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

To Quadell
Quadell, I really do respect your opinion. However, I must say that I don't think your cut-and-paste, standardised oppose statement serves any purpose rather than to make broad comments about a group of people. Also, I really don't take kindly to being lumped in the same category as 172, Sam Spade, and VeryVerily. That said, it is all your opinion, and your opinions are ones I have come to respect... I just hadn't expected this from you. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 16:43, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Replied on your talk. (To those watching at home, I have removed all my disendorsements upon careful reflection.)   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:51, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * I very much agree with you, Jimbo. This page is not at all conducive to the election process, and IMO serves little purpose save for serving as an arena for flame wars.  That said, instead of being bold and removing oppositions on the endorsements page, I moved them all here, in an attempt to rescue organisation whilst avoiding any appearance of impropriety. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 16:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope this page will be used
This page allows users to voice their concern about the candidates. Some candidates may simply by force of personality in their statements "appear" to be neutral, open minded candidates to be elected, when in actual fact they are nothing of the sort. It is important to prevent such obfuscation. In a real world election, it is never a case of each side stating how nice they are, without also warning the electorate about the dangers of choosing wrongly.

Hitler was elected democratically.

CheeseDreams 23:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks up Goodwin's Law. Draws own conclusion --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * It was certainly poor form to invoke the law explicitly. And it's "Godwin" not "Goodwin" (your misspelling redirects to the properly spelled article). However, I concede the above remarks are a well-executed attempt by both CheeseDreams and Tagishsimon to shut down the discussion.


 * But Jimbo has already effectively shut down this discussion with his strong statement discouraging any further postings on this page, so seeing how it's his site, I will respect that request and no longer post in this thread, as once one of the founders of a site discourages something, you're pissing into the wind to persist at it. Cheers, --DV 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You may express your disagreement with another editor in many ways. The first one being not to support him during the elections. You may also use talk page to raise an issue. When there is a specific issue where you think someone is not acting properly, you may raise the issue on the article talk page, on the pump, on the mailing lists. There are many many places. But the thing to remember is to criticize what the user is doing (the fact), not the person herself. And a list of personal attacks is not exactly what is the best to do.

If you wish to demonstrate that userA will be a very poor AC arbitrator, find facts to support your claim, and make an article, a mail about it. Make noise about it. Talk about it. Make it public. This is what politicians do. They point out to what other policiticians are doing in a wrong way. They do not make a public pre-voting with a list of those they like and those they do not like.

user:Anthere

I think this page is useful. Voters have the right to know about things that suggest that some candidates will not be good arbitrators, things like recent edit wars, personal attacks and partiality - partiality can benefit a candidate, giving him votes from users he/she favors, if this partiality is not exposed to the whole community. Boraczek 18:34, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * possibly... it is nice to know more about people, but... in truth... I suppose you will only vote for people you know and trust and not vote for those you do not know, or know as being inappropriate for such a committee. Most of the "serious" candidates (those likely to be elected) are well known by the community and the community will know them for their weaknesses as well as strength. And will vote taking this in consideration. If you do not know enough about a candidate, if you did not realise how much he is likely to be problematic, then do not vote for him. Don't you think ?
 * You do not have the option to vote against someone anyway ;-) SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

comment moved from project page

 * I completely understand Jimbo's above statement. However, someone went to a lot of effort to seperate the comments onto this page for very good reasons, and I don't think many people would agree that it's a clever thing to do to blank this page. It will only result in the same negative comments filtering back onto the Endorsements page again!. --Rebroad 13:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that a commitee was set to organise these elections and that the board was asked to give its approval on the procedure. No such page existed in the procedure set by the commitee and no such page existed in the procedure approved by the board. I gave my opinion on such a page, which may be found in history, on this talk page and on my talk page. Otherwise, I basically never involve myself in local wikipedia policies.
 * As for this page, I have a constructive suggestion. Since some people want such an ugly page, I suggest that this page is kept as a separate page somewhere else, but not listed amongst approved procedure pages. Would that be acceptable ?


 * I can accept criticism and I definitly accept my removal being blanked. However, since the AC election procedure is somehow part of my duties, I do not think it is a very clever thing to remove my comments on the matter, and I definitly do not think it nice at all to call me a vandal. I know not if the editor who called me a vandal is a troll or not, but if he is a regular editor, I would appreciate greatly that he restores my comments, and apology for calling me a vandal.
 * SweetLittleFluffyThing 16:41, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The consensus is to merge the Endorsements and "Disendorsements" pages into one, see here. It's certainly not to make "Disendorsements" an unlisted page so people were unable to see other people's reservations about candidates. -Xed 17:26, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate that the committee did not think of telling me of that poll. Unfortunate as well that neither Jimbo, nor the committee is supporting the result of this poll... hmmm, perhaps it was not such a bad time when Jimbo was banning people himself.
 * In all cases Xed, I still consider that calling me a vandal is inappropriate and that my comments still need to be restored. It seems that your definition of being a vandal is "to remove other people comment". If so, you removed my comments and by your definition, you may be a vandal as well. I would rather call a vandal someone who repeatedly hurt the wikipedia itself, and I do not think I deserve such a qualifier. Consequently, I will ask you again to restore my comment and explain exactly what you mean by vandal. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Pine for a dictatorship if you like. Your comments should have gone on the Talk page. There is no one supporting your blanking. - Xed 18:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is not the point. If people do not support the blanking, they can restore the comment any time. But in effect, you plain removed my comments as well, while this page is full of comments. So, the fact my comment on this page should go in the talk page, while Jimbo and the organising committee comments are allowed to stay in the page are relevant, and you removing them and calling me a vandal is relevant. This is enough discussion. You are rude. You call people vandal for removing comments, while you just do exactly the same thing. This is just wrong. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here are your precious comments:
 * I blanked this page.
 * I think we all have different opinions on people. We may even have criticisms towards the ones we love. I urge people who have disagreements with one editor to talk to him directly (on his talk page, by private mail, on irc, whatever) or to seek help of a third party to resolve the disagreement. But such a public display and archiving of unlove is not okay. Toward good contributors, it is very hurting. Fix your problem with the editor himself if you can and/or just do not vote for him. Toward bad contributors (call them trolls if you wish), it is not only useless, but making their game. It is just not a good idea to do this.
 * Focus on building this place, do not make it harder to do a great resource with happy contributors please. user:anthere.

I thank you for your effort :-)


 * I do not.


 * Happy contributers are not good contributers.
 * People write best in times of sorrow.
 * That's why soppy poetry is rubbish.
 * And some of the best writing in the world, for example The remains of the day is mournful.


 * CheeseDreams 19:23, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I support Antheres page blanking
And would give her a barnstar if she deleted the page entirely :D. If there needs to be a page to discuss the election, one can be made, but this page is conterproductive to our community. As far as her being called a vandal, I will point out that we need a wikipedia:Police force, and if we had one, they'd be rounding up trolls on this page so fast as to have the arbitration overbooked for a month ;) Anthere is not a vandal, and this page is riddled with trolls and rogue users.

[[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 18:25, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * hmmm, thanks. But I would never have deleted the page, for not everyone could have restored it. It would have been wrong not to allow anyone to do so. SweetLittleFluffyThing 18:46, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If it helps, why not think of this page as a virtual punch bag. People need a release sometimes, and if they can't get it here, they'll only need to take it out elsewhere!! --Rebroad 19:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Who are these "trolls" and "rogue users"? --Mrfixter 01:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What's up with some of the nominees calling other users names, while wanting us to believe they are actually civil? And yet our actions are trollish? Look at What_is_a_troll, and evaluate your own actions. millerc 02:22, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, just FYI, a substantial amount of the users who made disendorsements are/were involved in arbitration cases and are widely viewed as trolls, such as Shorne, VeryVerily, Xed, Gzornenplatz, Ruy Lopez, and a couple of borderline folks like Chuck F. So I don't think Jimbo and Sam are completely unjustified in calling this page "riddled with trolls". Note that neither of them claimed everyone who uses this page is a troll; they just noted that a substantial amount of people who do use this page are trolls. FWIW, I don't have a particularly good view of Sam Spade, as he's been rude in a few situations when our paths have crossed, but I think in this case that he is quite justified in calling this page "riddled with trolls". Johnleemk | Talk 06:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Shorne, VeryVerily, and Chuck F may be hard to get along with (I don't really know much about the others), but calling them trolls? Revert wars alone don't constitute trolling.  Unless you can prove a strong case for malice, then calling someone a troll is nothing but a disguised personal attack. millerc 20:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * VeryVerily is borderline maybe. I specifically avoided calling Chuck a troll, but from what I've seen, I'd say Shorne definitely trolls occasionally. His comments and edits in this (dis)endorsement debate were definitely incendiary enough to be counted as flamebait. Johnleemk | Talk 06:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If a troll is someone who sticks up for democracy, and is against bigotry and corruption then I'm a troll. If a troll is someone who criticises administrators then I'm a troll - Xed 13:12, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If a troll is someone who disrupts Wikipedia to illustrate a point and brings up old, healed wounds, for no reason, then yes, you're a troll. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Healed? -Xed 13:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


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

Re: the Page history of this talk page, I do not see why it is unacceptable to blank this section of the talk page when some think it acceptable to blank the whole Disendorsements page. Or is this just Hypocracy on the parts of those who support Anthere? CheeseDreams 13:39, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Two wrongs don't make a right. Did you read my edit summary? Just because Anthere was wrong gives you no licence to commit the same crime as her. Johnleemk | Talk 13:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did see you loose your temper and swear. Pathetic. CheeseDreams 13:51, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Wee, let's focus on human error instead of the fact that both you and Anthere had no right to delete discussion. Johnleemk | Talk 13:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "I don't care what the fuck anyone thinks" - sounds like one of those trolls - Xed 14:01, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why A Fair and Competitive Election Demands the Disendorsements page
As I wrote earlier in response to Jimbo's opinion at the Candidate statements/Disendorsements page, I strongly believe in the free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal.

In order for democratic elections to be fair and competitive, opposition must enjoy the right to freedom of speech as necessary to voice their criticisms of the candidates openly and to bring relevant information to the voters. If this freedom is not granted or is in any way restricted, the election will not reflect the legitimate views of the voters. In other words, voters must has free access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, in order to make informed decisions and place an informed vote. Thus, for any voter to cast an informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to (using Jimbo's words) "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?

If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found on the Disendorsements page is beyond useful, it is required reading. The Disendorsements page should not be deleted.--FeloniousMonk 09:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whether you're right or wrong, I'd just like to note that "information" should be "opinions" &mdash; opinions are all that is really on the page. BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * "Information" found on the Disendorsements page encompasses both opinion and factual data. All opinions as well as any purported facts are subject to fact-checking by voters as they see fit. The fact is that the more credible opinions provide links to relevant background information, which establishes that those same opinions are often well-grounded in fact.--FeloniousMonk 10:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

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