Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 | Vote Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:29, 5 December 2008 editInductionheating (talk | contribs)64 edits →Answer particularly to ChrisO← Previous edit Latest revision as of 04:51, 4 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(29 intermediate revisions by 14 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{acecandheader}} {{ACE discussion}}
== Edit Analysis == == Edit Analysis ==
A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Misplaced Pages spaces can be found ]. ] (]) 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC) A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Misplaced Pages spaces can be found ]. ] (]) 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Line 26: Line 26:


I've raised this issue at ]. In my view, there's very clear evidence that editors have been canvassed off-wiki to oppose this candidacy. -- ] (]) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) I've raised this issue at ]. In my view, there's very clear evidence that editors have been canvassed off-wiki to oppose this candidacy. -- ] (]) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

* {{user|Frongle}} deserves a checkuser at the very least, look at the edits. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
**Very odd pattern all right... that pattern is abnormal and in my view justifies a check given the circumstances... however nothing was found by me. ++]: ]/] 18:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
***Thanks for checking, Lar. I agree, it looks very fishy. -- ] (]) 19:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
**** No prob. Given my strong support for Jayvdb, if I HAD found something I would have asked another CU to confirm it before I said anything, of course. ++]: ]/] 19:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


==Endorsing Jayvdb - please don't strategically oppose this candidate== ==Endorsing Jayvdb - please don't strategically oppose this candidate==
Line 42: Line 47:
Thank you. ] '']'' 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Thank you. ] '']'' 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


:::Good form, Cool Hand Luke. Good form indeed. :) - ] ] 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
==Answer particularly to ChrisO==
This is addressed to ChrisO, and am saying it publically. Your allegations and singling of editors based on their ethnic background requires more investigation than the current canvassing issue. This smells vendetta at best because of recent issues on content(which mostly I`d side with you had I been here). The matter has nothing to do with content dispute but rather trust. Believe me those who are opposing him are doing it for better reason than dumb supports to balance votes. His endorsement of secret trials is quite contradictory with his endorsement of literally providing the authors and summary of privately submitted evidence to those concerned. The result of which will intimidate users and who will think twice before sending something to the committee. His propositions are geared toward preventing the arbitration to get at the bottom of real issues. He wants to reduce the scope of the cases, requiring that reduced scope being defined before it is voted. This sort of speeding will evidently force legitimate concerns not to be addressed. If you read between the lines you will find out that all those nonsense he propose are actually what was the main problem with AA1&2 and Ehud Lesar cases. And here I am not even talking about if the real issue is included in the limited scope, because from his double talk this will go to secret trial, ad even if he recuse he can still influence. Again, you have no idea why he is opposed so don`t talk about things which you ignore.

Coming to John behaviour, it is true that he made no technical mistakes. For instance his revert of newly created account was not a technical mistake. What is interesting though is that it is a newly created account which appears during a period when he wastes his time to justify his actions about AA issues instead of answering Lar questions (there are reasons he did not, because some of his positions will inevitably lead users to oppose, I will come to that maybe later). If you pay attention his action was pro-Armenian on that edit, he even write in the talkpage of the user for the sake of accuracy . Intriguing actually, John has never edited the article. I will not go as far as making accusations that the account was created so that he can revert to make a pro-Armenian gesture to discredit the criticism about his conduct. This kind of things happened also after Ehud Lesar case, when John found himself reverting socks on the Armenian genocide article, when his conduct was questioned by different users. When I say that John did not make technical mistake, I am also saying that he did not make one when he blocked Fedayee, which result was to ignore the evidence he provided, or when he reverted my comment on Ehud Lesar talkpage at the first sight he saw it posted. The Clerk on the other hand left what I left in the evidence page there for a while before reverting.

His conduct as a whole makes anyone who knows the subjects concerned doubting his sincerity. It is for example obvious that Thatchers conduct on those articles was not doubtful, even if sometimes I questioned his judgement. The same goes to our clueless Moreschi and all those administrators on the enforcement talkpages who also by making at times clueless comments. John actions on the other hand coupled with other issues makes those who know the problem to see the bigger picture. Wikisource is a very important element of Wikimedia, because primary, secondary and tertiary brute materials are posted there. When you know that bigger picture and the fact that a certain lobbying group is involved (and please Lar, I`d like you to comment on that particular issue) and their intentions it does not take time to question the real intentions of John when working with legislations concerning copyright in Azerbaijan. Each little thing, like his unusual knowledge of obscure stuff pushed by that group, his selective actions against socks from one side and not the other leave a lot to be desired.


==Moral support==
Suppose that there is even the slightest element of truth there, will you be willing to give access to the arbitrators mailing list to him as well as CU? There are other potential members who can become an arbitrator and him in the group or not won`t change much, but if there is the slightest chances that this is true then the harm is worst. I had many conflicts with White Cat in the past, involved in his first arbitration case, but if both users had equal number of votes on both sides, I’d vote for him without the slightest consideration. And most Armenian users would, and consider that I was directly involved in heavy intestine disputes with White Cat and that in terms of direct article disruption when singling articles was much worst in White Cat case than John.
I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you. <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


==Updated link to discussion==
Regarding John page on AA issues (this I suppose will get him more votes than answering questions), he very well know that he can present the case like he want the principal concerned who can address the issues is banned so he can obviously not reply


The discussion about the pattern of voting in this election has been split off to a separate subpage at ]. -- ] (]) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
To conclude, all I saying is that people should vote for the candidate they want, those who are opposing him, and this regardless if there was canvassing, opposed him for a very long list of issues, some of it deliberately or not (as I will not question the Arbcom intentions) were thrown under the carpet and never addressed. I do admit that part of it was my fault, the evidence I gathered in AA1, was not all accurate after introspection, it was more accurate in AA2, and even more accurate in Ehud Lesar case and most of the issues now are confirmed. If it is a picture of John you want with Adil Baguirov, I have none, but I believe that if there is the slightest doubt that at least in a form or another he will be sending informations CU and mailing list. This is a legitimate reason to oppose because like I added the harms are worst than if he is totally blameless and he was thrown out.


== Opposing other candidates ==
If you want to vote strategy to get the candidates you want (this concerns anyone) on the Arbcom go ahead, your vote will be justified by you wanting a candidate or not wanting another or any similar tactics. But don`t vote to balance because you are deliberately undoing the votes of those who really don`t want him there.


A number of people have opposed me based on the basis that I voted "oppose" for other candidates. A couple of people have asked me about it on my talk page, where I have provided answers, and directed them to a discussion at ]. I also recommend that people read ] about the same issue. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish this remains here for a little bit before it gets reverted. This who don`t know it`s Fadix again. Let`s see now, this will mean I`ll be unbanned on December 4, 2009
:The problem I have with you opposing a lot of your fellow candidates is that IMO it's bad sportsmenship. There's a lack of diligence towards the other candidates. It shows a severe lack of judgement in my eyes and that's why I've opposed you because of it. I don't have a problem with candidates showing support for other candidates, but that's the limit. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 10:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::I dont view this as a sport. I carefully picked and supported seven candidates as my ideal group of seven, and opposed all of the others. If there was a eighth seat this year, I would have supported ], as I mentioned on his vote page. You have mentioned that it is a lack of judgement, but I would like to know why. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 10:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure what more you want me to say regarding judgement - it's fairly clear to me that what you did shows poor judgement. It's a lack of respect for your fellow candidates and is evidence to me of an attitude (perhaps that's a better term than bad judgement) that isn't what I want in an arbitrator. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 10:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::::This is unreal. Candidates should have just as much right to vote for those they want to see in ArbCom if they don't succeed in their bid. It is so ridiculous and damaging to the whole process to base one's vote on something so trivial as this. Will John make a good arbitrator? Is he the kind of change we need to see on this committee? I think yes, but for those who aren't sure, this isn't what you should be basing your vote on. It's utterly ridiculous. If he doesn't make it on the committee, at least he'll know that he expressed his opinion through his ''right'' to vote. Trying to punish someone for that is shameful. ]] 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


I can understand where Ryan is coming from, but that place is a bit more cynical than necessary. John is ''still'' an editor, and has a right to vote in the same elections that every other Wikipedian gets to. Aside from those places where he has excluded ''himself'' from contributing to, I am not sure where - in the rules - he foregoes his right to vote in ArbCom elections. I mean, even in RL elections, we don't kick one candidate in the teeth for voting for those folk he/she thinks would do a good job. How is this different, Ryan? - ] ] 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh and, John, think about answering questions, if you really wanted the better of the project you will not buy your votes by forming friendship but you will answer the questions, the questions John, leave that AA page who no one reads and answer questions. If I was not to assume good faith, I`d believe that you are scarred that some answers will cause more oppose votes. It`s always easier to have supports based on friendship rather than your take on issues... because the first one does not give oppose votes, the second does.
:Indeed, but in a real life election people don't oppose each other. That's where my concern lies. I have no problem with candidates endorsing other people, but to actually oppose others I believe is a serious lack of judgement and shows a side of character that I don't want in an arbitrator. Of course, there's no rule against this, but I would have thought that candidates would have more clue and empathy than to start voting against the others. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:: I don't really see why. Candidates are fully entitled to have their own opinions about who they'd like to work together with, and also who they would ''not'' like. It's only fair of him to let us know who they are. ] ] 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::: Well, that's you opinion on the matter - mine differs completely in that regard. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::Maybe worth pointing out that you don't normally get an "oppose" vote in real life elections. Most candidates vote for themselves, which is essentially the same thing. If the problem is that our votes shouldn't have an "oppose" section, then grand, but you can't punish a candidate for using the feature that everyone, including the enfranchised candidate, has the right to use during the votes. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but let's not pretend that this election process mimics real life voting, at least not in our neck of the woods, Ryan. :) ] (]) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


== SandyGeorgia's comment on sourcing ==
I hope this was an unfortunate mistake, just words with no intention, because we don't need an arbitrator wo has such retaliatory mentality:
Jayvdb here. I have not opposed him, but ]. I have only listed one way or another two candidates with whom I've had little interaction: Cool Hand Luke and Jayvdb. Every other position that I have taken is based on having seen edits from or interacted with the candidates to an extent that I feel like I know who they are and where they stand on the issues that most concern me this year; to my knowledge, I've never edited with or in similar areas or had opportunity to observe CHL or Jayvdb. In short, I don't know you, and if you don't have top-level contributions or if I don't have some basis on which to form an opinion, I need to have observed something of your character and previous stances in order to take a position. If I don't know you, I have no frame of reference for answers to stock questions and your demeanor and conduct during elections becomes relevant to my decision. As the elections evolved, and I observed CHL's conduct, I moved to Support him. As the elections evolved, and I observed Jayvdb's decision to oppose his fellow candidates and that he was somewhat resistant to community feedback about having done that, I moved him to abstain. Although I'm uncomfortable about some of the directions I've seen the academic journals Project heading, that is not a reason to oppose Jayvdb or a statement about him: clearly, journals are notable and they should have articles, and your work to spearhead that effort is worthy, but I'm concerned that the results of the effort will be misapplied. Editorial judgment in medical articles from editors who know the topic and the research thoroughly—not impact factors or journal reputations—is what matters most in the proper use of sources in medical articles. The blind notion that something printed in, for example, the '']'' should be accepted or rejected as the best source based on the reputation of the NEJM is faulty and misleading. The NEJM printed a completely inaccurate and false and stigmatizing definition of ],<sup>1</sup> pointed out to them by other physicians, but never retracted. I am concerned about the trend of editors who are not knowledgeable about medical topics imposing editorial decisions upon those who are and giving equal weight to tendentious editors based on logic like journal reputations or impact factors. '''I am not saying this has happened with Jayvdb''' (I'm not aware that it has); starting the academic journals WikiProject is a good and worthwhile effort, until/unless the results are misapplied by editors who may know journals but don't know medicine. Editorial decisions should be left to the knowledgeable editors, without interference from unknowledgeable admins; my support goes to candidates who evidence a strong recognition of the importance of sound editorial judgment from knowledgeable editors and the importance of solid sourcing as it impacts medical articles. ] (]) 16:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:<sup>1</sup> In {{cite journal |author=Jankovic J |title=Tourette's syndrome |journal=N. Engl. J. Med. |volume=345 |issue=16 |pages=1184–92 |year=2001 |month=October |pmid=11642235 |doi= |url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=short&pmid=11642235&promo=ONFLNS19}}, Jankovic included a Venn diagram stating that a Tourette syndrome diagnosis occured when the following four intersected: 1) ]s, 2) ADHD, 3) OCD, and 4) behavioral disturbances. A TS diagnosis requires only 1) tics. The notion that all people with TS have ADHD, OCD and behavioral disturbances is incorrect, false, and stigmatizing, and is a notion that has never been printed or endorsed anywhere else. ] (]) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


::The context of SandyGeorgia's comment here is needed for other readers. I emailed a a mini-essay to Ottava with the intention that it went to Sandy, who was wanting to know about my position on sourcing; it seemed that it got garbled along the way, as the above response is a an odd response to what I wrote. Anyone interested can see how Ottava interpreted my email , where it is explained better than I did in my email. The bulk of the email explains that I am extremely passionate about good sourcing, but on a whole 'nother plane. The nitty gritty of the appropriateness of each source is really important down at an individual topic level, and my edit history shows I do just fine at that level, but I am thinking a lot further ahead and I was trying to explain my vision. i.e. we are on the same side, but tackling the problem in different ways. I can appreciate your approach is very necessary, especially at FAC; I hope you can appreciate that my approach is also useful, but not as immediately critical.
''Ironically, if I do not end up in arbcom-land where I would be recused from any AA topics, I will be left to my own devices and am more than willing to counter this bias once again. --John Vandenberg (chat) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)'' ] (]) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
::My email was also quite clear that I will be consulting experts in each field of science as the need arises, as I have access to quite a wide range of scholars. It follows that I will also be consulting any experts on Misplaced Pages if they make themselves available. Also, if an editor gets into a dispute trying to defend an accepted scientific/medical view on an article, I will be doing my best to ensure that the specifics of the content dispute is an aspect that I have clear in my mind: there are many content disputes where one side is undeniable "right", and the "view" of the other side is not welcome on the article, and this has a bearing on whether there is any need for remedies to be handed out to each parties.
::I am no slouch when it comes to maths and sciences; I just dont enjoy writing about them, mostly because there is less for me to learn in the writing process. I either already know the details that are currently in Misplaced Pages, or I quickly grasp what is in the article and have little need to know more, or the content gaps would take too long for me to fill because they go beyond my preferred depth - other Wikipedians can more easily write these articles better than I could, so I leave them to it. (Note that my user page may have giving you the wrong impression, so I it earlier this evening.)
::In regards to ], if you have concerns about the direction, the project talk page is the place for that, unless you have specific concerns about my actions - it is a very slow moving project with very few hands on deck; we would love to hear your thoughts and concerns as we dont see many visitors around there.
::The example you give of an article in NEJM is a case of the peer review process failing, quite badly based on what you have said above. I hope that someone has written a journal article about this, and it <u>]</u> even be worth including that in the article about ], because of course there is much more to journals than just ISSNs, impact factors, reputation, etc. - they are a "living" entity, and they make mistakes and have bad years, and it is these details that are important to document in order to assist editors and readers who are first encountering a source and wondering if it is reliable. Good documentation about sources removes the need to constantly talk to experts to assess the accuracy of an article when there are only a few exceptions, which can also be documented to prevent the same article being considered reliable by someone else who isnt aware that the article is not accurate. If a journal is often printing poor quality articles, the documentation would reflect this, in which case readers would know to be wary.
::p.s. I have sectioned your comment off because I requested for your thoughts about ''why'' it is wrong to oppose other candidates, and you havent addressed that. Feel free to rename this section, but please do keep the threads of discussion separate. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:51, 4 February 2023

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Arbitration Committee Election 2008 candidate: Jayvdb

Edit Analysis

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Misplaced Pages spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal statement from User:Jpgordon

I would be extremely happy if John were to be elected to ArbCom. I'm certain he could do a much better than job than I was able to; he's shown himself to be better suited to the task. Good luck, John. --jpgordon 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Josh. Much appreciated. John Vandenberg 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Voting
John Vandenberg 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AA involvement

I sadly note a number of Azerbaijan-Armenia related users have voted to oppose on the issue of my involvement in their topical area. This is an area I have recused, due to involvement in the editing and dispute resolution. I've posted an explanation here, and if there are questions not asked on my questions page, please do ask them. John Vandenberg 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very troubling

Anyone else notice seven people attempting to oppose but are not eligible to vote? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Quack quack on off-wiki canvassing... Sceptre 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to go that far, but now that you mentioned it... :) They are all seemingly connected around the same pages, and haven't been editing in a while. They also seem to edit during disputes. Hmmmmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Azeri-Armenia. Sceptre 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at WP:AN#Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?. In my view, there's very clear evidence that editors have been canvassed off-wiki to oppose this candidacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing Jayvdb - please don't strategically oppose this candidate

Jayvdb is a great Wikipedian with a long history of service to the project. Because I'm running myself, I haven't commented at length on the other candidates, but this is a special circumstance. I feel Jayvdb has been unfairly attacked by off-site canvassing.

Because Jayvdb and I are now very close in the polls, I'm concerned that my supporters might want to strategically vote against this candidate. That would be unfortunate. Although I hope to be elected by the community, I want want's right for Misplaced Pages first. The campaign orchestrated against Jayvdb is not right, so I must oppose it.

Admittedly, Jayvdb and I very different answers to some questions. He's even voted, in good faith, to oppose my candidacy. We're clearly not clones of each other. That said, I do not doubt that he's a great editor, and I think he'd be a good addition to ArbCom. So, let me say unequivocally:

  • I have reviewed the allegations against him and find them to be baseless. From what I can tell, he has conducted himself appropriately, and he has made a solemn promise to recuse himself from any cases involving AA. That isn't the behavior of a POV-pusher, that's the behavior of someone who cares deeply about our project.
  • I support Jayvdb. Originally I cast a small number of support votes. I thought I would be done with voting, but I'm going to cast one more vote for Jayvdb. He deserves it, if for no other reason than to offset some of the opposes unfairly attacking him.
  • If anyone is thinking about strategically opposing Jayvdb, DON'T. I especially urge my own supporters to not strategically oppose this candidate. You should evaluate this candidate on his own merits, and not oppose him just because you want me, or some other editor, to be elected arbitrator. Jayvdb has more than enough directed opposition.
  • Even if you must tactically oppose Jayvdb, you should condemn the character attacks against him. I know some people will practice "tactical opposes", and no matter what I say. If you do, I insist, that you honestly list such vote as a tactical vote. Make it crystal clear that you do not oppose him because of these AA-related character attacks. It is important to the independence of our community that we resist these off-site overtures.
  • Lastly, if there is anyone who is trying to "get back" at Jayvdb for some past content dispute, I'm not your candidate. I don't want that kind of support.

Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Good form, Cool Hand Luke. Good form indeed. :) - Arcayne () 15:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Moral support

I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you. — JoJo • Talk • 22:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated link to discussion

The discussion about the pattern of voting in this election has been split off to a separate subpage at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing other candidates

A number of people have opposed me based on the basis that I voted "oppose" for other candidates. A couple of people have asked me about it on my talk page, where I have provided answers, and directed them to a discussion at Q&A#Question from Majorly. I also recommend that people read a 2007 discussion about the same issue. --John Vandenberg 09:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem I have with you opposing a lot of your fellow candidates is that IMO it's bad sportsmenship. There's a lack of diligence towards the other candidates. It shows a severe lack of judgement in my eyes and that's why I've opposed you because of it. I don't have a problem with candidates showing support for other candidates, but that's the limit. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I dont view this as a sport. I carefully picked and supported seven candidates as my ideal group of seven, and opposed all of the others. If there was a eighth seat this year, I would have supported User:Rlevse, as I mentioned on his vote page. You have mentioned that it is a lack of judgement, but I would like to know why. John Vandenberg 10:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what more you want me to say regarding judgement - it's fairly clear to me that what you did shows poor judgement. It's a lack of respect for your fellow candidates and is evidence to me of an attitude (perhaps that's a better term than bad judgement) that isn't what I want in an arbitrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
This is unreal. Candidates should have just as much right to vote for those they want to see in ArbCom if they don't succeed in their bid. It is so ridiculous and damaging to the whole process to base one's vote on something so trivial as this. Will John make a good arbitrator? Is he the kind of change we need to see on this committee? I think yes, but for those who aren't sure, this isn't what you should be basing your vote on. It's utterly ridiculous. If he doesn't make it on the committee, at least he'll know that he expressed his opinion through his right to vote. Trying to punish someone for that is shameful. لennavecia 14:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I can understand where Ryan is coming from, but that place is a bit more cynical than necessary. John is still an editor, and has a right to vote in the same elections that every other Wikipedian gets to. Aside from those places where he has excluded himself from contributing to, I am not sure where - in the rules - he foregoes his right to vote in ArbCom elections. I mean, even in RL elections, we don't kick one candidate in the teeth for voting for those folk he/she thinks would do a good job. How is this different, Ryan? - Arcayne () 15:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, but in a real life election people don't oppose each other. That's where my concern lies. I have no problem with candidates endorsing other people, but to actually oppose others I believe is a serious lack of judgement and shows a side of character that I don't want in an arbitrator. Of course, there's no rule against this, but I would have thought that candidates would have more clue and empathy than to start voting against the others. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see why. Candidates are fully entitled to have their own opinions about who they'd like to work together with, and also who they would not like. It's only fair of him to let us know who they are. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's you opinion on the matter - mine differs completely in that regard. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe worth pointing out that you don't normally get an "oppose" vote in real life elections. Most candidates vote for themselves, which is essentially the same thing. If the problem is that our votes shouldn't have an "oppose" section, then grand, but you can't punish a candidate for using the feature that everyone, including the enfranchised candidate, has the right to use during the votes. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but let's not pretend that this election process mimics real life voting, at least not in our neck of the woods, Ryan. :) Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia's comment on sourcing

Jayvdb asked me to participate here. I have not opposed him, but I have abstained. I have only listed one way or another two candidates with whom I've had little interaction: Cool Hand Luke and Jayvdb. Every other position that I have taken is based on having seen edits from or interacted with the candidates to an extent that I feel like I know who they are and where they stand on the issues that most concern me this year; to my knowledge, I've never edited with or in similar areas or had opportunity to observe CHL or Jayvdb. In short, I don't know you, and if you don't have top-level contributions or if I don't have some basis on which to form an opinion, I need to have observed something of your character and previous stances in order to take a position. If I don't know you, I have no frame of reference for answers to stock questions and your demeanor and conduct during elections becomes relevant to my decision. As the elections evolved, and I observed CHL's conduct, I moved to Support him. As the elections evolved, and I observed Jayvdb's decision to oppose his fellow candidates and that he was somewhat resistant to community feedback about having done that, I moved him to abstain. Although I'm uncomfortable about some of the directions I've seen the academic journals Project heading, that is not a reason to oppose Jayvdb or a statement about him: clearly, journals are notable and they should have articles, and your work to spearhead that effort is worthy, but I'm concerned that the results of the effort will be misapplied. Editorial judgment in medical articles from editors who know the topic and the research thoroughly—not impact factors or journal reputations—is what matters most in the proper use of sources in medical articles. The blind notion that something printed in, for example, the New England Journal of Medicine should be accepted or rejected as the best source based on the reputation of the NEJM is faulty and misleading. The NEJM printed a completely inaccurate and false and stigmatizing definition of Tourette syndrome, pointed out to them by other physicians, but never retracted. I am concerned about the trend of editors who are not knowledgeable about medical topics imposing editorial decisions upon those who are and giving equal weight to tendentious editors based on logic like journal reputations or impact factors. I am not saying this has happened with Jayvdb (I'm not aware that it has); starting the academic journals WikiProject is a good and worthwhile effort, until/unless the results are misapplied by editors who may know journals but don't know medicine. Editorial decisions should be left to the knowledgeable editors, without interference from unknowledgeable admins; my support goes to candidates who evidence a strong recognition of the importance of sound editorial judgment from knowledgeable editors and the importance of solid sourcing as it impacts medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

In Jankovic J (2001). "Tourette's syndrome". N. Engl. J. Med. 345 (16): 1184–92. PMID 11642235. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), Jankovic included a Venn diagram stating that a Tourette syndrome diagnosis occured when the following four intersected: 1) tics, 2) ADHD, 3) OCD, and 4) behavioral disturbances. A TS diagnosis requires only 1) tics. The notion that all people with TS have ADHD, OCD and behavioral disturbances is incorrect, false, and stigmatizing, and is a notion that has never been printed or endorsed anywhere else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
The context of SandyGeorgia's comment here is needed for other readers. I emailed a a mini-essay to Ottava with the intention that it went to Sandy, who was wanting to know about my position on sourcing; it seemed that it got garbled along the way, as the above response is a an odd response to what I wrote. Anyone interested can see how Ottava interpreted my email here, where it is explained better than I did in my email. The bulk of the email explains that I am extremely passionate about good sourcing, but on a whole 'nother plane. The nitty gritty of the appropriateness of each source is really important down at an individual topic level, and my edit history shows I do just fine at that level, but I am thinking a lot further ahead and I was trying to explain my vision. i.e. we are on the same side, but tackling the problem in different ways. I can appreciate your approach is very necessary, especially at FAC; I hope you can appreciate that my approach is also useful, but not as immediately critical.
My email was also quite clear that I will be consulting experts in each field of science as the need arises, as I have access to quite a wide range of scholars. It follows that I will also be consulting any experts on Misplaced Pages if they make themselves available. Also, if an editor gets into a dispute trying to defend an accepted scientific/medical view on an article, I will be doing my best to ensure that the specifics of the content dispute is an aspect that I have clear in my mind: there are many content disputes where one side is undeniable "right", and the "view" of the other side is not welcome on the article, and this has a bearing on whether there is any need for remedies to be handed out to each parties.
I am no slouch when it comes to maths and sciences; I just dont enjoy writing about them, mostly because there is less for me to learn in the writing process. I either already know the details that are currently in Misplaced Pages, or I quickly grasp what is in the article and have little need to know more, or the content gaps would take too long for me to fill because they go beyond my preferred depth - other Wikipedians can more easily write these articles better than I could, so I leave them to it. (Note that my user page may have giving you the wrong impression, so I updated it earlier this evening.)
In regards to WP:AJ, if you have concerns about the direction, the project talk page is the place for that, unless you have specific concerns about my actions - it is a very slow moving project with very few hands on deck; we would love to hear your thoughts and concerns as we dont see many visitors around there.
The example you give of an article in NEJM is a case of the peer review process failing, quite badly based on what you have said above. I hope that someone has written a journal article about this, and it might even be worth including that in the article about NEJM, because of course there is much more to journals than just ISSNs, impact factors, reputation, etc. - they are a "living" entity, and they make mistakes and have bad years, and it is these details that are important to document in order to assist editors and readers who are first encountering a source and wondering if it is reliable. Good documentation about sources removes the need to constantly talk to experts to assess the accuracy of an article when there are only a few exceptions, which can also be documented to prevent the same article being considered reliable by someone else who isnt aware that the article is not accurate. If a journal is often printing poor quality articles, the documentation would reflect this, in which case readers would know to be wary.
p.s. I have sectioned your comment off because I requested for your thoughts about why it is wrong to oppose other candidates, and you havent addressed that. Feel free to rename this section, but please do keep the threads of discussion separate. John Vandenberg 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)