Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Phroziac

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Frivolousness alleged to

Do we have any actual difs to show this? I'd hate to be making a mistake with my vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see that too. By the way, you might want to give TShilo12 a usertalk message alerting him to this...I doubt he'll see it if you don't. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 15:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps do you want some evidences from an ArbCom cases, where he claimed that the other party has done a lot worst, and opposed to the Arbcom decision and considering it as a mistake, when anyone that really followed the cases impartially would have decided else? The guy/girl landed in an Arbcom cases, without even bothering reading it. The person, also soon after being given adminship privilages, presented him/herself as a Bureaucrat, and failing, now presenting as an arbitrator. 'Titles' are not games or trophies for one to have a template on his/her userpage. Fad (ix) 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 18:10, Jan. 12, 2006

And to what part of my answer this huh is directed too? All what I am trying to say, is that being an arbitrator is a serious thing, not a trophy. And it is evident, that just a doubt of his ability to stay neutral should be enough to oppose him. The individual is too new to the project, and has already acted to oppose to an Arbcom decision, just because the accused happens to be one of his Wikifriends. He is claiming that he would stay away if he is involved, but I have the right to doubt his sincerity, more particularly when the person placed a judgement on me without even actually knowing me because his friend was accused. and I also doubt his/her maturity, and also believe that he/she doesn't even realise what being an arbitrator is other than the one more template in the multicolor user pages of him/her.

Also, the individual, does not have enough experience in contributing in article, to be able to place a judgement on what the NPOV policy is, and what article is being POV pushed, so that a restriction is placed on a POV pusher. Fighting against vandals, is not, in my opinion a necessity, neither suficiant for one to qualify as an arbitrator and this regardless of the quality of ones candidaty presentation statment. Fad (ix) 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Fadix, do not use my gender to mock me. I read the evidence in the Cool Cat case. Where did I ever present myself as a bureaucrat? --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I did not use your gender to mock you, I don't know if you are a he or a she, so I am using the he/she to not offend you, if it happens that I use the he insteed of she, if you are a she and not a he. Also, I just verified after your statment about the bureaucrat thing, you were right, I've been mistaking you with Jtkiefer there, so I oppologize for that one. But the rest, still stick. Fad (ix) 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I'm a girl. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Criticising someone strictly based on an RfAr is kind of odd, esspecialy when it levies restrictions on you. Wikifriendship is a nice thing, people generaly cooperate to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia, I suggest you try this rather than mudding, or attemting to mud people. The primary problem facing wikipedias future and factual acuricy is vandalism. Vandalism on wikipedia had international media coverage (John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy). Someone revering vandalism alone is not even adequate for one to be given adminship privilages. However people reverting vandalism are more than likely to be given mop power. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

That's beside the point, and you know it. Behavours in an arbitration cases, I'd believe is primordial, when the vote is about choosing arbitrators. One would expect a candidate fit for the job. And here, I do believe she does not, and since it is a very important election, if I believe that there are serious issues there, it is for me to bring it and discuss the matter. There are many presenting themselves as arbitrators, and some very experienced users. Many had many oppose vote because they are known for a long time, and that obviously they would have angered by their actions many users. People should keep that in mind before they vote for an unexperienced user, that could easily get away from the judgement of voters, because past vandal works they have not interacted with users so that those users could take the right decision. I had the chance to interact with this individual, and she doesn't inspire me condifidence. Judgement is really the most important thing here, not that a user is a good user who fight vandals, but rather, if an individual could take the right decision in critical cases; if a user read carefully what there is to read and doesn't jump to conclusion based on some artifice. The experience I had with Phroziac, led me to believe that she still isen't ready for Arbitratorship. She appears to be much too frivolousness, unexperienced and peripherial reader. Fad (ix) 19:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

More likely you are pissed that she did not declare me an "enemy of wikipedia" like the three (Fadix Davenbele Steriotek) of you at a point campaigned to prove. You threatened arbcom that if they didnt stripted me away from Armenian Genocide article, you would do so yourself. Smudging the picture is really not a honorable act. Vandalism is never beside the point. How can you tell who is ready for arbitration and who isn't? Whats your creteria? Enlighten us. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 13:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am answering for the benefit of other members, not you.

Criteria

1-experienced contributor, that has already participated extensivaly in the writting of articles(might be few exceptions for this one).

2-a contributor who sees misbehavour, and this from whomever it is.

3-a user that doesn't double talk, and goes by what he say or she says. In this cases, the same Phroziac that support the bill of rights(with which I disagree BTW), has already has gone against the deletion of a target list against other members, just because the author was her friend(you).

4-a user that is not a peripherial reader.

5-a users talkpage, is important, it shows the maturity of a member. When I see dozens of worthless multicolor templates, I tend to consider the user an unmature individual. That is me, and I have the right to think like this.

6-extending point 4, above all, a user that is able of a reasonate judgement.

7-question page answers.

Those are few of my standards to vote against someone, and I would have voted using the same standards and oppose a friend. You can verify those I have supported and you can ask for the rational behind my votes, and you'll see that there is a judgement behind each of my votes.

As for the rest of your answer, I already told you that I am not interested to open old conflicts and engage in an empty talk. There has been an Arbcom cases, it ended, I accepted and you have to accept. I accept ypur existance in wikipedia, accept mine. Fad (ix) 17:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Damn, boys. Stop arguing, this is starting to look like the talk pages on that RFAr.... --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 19:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)