Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Rebecca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Comment

  • I think it is bad practice to run for ArbCom *and* to vote in opposition against one's opponents. Kingturtle 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I've always voted in past elections, and since I care about who gets elected to the committee, I'm not convinced that there's any reason to stop now. For the record, however, I've supported seven of the top eight candidates at the moment, and I initially supported the remaining one before (as others have done there) changing my vote. My votes were based on how good an arbitrator I thought that person would be - not on their ability to affect the outcome of my own run. Rebecca 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I think if one has the right to vote, then one has the right to choose how to vote. --健次(derumi)talk 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I see no problem with a candidate voting, and Rebecca's votes seem fair and based on genuine reasons, not to be tactical measures against those likely to defeat her. (I did myself oppose for other reasons, but I don't think this line of reasoning is valid.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Personally I think it would be better if in future the rules clearly say candidates should not vote (unless they withdraw). I am perfectly ready to AGF, but with 25 odd candidates at the start, the oppose votes of candidates are potentially rather significant, & Rebecca & the candidate she changed her vote to oppose could very well be said to be in contention as the table stands now. Best to avoid the possibility of these sort of concerns - plus it might not help the later running of the Arbcom if members know other members voted against them. As it is, she has the right to use her votes as she sees best. Johnbod (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
She's also not the only candidate voting in opposition to other ArbCom candidates; some of the voters bringing this issue up have voted in support for at least one other candidate who has done so. --健次(derumi)talk 22:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more with Johnbod. I see it as a conflict of interest to allow candidates to vote, and would prefer to see it disallowed next time around. However, since its allowed as of right now, I don't think its a reason to oppose, as long as the vote is made in good faith. If a candidate voted to oppose every other candidate, then I'd see a good reason to oppose that candidate. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 22:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)