Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/DIscussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Hephaestos, Mirv, and Neutrality for Arbitrator

For the Arbitration Committee to play a constructive role in producing an encyclopedia, its members must understand just what is involved in writing a good article on Wikipedia; and its members must understand that there is a difference between serious editors and trolls sabotoging the work of serious editors. Too many of current members of the committee, along with a number of candidates currently running, view disputes from a prism up high from the IRC channel, mailing list, or the conflict resolution pages. They are not the colleagues of the active editors and writers but rather increasingly distant and unsympathetic authorities over us. However, to be an arbitrator as constructive and accessible as, say, Jwrosenzweig, one has to engage with the community not just from the top down but also from the bottom up. This is why I feel compelled to endorse the candidates aside from myself that have toiled the hardest to write quality articles and maintain their quality: Hephaestos, Mirv, and Neutrality. 172 08:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Matthews, David Gerard, and Shane King

I have some confidence in the wisdom and neutrality of these users.

Sam [Spade] 11:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


[edit] Ambi, David Gerard, Raul654 and Shane King

From my interactions with these users (and those they have had with others that I had chance to observe) I have seen nothing but good, and I just have this nice feeling inside about them being arbitrators, considering their grasp of policy. This is not to say that I don't think other candidates are great; I just feel these would make the best arbitrators among all the candidates. Ta bu shi da yu, sannse, Neutrality and Mirv were pretty close, though, but I feel I haven't seen enough of them to be sure they'd make good arbitrators. Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] what blankfaze has to say

I'd just like to say that I think most everyone running, save for a handful of obviously unqualified nogoodniks, is worthy and qualified and I wish all such candidates the best of luck. As such, I see no need or ability to endorse certain candidates moreso than others – with two exceptions. I was going to attempt to endorse one candidate who I felt was hands-down the best man running; but such could not be done. Both David Gerard and Raul654 came to mind. Hence, I endorse both of them and would like to vouch that they are both men of honour, neutrality, and levelheadedness. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I endorse Blankfaze in spite of his endorsement of Raul654, which shows amazingly poor judgement. Shorne 05:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse. Your reasoning is welcome but not required.

[edit] 172

  • Support, a hard working and impartial scholar. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, impartial, would be a good member. Xtra 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, Has a good vision of where Wiki has to go as it expands from a group of talented personalities into an entity with its own emergent behavior. Gzuckier 16:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ambi

  • Support, industrious and clear-thinking user. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi has my endorsement because I believe her to be one of the current AC's wisest and fairest critics -- I know from my conversations with her that she has thought at length and with depth about the problems the AC has faced, and while I do not always agree with her conclusions, I respect greatly her openmindedness, her fairness, and her willingness to innovate. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi is everything a wikipedian should be: level headed, hard working and willing to do the unglamorous organisational tasks. The strongest recomendation I can give is that if preferential voting is used for the election, I will be placing Ambi above myself on the ballot. Shane King 00:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good user. func(talk) 19:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Strongly. Very sensible. Wolfman 02:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ambi intruded into a request for mediation to insert personal comments with no substance whatsoever. (See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 11.) We could expect the same tendentiousness if he were put into a position of power. Shorne 07:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] blankfaze

  • Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • /me ezafknalbs - and supports. -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support. This user meets with my personal standards... oh, wait, I don't have any. ;-) func(talk) 19:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 03:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Matthews

[edit] Dante Alighieri

  • Few people know Dante. From what little I know of him, I feel he would make a good arbitrator. Therefore support. -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Since we are following Shorne's policy of "no censorship", I would strongly encourge everyone to look over Shorne's long and fascinating edit history before placing any stock in his "opposing endorsements". func(talk) 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not standing for election. People are welcome to look at my edit history; indeed, following me around and reverting everything I do has become a popular sport in certain trolling circles. But I can prove the charge against Dante Alighieri and the other mediators with facts. Personalities should not enter into this discussion. Shorne 05:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, and you accuse others here of ad hominems?--FeloniousMonk 05:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Sometimes, an eye for an eye is just a cigar.... func(talk) 05:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Hypocrisy and shamelessness blended in equal parts make a potent combination. Shorne 05:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] David Gerard

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • William M. Connolley 23:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • David has long had my respect for his ability to describe and understand the various problems at Wikipedia -- his approach to conflicts is very reasonable, in my opinion, and I believe he strikes an excellent balance between assuming good faith (as so many seem to abandon these days) and allowing users to wreak havoc (which also seems prevalent). I believe his intelligence and his ability to collaborate would be of real help to the Arbitration Committee. Jwrosenzweig 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 03:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] DG

  • Oppose. (Someone had to say it.) Shorne 03:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Fennec

[edit] Grunt

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support!!! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that the AC needs the perspective of those who are commited vandal fighters, and Grunt fits the bill perfectly. Shane King 00:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, Grunt, you're almost overqualified. ;) Really- I hope to have the privellege of serving together with you. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yea, verily.--FeloniousMonk 19:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 00:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. (I must admit that Grunt replied promptly to a recent complaint; however, the general unresponsiveness of the mediators, including their complete failure even to acknowledge a case brought against Wikipedia's worst troll [VeryVerily], suggests to me that no current mediator is cut out to be an arbitrator.) Shorne 03:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hephaestos

[edit] James F.

[edit] jguk

  • Support. Shorne 03:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Johnleemk

[edit] Lir

[edit] Mirv

[edit] Neutrality

[edit] Plato

[edit] Raul654

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • While Raul and I do not always agree on matters of policy, I have seen in these last few months that he is a dedicated and intelligent arbitrator, who works well in pushing for consensus, and whose commitment to keeping this site an excellent and reliable resource is firm. I am pleased he is running for reelection, and believe the community would do well to reaffirm the trust they indicated in his judgment in August. Jwrosenzweig 00:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • support Xtra 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support very much. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive. Gzornenplatz 01:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
    • Gzornenplatz's words are a bit strong. But Raul654 has been striking me as a bit cabalish lately; and he doesn't do nearly as good of a job explaining his reasoning in cases as, say, Jwrosenzweig. 172 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure anti-endorsements belong here, but I (shockingly) agree with these sentiments. Although I once thought Raul was clearheaded and voted for him in the last election, my recent experiences have been very poor. He, in his role as arbitrator, made demeaning comments to me based on something he mistakenly believed I had done, due to failing to look at the material he had been given. There was no response to my further queries, much less an apology for his error. VeryVerily 07:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I've also noticed that a number of arbitrators, along with a number of the likely "frontrunners" in this race, have a bit of a self-righteous and condescending streak to them. They seem to believe that they have earned the trust of the community; and with they feel that they are entitled to 'talk down' to general users. However, their source of status may not be too impressive. Users like Raul are simply more 'trusted' and popular than users like Gzornenplatz because they can avoid certain kinds of conflict. This isn't the case because they are inherently better behaved than users who get in revert wars; it's just easy to steer clear of edit wars when you're spending most of your time on cleanup, meta, IRC, or the mailing list and not working on the contentious topics in which Gzornenplatz and VV are interested. 172 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • World, take note: 172, I, and possibly Gz agree on something. People whose passions are in particle physics, ancient Greece, or children's toys will simply not be exposed to the same stresses that editors on communism or nationalism are. But this is a dubious ground for the air of superiority, of being a better person, the former type often exude vis-a-vis the latter. VeryVerily 13:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Again, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with VeryVerily. People like me are blackened as "edit warriors" solely because we write primarily on contentious political topics and have to put up with impossible people who revert everything we do without discussion. Those who deal primarily with macramé or rhubarb get a good reputation merely by dint of avoiding controversial topics. As for Raul654 and the other haughty arbitrators, their record is available for anyone who cares to look at it. (See below for some references.) Merely being incumbents should bring them no glory: they have proven to be appallingly biased, unaccountable, and vindictive, not to mention slow to take their (unjust) actions. Shorne 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
            • In my own defense - for those who are unaware, all of the complaining users above (Gzornenplatz, 172, VeryVerily, and Shorne) are currently under investigation by the arbitration committee. In fact, taken together they are involved in almost half (5 out of 13) of the current cases. →Raul654 06:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
              • Before concluding from this insertion that we "complaining users" are acting out of spite, users would do well to consider why people whose cases are pending would antagonise an arbitrator. If we were acting wholly out of self-interest, we would curry favour with Raul654. Readers should also look into the record of Raul654. I have provided three links below that prove every single allegation stated above: inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive, demeaning, self-righteous, condescending, superior, haughty, unaccountable, slow. More proof could easily be found. After all, every bit of it is logged here for posterity. Shorne 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sam Spade

Oppose for the following reasons: See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade (which is only a partia record of Sam's views.) 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree with Sam on many issues (check our declared biases on our user pages!), but I know that he's willing to take the flak others throw time and time again and keep on going. He is a tireless contributor when others would have just given up, and a strict adherant to policy, which is essential for the AC. Shane King 01:02, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions .--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, and for those "voting" oppose... this isn't a vote. This is an "endorsements" page, so knock it off. func(talk) 19:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If people can speak in favour, others can speak against. Otherwise this would merely be a POV page biased in favour of the candidates. See the talk page. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically.

If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] sannse

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a little reluctant to endorse sannse, purely because I have such great respect for her work with the Mediation Committee that I almost hate to see her leave it, even for so important a task as arbitration. But ultimately I feel compelled to endorse her, as I believe sannse's experience in moderating disputes and working with users to try and bring them together on issues would make her a particularly wise and inventive arbitrator -- we're constantly looking for new ways of resolving issues and applying fair remedies on the AC, and I think sannse's background suits her ideally to contribute in that way (in addition to her generally excellent judgment and keen sense of fairness). Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support very much. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 20:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ta bu shi da yu

  • Single-handedly broke my unopposed support record for adminship and still going strong. Support. -- Grunt   ҈  01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse... in fact, I think the ArbCom should be made up entirely of good-hearted Aussies. ;-) func(talk) 19:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Theresa knott

  • Strongly endorse. —No-One Jones (m) 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Theresa has shown remarkable resilience and good humor in the face of some of this site's worst trolls. I have seen in her both the patience necessary to deal with arbitration (an endeavor greatly requiring that virtue) and the soundness of judgment necessary to carry out reasonable remedies. Finally, someone who has dealt with trolls of many types is, I think, excellently qualified to be an arbitrator, both because she understands the pressures good users are often placed under, and because she understands the importance of rising above trolls rather than engaging in their tactics -- I believe this would help her craft responses to cases that both recognize the straits good users find themselves in and push these good users to avoid bad behavior despite said straits. I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grunt   ҈  23:58, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Theresa seems to have patience above and beyond the call of duty, given what I've seen her put up with. Shane King 00:00, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
  • My strongest possible endorsement. When I think of the very best aspects of Wikipedia, there is one name that always rises to the top: Theresa Knott. I second everything that Jwrosenzweig just said, (and I am very angry with Jwrosenzweig for beating me to it ;-) ). func(talk) 00:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. Theresa Knott has proven to be utterly supercilious, consistently taking the part of the administration and dismissing the legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. See, for example, her extensive discussion over the past few days in User talk:Jimbo Wales#Purge the arbitration committee, where she snapped "Stop whinging" at me in response to a complaint that has received considerable popular support, then continued to accuse another user of "whinging". Although she did eventually apologise for this display of condescension, her partiality towards the administration coûte que coûte is precisely the opposite of what we need at a time when so many people are complaining—with justice—of an élite cabal. Shorne 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator. Johnleemk | Talk 04:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] VeryVerily

  • Strongly oppose. I was appalled to see this name on the list of candidates. His self-nomination is a sick joke. There could not possibly be a worse candidate than someone, currently the object of four cases before the arbitration committee, who openly disdains the rules (especially the three-revert rule), refuses time and time again to enter into discussion, and repeatedly reverts everything that does not suit his POV. Shorne 04:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the Wikipedia: Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week. The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like. I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Yoshiah ap (Josiah)

(Please add names of further candidate/s)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004_Candidate_statements_DIscussion_2209.html"