The main issue of this election, (for me) Options

The main issue for me is which of the following two positions a candidate takes:

1. Wikipedia is an experiment in social democracy in which all content contributors must be treated in exactly the same way. No one is 'above the law' of civility.

2. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. That comes first. For that reason, not all content contributors are equal.

I have put this bluntly in order to emphasise the contrast. Obviously those who support (1) will argue that strict enforcement of civility is the only way to build an encyclopedia. Those who support (2) claim that good content contributors are rarely uncivil, and that (1) is being used as a stick, and so on. It really comes down to whether when it comes to choosing, one chooses civility over content (1), or content over civility (2).

For (1). Rlevse - ScienceApologist has gone so far as to accuse him of wanting "to create a particular kind of community rather than create a good encyclopedia". Giano has taken particular issue with his appointing Aervanath on a recent RFA, despite the user having little experience of content contribution. And Coren, who takes a particularly hard line when it comes to civility.

For (2). Jehochman, who gave some excellent answers to my questions, and Sir Fozzie (likewise). Also Casliber, Fish and Karate, and (to some extent) Wizardman spring to mind

Agree/disagree? Which of the other candidates falls into which camp?

This post has been edited by Peter Damian:

The main issue of this election should be the election itself and if whatever or not this farce which is the Arbcom should be maintained.

Maybe it is time to recognize that one of the real problem with arbitration is democracy itself.

To win the popularity contest and become an Arb, you must meet those criteria.

1) Be popular. Obviously so that they vote for you, they should know about you.

2) Be cold. If you show any emotions, you're damned.

3) You should be vague, as to not have taken any sides, unless you took side against the not so known individuals of the community.

4) You should not be a very opinioned individual, being an opinioned individual would require opposing and agreeing with things, in the risk of having others in your back.

5) Adhere to 'rules' which the non-adherence would be obvious. Particularly and probably exclusivally those regarding personal attacks and civility.

6) Have popuar friends in the community.

...

The closest thing which exist in the society which comes closest to the arbitration, is the 'Jury' system.

But what makes the arbitration so different than a jury is not much the fact that the Arbitration decisions seems so random, and that for a given case they can take a verry different decision in comparaison to another which was near identical. (this is one of the obvious problems, even a randomnly chosen jury has to consider Juris prudence) No, one of the main problem which is not that obvious is the way it's members are chosen.

In a Jury system, the potential jury members are first randomnly selected from the society, they are not chosen based on a popularity contest. On Wikipedia, the vocals, the opinioned etc., who would initiate debates in the closed door of the jury, are excluded from the system, because they are not the average, and don't pass the popularity contest.

What is so contradictory in this sort of demogracy, is that the democracy does not represent the people quite well. By chosing averages you represent the members which are of the 'average'-type.

But this is just one of the major flaws in this flawed system. And don't expect the things which should be the major issues become the major issues of those 'elections.'

This post has been edited by Xidaf: