Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements

I hate to sound like I'm whining, but can I be listed first? After all, I think that I announced first. 172 04:13, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

They currently seem to be in nomination order ;-) I think there's a quality selection here - David Gerard 21:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A question

Is anyone supposed to post directly on the candidate statements page? I find Hadal's response to Raul off-putting -- that's Raul's space, I think. But I don't know what the guidelines are, and don't want to be accused of censorship if I revert Hadal's edit. Any thoughts? Jwrosenzweig 22:15, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that was a vandal with the name Hada-capital I. But my question stands in theory. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think having a separate "questions" page would be more appropriate. This could be a subpage of each candidate's user page in same way as the Board elections were done. Angela . 00:37, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Angela. However, no one has seemed to have anything to say so far. Ambivalenthysteria 02:58, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements

from UninvitedCompany

As many readers know, I take an active interest in policy issues at Wikipedia and served for a time as a member of the arbitration committee before resigning last February. I would like to encourage the Wikipedia community to consider closely the qualifications of candidates in certain crucial areas prior to casting their votes:

Committee members would ideally have experience in several other online communities in addition to Wikipedia itself, preferably as a sponsor, moderator, or administrator.

To work together most effectively with other committee members, the best candidates would have practical experience with group decisionmaking. Since true group decisionmaking in online communities is rare, such experience in most cases would come from real-world activities.

The ideal candidate would have some sort of real-world experience in dealing with behavior problems, whether as a bouncer at a bar, a camp counselor, a parent, a Sunday school teacher, or a member of the United States Secret Service.

Since the term of office is substantially longer than most Wikipedians' duration of participation, and since some arbitration committee members have all but left Wikipedia, candidates should be prepared to explain the depth of their commitment to Wikipedia, their likely duration of participation, and whether they intend to take numerous or lengthy Wikiholidays.

I would encourage all candidates to address these points in their Candidate Statement or in a linked page.

While I respect all candidates and believe that each could serve the community well as a member of the committee, two exemplary candidates stand out. I would encourage the community to support:

User:David Gerard, and
User:Jwrosenzweig

UninvitedCompany 19:12, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I humbly thank UC for the endorsement. For UC's information (and anyone else's who wishes), I have replied to UC's points at User:Jwrosenzweig/AC candidacy, as my statement is already a bit long. If you have questions about my comments there, please note them at User talk:Jwrosenzweig and I'm happy to discuss them. Jwrosenzweig 22:34, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from blankfaze

As I believe him to be a user who holds the best interests of Wikipedia in his mind at all times, and someone who is more than capable of fulfilling the duties of the position, I hereby officially endorse Raul654 and Jwrosenzweig as candidates for the open Arbitration Committee seats, and encourage all members of the community to strongly consider supporting them. blankfaze | (беседа!) 19:47, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from Neutrality

We have a fine selection of candidates to choose from. Each has contributed the Wiki in their own way, and has gained distinction among the community for their achievements. However, two users in as particular are the most well-suited and well-qualified. Both are experienced, sensible users who are in touch with a firm notion of should Wikipedia is and what it should be. I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC:

Good luck to all, and may the best users win! Neutrality 01:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from Acegikmo1

I strongly oppose endorsements of particular candidates appearing on this talk page. I mean no offense or disrespect to the users above or to the candidates they have endorsed, but I must request that the endorsements be moved to individual user pages and off of this talk page. It seems to me that this page should be used to discuss matters relating to the election statements page, like the creation of candidate questions pages. I believe that placing official endorsements for individual candidates here is unfair to the candidates and to potential voters.

Most sincerely,

Acegikmo1 22:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I endorse Acegikmo's statement above. ;-) In all seriousness, I think it would be wise -- if 30 people wish to chime in, it will overwhelm this page. User and user talk pages, however, are so rarely traveled in many instances that I wonder if a third option is possible? A subpage of this talk page? Or perhaps each candidate could create a subpage for the purpose of listing endorsements? I'm open to any solution, I'm just wondering if a solution other than user or user talk pages would be wiser -- this election is happening swiftly enough that I worry we're going to miss wise courses of action. And I hope everyone knows I'm saying this out of a desire to let everyone's voice be heard (I'm a little hesitant to speak up as I'm a recipient of two endorsements, and don't want to be seen as simply asking for my horn to be tooted more loudly) -- if I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, please use my underutilized talk page to politely inform me so. :-) Jwrosenzweig 22:29, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I started this, so I'll respond. Traditionally, people have been chosen for special roles through a process of discussion, voting, and consensus. Traditionally, this has been a very open process, with substantially all votes and rationale and discussion occuring in public. This has been true, for example, with administrators, bureaucrats, and to a lesser degree with developers. Since it is proposed that this election will be by secret ballot (something I do not necessarily endorse), I feel that it is highly appropriate for there to be a public discussion of the merits of the candidates prior to the election itself -- both because of tradition, and because we'll have a better decision with more community buy-in.

UninvitedCompany 01:44, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from 172

In recent months we've been seeing the rise of a bureaucratic caste on Wikipedia, reminding me of Max Weber's concept of "politics as a vocation." [1]. Users who instead primarily write articles (as opposed to those who sit on all these committees and spend a lot of time on IRC) are becoming increasingly detached from the governance of Wikipedia. Yet, trying to write quality, NPOV articles on controversial subjects (the source of conflict on Wikipedia)-- esp. on contemporary and modern history and politics-- is necessary for seeing the bigger picture that I allude to in my candidate statement. (Many seem to think that minimizing disruption is more important than cleaning up the mess left by users who are impeding efforts to make Wikipedia into a scholarly, quality sourcebook, as opposed to a social club.)

While all but one of the candidates are excellent users, Jwrosenzweig's commitment to scholarly standards and his vast contributions to writing scores of articles stand out.

Thus, I strongly urge all Wikipedians to vote for these two users to be on the AC:

User:Jwrosenzweig
172 (well, we are casting two votes (: )

from David Gerard

I love everyone - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Questions

May we ask questions to the candidates, and if so, where can we do so ? SweetLittleFluffyThing 00:37, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You can ask me any questions you like, here or on my talk. If the other candidates agree, I will create a special portion of my user name space for this purpose, otherwise I will simply keep it in an unarchived (at least until the election is over) portion of my talk page (assuming you don't ask me here :) Sam [Spade] 01:47, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ask away! - David Gerard 17:20, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)