feel that if we are well over the guideline, many voters will failr to thoroughly review each of our platforms, which wou;ld be to the disadvantage of all. Nothing personal of course, and I do recommend moving anything important to your talk page, with a link from your platform here. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 14:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * All right, I'll give it a shot when I get home later today. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 14:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As of 20:50, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC), here are the candidate statements with word counts greater than 250 - -- Netoholic @ 20:50, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)
 * 172 - 332
 * Ambi - 284
 * blankfaze - 264
 * Cecropia - 254
 * Chuck F - 326
 * Everyking - 313
 * Johnleemk - 335
 * Merovingian - 298
 * Mirv - 258
 * Neutrality - 343
 * VeryVerily - 264


 * A mistake? Anywhere, anytime, 203 < 250, 228 < 250. --Wikimol 00:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Corrected. -- Netoholic @ 00:58, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)


 * My statement is now exactly 250 words (I didn't plan for it, but it just somehow happened) minus the signature. For other candidates who want to do an automated wordcount, you can try this. Johnleemk | Talk 06:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * A note: I counted exactly 253 words, not counting my signature or the disclaimer at top about a more lengthy statement.  I figured 253 was close enough (coz I was really tired of trimming by that point). <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 06:30, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Declaring multiple accounts
According to the Arbitration policy - "Arbitrators with multiple accounts on Wikipedia will disclose the usernames of those accounts to the rest of the Committee, and to Jimbo Wales, but are not required to disclose them publicly."

Shouldn't this requirement be fulfilled before the election begins? If someone has additional accounts, I would think they should not run without declaring those first to the current ArbCom and Jimbo. Otherwise, the community might naively vote for someone that is involved with current or past Arbitration cases. -- Netoholic @ 23:41, 2004 Nov 17 (UTC)


 * Actually, this applies to arbitrators, not candidates, so the declarations below may be premature. Very Verily 10:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * To start the ball rolling, and in the interests of openness, I will make a public declaration that I have no other accounts. I think, just before I had an account I make a handful (under 10) edits, but have otherwise edited under this account. I would urge other candidates to make similar public disclosures. jguk 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:13, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I'll declare now that I have two besides this one: User:No-One Jones, which I registered to pre-empt clever impersonators, and User:C. Podles, which I'll be switching to once my namechange request goes through. Both were already clearly identified as my accounts. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 00:36, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have more accounts than a Zurich banker. I cannot even remember all their names, nor often can I recall their passwords. Why have them? To avoid being trolled by edit war participants. I prefer to keep my contributions separate otherwise they get massacred for no good reason. I will comply with all Arbitration policies when elected to ArbCom as required by the Committee, Jimbo Wales and the Cabal(what's left of it after I'm done).Oh yes and I am involved in an Arbitration process currently. I am very familiar with the processes, the personalities and the weaknesses of the current cabalistic system. It favors those in with the cabal. It is corrupt. I am a long-term user who will stand unafraid. Only REITHY offers real change not more of the same. Vote Reithy and Get Ten Dollars Added to Your Paypal Account 00:27, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I have no other accounts, nor any intention of ever creating any. Shane King 00:43, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


 * I only have this account - David Gerard 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * This is my only account on the English Wikipedia. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:23, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * I have:
 * User:Sans sock (no contributions) used to check the site layout for a logged-in non-admin when giving help.
 * User:Misterhand43 and User:SoulblighterEric (no contributions) a preventative measure in anticipation from funnies by Onion fans
 * Baring a couple of minor anon edits (mostly to my sandbox if I recall) all my contributions are with the "sannse" account -- sannse (talk) 01:34, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Any sock-puppets that I may or may not have will, obviously, have been already declared to Jimbo and the rest of the Committee, as per protocol.
 * James F. (talk) 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have had no sockpuppets, nor additional accounts of any kind on the English Wikipedia. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 03:10, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is my only account. Very Verily 03:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is my sole account. Johnleemk | Talk 05:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is my sole account (in theory I also have User:Ambivalenthysteria from before the name change, in order to stop it being re-registered by clever impersonators, but if that isn't permanently blocked anymore, it's at least permanently inactive). Ambi 13:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I have multiple accounts. I use them to vote more than once on deletion polls and on Requests for Adminship. However, all the accounts have both their user page and user talk page redirect to my user page, and the only polls they vote on are the "joke" polls and the fake adminiships which we run on April Fools' Day. I think you can find them both using "What Links Here" from my user talk page. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 15:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is the only account I've had here. - Hephaestos|§ 01:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * My sock puppet is Netoholic... only kidding. I've got no sock puppets. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perhaps my sense of humor with you right now is not at its usual level, but unless you really have to, please don't refer to me at all. -- Netoholic @ 00:56, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)
 * I will discuss such matters with the arbitration committee and Laird Jimbo when and if I win, Re: Policy. No offense, but you guys wern't required to announce your status. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 22:34, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No other account. A family member has used an account, long ago. Charles Matthews 22:51, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I have the account Pgunn, which will disappear when the merge of its history into this account is complete, I presume (via requests for renaming, which is always long-lagged). That is the only other account I have on Wikipedia. --Improv 22:58, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sigh. Revert war on arbitration page.
Look, I don't know what the procedure is here, but do we put the votes on another page, or do we put them on the talk page?! - Ta bu shi da yu 13:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * They aren't votes, voting will be done using the Boardvote software. If people want to make endorsements, they can put them on a page in their user namespace. --Michael Snow 16:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Opinion sought on ArbCom order against Chuck F and Reithy
There is a current arbitration order against Chuck F and Reithy whereby they are not allowed to edit any page other than their ArbCom case pages and user pages. Yet Riethy tried and Chuck F succeeded in putting candidate statements on this page. Note that the ruling was made before this page was even created and with no anticipation that either would run. What I would like to know as a ArbCom member, is whether or not there is significant community support for me to draft a proposed amendment to the ruling that would allow Chuck F and Reithy to edit this page as well. If not, then to be fair, Chuck F's statement should be removed just as Reithy's was (in fact, any user could do that right now if he/she wants to). --mav 23:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't personally feel a need for allowing them to be involved here, but would not object strongly if others feel allowing them to campaign is necessary for the sake of some sort of political propriety. I think it is key that their arbitration is not controversial in nature, and no one (to my knowledge) has accused the committee of being unfair in its judgements against them. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 23:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * As noted at the arbitration order, I am reluctantly willing to allow their participation. Jwrosenzweig 23:54, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe they should both be allowed to run, but more importantly they should be treated equally. Also, their statements should both be truncated to 250 words and all personal attacks should be removed. Rhobite 00:35, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Geez, just let them post a statement and run. People seem to be wasting a helluva lot of energy over this. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * It's not that easy since there is a standing order giving anybody free hand to remove such a statement. I have therefore proposed a amended temporary order in this case at Requests_for_arbitration/Reithy/Proposed_decision (ArbCom members are the only ones who can vote there). --mav 01:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Jwrosenzweig and I discussed this point on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Reithy, and I appreciate his openness to considering my arguments. With regard to the comment above by Sam Spade, the issue isn't whether there's controversy about the ArbCom's judgments against Reithy and ChuckF.  The issue is that there are no such judgments, at least not in the sense of a final, considered decision by the committee.  A temporary injunction shouldn't affect the election process.  I haven't looked at the evidence in this particular proceeding; my suggestion was based on general principles. JamesMLane 02:25, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The intention of the injunction was to prevent Reithy and Chuck F from editing in the main namespace during their arbcom case. As such I'm recommending that the statements be allowed to stand regardless of the technicalities preventing them from doing so. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 03:24, 2004 Nov 20 (UTC)


 * I agree. It'd be kind of funny to see the final results &mdash; I can't wait to see whether it's Lir or Reithy who gets the least votes. At least Chuck F tried to be civil. Johnleemk | Talk 05:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No - totally wrong. Not only was it intended to keep them out of the main namespace, it was intended to keep them out of the talk pages, out of the wikipedia pages (like this), out of the wikipedia talk pages - all of it. That's what it specifically says "Only on their arbcom case" →Raul654 05:24, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, c'mon! There's not a hope in hell either of them will become part of the ArbCom. I agree with Netoholic, let them post here and run for arbcom. They aren't going to get in. - Ta bu shi da yu 08:32, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wonder how the Arbitrators running for re-election can seek to vote against the aforementioned temporary injunction, which attempts to lift restrictions and allow two users (Chuck F. and Reithy) to campaign. I beg to make the point that, any Arbitrator running for re-election has a conflict of interest, for his position must be theoretically improved by the exclusion of such candidates. Thus, would it not be more appropriate for the said Arbitrators to recuse themselves in this matter, to avoid even the appearance of improprieties? -- 02:24, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get Out the Vote
Everyone is welcome to copy and paste the following banner and links onto their own user page, to help publicize the upcoming December 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections:

Getting out the vote will help to diversify the number of viewpoints that are represented during this election, and insure that candidates who are equally qualified, though perhaps not always a part of the "in crowd", can have a fair chance of winning.

Don't let the insiders control this election. Please vote! --DV 03:09, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Controling campaign messages
Please vote at Software and features, to approve an exciting new feature that allows users to control whether or not they receive campaign messages. --DV 11:16, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * If it turns out to be too technically cumbersome to modify the software to support this feature, but you still support the general idea of indicating your willingness to accept campaign-related messages, please feel free to copy the tag onto your own user talk page. --DV 14:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Past conflicts
The so-called disendorsements are now deprecated, but I believe one aspect of the page was useful. Exactly as Organizers say - it was as a handy index of candidate's past conflicts. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and I want to know how candidates themselves resolved disputes in which they were personaly involved. Because locating such examples in thousands of edits may be time consuming, I'd like to ask candidates, if they wish, to include here sample reference to past conflict/dispute/complain/... they had and resolved in a good way.

I allready know this info about many candidates, but because it may be useful also for other voters with different experience, I list all candidates. If you don't want to paticipate in this disclosure, please leave a short note.

Thank you. --Wikimol 09:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(Note: this space is inteded for refs which candidates want to exhibit themselves, and not as ressurection of disendorsements page.)


 * 172
 * Ambi
 * blankfaze
 * Cecropia
 * Charles Matthews*
 * Chuck F
 *  CunningLinguist 
 *  Dante Alighieri 
 * David Gerard
 *  DG
 *  Ed Poor, aka Uncle Ed 
 * Everyking*
 *  Fennec 
 * Grunt
 * Hephaestos
 * Improv
 * I've had conflicts with Nelson Ricardo over VfD, but I talked to him a lot through other channels, and eventually resolved to try to work with him on other conflicts he had with other users (e.g. on Portugal-related articles) and on projects he was interested in. I think it's important to reach out to people you have conflict with in other contexts, especiall when they have useful things to contribute and it's mostly politics you disagree on.
 * I also have conflicted with Chuck F on libertarian-related issues, partly because his versions of the articles are designed to look down on certain groups of people, and despite my efforts to talk productively with him on IRC, we were never able to work together. In fact, he went on to avoid bans that the Arbcom put on him, getting into further trouble. This difference makes clear that there are two kinds of people we disagree with on Wikipedia -- the people who have a honest and potentially serious difference in perspective, but are still civil and willing to communicate and work with you, and the people who, when they disagree, refuse any efforts at a greater understanding, and will do anything to get their way. It is crucial that we all learn to tell the difference, and do our best, regardless of circumstance, to reach out to the first type after conflict, win or lose. A lot of great people would otherwise be lost, or hurt feelings would linger. There are so many useful things to do on wikipedia that it's a great opportunity to mend bridges to reach out to people you've had conflict with. --Improv 01:35, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * James F.
 * jguk
 * Johnleemk
 * I have not archived my talk page since I arrived, and almost half of the disputes I've been involved in were resolved there. The rest can be found on Talk:King James Version of the Bible, Talk:Anwar Ibrahim, Talk:Bumiputra, Talk:Education in Malaysia, Talk:Malaysian New Economic Policy, Talk:Coca-Cola and Requests for comment/Drbalaji md. Johnleemk | Talk 17:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Librarian Brent
 * Lir
 * Merovingian
 * Mirv
 * Neutrality
 * PedanticallySpeaking
 * Plato
 * Raul654 - User:Raul654/Plautus
 * Sam Spade
 * sannse
 * SPUI
 * Ta bu shi da yu
 * Theresa knott
 *  VeryVerily 
 * Yoshiah ap (Josiah)

Candidate order
While I understand the utility of alphabetical order (this is an encyclopedia, after all) it seems to me that the page would be most useful if it was in the same order as Special:ArbComVote/vote. So either the vote page needs to be re-ordered, or this one does. --Ben Brockert 00:56, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * That'd be difficult, given that the vote page lists candidates in a random order. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:08, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Dang. -10 points for the voting theory people who insisted on that. --Ben Brockert 01:26, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * It would be better if there was no list on the entry page, and links to the statement pages from the vote page. -- Tim Starling 09:04, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Voting method
Why was this method of voting chosen? I'd prefer to rank the candidates myself. Where was the decision taken, when and by whom? How could it be changed for next time? Mr. Jones 20:38, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't know who made the decision, but it's built-in into the voting software we use. Johnleemk | Talk 21:00, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mediawiki? But that's open source. It can be changed. So I can just rewrite it? Would it then be used? Where would that be decided? Mr. Jones 09:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * There was discussion about rewriting the software somewhere before. I think on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004. But generally the voting method (if I'm not mistaken) is decided by those in charge of the election. This time, it's Danny, Elian and one more person (I think it's UninvitedCompany). Johnleemk | Talk 10:00, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * In the end, there was apparently a lack of interest in making a dramatic change to the voting method so close to the election. I, too, would prefer some kind of ranked method, so I think we should continue to pursue this topic with regard to the next Wikimedia Foundation and Arbitration Committee elections. - Nat Krause 12:28, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)