Candidate statements

Candidates join the race for ArbCom

Related articles
Candidate statements

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

More articles

+ Add a comment

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]

I'm not going to revert your changes, but let me be clear that I was in no way trying to portray you or any other candidates in a negative light. The Wikipedia Signpost strives to be nonbiased, and we value your opinions. I was just trying to convey why you originally created the page — you said on the talk page that the Signpost was doing an article on the candidate statements this week, and that's why you created the page. I'm not saying it was bad (or good), I'm just trying to report the facts as they are. However, I don't mind the changes. In the future, though, could you either let me know beforehand on my talk page if you are going to alter an "unpublished" article so I'm aware of it? Many thanks. Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 22:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0