Q: Given the less than pleasant results of last year's endorsements/disendorsements page, why are we doing this again? I don't think another long list of who likes who and who doesn't like who is really going to make wikipedia a better place, and I'm not sure voting should be done based on what third parties think of the candidate anyway. --fvw* 08:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree entirely, but I also don't think it's worth the crapfight that occurred last year over whether or whether not to have a disendorsements page. I simply hope others will join me in refraining from making the process nasty by disendorsing anyone. Ambi 10:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I prefer a crapfight on issues to a crapfight on people, but I suppose it's too late now. --fvw* 13:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that we used unordered lists (*s) instead of numbered lists (#s). The whole point of the endorsement is to present reasons why a candidate would/would not be a good arbitrator. Counting the number of endorsements could always been done by the reader, but there should be less of a focus on quantity of endorsements. Carbonite | Talk 16:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- There are two points to this page: (1) if we tried to remove it, it would only come back and there would be lots of arguments as to its existence - and the hassle isn't worth it; (2) it gives users an opportunity to draw attention to the merits of a candidacy. Where someone writes "I like X", and offers no further comment, or "I hate X", and no further comment, it will not sway me. If someone instead points to evidence of things that may make someone a good or a bad Arb, or that we would be taking a risk with someone as an Arb, then I find that useful, jguk 17:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, it's far better to keep this page up than to take it down and hear months of complaints. It's also acts as a centralized forum to discuss the merits of various candidates. Although perhaps not in direct response to my comment, your points do seem to support my proposal to not use numbered lists. Is there a reason to quantify the endorsements of candidates? Carbonite | Talk 17:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I have been bold and changed the numbered list to a bulleted list since nobody seemed to object, it also makes more sense this way since even though it may look like an RFA these are not votes only opinion and having people count the numbers for or against the canidates would be detrimental to the process. Jtkiefer T | @ | C ----- 22:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]