|
#REDIRECT [[Nintendo GameCube]] {{R from alternate spelling}}
'''A WARNING TO ALL WOULD-BE ARBITRATORS'''
:''Being on the Arbitration Committee is the most thankless job on Wikipedia. It is absolutely impossible to do it such that people are happy with you. If you are doing a bad job, people complain; if you are doing a good job, people don't notice (or sometimes even then complain). All of your actions are examined under a microscope. People expect you to be the Oracle of all truth - to work miracles no matter how complicated the case, no matter how how bad the evidence, no matter how hostile and stubborn the disputants. And of course, there are the accusations of cabalism.'' - [[User:Raul654/Raul's laws|Raul's 9th law of Wikipedia]]
Don't say you weren't warned. [[User:Raul654|→Raul654]] 04:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
----
==Ideal candidate is mad==
Seriously, what sane person would want that workload?
''If nominated, I will not run; if elected, I will not serve.'' --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 23:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
:Not really. We just need some creative people on it. If the work-load gets too big, create sub-committees. That's what a business would do if it had Wikipedia's unlimited pool of free labor along with the Arbcom's workload. [[User:172|172]] | [[User talk:172|Talk]] 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
==Candidate statements==
Since the matter of candidate statements comes up in this week's ''Signpost'', I assume it's not to early to post one. If I am wrong, please go ahead and revert my changes to this project page. [[User:172|172]] | [[User talk:172|Talk]] 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
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/Templates/2005 ArbCom election}} Really? I was under the impression that ''The Signpost'' was going to do candidate profiles in November... [[User:Flcelloguy|Flcelloguy]] |<small> [[User talk:Flcelloguy|A <font color = brown> note? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 13:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
: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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 14:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
== Word limit ==
The page suggests that statements are about 250 words in length. I have added a notice saying that anything over 300 will be cut off, but I'd welcome views on this. At present there are 10 candidates, whose statements are of the following lengths (based on the Microsoft Works word count):
*172 - 303 words
*Ambi - 356 words
*Carbonite - 311 words
*Filiocht - 201 words
*Ilyanep - 324 words
*Jtkiefer - 222 words
*Luigi30 - 96 words
*Merovingian - 247 words
*Ral315 - 354 words
*Redwolf24 - 224 words
A cut-off of 300 words would mean that 5 of the existing 10 statements are trimmed. Interestingly, so would a cut-off of 250 words.
If the statements are cut-off the candidates should be notified on their talk pages so they can make any adjustments they deem appropriate, [[User:Jguk|jguk]] 20:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
:Is it really necessary to cut anything off? I'd perfer that we made a mandatory cut-off at 350, because I would have trouble cutting off 24 words (however, 350 would make Ambi and Ral315's too long). Our other option is no cut-off. — [[User:Ilyanep|<span style="color:gray;">Ilγαηερ</span>]] [[User talk:Ilyanep|<span style="color: #333333;">(Tαlκ)</span>]] 20:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 23:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::::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. <font color="red">[[User:Ral315|Ral]]</font><font color="green">[[User talk:Ral315|315]]</font> <font color="blue">[[WP:SIGN|W<sub>S</sub>]]</font> 06:00, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::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)
: 250 is okay, but 200 would be better. Candidates maunder on when they're allowed to. Give them a short leash and they'll stick to what they think is most important. Hopefully they'll ditch the platitudes and tell you more about what they really think. And if they don't, don't vote for them! (52 words) --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway]][[User talk:Tony Sidaway|<small><sup>Talk</sup></small>]] 14:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
People unable to conform to a simple word count probably don't care much about those doing the reading (and voting). [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 02:06, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
==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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
: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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 23:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 23:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
::::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|<font color=blue>Ingoolemo</font>]] [[User_talk:Ingoolemo|<font color=blue><sup>talk</font></sup>]] 07:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::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? ]]</font color>| [[User:Flcelloguy/Desk|Desk]] </small>| [[Wikipedia:Signpost|W]]<sub>[[Wikipedia:Signpost|S]] </sub> 13:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
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)
I think it's a valid question. There's no way I'd vote for a minor to be an arbitrator. [[User:Grace Note|Grace Note]] 01:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:To ask the obvious - why? [[User:Ambi|Ambi]] 01:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
kids are stupid. I know this because I was one once, have 2 now, and have never found a lack of them in my life. They shouldn't be allowed to decide what shirt to wear, much less the conduct guidelines of a leading non-profit. just because we can't see each other easilly doesn't make this a magical cybertopia utterly lacking in common sense and rational business practices. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 02:10, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:P.S. I don't rule out voting for someone who is young, I just think it is a fctor that needs to be taken into account. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade]] 02:16, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
| 