| Revision as of 03:10, 4 December 2008 view sourceFranamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →Drama-free?: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:12, 4 December 2008 view source Franamax (talk | contribs)18,113 edits →Drama-free?: possible oopsNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *I distinguish here the nature of the votes. If one ArbCom candidate opposed another with the rationale "I could never work with this person as a member of ArbCom", then I would be most inclined to oppose the candidate making that statement. Similarly, inflammatory oppose rationales would give me pause. Quiet support/opposes don't bother me at all, neither do effusive supports. The mere fact that another candidate makes a quiet oppose doesn't strike me as particularly "unsportsmanlike", since it's not intended to influence others, only to exercise the candidate's franchise. | *I distinguish here the nature of the votes. If one ArbCom candidate opposed another with the rationale "I could never work with this person as a member of ArbCom", then I would be most inclined to oppose the candidate making that statement. Similarly, inflammatory oppose rationales would give me pause. Quiet support/opposes don't bother me at all, neither do effusive supports. The mere fact that another candidate makes a quiet oppose doesn't strike me as particularly "unsportsmanlike", since it's not intended to influence others, only to exercise the candidate's franchise. | ||
| I've thought about this a fair bit, before this little scuffle blew up. I really think that the fundamental right of an established editor to participate in the ArbCom voting process carries the day, subject only to the limitation that they shouldn't be excessively negative, i.e. add gratuitous negative comments. ] (]) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | I've thought about this a fair bit, before this little scuffle blew up. I really think that the fundamental right of an established editor to participate in the ArbCom voting process carries the day, subject only to the limitation that they shouldn't be excessively negative, i.e. add gratuitous negative comments. ] (]) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :Wow, evidently I type way too slow! Sorry if this continued posting offends you, I need to catch up. :) ] (]) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:12, 4 December 2008
Clearly there is one rule for my behaviour, and one rule for everyone else's. Just as clearly, people are free to pick on me as much as they like with no consequence. Fuck that.
Drama-free?
Hi Roux, since we've engaged above, in the interest of allowing you to blank the section above should you choose, and in the interest only of discussing the idea and not your or anyone else's actions, here is why I think ArbCom candidates should be free to vote:
- First of all, I don't think the candidacy should disenfranchise the candidate. No matter what our "status", we are all fundamentally equal as Misplaced Pages editors and as editors we are all entitled to exactly the same rights. Others have expressed the only two basic rights available to us: the right to leave and the right to fork a separate version. However, we all have a derivative right after 150 mainspace edits: the right to vote for ArbCom candidates and have our votes considered equally.
- In theory, the candidates for ArbCom are all adults, the favoured candidates are among the best and brightest of us, and the selection process will generally promote mature adults. Again in theory, these mature and wise people are able to support and oppose other candidates without prejudice, and accept other candidates supports and opposes without prejudice. There should be absolutely zero problems going forward, these candidates are all able to accept honest opinions regardless of whether those opinions oppose their own. If this is not the case, that candidate should not be standing.
- I distinguish here the nature of the votes. If one ArbCom candidate opposed another with the rationale "I could never work with this person as a member of ArbCom", then I would be most inclined to oppose the candidate making that statement. Similarly, inflammatory oppose rationales would give me pause. Quiet support/opposes don't bother me at all, neither do effusive supports. The mere fact that another candidate makes a quiet oppose doesn't strike me as particularly "unsportsmanlike", since it's not intended to influence others, only to exercise the candidate's franchise.
I've thought about this a fair bit, before this little scuffle blew up. I really think that the fundamental right of an established editor to participate in the ArbCom voting process carries the day, subject only to the limitation that they shouldn't be excessively negative, i.e. add gratuitous negative comments. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, evidently I type way too slow! Sorry if this continued posting offends you, I need to catch up. :) Franamax (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)