Note that the lorem ipsum (by a quick count) has 64 words in it, which is just under one sixth of the maximum wordage recommended. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Should that not be "non necessaria est"? Rwxrwxrwx 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we set a standard on whether pipes will be used in usernames or not? As of right now, 6 out of 9 usernames, as well as the User:Arbcom Candidate example, have their usernames piped. However, this time last year, all usernames were piped. So, for the sake of consistency, I'm going to pipe them all. (Usually, I'd just be bold and update it, with an explanation in an edit summary, but this is a rather important page, so I decided to give a thorough explanation here first.) Picaroon9288 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
seats are open? Derex 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At this time the number of seats that will be up for election is unknown but will probably be at least 5…
-- Avi 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few editors, myself included, have some "questions for all candidates", while its a little late for this go around, perhaps in the next election we can look back at this to streamline the process (perhaps make a "questions for all candidates" page that gets subst:'d in for all new question pages. — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No. The effort to ask the questions of all the candidates should make sure that most such questions are worth asking. Geni 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Editcountitis" should be no more welcome here than on RfA, but I am sure a fair number of users will want to at least scan the candidates' edit counts (plus there may be one or two candidates who are under the eligibility minimum). I am advised that overuse of the edit counter tools uses significant server resources and results in delays for everyone, so we don't want a couple of hundred voters each individually running a count for each of a few dozen candidates. Would it make sense for the election officials to run the edit counter for each candidate as of a particular date and post the results somewhere (as is currently done on the talk page for RfA's)? Again, this is not to endorse overemphasis on anyone's edit count, but I am sure that it is information that some voters will want to have available conveniently as background information. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to stop people "making notes" on the candidates on their own user pages, as a prelude to surveying them, reading their questions and statements, and then using a pin to select which ones to vote for, er, I mean carefully chose which ones to vote for. This could include pasting edit count tool results if a user wanted to compare different candidates. I made a brief start at this at User:Carcharoth/ArbCom_Elections because I was interested in seeing the spread across ages of the candidates. Actually publicising such notes would be more problematic. I'm going to add a disclaimer to my notes before any candidate turns up and complains that I'm misrepresenting them...
Also, the Signpost two-part feature article on the candidates will do a better job of this, and they might summarise stuff such as age, gender and location (where known) and number of edits. Carcharoth 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've specified that the 1000edit requirement to run for this committee should be as of the start of the nomination period. From other discussions this seems to have been the intent, if not, revert mercilessly!. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking about running in the arb-com elections this year, but have less then 200 edits with this account. I had 17,000+ in my other account but can't recover the password. If I do decide to run in this year elections, would the edits in both accounts will be counted. I know there is a 1,000 edit limit. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I could do that, but if I do plan to run, I'm still thinking. I likely still have my email enabled. The main reason that I lost my account password though is that I blocked those email request forms when I was getting harrassed by them. I may be able to recover my password if I find out how to unblock that link, I'll contact my internet provider again. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just note - Epopt, Theresa Knott, and now Sam Korn have all indicated they do not wish to serve another term on the Arbitration Committee. Combined with Mackensen's resignation earlier in the year, it appears there will be at least 4 open seats. I am not sure if Jay has made up his mind yet or not. Raul654 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from nominating your bots. Humor is not acceptable. Please don't even crack smiles. ArbCom elections are serious business.
P.S. I do have a soft-spot for user:Zorglbot... - crz crztalk 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think bot candidates are fine as long as they are self nominations. I think it is very unfair to the bot to nominate it for a job it may not want. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I hereby state that the nomination is my own. Nobody is making me write it --
AntiVandalBot
19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I found it rather funny, at any rate :) Raul654 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sign the petition!
A very good editor, without a doubt. If he were a sysop, it would be different, but I would say it is better for him to obtain adminship and then run for arbitrator.-- Certified.Gangsta 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you give us a little more info as to why? Thx. -- A. B. 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A petition to draft is a terrible idea. ArbCom is a big time commitment and if someone isn't interested in doing it then trying to force them into doing it is a bad idea. I'm sure Newyorkbrad is aware of the upcoming elections and he will throw his hat into the ring if he wishes. Until then, don't try to pressure him into something he may not want to do. -- Cyde Weys 06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he's a lawyer, therefore a partisan advocate. My personal opinion. A fine editor and a good grasp of policy. Push him towards Association of Members' Advocates. John Reid ° 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was very pleasantly surprised to see this, so thank you very much to Crzrussian. I considered running, and would find the time, but decided that I am probably still too new an editor (I became active around the beginning of July) to be the best choice. (I think even an RfA from me right now would draw some "too new, not enough edits yet" type opposes.) I intend to stay involved and may well run in 2007. (I am almost goaded into running right now after all by John Reid's comment, as I couldn't disagree more with the assumptions it makes, but I won't let that sway me.) Newyorkbrad 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always thought that Brad would make a fine Arbitrator and I disagree with John's view that being a lawyer would make Brad partisan. The only reason I'm not signing the petition is I don't agree with conscription. ;) Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, thanks very much to those who have newly posted (and a couple who have e-mailed) for your comments in this thread. They are very sincerely appreciated and I will bear them in mind when it's time to make decisions in the future. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Scanning the table below confirms that my time active on Wikipedia is less than just about all the candidates, so that reinforces the decision I made, but thanks again. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As of approx. 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) there are 28 candidates for ArbCom. The total number of questions asked of these candidates is 1,100. Between the candidate statements and the questions and answers for each candidate, there is approximately 1,385K of text. I started to wade through all this to attempt to form my views on this, but frankly, it's just too much. The scary thing is, it's still growing. Here are the statistics:
The candidate statements total 43K.
Candidate | Questions | Size (K) |
---|---|---|
Alex Bakharev | 34 | 45 |
Avraham | 56 | 98 |
Daniel.Bryant | 53 | 41 |
Flcelloguy | 33 | 48 |
FloNight | 35 | 41 |
freakofnurture | 41 | 64 |
Geogre | 44 | 87 |
Harvestman | 26 | 30 |
HeirToPendragon | 26 | 20 |
Improv | 39 | 57 |
John Reid | 50 | 104 |
JzG | 33 | 47 |
Kirill Lokshin | 54 | 69 |
Kylu | 42 | 68 |
Matt Yeager | 12 | 12 |
Merovingian | 37 | 31 |
Messedrocker | 50 | 51 |
MONGO | 55 | 78 |
Nandesuka | 44 | 44 |
Paul August | 26 | 20 |
Phil Sandifer | 73 | 69 |
PMA | 42 | 15 |
Sam Blanning | 31 | 47 |
Shell Kinney | 26 | 32 |
The prophet wizard of the crayon cake | 30 | 30 |
UninvitedCompany | 53 | 44 |
Voice of All | 25 | 29 |
Wildthing61476 | 30 | 21 |
TOTAL | 1100 | 1342 |
Note: Some of the question counts might not be accurate because inconsistent formatting sometimes made it difficult to identify the questions from the answers. Also, in some cases there was a great deal of back-and-forth between the questioner and the candidate—in general, I only counted follow-up questions when they were separately identified as a question.
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Answering the question in the header, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. (I guess I'm part of the problem: I asked each candidate two questions, which I thought were good questions, but imagine if everybody asked each candidate two questions.... :) ) I don't know quite what can be done about it, though, either this year or for the future. Any ideas? Newyorkbrad 13:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the first election I'll be voting in, so anyone with longer-term experience should correct me, but my understanding is that the endorsement and disendorsement pages would have related to a year in which the voting was done secretly (a la the recent Board election). This election is to be comparable to last year's, in which users posted supports or opposes to the candidates' voting pages, a bit more analogous to an RfA. So as I understand it, it will be possible for those who wish to hold off on voting and scan the votes and comments already cast. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Newyorkbrad
16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the same questions should not have been asked over and over again, by people who didn't read the previous questions or the associated answers. Someone should just not answer the questions, fill the space with lorem ipsum text and see if anyone notices. — Centrx→ talk • 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Two ways to make things less "out of hand". (1) The voters can work together in the wiki-way (many hands make light work) to produce summaries like the table below. (2) The candidates can demonstrate their suitability (or even their unsuitability) for ArbCom by refactoring and packaging and presenting the material, in a similar way that they may have to do if elected to ArbCom. Carcharoth 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I appear to have lucked out as far as questions go.
Matt Yeager
♫ (
Talk?)
23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I don't need to wade through all those answers, I just need to see one of these and then I'll know how to vote. Does anyone else think these are a bit ridiculous? — Doug Bell talk 08:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note I have removed myself from the running. My job is requiring much more time now than what I usually get and I won't have the time to do Arbitration. I'll still be around editing though. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Balla_Laika appears to be an account registered yesterday for the sole purpose of posing questions to ArbCom Candidates. Per the account log and (see second entry from bottom) Special:Contributions/Balla_Laika, it appears that this user has also created at least one additional account that also posed at least one question to at least one candidate (the question has apparently been deleted). At this point I am mentioning this as a matter of information. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that edit counts won't be posted. How about these two? Some candidates, but not all, have posted this info. Can it be published for all? Jd2718 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Earlier table removed to page history as having two tables is confusing
table since updated further and much expanded by others
Table moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table. (I moved it because I want it to be more prominent and, as someone said above, it is like a collaborative wiki project, so it should have its own page and talk page. — Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
For some reason Will beback's older edits seem lost, but I can see one from Jan 3, 2005... – Ch acor 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at User:Radiant!'s first contributions, he appears to also be User:Radiant, making his first edit to be 2004-12-18. Tra (Talk) 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Much neater way of linking to a user's permissions. Use the following, and insert the candidate name at the end (with underscored for spaces).
Could someone add this to the table?
Carcharoth
21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to add more things to this table? I was thinking of things like:
Some of these might require research. Some might not be considered suitable for publication in this form (eg. block stuff should maybe be dealt with on a per candidate basis). Some of these suggestions could be limited to being used in notes made by various users on their userpages, but some could be 'semi-official' by being used here. What do people think? Are all suitable, or only some? Carcharoth 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added links to the statements and questions, though not all the links work, due to varying naming practices. I'll check them now, but if I miss any, can someone correct them. Carcharoth 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added block log links to candidates who have been blocked at least once. Bear in mind that some of these blocks were by mistake or as a test so the existance of this link shouldn't bear any reflection on the candidate. Tra (Talk) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added ages (where available) to the notes column. I'm looking at the results, and I'm no longer sure if this was a good idea. I find the age range of the candidates interesting (14-56 where given), but I am now thinking that the actual ages of individual candidates are not that relevant. What would be the best way to handle this? I am particularly concerned about how to handle the information on the two candidates under 18. Those two candidates, ironically, may typify, in my opinion, the best and worst of allowing Wikipedia to be edited by anyone (of any age). Carcharoth 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Second question. If age is not that relevant, surely gender is even more irrelevant. Again, this is something I'd be interested in finding out (purely to see if more females than males are running - of course, with the age range, we can't say men/women!), but I wouldn't be that bothered about this. Following up on the comment about ages of current ArbCom members, what is the age and gender spread among the current ArbCom? Anyone know? Carcharoth 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Third question. Location. Might be of interest to some, but probably irrelevant again for the purposes of deciding on votes. These questions of mine were prompted by looking at the age, gender and nationality spread among the recent WMF Board election candidates. And yes, I know that this is en-Wikipedia ArbCom, not WMF Board, but I thought the comparison might be of interest. Carcharoth 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should this table be moved into Wikipedia namespace now, so that people can make use of it? Tra (Talk) 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed UninvitedCompany's quote, as this table is more for facts than the circumstances surrounding these. Any objections? Tra (Talk) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just found {{ ArbCom candidate}}. This, or a variant of it, could be useful in the above. This template was used for the Signpost series of articles in January 2006. Carcharoth 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I recently found Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests/Involved_parties. It feels like it might be relevant, but I'm not 100% sure. Does anyone want to go through this and see if any of the candidates have been involved in past ArbCom cases? Either that, or ask all of them. Carcharoth 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering about the "account compromised" thing in the block log for me: that was a moronic mistake by me. On IRC, I forgot to put in the / when I did "identify" and then the password. More moronic than that, I used the same password as for Wikipedia. The compromise lasted about an hour. I got a password change, went back, set a new and different one, and all was well again. Still, I had my friend Bishonen block me during that compromised time to be absolutely sure that no abuse could take place. Other than that, I have not been blocked. (Well, when I edited from the Netscape ISP, that ran through AOL's modem pool, so I ended up blocked by a mass AOL block from time to time, which gave me a great deal of sympathy for our AOL cousins.) Geogre 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's draft the next United States president, too!
Anomo
03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The time demands of my new job are greater than I had thought, and I don't think that I would be able to give the Arbitration Committee the attention and time it deserves at this time, so I regretfully need to withdraw. Thanks. -- Avi 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
All the Best to my Fellow ArbCom noms. My Greatest Hope is that this election will be a time for Thoughtful Reflection and Growth for all involved. Take care, FloNight 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections candidate statements|2006-12]]
to the page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/2006 ArbCom election
should be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/January 2006 ArbCom election
.
jp×
g
01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Note that the lorem ipsum (by a quick count) has 64 words in it, which is just under one sixth of the maximum wordage recommended. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 02:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Should that not be "non necessaria est"? Rwxrwxrwx 18:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Could we set a standard on whether pipes will be used in usernames or not? As of right now, 6 out of 9 usernames, as well as the User:Arbcom Candidate example, have their usernames piped. However, this time last year, all usernames were piped. So, for the sake of consistency, I'm going to pipe them all. (Usually, I'd just be bold and update it, with an explanation in an edit summary, but this is a rather important page, so I decided to give a thorough explanation here first.) Picaroon9288 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
seats are open? Derex 07:21, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
At this time the number of seats that will be up for election is unknown but will probably be at least 5…
-- Avi 07:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
Quite a few editors, myself included, have some "questions for all candidates", while its a little late for this go around, perhaps in the next election we can look back at this to streamline the process (perhaps make a "questions for all candidates" page that gets subst:'d in for all new question pages. — xaosflux Talk 13:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
No. The effort to ask the questions of all the candidates should make sure that most such questions are worth asking. Geni 18:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
"Editcountitis" should be no more welcome here than on RfA, but I am sure a fair number of users will want to at least scan the candidates' edit counts (plus there may be one or two candidates who are under the eligibility minimum). I am advised that overuse of the edit counter tools uses significant server resources and results in delays for everyone, so we don't want a couple of hundred voters each individually running a count for each of a few dozen candidates. Would it make sense for the election officials to run the edit counter for each candidate as of a particular date and post the results somewhere (as is currently done on the talk page for RfA's)? Again, this is not to endorse overemphasis on anyone's edit count, but I am sure that it is information that some voters will want to have available conveniently as background information. Newyorkbrad 23:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
There is nothing to stop people "making notes" on the candidates on their own user pages, as a prelude to surveying them, reading their questions and statements, and then using a pin to select which ones to vote for, er, I mean carefully chose which ones to vote for. This could include pasting edit count tool results if a user wanted to compare different candidates. I made a brief start at this at User:Carcharoth/ArbCom_Elections because I was interested in seeing the spread across ages of the candidates. Actually publicising such notes would be more problematic. I'm going to add a disclaimer to my notes before any candidate turns up and complains that I'm misrepresenting them...
Also, the Signpost two-part feature article on the candidates will do a better job of this, and they might summarise stuff such as age, gender and location (where known) and number of edits. Carcharoth 22:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
I've specified that the 1000edit requirement to run for this committee should be as of the start of the nomination period. From other discussions this seems to have been the intent, if not, revert mercilessly!. — xaosflux Talk 01:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm thinking about running in the arb-com elections this year, but have less then 200 edits with this account. I had 17,000+ in my other account but can't recover the password. If I do decide to run in this year elections, would the edits in both accounts will be counted. I know there is a 1,000 edit limit. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 02:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm I could do that, but if I do plan to run, I'm still thinking. I likely still have my email enabled. The main reason that I lost my account password though is that I blocked those email request forms when I was getting harrassed by them. I may be able to recover my password if I find out how to unblock that link, I'll contact my internet provider again. Jaranda wat's sup 04:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Just note - Epopt, Theresa Knott, and now Sam Korn have all indicated they do not wish to serve another term on the Arbitration Committee. Combined with Mackensen's resignation earlier in the year, it appears there will be at least 4 open seats. I am not sure if Jay has made up his mind yet or not. Raul654 18:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please refrain from nominating your bots. Humor is not acceptable. Please don't even crack smiles. ArbCom elections are serious business.
P.S. I do have a soft-spot for user:Zorglbot... - crz crztalk 05:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I think bot candidates are fine as long as they are self nominations. I think it is very unfair to the bot to nominate it for a job it may not want. Paul August ☎ 17:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I hereby state that the nomination is my own. Nobody is making me write it --
AntiVandalBot
19:30, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I found it rather funny, at any rate :) Raul654 15:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Sign the petition!
A very good editor, without a doubt. If he were a sysop, it would be different, but I would say it is better for him to obtain adminship and then run for arbitrator.-- Certified.Gangsta 05:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Can you give us a little more info as to why? Thx. -- A. B. 06:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
A petition to draft is a terrible idea. ArbCom is a big time commitment and if someone isn't interested in doing it then trying to force them into doing it is a bad idea. I'm sure Newyorkbrad is aware of the upcoming elections and he will throw his hat into the ring if he wishes. Until then, don't try to pressure him into something he may not want to do. -- Cyde Weys 06:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
No, he's a lawyer, therefore a partisan advocate. My personal opinion. A fine editor and a good grasp of policy. Push him towards Association of Members' Advocates. John Reid ° 11:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I was very pleasantly surprised to see this, so thank you very much to Crzrussian. I considered running, and would find the time, but decided that I am probably still too new an editor (I became active around the beginning of July) to be the best choice. (I think even an RfA from me right now would draw some "too new, not enough edits yet" type opposes.) I intend to stay involved and may well run in 2007. (I am almost goaded into running right now after all by John Reid's comment, as I couldn't disagree more with the assumptions it makes, but I won't let that sway me.) Newyorkbrad 12:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
I have always thought that Brad would make a fine Arbitrator and I disagree with John's view that being a lawyer would make Brad partisan. The only reason I'm not signing the petition is I don't agree with conscription. ;) Sarah Ewart ( Talk) 00:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Once again, thanks very much to those who have newly posted (and a couple who have e-mailed) for your comments in this thread. They are very sincerely appreciated and I will bear them in mind when it's time to make decisions in the future. Newyorkbrad 02:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Scanning the table below confirms that my time active on Wikipedia is less than just about all the candidates, so that reinforces the decision I made, but thanks again. Newyorkbrad 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
As of approx. 11:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) there are 28 candidates for ArbCom. The total number of questions asked of these candidates is 1,100. Between the candidate statements and the questions and answers for each candidate, there is approximately 1,385K of text. I started to wade through all this to attempt to form my views on this, but frankly, it's just too much. The scary thing is, it's still growing. Here are the statistics:
The candidate statements total 43K.
Candidate | Questions | Size (K) |
---|---|---|
Alex Bakharev | 34 | 45 |
Avraham | 56 | 98 |
Daniel.Bryant | 53 | 41 |
Flcelloguy | 33 | 48 |
FloNight | 35 | 41 |
freakofnurture | 41 | 64 |
Geogre | 44 | 87 |
Harvestman | 26 | 30 |
HeirToPendragon | 26 | 20 |
Improv | 39 | 57 |
John Reid | 50 | 104 |
JzG | 33 | 47 |
Kirill Lokshin | 54 | 69 |
Kylu | 42 | 68 |
Matt Yeager | 12 | 12 |
Merovingian | 37 | 31 |
Messedrocker | 50 | 51 |
MONGO | 55 | 78 |
Nandesuka | 44 | 44 |
Paul August | 26 | 20 |
Phil Sandifer | 73 | 69 |
PMA | 42 | 15 |
Sam Blanning | 31 | 47 |
Shell Kinney | 26 | 32 |
The prophet wizard of the crayon cake | 30 | 30 |
UninvitedCompany | 53 | 44 |
Voice of All | 25 | 29 |
Wildthing61476 | 30 | 21 |
TOTAL | 1100 | 1342 |
Note: Some of the question counts might not be accurate because inconsistent formatting sometimes made it difficult to identify the questions from the answers. Also, in some cases there was a great deal of back-and-forth between the questioner and the candidate—in general, I only counted follow-up questions when they were separately identified as a question.
— Doug Bell talk• contrib 11:33, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Answering the question in the header, it's hard to avoid that conclusion. (I guess I'm part of the problem: I asked each candidate two questions, which I thought were good questions, but imagine if everybody asked each candidate two questions.... :) ) I don't know quite what can be done about it, though, either this year or for the future. Any ideas? Newyorkbrad 13:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
This is the first election I'll be voting in, so anyone with longer-term experience should correct me, but my understanding is that the endorsement and disendorsement pages would have related to a year in which the voting was done secretly (a la the recent Board election). This election is to be comparable to last year's, in which users posted supports or opposes to the candidates' voting pages, a bit more analogous to an RfA. So as I understand it, it will be possible for those who wish to hold off on voting and scan the votes and comments already cast. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
Newyorkbrad
16:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the same questions should not have been asked over and over again, by people who didn't read the previous questions or the associated answers. Someone should just not answer the questions, fill the space with lorem ipsum text and see if anyone notices. — Centrx→ talk • 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
Two ways to make things less "out of hand". (1) The voters can work together in the wiki-way (many hands make light work) to produce summaries like the table below. (2) The candidates can demonstrate their suitability (or even their unsuitability) for ArbCom by refactoring and packaging and presenting the material, in a similar way that they may have to do if elected to ArbCom. Carcharoth 19:10, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I appear to have lucked out as far as questions go.
Matt Yeager
♫ (
Talk?)
23:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I guess I don't need to wade through all those answers, I just need to see one of these and then I'll know how to vote. Does anyone else think these are a bit ridiculous? — Doug Bell talk 08:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Just as a note I have removed myself from the running. My job is requiring much more time now than what I usually get and I won't have the time to do Arbitration. I'll still be around editing though. H2P ( Yell at me for what I've done) 16:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
User:Balla_Laika appears to be an account registered yesterday for the sole purpose of posing questions to ArbCom Candidates. Per the account log and (see second entry from bottom) Special:Contributions/Balla_Laika, it appears that this user has also created at least one additional account that also posed at least one question to at least one candidate (the question has apparently been deleted). At this point I am mentioning this as a matter of information. Newyorkbrad 23:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I understand that edit counts won't be posted. How about these two? Some candidates, but not all, have posted this info. Can it be published for all? Jd2718 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Earlier table removed to page history as having two tables is confusing
table since updated further and much expanded by others
Table moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Summary table. (I moved it because I want it to be more prominent and, as someone said above, it is like a collaborative wiki project, so it should have its own page and talk page. — Sebastian (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC))
For some reason Will beback's older edits seem lost, but I can see one from Jan 3, 2005... – Ch acor 03:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Looking at User:Radiant!'s first contributions, he appears to also be User:Radiant, making his first edit to be 2004-12-18. Tra (Talk) 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Much neater way of linking to a user's permissions. Use the following, and insert the candidate name at the end (with underscored for spaces).
Could someone add this to the table?
Carcharoth
21:17, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is it possible to add more things to this table? I was thinking of things like:
Some of these might require research. Some might not be considered suitable for publication in this form (eg. block stuff should maybe be dealt with on a per candidate basis). Some of these suggestions could be limited to being used in notes made by various users on their userpages, but some could be 'semi-official' by being used here. What do people think? Are all suitable, or only some? Carcharoth 03:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added links to the statements and questions, though not all the links work, due to varying naming practices. I'll check them now, but if I miss any, can someone correct them. Carcharoth 04:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've added block log links to candidates who have been blocked at least once. Bear in mind that some of these blocks were by mistake or as a test so the existance of this link shouldn't bear any reflection on the candidate. Tra (Talk) 18:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I just added ages (where available) to the notes column. I'm looking at the results, and I'm no longer sure if this was a good idea. I find the age range of the candidates interesting (14-56 where given), but I am now thinking that the actual ages of individual candidates are not that relevant. What would be the best way to handle this? I am particularly concerned about how to handle the information on the two candidates under 18. Those two candidates, ironically, may typify, in my opinion, the best and worst of allowing Wikipedia to be edited by anyone (of any age). Carcharoth 20:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Second question. If age is not that relevant, surely gender is even more irrelevant. Again, this is something I'd be interested in finding out (purely to see if more females than males are running - of course, with the age range, we can't say men/women!), but I wouldn't be that bothered about this. Following up on the comment about ages of current ArbCom members, what is the age and gender spread among the current ArbCom? Anyone know? Carcharoth 20:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Third question. Location. Might be of interest to some, but probably irrelevant again for the purposes of deciding on votes. These questions of mine were prompted by looking at the age, gender and nationality spread among the recent WMF Board election candidates. And yes, I know that this is en-Wikipedia ArbCom, not WMF Board, but I thought the comparison might be of interest. Carcharoth 21:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Should this table be moved into Wikipedia namespace now, so that people can make use of it? Tra (Talk) 22:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I've removed UninvitedCompany's quote, as this table is more for facts than the circumstances surrounding these. Any objections? Tra (Talk) 23:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Just found {{ ArbCom candidate}}. This, or a variant of it, could be useful in the above. This template was used for the Signpost series of articles in January 2006. Carcharoth 04:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I recently found Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Completed_requests/Involved_parties. It feels like it might be relevant, but I'm not 100% sure. Does anyone want to go through this and see if any of the candidates have been involved in past ArbCom cases? Either that, or ask all of them. Carcharoth 01:38, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering about the "account compromised" thing in the block log for me: that was a moronic mistake by me. On IRC, I forgot to put in the / when I did "identify" and then the password. More moronic than that, I used the same password as for Wikipedia. The compromise lasted about an hour. I got a password change, went back, set a new and different one, and all was well again. Still, I had my friend Bishonen block me during that compromised time to be absolutely sure that no abuse could take place. Other than that, I have not been blocked. (Well, when I edited from the Netscape ISP, that ran through AOL's modem pool, so I ended up blocked by a mass AOL block from time to time, which gave me a great deal of sympathy for our AOL cousins.) Geogre 03:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Let's draft the next United States president, too!
Anomo
03:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
The time demands of my new job are greater than I had thought, and I don't think that I would be able to give the Arbitration Committee the attention and time it deserves at this time, so I regretfully need to withdraw. Thanks. -- Avi 16:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
All the Best to my Fellow ArbCom noms. My Greatest Hope is that this election will be a time for Thoughtful Reflection and Growth for all involved. Take care, FloNight 13:51, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add [[Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections candidate statements|2006-12]]
to the page. –
MJL
‐Talk‐
☖
00:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/2006 ArbCom election
should be changed to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Templates/January 2006 ArbCom election
.
jp×
g
01:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)