Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke

Support
Cool Hand Luke is a very helpful and experienced editor. I'd like to support this nominee. As I'm the first person posting here, I might be posting in the wrong spot for a support vote. If so, someone please direct me to where would be the appropriate place to insert my support vote. Otherwise, good luck Cool Hand Luke! Blue Danube (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Voting begins on the first of December, a place to do so will appear automagically then. Wily D 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit Analysis
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And thanks CHL for (partly) fixing my broken table! :) Franamax (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Comments
LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. For what it's worth, if one could only vote for one candidate, I would vote for Risker myself. Cool Hand Luke 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am humbled by your support, Cool Hand Luke. If not for my statement during the run-up to the election that I would not be voting for or against any of my fellow candidates, you can rest assured that my four squiggles would be in your support column. Best, Risker (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

To Prodego's concern
To clarify, my answer to Lar says:


 * "Outing deters our volunteers, so it's usually a bad thing. If an identity is not already out, deletion, oversight, blocking, and other measures are appropriate when the editor is doing nothing wrong. However, preventing abuse to our project takes priority over anonymity. A good example of this is linking two or more accounts as sock puppets. When anonymity gets in the way of building an encyclopedia, it is not sacred. (See also WP:IAR)."

I wrote this with the Mantanmoreland case in mind. I think that sort of abuse should be curbed, and it can only be curbed if we are willing to decide that accounts are sockpuppets.

I do not believe that outing is some sort of vigilante punishment. Such reckless outing should be sanctioned in my view. I only mean that it's sometimes necessary to prove links between accounts to curb abuses like sockpuppeteering.

''If anyone finds this elaboration helpful, I would appreciate if it were linked from the vote page as a reply. I do not intend to edit the page myself. Cool Hand Luke'' 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Coredesat
I didn't out this user. Scroll up. Oh, I realize non-members will not be able to do that. Let me tell you what happened:

A pissant called EricBarbour was trying to out Coredesat for voting "delete" in some debate, and they posted a flatly incorrect name and address. I linked to one of the links they posted (to Coredesat's website), which showed the name and showed that EricBarbour was wrong. This is important because real-world third parties should not have misinformation spread about them. I praised Coredesat:
 * Anyhow, what the hell did he do to deserve your terrible Google sleuthing? From what I can tell, he's pretty stand up as admins go. Cares about passionately about the content (roads and storms are his hobby) and doesn't play politics. You seem to be pissed off that he voted delete.


 * If I was behind the veil of ignorance, I would probably pick people like Coredesat to be in charge.

Ask Newyorkbrad (also a member of WR) for a list of people who defended him when Brandt et al. were on the attack. I will be on that list.

I'm also more responsible than any individual for shutting down Disillusioned Lackey, who the mods of WR were uninterested in. She continually spouted conspiracy theories about SlimVirgin, Durova, SWATjester, and others. In the end, she just started replacing her posts with mocking pictures about me. I didn't mind it one bit, because at least she wasn't attacking people here. This is all recounted in my answers to Lar.

I believe in candor, and I think it's important for voters to know. Cool Hand Luke 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your intentions, you were involved in outing him. You link to his account to his homepage which gave his real name, you were involved in his discussion about him there before he had chance to defend himself. Sorry, but as I said - I don't expect any editor to do that, let alone one wishing to be an arbitrator.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 14:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was defending him and defending a recklessly swept-up third party. I hope that he took the opportunity to start a new truly anonymous account; that's the only way to get around WR stalkers like EricBarbour. Cool Hand Luke 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

CHL, could you clarify how the link to Coredesat's website came to be known? From the discussion above it sounds like Coredesat's WP user page contained that link originally. Am I mistaken? alanyst /talk/ 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There was a Wikia page for "User:Coredesat" containing his name, and also a link to his homepage which contained his beautiful highways photos. Cool Hand Luke 14:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So, Eric outs him and you then go ahead to give further details such as his homepage that contains his name and his Wikia page?  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No, EricBarbour failed to read the links he posted and went on to implicate a totally unrelated third party. He's the one that outed him, for petty reasons (as I pointed out). I told EricBarbour he was wrong. At any rate, as Coredesat said, he didn't even leave due to this. I do hope that he returns, if he hasn't already, with an account safe from petty users like EricBarbour. Cool Hand Luke 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah - you told him he was wrong, then supplied him with the right details, which is almost as bad as doing the original outing.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are Coredesat's own words on the matter: "Yes, Eric outed me on WR; after all, it's not very difficult as I've been fairly well-known since before I ever came here, but still" - he was clearly unhappy with Eric for "outing" him, even though he acknowledges that his identity was not much of a secret anyways. But he never mentions CHL, and there's no indication that he believes CHL was at fault here. Ryan, what evidence do you have that Coredesat blames CHL for any wrongdoing here? ATren (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Eric tried to out him, got it ever so slightly wrong so Cool Hand Luke set him straight with the correct details linking to his account - he finished off the outing and put the cherry on top. Regardless of what Cordesat believes - He gave personal information out that should not have been given out ever. I don't trust this guy with the information he'll have as an arbitrator.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Cordesat gave out the information himself on the face of his accounts. Barbour got in a petty spat, so he attacked an unrelated third party. That was wrong, so I spoke up. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ryan, what would you have done? Let the incorrect info stand and thus perhaps enable harrassment of some innocent bystander? I think you should be happy to have folk like Cool Hand Luke (and, oh, New York Brad, and Alison, and, dare I say it, myself) participating on WR to keep the crazies in line. I'm assuming that's why you yourself post there from time to time, right? I just don't understand why you are opposing over this. One might think that you have overlooked the huge number of other factors, all positive, that argue strongly in favor of CHL being elected to ArbCom. We really need honest, caring, thorough and hardworking ArbCom members such as CHL will be when he is elected... I would ask you strongly to reconsider your position here in light of the larger picture. ++Lar: t/c 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

When a user is attacked, I defend them. That's what I do. It's the right thing to do. I've cursed Brandt on WR, along with Alison, SirFozzie, and other Wikipedia admins there. I'll almost certainly wind up on Brandt's list because I volunteered the connection myself&mdash;something Wikipedia admins are hesitant to do because of Brandt and the FUD spread by some users here. I believe candor is important for an arbitrator, and it's also important to defend people who are wrongly attacked. I've done that at WR and will continue to do it. Cool Hand Luke 17:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe, in hindsight, it would have been better to rebut the erroneous claim without giving evidence for the rebuttal publicly, but rather to privately send the link to the homepage to Eric (or, probably better, to a mutually trusted third party who could vouch for it publicly). Seems that in a case of mistaken outing, it's important to disprove the claim; but the evidence disproving the claim need not be made public.  In this case CHL did indeed publicly connect dots that hadn't been explicitly connected by Coredesat himself, and this seems to be the core of Ryan's objection. alanyst /talk/ 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In hindsight, I agree that disputing the mistake and sending to a third party for verification would have been better (although not sending it to Eric&mdash;that would have been even worse). I was concerned for the third party who was maligned by Eric. Cool Hand Luke 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * In cases where editors themselves have revealed their identities (as Coredesat apparently had), it's not unreasonable to believe that they are not sensitive about their identity. So when faced with a mistaken identitification, as CHL was, would it have been better to allow the misconception to stand, thereby implicating an unrelated third party? CHL made a judgement call to correct the misconception, and that judgement was reasonable given Coredesat's previous self-identification.


 * Now, in retrospect it's pretty clear that Coredesat was unhappy about the "outing", but at the time there was no evidence he was trying to hide his identity in the first place, so how could CHL have known? Besides, I get the impression that Coredesat was mainly concerned about EricBarbour and the fact that Barbour was trying to locate Coredesat's identity out of apparent anger and vengeance - the "outing" per se was secondary to the aggression exhibited by Barbour.


 * If Coredesat had explicity requested that his identity be kept hidden, I have no doubt that CHL would have respected that, but given what was known at the time, I see nothing wrong with what he did. ATren (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That certainly went into it; Coredesat was open about his identity, while the third party was a pure bystander. However, Alanyst's point is well-taken. In hindsight, I could have handled better. Under the circumstances it seemed important to first correct the misinformation. The potential of third-party harm is the main reason I'm so passionate about BLP. Cool Hand Luke 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody, but nobody comes close to me when it comes to cussing out Daniel Brandt. In fact, he's tried to have me banned from WR for having a 'potty-mouth'. He's such a sensitive soul ^__^ - A l is o n  ❤ 04:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary NYB break
As a sitting arbitrator I am not making endorsements or voting in the election, but my attention has been drawn to the fact that I am mentioned in this discussion. I have reviewed the thread on Wikipedia Review, in which I participated at the time, but which is currently posted on a non-public portion of that site (although a few lines have been removed from it at Coredesat's request). Because most voters in this election cannot read the WR thread for themselves, I will confirm that to the best of my understanding (both from re-reading the thread now and having participated in it at the time), CHL's explanation above of what occurred in the thread is accurate. Not commenting on any other aspect of this or any other candidacy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think given this confirmation, the issue is being blown out of proportion, and I think CHL is absolved. David  Shankbone  00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Coredesat's statement
Seeing as this whole thing is about me, and I have been sent an email about it (I thought I had disabled emails, guess not), I might as well say something. No, I was not harassed/stalked into retirement. I retired for a number of reasons - drama was one of them. Life outside Wikipedia was the other. As a result, I simply no longer had the patience or time to deal with things here. That was the case then, and that is still the case now. The whole situation with my being "outed" and the drama that caused was icing on the cake. After the whole incident I reconciled things with Eric and some of the people on WR, and as far as I know everything was fine. Granted, I was unaware of exactly how Eric had gotten this information, but it really isn't that hard, seeing as this isn't the only place I've used this name (I've used it for years). I never once tried to keep my identity a secret, and I simply didn't think anyone would bother going to some length in order to gather as much dirt about me as possible. I suppose that was somewhat naive of me, but whatever. While I didn't exactly like the reasoning for the whole incident at the time, I personally don't fault anyone for what happened, except myself for being so naive as to allow something like this to happen. All I want is for everyone to move on. It's bad enough that being too stressed to deal with drama contributed to my departure from Wikipedia, but it's another for me to be the source of even more drama. --Coredesat (talk) 08:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Review
I would have voted for you if it weren't for your involvement with Wikipedia Review, not that I'm really aware of the substance of your involvement there. You probably don't recall our history together, but I do think you're a decent guy. Renounce the dark side and maybe next year? Grace Note (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you willing and able to ask every single Wikipedia editor/admin/arbitrator in good standing who participates in WR to "renounce this dark side?" If so, you better get busy, it might take you awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * LMAO. Oh, you're with that evil group - ok, I've not bothered to see what you have done, but you must be evil by association... talk about badsites!  Minkythecat (talk) 08:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm....looks like Newyorkbrad, FT2, Jehochman, Giggy, and less worhty folks like me are certainly in a pickle Fritzpoll (talk) 10:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I find the anti-WR sentiment here somewhat ironic. At WR, the worst offenders are those who take the dogmatic "everything about Wikipedia is bad" view. I can remember Brandt justifying his harassment of Newyorkbrad by saying NYB was guilty simply by association with Wikipedia, which he viewed as irredeemable. Incidentally Brandt was largely criticised on WR for that view.


 * But here we have the same attitude among many editors: they view WR as inherently evil and view any editor associated with WR as evil regardless of their intent. So in their blanket criticism of WR, anti-WR Wikipedia editors are no different than the most strident anti-Wikipedia WR members. ATren (talk) 11:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If this sort of thinking carries the day, what a wasted opportunity for Arbcom to move forward. Alas, sereotyping, bigotry, guilt-by-association, US-vs-THEM, and similar prejudices seems to be a flaw in the human mind, and even the best of us fall victim to such errors.


 * One pf the things that is truly inspiring about CHL is how he's been able to break down some of the partisanship. When Slim Virgin and Lar are both agreeing to support the same candidate, it's clear something very special is happening.  When a retired editor comes out of retirement to endorse the candidate who was wrongfully accused of misdeeds,  it's clear something very special is happening.  --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand where Grace Note is coming from, but I think Alecmconroy hit the nail on the head. -- David  Shankbone  14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikipedia Review isn't as bad as it first was, his participation doesn't include ousting editors and such attacks, it's more about giving valid criticism towards the project. I agree with ATren, we can't give criticism towards the project anymore? Secret account 15:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, some feel that way, and are opposing here on "WR grounds" despite the fact they themselves post on WR, such as Ryan does. It's very confusing how that standard can apply, given the number of sitting and former Arbs with active WR accounts. rootology ( C )( T ) 15:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The oppose by Ryan (and all the opposes per him) are quite a disappointment. I have no strong feelings on CHL, as I've not had a lot of interaction with him, but I believe he's a good candidate. Regardless, this oppose is quite ridiculous. It would make more sense to me were it coming from one of the anti-WR Wikipedians who hate the site because they've never actually been there and have no idea what it is actually about, or how it has changed from it's early days... the ones that don't realize that WR is not a Brandt site and, in fact, many on WR strongly object to Brandt's tactics, but to see this coming from Ryan, who is a member of WR himself, make these misleading accusations, and without linking to "evidence"... quite disappointing indeed. لenna vecia  16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely say the same to anyone else who is a member of Wikipedia Review. The mind boggles that people with Checkuser access are members in good faith of a site that has "outed" and abused Wikipedia editors, and continues to do so. Sadly, the lack of judgement shown by those empowered here is astonishing, and their inability to take a firm stand here but their willingness to do so with a mildly rude content provider mindboggling, but I do not see why I should add to that. Rootology, I am not showing a double standard. I deplore the involvement in WR of editors like Lar. Of course, one is not free to speculate why he is so keen on appearing there but given the chance, I'll oppose him for office too. Grace Note (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Grace Note, you aren't making any sense. There has been far more abuse and "outing" of Wikipedia editors on Wikipedia itself than on WR.  Remember the abusive attacks by Zareaph on SandyGeorgia on both WR and Wikipedia last year?  The attacks were removed on WR, but they remain on Wikipedia.  This is but one example among many.  You are definitely showing a double standard, and the mind boggles at your inability or unwillingness to see that. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dude, when you disagree with someone, say "I disagree with you". Don't say "you're not making sense". Of course I make sense. You just don't agree with what I'm saying. I have no idea who Zareaph is (and I don't recall voting for him to be arbitrator; could you diff that for me?). I'm not a wikiholic and I don't really follow the politics or shenanigans very closely. I don't support, and never have supported, any "outing" or viciousness on Wikipedia. Quite the opposite. Do you see me saying Wikipedia is perfect? Do you see me supporting anyone who genuinely merits opprobrium? Are you quite sure it's me who's not making sense here? Grace Note (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, so you do not support anyone who participates on WR because it is a site where some of the users have outed others. However, you yourself participate on WP, where far more users have outed others, and where defamation and libel are par for the course. Okay, and that's not a double standard how? لenna  vecia  18:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't waste your time trying to argue logically with Grace Note... there are more productive pursuits more likely to result in success, such as standing on the beach trying to convince the tide not to come in. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I would like to put the above thread under a hat. I've accepted that some users cannot support a candidate who posts on WR no matter how well they behave here and there. No sense in getting snippy about it. I think this conversation has run its course some time ago. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My involvement with Wikipedia Review
Thanks for the kind words, Grace Note. I should explain my involvement with Wikipedia Review.

I naively believed that this wouldn't be the campaign issue. I hoped that my involvement with Wikipedia Review would generate no more interest than my participating in any other off-site activity. I am aware of the controversy surrounding the site, but I thought the participation of well-regarded figures like Newyorkbrad and other arbitrators (including FT2, Deskana, and Thebainer) would de-stigmatize Wikipedia Review. That's why I voluntarily linked my WR account; some of our most-respected editors post there, and it is in keeping with my value of candor, transparency, and honesty in arbitrators.

WR is a very diverse place. It's true that some people there actively hope for the failure of Wikipedia. There's a sort of cultural war between those who want reform, and those who want destruction. I can tell you with a smile that the reformers are winning. Many earnest Wikipedians have shown up&mdash;people like Newyorkbrad. Many of us agree with some problems highlighted on WR, and we would like to creatively discuss them. I am there to participate in this productive discussion.

I do criticize Wikipedia when our processes go awry (as with BLP failures, dragging arbitrations, and secret hearings), but I'm also there to defend Wikipedians when I feel they are unfairly maligned. I try to correct urban legends. I oppose idle slander, as I've already recounted.

I often disagree with the management. I'm not fond of WR's owner, and I don't appreciate how the mods and admins capriciously allow speculative and potentially damaging threads to fester in plain sight. That said, I'm certain that it would be worse without the participation of users like Newyorkbrad, SirFozzie, Alison, Sarcasticidealist, and many others&mdash;including many who are anonymous (like I was until recently). I hear that there is an effort to make a new site, maybe like the Wikback with more transparent management. I would move to such a site if it allowed the vigorous debate between Wikipedians&mdash;current, former, and new members. In fact, I was quite active in the original WikBack, which courageously allowed even banned Wikipedians. The debate and analysis on Wikipedia Review is valuable (as some say, it's like a meta-watchlist).

Participating there is consistent with my values. I was raised religiously. An expression I often heard from ecclesiastical leaders is that we should "be in the world, but not of the world." That is, we should not live a close-minded and cloistered existence. We should live and travel in the world, but we should not ourselves become worldly. "Even Jesus," they might say, "lived among robbers and prostitutes."

I'm not as religious anymore, but I try to live by that credo: there's good reason for it. People are hurt out in the world, and we should strive to help them&mdash;whether they are living people defamed here, or editors attacked on WR. Whatever you might believe about people like User:Alison, I know that she strives to help attacked people all over the internet, including people with whom she doesn't personally get along, and even on sites I dare not travel. Moreover, the world is a cacophonous marketplace—we can learn from it. At the moment, WR is the only site where Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians alike have a sustained conversation about this site.

I post on Wikipedia Review, but I am not of Wikipedia Review; I don't prioritize WR over Wikipedia, and my values are certainly different from the dwindling minority of anti-Wikipedians there. Wikipedia Review is a useful discussion board because criticism is an important tool. Critique and dialog can help improve one of the most remarkable volunteer projects ever attempted&mdash;my site, Wikipedia. Cool Hand Luke 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Jesus cleared out the temple, Frank. He didn't join in the moneychanging. Grace Note (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * CHL, I have serious reservations about voting for you one way or another and owe you an explanation. I think we may have disagreed - concerning articles or policy - in the past but I never questioned your good intentions and I do not now. For the record, I share the concerns of those who have a zero-tolerance stance concerning WR.  But my real issue is transparency.  I think that transparency is the the saving virtue of Wikipedia.  All discussions occure in public, on talk pages, and anyone can add a comment or question.  All of our vices and virtues, successes and failures, are on public display, or can easily be discovered by going through page histories or archives.  ArbCom, checkuser, and oversight have compromised our transparency to some degree but I accept that to some degree this is absoutely necessary.  But I have over the past year or so learned there are other users who, through IRC or other off-wiki means, prefer to act with no transparency and use the lack of transparency to protect themselves from scrutiny (I an not referring to you).  I think this is a serious problem.  I think the only solution, especially given the fact that sometimes some Wikipedians, e.g. ArbCom members cannot act transparently, is to be absolutely commited to transparency in every other situation.  From this perspective I simply see no need for WR.  Its existence suggests that Wikipedia is not capable of policing itself; its existence suggests that people at Wikipedia are constrained from criticizing it.  Or maybe it suggests for some that Wikipedia cannot defend itself, and needs another on-line venue.  These are the things I take strong objection to.  Are there problems with articles?  Debate them on talk pages.  Are there problems with policies?  Debate them on talk pages.  When there are more general or systemic problems at Wikipedia, we should create a space to address it, and address it frankly.  From this perspective there is simply no purpose to WR ... except to suggest to the world that Wikipedia is not open and transparent and not a place that fosters healthy debate.  CHL, this vote aside you do what you want to and it's not for me to judge, I would not be bringing this up at all were it not salient to this vote.  But whether you have criticisms of or praises for WIkipedia, I wish that you felt you had sufficient space here to express them, or could help us create noew spaces for community discussion.


 * Please do not think I am naive - I would never sanction an editor for contributing to WR, and the internet is a free place and as WP becomes more prominent it is likely more sites about WP will be created. But I think that those people who are most committed to the ideals of WIkipedia should be spending our time finding ways to make WP more transparent and create more effective spaces for community discussion, including frank discussion of general and systemic problems, and leave places like WR to those who really do not want to be constructive.  Wikipedia is "in" the world and "of" the world and should be a place open to self-reflection and criticism, in a constructive and collaborative spirit ... I do not see the value to anything else.


 * Your candidacy has led me to post thse thoughts here but if at all possible I ask you not to take them personally. I do not have any personal beef against you, and these thoughts reflect ideas I have been mulling over for quite some time; it is a principled stance, or at least that is my intention. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Transparency is one of the reasons I'm running; it's bolded in my candidate statement. There have been times in the last year that users on WR have advocated transparency, while many users here have pushed in the opposite direction.
 * I feel there's plenty of room for me to express myself on Wikipedia&mdash;that's not why I post to WR. I post there to maintain a dialog with people who can not or will not speak here, either because they choose not to contribute, or because they are frankly banned. WR is a necessary forum for this kind of debate, and WikBack once also served that role (I do wish there was an alternative to WR). I've explained this in the answers to Lar's questions. You might think there's no reason we would want to talk to these people, but they are often remarkably perceptive. For example, I'm sure that you can think of at least one person who has been blocked after forcefully advocating a little "too much" transparency.
 * I'm committed to absolute transparency in ArbCom. That's the reason I named my WR account. I knew it would be politically unpopular, but it's exactly the kind of candor I hope for in every arbitrator, so it's the kind of honesty I demand from myself. I will act with the same openness every day as an arbitrator, even when it's unpopular. Thank you for your consideration. Cool Hand Luke 22:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your candor, and your vocal comittment to transparency. Thanks again for responding to my concerns, Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can imagine somebody in the USSR government during the Cold War era saying something similar: "I simply see no need for newspapers (including "samizdat" underground sheets) other than Pravda and Izvestia.  Their existence suggests that the Soviet Union is not capable of policing itself; its existence suggests that people in the Soviet Union are constrained from criticizing it.  Or maybe it suggests for some that the Soviet Union cannot defend itself, and needs another venue... there is simply no purpose to other news-sheets ... except to suggest to the world that the Soviet Union is not open and transparent and not a place that fosters healthy debate." *Dan T.* (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan, are you really comparing Wikipdia to the Soviet Union? If so - I hope you will stage a revolution!!  But I think Wikipedia attempts to be an Open Society in which there is no Pravda (you know, no truth, only verifyability) but many, many outlets for criticism and critique and proposals for change.  Has a complaint at WR ever lead to reform of Wikipedia?  Anyway, your analogy is either wrong or I am misunderstanding you - you are saying it was a good thing for there to be many newspapers within the Soviet Union.  I agree.  And I agree that there should be many enues for discussion and critique within Wikipedia too.  But we are not discussing whether there should be many or just one venue or outlet at Wikipedia.  We are discussion whether people frustrated with Wikipedia should leave Wikipedia and complain somewhere else.  My point Dan is that IF you or anyone thinks that Wikipedia is so fucked up that dissent is stifled and reform thwarted, the place to fight for change is here at Wikipedia itself. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether Dan means to compare Wikipedia to the U.S.S.R., or Slrubenstein to a Soviet apologist, but either way I don't appreciate the message.
 * Complaints at WR have led to improvements here. Private information has been oversighted from history through communication with oversighters there, the BLP default-to-delete idea (among other BLP-related proposals) percolated there, and I argue that the Mantanmoreland case was for a long time only permitted on WR due to our site's "shoot on sight" attitude for suggesting that a distasteful and banned user might be right. I had significant a role in that last case, and I did bring it back to Wikipedia. I didn't have an opinion before, but I found the evidence very suggestive of sockpuppeteering. So I helped bring the discussion back to Wikipedia (where you're right that it belongs). I decided to find enough evidence that it couldn't be dismissed anymore as "proxying for a banned user."
 * I think non-Wikipedian users are the kicker&mdash;that's what makes an outside forum necessary. Even if Wikipedia could host a variety of forums, none of them would allow non-contributors to post. We ban people&mdash;as we should&mdash;for disrupting the encyclopedia. That doesn't mean that they don't have useful higher-level criticisms. It doesn't mean that they aren't right, it just means they're interfering with our work here. We should have little patience for such people, but when they have good ideas, we should listen. During the Mantanmoreland case, someone proposed unbanning WordBomb. I strongly opposed that motion: he was never here to build an encyclopedia. But at the same time, I also realized he was right the whole time. That's why we should maintain a dialog with non-Wikipedians. They're sometimes right. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Janeyryan

 * Luke, can you please reconcile your comments above with your posts on Wikipedia review in this message topic, the one devoted to myself and John Nevard:
 * (begin quote)
 * 'He's exclusively interested in these topics:
 * 1. Naked short selling
 * 2. LaRouche
 * 3. Wikipedia Review


 * According to him, He has never had an account on Wikipedia before. Who believes him? You don't? AGF!


 * We discussed him before. It was though that John Navard was a good fit, but I said the timezones didn't fit. now that Navard has returned, it's most clear they are not on the same sleeping schedule. I think it's Manny.'
 * (end quote) and

and


 * (begin quote)
 * I partially disagree. Janeyryan looks increasingly like Mantan. The account was created about six weeks after Bassettcat bit the dust, following the pattern of Bassettcat itself. His main interest is NSS; he's been in a lot of debates, but the NSS ones are the only ones that draw a reverting passion. He's also reverting to the stuff that previous Mannisox wrote. I think the other stuff is just intended to attract across-the-board sympathies of John Nevard. So far it's not working.


 * Interestingly, although NSS is a huge news topic for practically the first time ever, Nevard is currently uninterested in that page. Makes me wonder if Nevard was only haunted the topic to stick up for his buddy--this is consistent with the SV=JN hypothesis. Nevard is indeed on a Slim-style editing binge. However, the NZ IP makes me reluctant to accept that conclusion.

and
 * Slim was Mantan's patron. Mantanmoreland is again trying to garner sympathy from Slim. He's done this before by editing Jewish topics, but this sock is supposed to look different.


 * Think about it: if Janeyryan is Slim, why would she continue carrying water for this banned peon? NSS is Mantanmoreland's and Janeyryan's passion, but there's no sane reason for Slim to keep the flame going.
 * (end quote

and
 * (begin quote)
 * I'm now convinced on Nevard. Is there any abuse for a CU?


 * I must insist that Janey is Mantan or at least still ambiguous. He seems to know a lot about NSS and enjoys telling others they haven't done their homework. I think it's easier to pick up anti-LaRouche learnin' than pro-NSS. And again, although Slim might hate on Byrne, as Nevard has, there's no reason for her to fight over pure academic NSS.
 * (end quote)

and


 * Y'know, I said that from the beginning. He looks like NZ time. He has a job a day job, like Crum. SV looks like a college student skipping all her classes.


 * It's not impossible, but she would have to track her own editing to an extent that I don't think anyone ever has before. Not PoetGuy, not Mantanmoreland, and not any of Slim's earlier socks. If Nevard is Slim, it's possibly the best sock job ever to be suspected on Wikipedia.


 * Nevard and Janey are also not socks of each other for similar reasons. Janey is Mantan, I'm telling you. (end quote)


 * or this one in a different topic:


 * (begin quote)
 * WordBomb!


 * Great article, and the source sounds quite credible. I'm glad that El Reg could not be cowed.


 * Incidentally, could you weigh in on this thread? If there's anyone who has suspicions about who Janeyryan and John Nevard are, it's you. (end quote)


 * It appears to me that your posts as 'One' are indistinguishable from the general tenor and tone, as well as content, of other posts on that message board. --Janeyryan (talk) 22:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, I think it's a compliment on the Mantanmoreland business. Many partisans there appear to have been right. I've spent more hours of my life on Mantanmoreland than I care to recount. I've already explicitly stated that I will recuse on any future case related to this mess. Background: Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement/Archive30. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

"Prima Facie evidence"
Has it really reached the point where mere participation on WR is prima facie evidence of bad faith? That's what one of the voters here thinks. I'll repeat what I said above: a few months ago I saw Brandt take this same "guilty until proven innocent" approach towards our most respected editor, and he was roundly criticised on WR for his stance. Yet here on Wikipedia, the supposed antithesis to WR, we see the exact same kind of argument receive at least a dozen oppose votes here in support of the Brandt-like dogmatic view.

I wonder if the editor who views WR contributions as "prima facie" evidence realizes that his attitude is almost indistinguishable from the worst elements of the site he criticises? ATren (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See my comments in support (currently #115). By this logic, half the candidates in this election, as well as at least fourof the current Arbs, are "guilty". –  iride scent  17:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I love my attitude about WR. People who participate there have no guts, they'd rather whine about Wikipedia there than actually do anything.  You bore me.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * A fair number of them are quite active admins and checkusers, so at least some of the people who participate at WR aren't just inactive whiners. I have 12 or 13 posts there, mostly defending and describing Wikimedia I think. I might fall into the "not actually doing anything" category, but hopefully not the whiner category. Avruch  T 00:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OM is right in that some people who participate there have no guts, they attack mindlessly, or worse. And that's a real problem with that site. But others, I think, have quite a bit of guts... it takes guts to even participate there at all if you're at all well known at WP, because of the people who knee jerk reject any activity there, regardless of what it is or how beneficial it is to WP... Such as those folk opposing CHL with "per WR participation" and the like. ++Lar: t/c 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the comment is not entirely inaccurate. One could say that people on Wikipedia are POV pushing trolls, and it wouldn't be inaccurate. He didn't say "All people", though it would appear that was what he probably meant, in which case he'd be wrong. Shocker. لenna  vecia  17:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Without going all Godwin on you guys, your question is like saying "is membership of the Nazi party prima facie evidence of being a bad guy?" because your grandpa was a Nazi but you know he wasn't involved in anything bad. Well yes, it is. I utterly deplore the involvement of Lar, Brad and Alison, because they legitimise the bad behaviour by frequenting WR. Their involvement allows people to post (I paraphrase) "WR can't be that bad because there are arbitrators and admins there". Arbitrators and admins are saints now? You win a beauty contest by not pissing anyone off and all of a sudden you have the wisdom of Solomon? Grace Note (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Get a box of Kleenex and get over it already. WR is not comparable to the Nazis. And you did just go all Godwin on us "guys". Way to go! I do like the underhanded comments about NYB, FT2, et all, though. You're just a cornucopia of pleasantries today. O, didn't you retire? Is it can be you can go back to that nao, plz? kthxbai لenna  vecia  23:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Maybe we can keep cool here, and try to see where our opponents are coming from? Some see WR mainly as a forum, where each patron is responsible for their own postings and behavior but not for others', and they can't see why one WR patron should be castigated for another's boorishness.  But some see WR as a community with an ethos of antagonism toward Wikipedia, and they find it difficult to understand why someone who professes to support Wikipedia would want to become a member of that community.  I think this is why CHL is trying to delineate his participation: using the forum for his views, but not necessarily partaking of the ethos that many others in that community seem to share.  Reasonable people might disagree as to whether that's sustainable in the long run.  I think it is, but maybe Grace Note et al. fear that it won't be, and that participants there will inevitably pick up some of the antagonism, or give legitimacy to the ethos.  GN, do I surmise correctly? alanyst /talk/ 00:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Grace Note seems to be a troll-only account these days, with nothing to contribute to this site other than his silly bigotry against WR. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan, my views about WR seem to be largely aligned with yours, but can't you take a more conciliatory approach? Fighting rhetoric with rhetoric isn't contributing to the site either. alanyst /talk/ 04:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

To EconomicsGuy
I would appreciate if you reconsider. This talk page has attracted a lot of attention, and views held by others cannot be attributed to me. Surely you've interacted on talk pages with users you disagree with&mdash;perhaps even users on "your side" who are being overly aggressive. I can tell you honestly that I strongly oppose Wikipedia being run by a cabal of an outside site. In fact, I oppose Wikipedia being run by any cabal. If you must oppose the candidates, I urge you to oppose on the basis of the candidates, and not perceived excesses of partisans on the talk page. Cool Hand Luke 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Sincere thanks. I'll do my best to earn your trust. Cool Hand Luke 19:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC) I can't oppose with a clean conscience based on your remarks here on talk after my post on the voting page. Let me clarify why. I don't support WR. I don't support the idea that any such review of what happens here should take place on an external site. The fact that there was a time when that was indeed needed due to rampant cabalism here is understandable but that isn't how it is anymore. People can disagree here as well and by doing so anyone, including those being discussed, can participate in the review of what happens here, on our site. That's not the case on WR. That said, your statement makes it clear that you do not share the believes of those whose involvment I oppose and I don't want to be part of any derailment of your candidacy on that basis. You obviously want what is best for Wikipedia even if I don't agree that WR is the right venue to work towards that goal. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a problem with that rationale. For me its the incredibly low standards for posting, the stalking, the sharing of information on website visitors, the bile, etc., that make WR objectionable.  But if you are actually stating you do not believe that discussion and review of Wikipedia should happen anywhere else by the people involved, unless it happens on our servers, your view is extremist.  Everyone blogs about Wikipedia, including the WP:OFFICE folks.  Wikipedia is not a social network, and there are limits on our speech on-wiki for various reasons.  I completely disagree with you, if that's what you're saying.  -- David  Shankbone  19:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not what I'm saying. I was choosing my words to avoid mentioning the stalking etc. in the same post as I was trying to find at least some common ground with those who participate there. I didn't say anything about blogs, I don't know where you got the idea that I oppose blogging about Wikipedia. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't support the idea that any review of what happens here should take place on an external site." I review what happens here on my blog all the time, and shankbone.org is an external site.  That's where I got that from.  -- David  Shankbone  20:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)


 * EconomicsGuy: I respect your position.
 * David Shankbone: I agree about low standards. I think the biggest problem with WR is under-moderation (as I said in my answers). Too much crap flies. If anyone would start a new forum open to all, but with transparent moderation and sane, prewritten ground rules, I'll be the first to sign up. Cool Hand Luke 20:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistency in singling out CHL
Hmmm, I'm troubled by the apparent bandwagon and unfair inconsistent votes here singling out CHL for posting at WR when several of the candidates regularly post at WR. I note that many voters (examples UninvitedCompany and Jossi among others) are opposing CHL with comments like "WR posters do not get my support", and yet contrarily are voting for other WR posters like Casliber and others. Can someone please tell me why is CHL being singled out? -- M P er el 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's because other users haven't made "1051 posts on WR in the last year", which apparently is a big deal. 220.240.24.119 (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

If you put on my talk page or email me the names of any candidates who are active members of Wikipedia Review who I have not opposed, I'll be glad to do so. Thanks. Grace Note (talk) 23:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's just look at one of CHL's actual WR posts
Above, CHL provided some links to his activity. Looking through them, one link stands out enough that I want to just draw attention to it.

Talking about SandyGeorgia running for Arbcom, a WR user says:

Couldn't think of many people worse frankly. [...] I  have my reasons. I'd rather not smear someone here. Anyway, I doubt very much that she'd be running for [arbcom].

In response, Cool Hand Luke comes to SandyGeorgia's defense and he denounces WR-style smears:

Alex, there aren't a lot of editors I more consistently admire than [SandyGeorgia]. She has top-notch bona fides as a content creator, and is always a voice of reason when she weighs in on ArbCom proceedings. "I'd rather not smear someone here," is bullshit, because you just did. If you're going to do a drive-by attack on her, I ask that you explain why. Otherwise it's impossible for her or anyone to defend against your idle claim.

To me, this exchange really says it all. A WR poster attacks a Wikipedia user. In response, Cool Hand Luke defends the Wikipedia user, and he calls bullshit on the "drive-by attacks" that WR is despised for.

It is so, so sad that CHL's defense of Wikipedians on WR and his denouncing of WR "drive-by attacks" are now actually being used as to try to imply he actually supports those WR-style attacks.

Please Wikipedians, let's be better than this! Every candidate in this election has many valid reasons to be supported or to be opposed-- but let's not make this decision based on some knee-jerk guilt-by-association. After all, we've had many good candidates and good sitting arbs who, like CHL, post on WR without participating in WR-style attacks. Whether you ultimately decide to support CHL or oppose him, please don't let a domain name dictate your decision for you. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Is that Alex also User:Majorly? --JayHenry (talk) 05:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) I dunno. It was a little irresponsible of me to single out that WR user, because I have no idea what his pattern of editing is (either here or at WR).


 * The take-home message was just that CHL spends his time at WR defending Wikipedia and defending Wikipedians.


 * If you look at the people who have been most attacked by WR-- people like SlimVigin and Durova-- they've endorsed CHL. This is a major point: the people who have been most attacked by WR are _endorsing_ CHL!!   That should tell us which team Luke is on. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * We also have users in my support column who have been stalked at their workplace for their editing on Wikipedia. These people know the potential harm from outing first hand, but they also know that I'm one of the many good guys on WR. Cool Hand Luke 14:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me personally endorse that statement here. Been there, done that and I'm a so-called "WR regular" - A l is o n  ❤ 15:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You have the most posts of any Wikipedia admin, ever. And yeah, your endorsement should say a lot here.  Majorly  talk  16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Ling.Nut

 * My exp. with WR was indeed a long time ago, and indeed I have not been back since. Why should I? It was a vile place. It wasn't reasoned criticism (which is fine, even when it's sharp/pointed), it was a cornucopia of the lowest form of uncivilized pre-pubescent ad hominem attacks. The ad hominem article coulda had an external link there, IMO.
 * People say it has changed. Well, good then.
 * I take on board CHL's admission that the situation could've been handled better. I've read the long explanations etc., and I would not have done what CHL did. Correcting an attack by adding more accurate info is ill-advised, even if well-intended. Personal info issues are of tremendous importance.
 * Will strike Oppose. Am considering Supporting, or simply saying nothing. Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 05:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ling.Nut. Today is a busy day of class for me (one of my last two days before finals next week), so I won't be able to respond to concerns as rapidly today, but I genuinely appreciate that you've taken a second look. Cool Hand Luke 14:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Moved discussion concerning Ryan Postlethwaite's vote comments
(discussion moved back to main page; see discussion below)

Conversation moved off main page by --Tznkai (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate if this were left on the vote page. If nothing else, restore Ryan's own words, which include his full rationale and a correction. With that much rationale, one modest counterpoint should also be reasonable. Cool Hand Luke 21:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I have moved it back. I don't think it is appropriate to include only Ryan's original rationale, when others have countered him and even Ryan himself has clarified that original statement in the thread that followed. If that discussion must be removed, then I suggest we remove the entire thread here, including Ryan's initial statement, and replace it with a single link from Ryan's vote. ATren (talk) 22:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly support that good-faith revert of a good-faith move, given the circumstances. Notice that each of the editors who crossed out their oppose votes afterward had cited WR or Postlethwaite, and there are even more that cite one or the other and haven't changed their vote, so these are special circumstances. Tiny type pointing to the talk page is inadequate when we've got an editor correcting himself on the facts. The vote page should not be misleading. -- Noroton (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm with Noroton and ATren on this (obviously, since one of the comments was mine). The initial comment is potentially misleading, and many people have voted based on Ryan's comments and then retracted that vote based on further information. Since the further information contradicts Ryan's initial summary of events (which Ryan himself has clarified), it should stay. Avruch  T 22:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I also agree that there is substantive and relevant information that would be lost if only the initial vote were retained, since it contains information that Ryan himself has corrected. ++Lar: t/c 23:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, if there's any objections, I don't want anyone to edit war over this. The suggestion to link the initial vote rationale to the talk page as well is another solution. I don't want it to be misleading, but I'm not trying to receive special treatment either. Cool Hand Luke 22:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I like Atren's suggest most right now - but I think Ryan should comment here before we move forward it at all feasable. How does that sound?--Tznkai (talk) 23:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Can I ask what the benefit is of removing the discussion? It doesn't appear to be getting longer, and it doesn't seem to be encouraging a raft of similar discussions elsewhere that I've noticed. So why not leave it as is? Avruch  T 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I dunno - but we've been doing it on multiple vote pages, probably just to discourage too much threaded discussion--Tznkai (talk) 00:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * probably just to discourage too much threaded discussion -- agreed, we should discourage that on the vote page. The reason for discouraging it is to avoid confusion, disruption and inconvenience to Wikipedia editors who upload that page in order to vote. But in this situation, removing the (rather short) thread results in even worse confusion, as shown by editors who !voted after stating that they were influenced by Ryan Postlethwaite's initial comment, absent that editor's follow-up comment correcting some initial statements. Clarity and transparency -- in this particular case -- is served by keeping that short thread on that page. If editors keep adding to that thread, an alternative solution might be to "close" the thread in a colored box, asking editors to bring comments to this talk page. IMO, that would serve all cogent concerns. Essentially, the problem with the thread is the inconvenience of scrolling further down, not irrelevance or unimportance to the subject at hand. Avoiding essential confusion among voting editors trumps that. Anyway, that's my thinking; if there's a fair rationale that goes against CHL's interests, I'll try my best to consider that with an open mind as well. -- Noroton (talk) 01:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is exactly why I thought voting should be no comments at all, with all comments deleted so that votes are votes not campaigning or misinformation. Otherwise it's wide open to this kind of attempt at Well Poisoning. --Barberio (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that comment-free voting would be better. That way, voters could see serious concerns in their proper context rather than in soundbites.
 * That said, I don't think that Ryan's vote is in bad faith. Snippy vote comments are the nature of ACE2008. We might change it for future elections, but the label "well poisoning" is precisely the kind of gross rhetorical soundbite I would like to avoid. Ryan just doesn't think I'm a good candidate. I disagree with him, but I can tell he's voting based on his good faith concerns rather than a malicious intent to "poison." Cool Hand Luke 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Even assuming good faith, it was an attempt to negatively campaign in a voting comment and influence the result, and it did have influence on people's votes. So I'll have to say the label stands. --Barberio (talk) 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, a secret ballot would be even better. --Michael Snow (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally feel somewhat duped - the allegations seemed solid and seemed justified, and it came from a contributor who is normally reliable. I don't believe he did it in bad faith, but it should not have been done at all, I don't really think that's in dispute now. Carelessness can be just as dangerous as malice. I'm not sure secret ballot will fix the problems as it will simply hide the canvassed votes from those who might spot them, but I would suggest modifying the suffrage requirements. I wish to apologise to the candidate for jumping to an incorrect conclusion and wish him luck with what looks to be a successful campaign for membership of ArbCom. Orderinchaos 18:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A message to my supporters: don't strategically oppose Jayvdb
Due to the off-site attacks on his campaign, I implore my supporters (and everyone else) to not strategically oppose Jayvdb. He's received more than enough coordinated opposition, and it's not right. See my full rationale at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb. Cool Hand Luke 15:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Luke's e-mail to Fish & Karate
F&K has forwarded the e-mail to me and, unless F&K himself altered it (which I don't believe for a moment) it did indeed from CHL. In it, he asks F&K to approach an editor has voted oppose to CHL and ask if he might reconsider. That editor's stated reasons for opposing CHL were that he had chosen seven other candidates to support, and was simply opposing all other candidates to improve his favoured seven's chances of election. CHL suggested that, if that editor's preferred seven candidates were not all in a position to be elected, he might consider casting some strategic votes to have some impact on who of the "bubble" candidates would be elected. In my view I don't think this undermines my support of Luke, but it does disappoint me a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Luke's activities didn't violate WP:CANVASS, as it was a request to a single editor to shift a vote he had already cast.
 * The e-mail does nothing to contradict anythig else Luke has said about strategic voting; he has asked that his supporters not vote against other candidates solely to improve his own election chances, which is not undermined by trying to persuade this editor to change his vote.
 * I am somewhat disturbed that Luke would ask another editor to do this on his behalf, rather than contact the editor directly about his vote.
 * I would imagine that if Luke thought this kind of thing was okay, he would have contacted Maxim directly and openly. Someone has changed WP:CANVAS to mention "multiple" people being contacted since I last looked at it, which in fairness was probably 18 months ago, although I would still say "stealth canvassing" about covers this. fish &amp;karate 09:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the spirit of the anti-canvassing regulations is to avoid skewing the participant base of a discussion in one direction or the other. Since the person being canvassed was already involved in the discussion, I don't think that applies here.  My only concern is that he went through you; if he'd contacted this editor directly, even by e-mail, I'd see absolutely zero problem with it.  I don't think the way he went about it violates any policy or guideline, but it probably does fall short of best transparency practises. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not totally convinced WP:CANVASS actually applies to an ArbCom vote. It's a vote, not a !vote after all, and some more guidance is needed. And seeking the change of one vote is better than his apparent "holier than thou" attitude over on WR for the past few months! GTD 13:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:CANVASS is inconsistent with a fair election process. People should be allowed to talk to each other about the election.  On the other hand, people should have the right not to be "bothered" about their particular vote if they don't want to be.  The solution is to allow people to vote without disclosing their votes publicly (the correct term is "secret ballot", but I suppose "secret" is a word best avoided when discussing procedures on Wikipedia).  There has been a discussion of that idea here, and one comment in particular, near the end, that suggests that some version of this idea may actually be implemented for next year.  6SJ7 (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I emailed you because Maxim voted for you, Fish & Karate, six others, and opposed the rest. I believed that he was one of your most loyal supporters, and didn't want to do anything that might seem to undermine or denigrate your campaign. At the time, you were polling poorly, and I thought it would be appropriate if you yourself "released" your supporter for voting tactically. That could have gone either way for me: Maxim could have voted continue opposing me while supporting others instead, as you have done. That's how tactical voting works. Swings both ways.
 * You don't canvass by having trying to open a discussion with people who've opposed you in an election. I believe that any responsible candidate, be it for RFA, RFB, or Arbcom elections, or even nominators in an AFD, should try to start a dialogue with people who oppose them. I don't think that elections are merely and avenue to cast a !vote, but are instead an opportunity to seek some semblance of consensus by having more people engage more fully in the debate. I appreciate all the users who have given this talk page a second look.
 * Canvassing, on the other hand, would be seeking outsiders and trying to get them to come vote. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned that there may not have been an adequate examination of whether the e-mail might have been a forgery. Based on their posts to WR, F&K is relying on the footer and Sarcasticidealist is relying on the return address; both of these can be forged - neither has apparently verified that it came through the wikimedia mail server --Random832 (contribs) 14:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, posted below. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Text of the email

 * One of my supporters thinks you have a good relationship with Maxim (who got to be my #1 oppose vote, although user says it's just because I'm not in their preferred slate of seven).


 * If so, is there any chance you might convince Maxim to make some strategic votes--his first pick of seven are probably not all going to make it, and I wonder if I would seem to be a good second choice candidate.


 * Thanks either way!


 * BTW, I see that you have much more experience closing deletions than me, and I value the answer to your followup.


 * Frank
 * (Cool Hand Luke)

Posted with F&K's apparent support on WR. Cool Hand Luke 14:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had a couple of people (not arbcom candidates, but their fans or those who think my votes were somehow wrong) sort of question me etc over my votes and I personally dislike it. I've also seen other people do this on the election pages and on people's talk pages. I think it's a tiny bit intimidating, but maybe that's just me. If F+K was a friend of the person he was asked to petition I can see that would be a bit less confrontational than people they'd not really had much to do with on wiki asking them out of the blue. But for CHL to do this does sound a bit like machinating. I think for us to be shown the contents/exact wording of that part of the email would be in the interests of those voting in these elections, so we can each judge for ourselves as individuals whether we think it's ok, and whether we still want our votes to stand, or whether we were voting for someone with qualities of which we were perhaps less aware than we should be. (edit conflict) thanks for posting it, CHL :) Sticky   Parkin  14:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral #2 of this event... Don't send e-mails to people, whether newbies or long-term admins, unless you're ready for them to publish what you've written on WR and forward it to all and sundry. Avruch  T 14:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was just about to say that F&K's behavior here bothers me far more than Luke's. S. D. D.J.Jameson 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If someone has info they think the voters or people he knows need to know, they have a right to let people know about it IMHO. It's a matter of conscience. Should things that might damage the chances of possible arbs be possibly covered up by friends? That's an argument we've already had. Anyway F+K was just changing his own vote, I don't think he made much other public comment until people asked him, and he didn't publish the email publicly much until he had CHL's permission- and CHL published it himself in this discussion anyway, for transparency and decency's sake. Sticky   Parkin  14:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For myself I think CHL sending this email was unwise, a bit silly, and puts a bit of doubt in people's minds, but I hope it doesn't illustrate as much about him as his other good actions, rational clear headedness that he has displayed etc. But for that I can only hope and gamble/trust. He was doing well anyway, so he didn't need to do this.  Sticky   Parkin  15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

On asking opponents for assistance
OK... upfront disclosure, I've been contacting folks, making the case for candidates I support, and I don't think that it's per se wrong to do so. I tend to stick to people I have existing onwiki relationships with who I think would be amenable to being contacted. If they say don't bug me, I stop. No big deal there, really. That's NOT the same thing at all as asking for bloc voting as we saw in another candidate's votings. Now, don't take from the following analogy that the ACE2008 is anywhere near as important as even a State Rep election ... but in the recent US presidential campaign, we saw people being asked to switch allegiance... consider that when John Edwards withdrew, (and even before, when it was clear he was not going to win) both remaining Democratic candidates asked his supporters to consider switching. I happen to think F&K and CHL have a lot in common in their platforms and views, they stand for change we really need, and I would have liked to see both of them elected. However, as things stand now, F&K is losing. It's not likely, absent a major change, that he will win. Which is a shame. But it is what it is. If F&K wants the change his platform says he wants, ensuring that candidates who also want it, and who have a chance to get elected, actually get elected is one GOOD way to get that. So I don't see CHL contacting F&K asking him to try to sway his supporters to also support CHL as at all unreasonable (especially a few days ago when CHL was not where he was now).

Maxim's approach of doing exactly 7 supports and opposing the rest... might be useful in the early going, but where things stand now, he and others doing that ought to reconsider, they ought to look at the candidates "on the bubble" and decide which of those they want the most, and change their votes accordingly. At this point dislodging Risker probably isn't going to happen, she's sailing. At this point, getting Kurt elected probably isn't going to happen either (and those are both good things in my world view!). But the differences between, say, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Wizardman, Coren and SirFozzie are significant enough, and they are close enough in vote percentages, that doing some deep thinking about which ones to support and which not to seems like a good thing. ++Lar: t/c 15:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I concur with Lar.  Enigma  message 03:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If CHL had approached Maxim directly about rethinking his tactical votes, he might have been accused of trying to steal F&K's votes behind his back. So, if CHL was going to pursue the idea at all, at least he chose a better way to do it by approaching F&K so he'd have the chance to protect his vote if he wanted to. As to the idea of seeking strategic votes at all...it makes me uncomfortable since it smacks of politicking instead of competing on one's merits. However, I note that on the same day as the email apparently was sent (Dec. 4, if my understanding is correct), CHL was asking his supporters not to strategically oppose Jayvdb because of the bloc voting issue, even if it would have benefited CHL. This latter event gives me hope that CHL is not just playing politics, but I'd like a bit more understanding of why he pursued strategic votes on the one hand but seemed to be disdainful of them in the other case. alanyst /talk/ 15:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, that's what I said above. I did not want to denigrate F&K's campaign in any way.
 * As for tactical votes, they're a reality of this process. If you think that one candidate "on the bubble" (as Lar says) is better than another, you're likely to vote for them over the other even if they were not in your original ideal slate of future arbitrators. I've accepted that this process occurs; it cuts both ways, and it operates as a very bad imitation of an instant run-off election.
 * With Jayvdb, I asked that strategic oppose votes abstain (or at least clearly label their tactical reasoning) because the candidate was already hit with a decent number of oppose votes that were canvassed off site. To compensate, I thought that a few of those who would otherwise strategically vote against him should abstain. But I have no problem with voters tactically voting against me. I've not been the target of canvassing (as far as I'm aware), and all the concerns about my candidacy are sincere. Cool Hand Luke 15:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's helpful. alanyst /talk/ 15:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ethics and politicking: a jeremiad
First, let me address some of the wrongheaded attitudes I disagree with that I see behind Alanyst's, Sticky Parkin's and SarcasticIdealist's comments:

In order to actually get anything done in this world, in nearly any leadership position whatever, you have to politick (Merriam-Webster: to engage in often partisan political discussion or activity ). There is absolutely nothing ethically wrong with politicking, at least under this definition. It involves being able to work with others to get something done. That generally means being able to discuss matters -- sensitive matters -- with others. When matters are sensitive -- as for instance, when someone could get upset by even discussing the matter -- then success demands a certain amount of discretion (might as well define that, too -- from M-W: 1: the quality of being discreet: circumspection; especially: cautious reserve in speech ). Would you really want a political leader, a mayor, or even a religious leader like a bishop, priest, rabbi or pastor not to be cautious in discussing sensitive matters with you or with others? Have you ever had a family crisis or difficulty with a lover or friend or colleague, fellow employee or neighbor in which you thought simple openness or transparency was always the best policy? If so, those relationships ended badly for you, didn't they? Human beings sometimes need you to shut up in order to get along with them. (Angels are probably different. Wait till you get to heaven to be totally open and transparent with everyone at all times. Maybe it will work there.) It really should not be so hard to believe that the same discretion is called for in a wider scope such as this little election. The quality of being able to shut up in public and discuss something privately is useful in a lot of different circumstances. It's particularly useful when you hope to get important things done, as anyone who's ever actually seen leaders lead will confirm. It's one of the more useful qualities in an arbcom member.

Yes, we like openness and transparency in most things. I certainly want arbcom members to give us adequate reasoning on why they make decisions in important cases, and I want some openness along the way, so that community members who are discussing things on the evidence and workship pages are not wasting their time on aspects of a subject that the committee has no interest in. If I see an adequate explanation for a committee decision, I'm more likely to think the matter was dealt with in a sincere, ethical, thoughtful way, and the explanation may confirm all of that. Often when we don't get a good explanation from a public official, we smell something fishy because often there's something rotten that we're not being shown. Certainly, there are liars, cheats, schemers and con artists who also operate in the shadows for their own purposes. Of course we want to be pricking up our ears when we get wind of private discussions of candidates and officeholders.

But that doesn't mean that sincere, thoughtful, ethical people need to make every discussion or move public. Committee members will have to be able to have some discreet discussions among themselves, just as city council members, members of parliament and congress and senators do. Just as members of any board do. Public discussions almost always need to be supplemented with private discussions. As long as the public discussions show us that there is adequate thinking going on -- thinking that we can evaluate for ourselves to see whether some move is justified -- then we have all the transparency we, the public, deserve. So don't hold your nose at the thought of "politics" or "lack of transparency" in everything during an election. Elections almost always demand politics. We're looking for leaders here, not desert monks or mountaintop gurus.

Sticky Parkin: Part of what we're at Wikipedia for is to come to agreements about how to build and run this encyclopedia factory. Therefore, we need to discuss and others need to be able to ask us to consider and reconsider. If someone contacts you politely about any decision you're involved with, it's wrong to consider that as "pressure" or in any way wrong. To some degree, Wikipedia makes us all decisionmakers here, and to make good decisions, we need to have problems brought to our attention, sometimes personally. You should not be suggesting that there is even the faintest taint of impropriety just because someone contacts you privately and asks you to reconsider something. We shouldn't discourage it. A little discomfort is fine -- shows you're thinking.

Second, as to this specific case -- no, never mind. Lar and Sarcastic Idealist and others have already said it: Nothing has come up specifically that's unethical in any way. I'll only add that if Fish & Karate thinks something was unethical, F&K should spell that out.

(No private -- or public -- messages were involved in the production of this jeremiad, not that there would be anything wrong with that.) -- Noroton (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No-one has a problem with private discussion of sensitive info by arbs- I certainly don't, anyway. Machinating is a bit different.  As to email etc- I don't like people I don't know emailing me about my votes but maybe that's just me.  None of them were bad- just a bit surprising to be emailed out of the blue about the matter of my vote.  Oh and in both cases, it wasn't info I needed to know to vote accurately, it was someone who misunderstood what I'd said as I'd tried to be vague for reasons of tact in my vote- not their fault, but not anything which I needed to know to vote properly, or a problem to be brought to my attention, unless it was my vagueness.  If the votes were private (as hopefully they will be in some future year) no-one would get any approaches like that or hastle or attempt to sway them after they'd voted, and Luke's email to F+K would probably never need to happen.  Sticky   Parkin  00:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that secret ballots are probably better for elections. I assume the system we have is a well-intentioned experiment designed to get us to discuss more. My rant, a sore point with me for a long time, really boils down to the idea that people can't approve of democracy and disapprove of politics in general (or approve of governance at all and disapprove of politicking), but I'm off the hobby horse, now. -- Noroton (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Will be mostly offline for finals
I will be mostly away until Tuesday when I finish my last law school final. I learned long ago that I could not study for finals and maintain a physical connection to the internet at the same&mdash;Wikipedia is too distracting. It seems especially true now. I'll check up on things once a day or so, but I really really need to learn some admin law.

If you're so inclined, wish me luck.

I would like to thank all of my supporters for their continuing support, no matter how it turns out. Cool Hand Luke 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)