Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
OceanSplash (talk | contribs) |
m Fixing Lint errors from Wikipedia:Linter/Signature submissions (Task 31) Tags: Fixed lint errors paws [2.2] |
||
| (25 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 18:
I think it's about time, as there are only two months left until the election. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>]] 03:38, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/
:The Signpost can do a writeup on the statements whenever they wish, but that doesn't affect the statements themselves being released. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 14:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
:I know, I was being sarcastic (I'm ''writing'' the whole series). I actually would prefer that the candidate statements come out earlier rather than later; this gives me more time to write everything. :-) Good luck to all the candidates. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
== Word limit ==
Line 47:
::I'd go with 400 words. If that's how much it takes to make yourself articulate, so be it. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 21:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Should there be a word limit? Personally, I don't see a problem with someone going +/- one or two hundred words. I can see the need for a limit, though. I don't have a problem with anyone going over, as long as no one writes a novel here. ;-) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
::::Agreed — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>]] 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::Same here. Personally, I didn't even think about my statement going over 250 words, but I feel that a strict limit is bad. As long as we don't get 5,000 word manifestos, I think we're fine.
:::::I'm with that, so long as we don't see "Username's Extended War and Peace Reponse and Criticism on the Role of the Arbitration Committee and why I should be an Arbiter" essay (to think that's just the title!) I don't think anyone will really mind reading a tad more to make the RIGHT choice (if that exists, as they all seem to be great choices). '''[[User:Sasquatch|<font color=#89CF19>Sasquatch</font>]]'''<span style="background-color:#C1FF5F">[[User_talk:Sasquatch|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Sasquatch|c]]</span> 06:15, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 62:
==Candidate Questions==
Jguk, you asked every candidate ''Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)'' I fail to see how this is pertinent to the ArbCom elections. The candidate's age shouldn't matter; indeed, this is a personal detail some may feel hesistant in disclosing. Knowing someone's age should '''not''' be a factor; it doesn't matter if the candidate is two, twelve, twenty-two, or (heaven forbid) two-hundred and twenty-two. If you're concerned about the maturity of the users, people should be able to evaluate that regardless of the age. Someone at fourteen or fifteen (which we have several candidates) can be just as mature as someone fourty or fifty, if not more. '''It shouldn't matter.''' You shouldn't judge a book by its cover, and you shouldn't judge someone by his/her age, especially if someone is unwilling to disclose that piece of personal information. Also, you ask students to state what subjects they are taking. Again, it shouldn't matter. I really don't care if someone is taking underwater basket weaving 101, advanced literature, nuclear physics, or is working towards a Ph.D. in the arts; you don't need any qualifications to sit on the ArbCom, and I frankly don't see how the classes someone is taking should be included. If you're worried that a candidate might not have enough time, why not ask them so directly? ''Do you feel that you will have enough time throughout your term to accomplish the tasks of ArbCom?'' Jguk, I ask that you reconsider your first question. Of course, I respect your opinion, and I don't mind if candidates want to reply to that question, but I also ask that if someone does not wish to answer that question, that it not be held against him/her. Thanks very much for listening to me, and as always, I value your opinion. Thanks very much for your understanding! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
:I didn't go outright in disclosing it in my statement, but I believe that if someone wants to know I will tell them. As for classes, I don't think anything I say will really tell you anything much. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>]] 23:21, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::I personally am 15 and I know it may hurt my chances a bit, but I still think its a good question. Arbitrators all ahve to give out their full name, so giving out their age shouldn't be too bad. [[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">R</font>]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<font color="green">e</font>]][[User:Redwolf24|<font color="darkblue">dwolf24</font>]] ([[User talk:Redwolf24|talk]]) 23:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Really? I don't think you have to disclose your full name — take a look at [[WP:AC]]; I don't know [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality's]] full name, or [[User:Sannse|Sannse]]'s name, if I am correct. In either case, I am just worried that people will hold not answering this question against a candidate; I think every candidate should have a right to refuse to answer it, because it (in my humble opinion) is not pertinent to the ArbCom, and is also asking private details that some may be hesistant to give out. I don't mind if candidates (such as you) want to answer, I just want to make sure that no one holds this question against a candidate if s/he doesn't want to answer it. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
Flcelloguy, there is a space explicitly set aside for questions and comments on candidates and I chose to ask some questions that I feel will better give me a view of the candidates. I'd be surprised if other wikipedians don't ask their own questions as well before the election's over. Candidates may, if they wish, answer them, and I hope that they will, but that is their free choice. Whether anyone else finds value in the answers to the questions I asked, I don't know - I guess some will, some won't. As far as what determines any wikipedian's vote, that is entirely up to that wikipedian, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 23:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:OK, that's fine with me. I just ask that people respect a candidate's right not to answer some questions, if the candidate feels uncomfortable answering it, and ask that people not hold that against them. For example, if I asked every candidate ''Where do you live? What is your phone number, your employer (if you have one), and your social security number?'', all the candidates would clearly refuse to answer. I just don't think that someone refusing to answer any type of question that is not directly pertinent to the ArbCom should be held against him/her. Thanks! [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
::::Here's one reason I prefer not to disclose my age: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlkivar&diff=10055656&oldid=10055192]. [[User:Ingoolemo|<
:::::I've taken the liberty and moved your comment to the bottom, Ingoolemo. That's exactly my point — I've seen multiple times where people have looked down on someone or believed that they were superior based on age. I've seen people say that because someone was younger then him, that his version had to be right. I don't think age should be a factor; judge the candidates by their actions, not their age. In addition, with the candidates giving their ages, some people might lose respect for the ArbCom — the same people who scorned those younger then them would scorn people younger then them judging them. I urge that people not take a candidate's age, occupation, or classes into account here. Thanks. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
I suppose I have a view of this from another angle. I considered not answering this question for a different reason. Many of the electorate are likely to view me as a bit old and boring and probably not all that good at the technical stuff. But I decided in the end that I would answer it, because being a bit old and boring and probably not all that good at the technical stuff is part of what I am and influences the way I operate and interact. I think, though I may be wrong, that if I was young and energetic and good at the technical stuff, as many of the other candidates clearly are, I'd make that plain, too. I do agree most strongly that it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of age here. But I would reserve the right to be put off a candidate with a track record of immature behaviour, be they 50 or 15. [[User:Filiocht|Filiocht]] | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 14:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 84:
:P.S. I don't rule out voting for someone who is young, I just think it is a fActor that needs to be taken into account. I '''would''' however rule out voting for someone who refused to give us their age, or other basic info, or who had been showed to have lied about it. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 02:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::I'm just curious, but why would you rule out someone who refused to give his/her age? I can understand regarding users who lie, but if some is uncomfortable or unwilling to disclose such information, I don't see why it should be held against him/her. It's not like we're filing a job application here - ArbCom members aren't "employed" by the Wikimedia Foundation, they aren't paid, they're volunteers. Age is an extremely sensitive piece of personal information that some may be unwilling or be hesistant to disclose, and I don't see why that should be held against him/her. Judge the candidates by their actions, not by their ages. Just my little opinion. :-) [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
I think we are filling out a job aplication, or at least a volunteer form. Age is a normal question to ask. Weirdo's who won't supply basic info are naturally disregarded. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 00:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 90:
::You have no obligation to provide it, but likewise noone else has an obligation to avoid considering that in whatever voting process Jimbo works up for the coming election. There are a few reasons some people might consider age to be relevant, e.g. countering systemic bias or if someone is about to go to university for the first time and may have a hard time judging their workload. There are plenty of reasons to think other information might concievably lead to good reasons for judging candicates, and so I think it's very fair to ask for the info and judge based on the response or lack thereof. The SSN is obviously a red herring -- it's obvious that that information is dangerous to the giver and useless on Wikipedia. Age/Sex/etc should not be considered naturally sensitive -- they are things one gets a rough impression of immediately when meeting someone on the street. If they're sensitive to specific people, I understand, but consider it a minus if not disclosed. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 13:19, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Real-world qualifications have never been an issue in the past, and it disturbs me that they've suddenly come up now. I fail to see how voting a certain group of often potentially very good candidates for a reason that they can do nothing about does ''anything'' to solve systemic bias. I also think the study load example is a red herring - I was elected in December, three months before beginning university, and had no trouble at all handling study load and arbitration duties. In any case, I believe that should be an issue for the candidate, as they're the ones in the position to judge. [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 15:11, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::::I agree with Ambi on this one, as I've stated above. I don't see how real-world qualifications should deal with this. What's next, asking candidates to submit a resume? Should we elect a Wikipedian automatically to the ArbCom if s/he has served as a judge? Age, contrary to what you say, is a highly sensisitive issue. If you're worried about the candidate's time, why not just ask, as other users have done? I still fail to see how age - or the classes someone is taking - is pertinent. Thanks. [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note?
Different WPians will vote for different reasons - just as in real-life. They have different priorities and different views on what is relevant. To me, background is interesting - it tells you something of how someone will think and react in a given situation - without it, all we have is their edits, which may or may not say much about the individual. Have a look at what happens in America when there is a Supreme Court nominee - Congress becomes very interested in how they will react and whether they will react properly. I really have no problems at all in allowing any Wikipedian to ask any question (subject to decency and libel laws). It's up to the candidates what questions they answer - and then up to the voters as to whether any answer, or failure to answer, is important to them. Hey - I just suppose it's an election!!! [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 19:49, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Line 108:
:::Yes I did, but I didn't want to make it seem entirely selfish (it's not) by alluding to myself. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>]] 20:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
:Don't forget that Ilyanep was a bureaucrat at like...12. --[[User:Phroziac|Phroziac]] <sub>.</sub> <small>o</small> º<sup> O ([[User talk:Phroziac|♥♥♥♥ chocolate!]])</sup> 21:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
==Last call==
Line 198 ⟶ 199:
== Jtkiefer question ==
I asked my questions in the approperiate subpage (above link) but Jtkiefer removed it. Look at the history you can find the question. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Jtkiefer&oldid=34177766]
: It's up to him which questions he answers; if you are unhappy that he did not answer your question then you can vote against him when the election starts, and possibly leave a comment saying that he chose not to respond to your question. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 03:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 205 ⟶ 206:
::: Thank you Talrias for moving my question to the right page.
:::"Dear Jtkiefer
:::Yes indeed these are questions. They might be troubling questions for you that you would rather not want to answer, but nonetheless they are my questions. Here they are again. You may choose not to answer, but I appreciate if you do not remove them. Even though you may think they are worthless rants, I feel I have been abused by you and think to have the right to ask why.
:::You blocked me for one week with no just cause and accused me of using a sockpuppet with no evidence. This is libel and a lie Sir. You also blocked Nosharia’s account assuming he is my stockpuppet. So you wronged two people. I asked you for proof and I ask you again. Where is your proof Sir that Nosharia was my sockpuppet? Just the fact that he agreed with me is enough to convict both of us? If you can’t produce any proof, which certainly you can’t (It is very likely Nosharia posts from a different country than I do and this can be verified by checking our IP numbers) are you willing to acknowledge that you judged hastily and apologize to both of us? Can you overcome your pride and do the right thing? Will you also tell us if you are in the habit to “first shoot and then ask the question” how can you be trusted for the office you are seeking? Before voting for the respected Jtkiefer I suggest he should be investigated more thoroughly. He is the author of many blockings. Are all of them justifiable or are they the result of his abuse of power? Is the honorable Jtkiefer utterly fair-minded or is he motivated by religious and/or political zeal that undermine his capacity to serve as an unbiased arbitrator? I also wrote a complaint against you to Jimbo.[[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Abuse_of_administrative_power]]Looks like he has no time to read the messages that people write to him. I will wait your response before taking my complaint to the arbitration committee. I remain cordially yours.
:::A message to other administrators. Our dear Jtkiefer quick to block those whom he think are "bothersome" to him. He might block me indefinately for writing these questions/complaints. Will one of you stand for me and restore my account should he block me again? Remember "evil triumphs when good people do nothing". All dictators became dictators because no one stoped them. This might seem a minor thing but abuse is abuse it it should not be tolerated or it will only increase. Thanks! I hope it is all a misunderstanding and Jtkiefer will be able to clarify everything..[[user:OceanSplash|OceanSplash]] 7, Jan 2006 04:36
::::As per OceanSplash's request to have the blocks looked into I have requested a sock check on AN/I [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#requested_sock_check|here]] <small>[[User:Jtkiefer|<font color="red">Jtkiefer</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Jtkiefer|<font color="orange">T</font>]] | [[Special:Contributions/Jtkiefer|<font color="green">C</font>]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Jtkiefer|<font color="blue">@</font>]]</sup></small> ---- 04:49, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
'No disendorsements' for this election - would seem to cover the candidate's action here. [[User:Charles Matthews|Charles Matthews]] 12:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
== deadline for answers to questions ==
is the deadline for answers to question different or the same as the deadline for candidate statements? [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 20:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:I would say you can answer questions whenever you want. They're not really obligatory. You ''could'' answer in March if you wanted, but that woudn't do much good. The sooner the better, but I don't see a "deadline" :-) [[User:Dmcdevit|Dmcdevit]]·[[User talk:Dmcdevit|t]] 21:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
:No. The deadline for asking and answering questions is the end of the election. Or a least there is no reason for it to be sooner.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 21:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
== how many ==
how many people will i be able to vote for? [[User:Kingturtle|Kingturtle]] 04:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:That's a good question. I'll let someone else answer it. My question is when we vote, will we have to give a reason why we are voting yes/no. Also is the any rules in terms of responses by those we vote for or against and their responses. What I mean, is this going to turn into a free for all having people attack people that vote no against a candidate and give a reason that maybe the person running (or their supporters) don't like.
:Hopefully that won't be the case. [[User:Davidpdx|Davidpdx]] 04:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
: You can vote for or against as many candidates as you like. The system is [[approval voting]]. When voting, you may give a short comment if you choose, but any lengthy comments may be moved to the talk page. [[User:Talrias|Talrias]] ([[User_talk:Talrias|t]] | [[Special:Emailuser/Talrias|e]] | [[Special:Contributions/Talrias|c]]) 11:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
== Can all nominated people vote? ==
On the vote page, it says nobody registered after 30 September 2005 can vote. I know of at least four of us who are registered after that date (me, LawAndOrder, Ajwebb, Rowlan). Can we vote?
[[User:Skyscrap27|Skyscrap27]] 13:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:No.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 15:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:: Isn't that against the democratic right to choose and to be chosen? We obviously can be chosen, but we can't choose. Thank you. [[User:Skyscrap27|Skyscrap27]] 16:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Wikipedia is not a democracy. --[[User:Improv|Improv]] 16:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::Ok the honest answer. Other than a slight increase in the work needed to put the elections together no hoper candidates are not a problem. Socks and meatpupets are.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 16:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
:::: Thank you for an honest answer. I still fail too see how hard it would be to make an exception for like 4-5 people, you just need to look at the list of the nominees. But, never mind. It's OK. Thanks. [[User:Skyscrap27|Skyscrap27]] 18:15, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::::Becuase it would have stopped being 4-5 people in very short order.[[User:Geni|Geni]] 18:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
::::: I see. Thanks. [[User:Skyscrap27|Skyscrap27]] 18:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
| |||