Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-10-10/Candidate statements
Candidates join the race for ArbCom
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week, 172 created the candidate's statement page for the upcoming December 2005 elections. Other users agreed that with less than two months before voting, that the time was ideal for candidates to start listing themselves.
At press time, thirteen candidates had listed themselves: 172 (statement), Ambi (statement), Carbonite (statement), Everyking (statement), Filiocht (statement), Ilyanep (statement), Jtkiefer (statement), Luigi30 (statement), Merovingian (statement), Ral315 (statement), Redwolf24 (statement), Snowspinner (statement), and Talrias (statement).
Though Redwolf24 withdrew from the election after being criticized for a joke that some felt was disruptive, he decided to run again after receiving large amounts of support.
At first, an endorsements page (now deleted) was created for users to list votes of approval and disapproval; however, this was soon shut down amid calls for reform. The endorsements and disendorsements page was heavily criticized last year, and Jimbo even pleaded that the pages not be used. Consequently, the endorsements page was closed, and a subpage for each candidate where Wikipedians can ask questions to the candidate was created.
Also this week, current Arbitrator David Gerard announced that he would not be running for re-election, citing work pressures and burnout. This brings the total number of Arbitrators who have announced that they will not be returning to office to three: Gerard, Nohat, and Maveric149.
Discuss this story
"172 cited erroneously that the The Signpost would be including information in this issue about candidate statements."
I don't know if this is correct. I was aware that the edition on the 3rd was "About ArbCom" and then the 10th would feature "Criticism of ArbCom." However, I did not see any information stating that candidates were specifically instructed not to post candidate statements. I am going to take the liberty to remove the comment. Of course, since it's in your namespace, you're of liberty to revert my feedback and edits. 172 | Talk 01:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I was wrong. It appears I wrote the following: 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. 172 | Talk 05:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC) Now I'm having trouble remembering what gave me that impression. Perhaps I was under the impression that the campaign was to begin upon seeing that the talk page for the candidate statements had been activated since the 29th, when Tony Sidaway made the first edit. [1]
At any rate, the statement that I "cited erroneously that the..." doesn't come across too well. It could connote that I had an ulterior motive. This, of course, was not the case, as I offered to let anyone revert my edit creating the candidates page. The next day I assumed that I had done nothing unorthodox, given the positive response to my creation of the page, particularly the response by Ilyanep. [2] 172 | Talk 02:06, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]