Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Merovingian

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
I applaud Jimbo's appointments of User:Mindspillage and User:Kelly Martin as temporary arbitrators. I am sure that they will do a fine job. Every measure must be taken to make sure that the Arbitration Committee runs smoothly.
I have noticed that some editors are displeased with my support of User:Kelly Martin. I would just like to clarify that while some of Martin's actions have not been entirely appropriate, she has done very well as an arbitrator. --King of All the Franks 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm Merovingian. I've been a Wikipedian since November 2003 and an administrator since March 2004. That doesn't really matter, though. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and the key to its prosperity is only more change. As the community has grown and diversified, the need for binding solutions has grown, too. The Arbitration Committee is dedicated to finding and developing these solutions.

Certainly, the committee has been a mixed blessing. While it has solved many disputes, it has been plagued by a backlog of cases and too much unimportant arguing. Usually, a fairly simple disagreement escalates, and the committee spends too much time picking through longwinded rants. An enlargement of the Arbitration Committee of just three could very well move cases through much more quickly.

Banning is, obviously, a privilege. Only certain users have this ability. Banning should always be an option in an Arbitration Committee case when the behavior of one or more involved users warrants it. However, I disapprove of banning as a form of injunction, unless it is called for.

I believe that I can help. During my time at Wikipedia, I have tried my very best to adhere to the projects tenets of honesty, good faith, and neutrality. All three are important features to be found in an arbitrator. If elected, I will maintain a high level of participation; the committee’s progress has been hindered by inactive members and resignations. I care about this project too much to give up. If elected, I will act with fairness to all involved parties, and conduct my work with the other arbitrators in the open. If elected, I will keep my personal views out of all cases, as I have tried to do when writing articles.

I welcome questions, comments, or criticisms here, my talk page, or at either of my email addresses, which can be seen on my userpage.

Contents

[edit] Questions and comments

[edit] Some questions being asked of all the candidates by jguk

Q: How old are you and what do you do? (If student, please state what subjects you are studying.)

A: I am nearly seventeen years old. In my junior year of high school, I am studying Geography, Pre-Calculus, Literature, Art, Microsoft Applications, and United States Government.

Q: How many hours a month do you think you will need to be a good Arbitrator and are you really willing to put in the time?

A: As I am on Wikipedia for a few hours a day, I can spend every minute of that time as an Arbitrator. I am willing to suspend editing in other areas in order to work on an arbitration case.

Q: If chosen, you will need to arbitrate on disputes arising from the creation or revision of articles. Experience of creating and revising articles yourself, particularly where it has involved collaboration, is very valuable in understanding the mindset of disputants who come to arbitration. With reference to your own edits in the main article namespace, please demonstrate why you think you have the right experience to be a good arbitrator.

A: I have tried my best to collaborate with other users over matters on specific articles. I worked with User:Nunh-huh and User:RickK on The Rest of the Story. I worked with User:Mark Richards on the list of island nations. I worked with User:JoaoRicardo on Angeltheow. I worked with User:Zora on Madhuri Dixit. I worked with several editors in the early discussion of the 7 July 2005 London bombings. Finally, I worked with User:Everyking on the Ethiopian presidential election, 2005. These are the longest article discussions I have been in.

I feel that I have enough experience to be an Arbitrator from discussions like these. They are listed chronologically, with the earliest being first. I hope that you can see how my style of interaction has evolved over time, as I learned the finer points of having intelligent discussions with others for the purpose of resolving conflicts over articles' content.

Q: Please list out what other Wikipedia usernames you have edited under.

A: On the English Wikipedia, I have only edited under this username. However, I do have accounts on the Sanskrit, Simple English, Latin, Malagasy, Spanish, and German language editions of Wikipedia. Their usernames are Mero, Mero, Meronicus, Mero, Merovingian, and Merovingian, respectively.

[edit] Request from Dragons flight

Arbcom is overworked and no fun. Please review these discussions: [1] [2] [3] Come up with a short list of suggestions for ways you would endorse for improving the arbitration process. Bonus points for actually managing to create new policy. Dragons flight 08:00, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Now, more than ever, the committee needs expansion.

I am frustrated that it has not, in its two years, expanded by a single seat, even with numerous resignations and inactive Arbitrators. I fully support more seats. A larger pool of Arbitrators can lead to a better, more efficient group. Here are some other suggestions.

  • The Arbitration Committe must deal with content disputes. They need a final decision, too. Too many times, arguments are limited to AfD or a talk page, and it becomes chaos. Sometimes, it peters out only to be revived by somebody a week later, and all of the dead horses are brought out to be beaten again. By not dealing with content disputes, the Arbitration Committee has set itself from Wikipedia's very purpose.
  • The current election system of arbitrators is awkward. That a user can vote for everybody does not relate to who is actually qualified to serve. I suggest that we elect arbitrators using the First-Past-the-Post system. If we have X number of vacancies, users ought to have X votes. In the last Arbitration committee election, every user who earned a seat had a plurality. The most popular candidate (for lack of a better term) was voted for by just 51% of voters. Furthermore, the seventh and eighth places were separated by one vote. This is not good representation.
  • I was shocked to hear of a proposal to limit the seat of Arbitrators to administrators only. This is fundamentally "anti-wiki". I don't think we have ever had an arbitrator without sysop rights, but it shouldn't be impossible.
  • Vacancies must be filled soon after they occur. This would lead to smooth operation of the committee, especially if the vacant arbitrator was working on any number of cases. Elections should quickly set up and executed, instead of having Jimbo Wales appoint replacements because as User:jguk pointed out, Wikipedia cannot rely on him to make every decision forever. As much as I respect Mr. Wales, we must be able to fix our own problems.
  • There should be only one pool of Arbitrators, instead of a number of them to deal with different kinds of disputes. A single argument needs all the input it can get.

[edit] Form question by Snowspinner

Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

First thing's first: I freely admit that as 17 years old, I don't have a very good amount of firsthand experience in detecting BS, but I have been exposed to enough media (books, TV, Internet, etc.) to know when I'm being fed a line of crap.
In my own mind, the determining factor is the difference between what a person says and what a person does. I've found this to be true of individuals and groups both in real life, and on the Internet. I do, in fact, judge people on whether they keep their word. Trust is one of the most important things civilised people can have among themselves.
In the course of my time on Wikipedia, I have only found this to be true. The Arbitration Committee does not deal with simple vandalism, the kind of nonsense that can be reversed with a quick execution of the revert button. I've dealt with what the Arbitration Committee does deal with: the trolls, the sneaky POV pushers. They all share the same thing: they don't do what they say (or vice versa). --Merovingian 14:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Form Question from karmafist

Many policies contradict and overlap with each other, and then WP:IAR makes things even more complicated while making them paradoxically more flexible. When two or more policies apply and conflict, what do you do? karmafist 18:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The more preferable policy is the one that can set a better precedent when the Arbitration Comittee uses it as part of a case. In the case of IAR, this is not helpful when it comes to settling conflicts.
As a microcosm of Wikipedia, the Arbitration Committee cannot function with policies that favor anarchy. It should use policies that are solid and not vague. It is not anti-wiki to do this. Instead, it favors the committee's goal: to provide solutions to difficult conflicts. --Merovingian 00:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions from User:-Ril-

The following questions are for each candidate, and do not specifically target you

Do you hold any strong political or religious opinions (e.g. concerning George Bush, Islam, or on which end you should break a boiled egg)? If so, would you recuse yourself from cases centred on these?

How willing are you to contest the decisions of other arbitrators rather than just "go with the flow"?

Do you view all requests to re-address cases, particularly requests made by those most penalised, as being automatically without merit?

In the case against Yuber, it was decided by the arbitration committee that it is the duty of arbitrators to investigate, and rule on the behaviour of not only one party involved, but all of them. Do you support this decision? [if current arbitrator] Does your visible behaviour on recent cases reflect this decision?


--Victim of signature fascism 16:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I have clear political and religious opinions, but I sincerely try not to let those interfere with the reasoning of NPOV. Reporting facts is clear and good. Inferring from facts is clear and good. Making judgments based on facts (which is different from inferences) is not good.
I would not recuse myself from cases based on content so much as the users involved in the dispute. If I've dealt with them before, or already have a bias toward or against one of them, I know that I could not fairly assess their case.
I would not have a second thought in contesting the actions of the committee. It is probable that each arbitrator has his or her thoughts about a given case. Incompetence or mistakes should not be tolerated.
Affected parties of a case should have the right to appeal. Such a provision is a measure of good faith.
I believe that the Arbitration Committee ought to review relevant actions of all involved parties of a case. In other words, yes, I support that decision. --Merovingian 04:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
You are currently an arbitrator. Could you tell us what your clear political and religious opinions are, so that we may judge for ourselves if they do not interfere with an NPOV approach to cases? --Victim of signature fascism 08:44, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't know why my beliefs would be relevant, seeing as I've tried to distance them from my work here. Nevertheless, I will oblige.
Economically, I'm moderate. I'm for capitalism, with certain provisions for safety (protection from crashes). As far as religion goes, I was born a Catholic, although I don't go to church much. Socially, I'm slightly right-ish; I'm pro-life, pro-gun, and I dislike the thought of gay marriage, but I do not discriminate against gay people. At-home politics: I am quite conservative, favoring a strong legislature, a strong executive, and a judicial system whose decisions don't create laws. Foreign politics: I dislike the international organisations, and I prefer that nations be free to deal with each other as they please. --Merovingian 15:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank-you. --Victim of signature fascism 18:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Sure thing; I hope this helps. --Merovingian 20:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Marsden

As you probably are already aware, your age may be an issue to a lot of people. I am one of those people.

My particular concern is that, at your age, you are unlikely to have a broad grounding in the general background knowledge of (what passes for?) our culture. This potentially opens the door for others, possibly including fellow arbitrators, to foist their particular agendas upon you.

In light of my concerns about this, which I suspect others may share, how would you deal with conflicts that might be brought before you as an arbitrator on subjects about which you do not have good background knowledge? How would you keep yourself from just relying on the information supplied by another arbitrator or another person, information that might be biased?

Marsden 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rather than the subject matter, I believe that it is more important to analyse a case based on the involved parties' actions. It is the committee's preference to not deal with content disputes. Nevertheless, it is easy to tell bias from fact, regardless of subject. I can read and think for myself. I intend to review each case independently, bringing my suggestion(s) to the table only when I feel it is appropriate. --Merovingian 14:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. I think you take too lightly, however, telling bias from fact. Virtually everything reported in Wikipedia is based on sometimes distantly removed reporting of people's observations; if I were to look up on a map and travel to Jasper, Missouri, for example, I could probably decide whether or not the Census Bureau information that Wikipedia reports for the town seems consistent with my observations. But I am very unlikely ever to do any such thing.
It is unlikely that anything about a small Missouri town would be misreported by the Census Bureau. But there are other matters about which there is nothing like an authoritative documentation, and of which the available information largely became reported only after the matter had become part of a dispute, with the interested parties in the dispute providing the information. And it is not atypical, in such situations, for the unreported facts of the situation to be overwhelmed by propaganda produced by an interested party.
The Intelligent design (ID) "debate" in the US is an example of this: proponents of ID can line up people with relevant academic degrees to declare how it is a legitimate alternative to the theory of evolution, and there is almost no response from the evolution-supporting committee. An uninformed glance at the "debate" might conclude that ID is better supported in the scientific community based on this, while the truth of the matter is that ID is such a fringe position, and not generally even considered to be science, that very few objective scientists want even to dignify it with a response.
The Intelligent Design "debate" is a pretty clunky and obvious example of how an extreme minority position might posture as being significant to determining what is a neutral point of view: it is basically a difference in logical construction, and even someone who knows nothing about any of it might be able with some thought to figure out why ID is not part of mainstream science.
Other matters are more subtle. In particular, political differences are sometimes argued based on competing versions of history: these cannot generally be resolved through thought experiments.
People knowledgeable about the background of such a dispute may legitimately regard one line of argument to be an extreme minority view that needn't be taken into account. But the historiography that such a person might present to an uninformed observor would be very hard to distinguish, generally, from the historiography that would be presented by an interested party hoping to stifle a reasonable line of argument. Similarly, a legitimate argument that a particular historiography should be acknowledged would be very hard to distinguish from an illegitimate attempt to elevate an extreme minority view into a debate over what would constitute a neutral perspective.
I don't think I've particularly written anything here that invites a further response from you, although of course you should make one if you'd like to. Consider it all food for your thought.
Marsden 17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand the gist of what you're saying, that the line between truth and untruth can be very fine. In that case, a good solution for such a dispute is to make readers aware of what is truthful and objective (and what isn't), and evaluating users' actions based on that. --Merovingian 01:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


Do you support the creation of a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct as I have just now suggested at User talk:Jimbo Wales#A sincere question? - Ted Wilkes 18:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The ideas that you have put forward are top-notch suggestions. They are straightforward and clear, and I believe that they are important to ensuring that the Arbitration Committee can be trusted. Certainly, I can abide by this code if it were implemented. --Merovingian 21:03, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone created the article without my knowledge. As such, would you mind offering some input? Thank you. - Ted Wilkes 21:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Like I've said, I like the concept. Every arbitrator should be held accountable, and their actions should be compared to the ideals listed in the code. Complaints against arbitrators might be helped by using this list, if it can be shown that the goals have not been met, or that the arbitrator's abilities have been misused/abused. At this time, I have nothing that I would like to see added or removed from the page. --Merovingian 21:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Question

I'll probably end up posing this question to all whose views I don't already know:

What is, in your opinion, the proper use of WP:IAR? When, if ever, should the rule be invoked to justify administrative action? Xoloz 17:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I highly disapprove of the use of IAR to justify administrative action. Janitors should be logical and careful enough to at least be aware of guidelines. I see the use of IAR to back up their actions as reckless. --King of All the Franks 00:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights?

Do you support Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights? (SEWilco 05:39, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

I most certainly do, not that many of the ideas should not already be in practice. --King of All the Franks 05:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to many candidates by PurplePlatypus

  1. How do you view the role (and relative importance) of WP:Civility in the process of building a factually accurate encyclopedia? How do you view editors who are normally correct in article namespace, but who may be perceived as rude – including to longtime, popular editors and admins – on Talk pages and the like?
  2. Do you have an academic background of any kind, and if so, in what field? How do you handle critiques from your peers and professors (assuming those aren’t one and the same), which may be sharply worded or otherwise skirt the edges of WP:Civility even if they are correct? Considering those professors who have recently had you as a student, what would they tell me if I asked them the same question about you?
  3. What are your views on the proposed policy Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct? Whether you think it should be a formal policy or not, do you believe you would generally act in accordance with it? What aspects of it do you think should not be there, or to put it another way, are there any proposals there which you can think of good reasons to ignore on a regular basis? (Please date any replies to this question as the proposal may well change over time.)

PurplePlatypus 07:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. Civility is an extremely important part of the Wikipedia contributor's experience. If users cannot cooperate, we have failed.
  2. I regret to admit that I have not graduated high school, but I try to take criticism as well as I can. Civility is not an issue. If they're older than me, and they're the teacher, I have no right to up the ante and get snarky.
  3. The Code of Conduct (as of now) is fine, but has a whole lot of common sense. In other words, I would hope that past and present arbitrators have already been following these rules. --King of All the Franks 11:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions being asked by Titoxd to all candidates

  1. How much of your Wikipedia time do you plan to spend on ArbCom business?
  1. If you were elected and had to spend most of your time in ArbCom delibations, which projects would you consider to be the most negatively affected by your absence?
  1. To what extent would those projects be affected?

Titoxd(?!? - help us) 06:51, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. As I have stated before, I am willing to spend every moment I am on Wikipedia on ArbCom matters, if necessary.
  2. I don't dedicate myself to many specific projects; mostly, I prefer to go around and do random maintenance work or such. The first WikiProject I joined was the Tree of Life, just a few days ago. I try to make a few new pages in that area every once in a while.
  3. Participation is pretty easy, so I don't think ArbCom would hurt my time for it too much. --King of All the Franks 08:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality question and Censuring questions from -Ril-

(Being asked of all candidates)

Do you believe that regardless of Jimbo Wales' own views on the matter, the community should be able to strip arbitrators of their position under certain circumstances, and if so, what circumstances?

Yes. The community should be able to remove an arbitrator should it be found that they have acted in a manner unbecoming or abusive of their abilities/position. --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As a corollory:Do you believe, regardless of Jimbo Wales' view on the matter, that a large number of signatories (e.g. 150 requesting censure against 50 supporting the arbitrator) to an RFC against an arbitrator is enough that the arbitrator should be judged as having been rejected by the community in light of their actions, and consequently for them to be forcibly stripped of their post?

Yes. --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia has a policy of NPOV. Excepting straw men, have you ever introduced a substantial opinion or fact that contradicts your own political or religious viewpoint into an article on a topic of which you have strong opinions, and if you have, how frequently do you do so compared to your other substatial edits to articles?

I try not dig myself into large disputes, but I have become involved with situations with the circumstances you have provided. Probably the most notable instance of this was on John Kerry, where I made a very minor edit, and another editor accused me of trying to insert pro-Kerry POV into the article. Truth be told, I "heartily dislike" the man, but Wikipedia deserves a factual, fair article about him. --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

(Being asked just of you)

Above, you applaud Jimbo Wales' appointment of User:Kelly Martin as a temporary arbitrator. In light of recent events, do you still stand by that?

--Victim of signature fascism 01:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Kelly Martin's actions have not been used as justification for decisions/contributions as an arbitrator. Furthermore, she has had the good sense to recuse herself from the requested userbox RFAr. --King of All the Franks 02:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recusal, Code of Conduct, Expansion

I am asking these questions of all candidates:

1. Do you pledge to abide by the proposed recusal guidelines at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct#Recusal?

2. Are there any parts of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct that you do not agree with? If so, please describe in detail how you would improve them.

3. Will you please pledge to support expanding the number of seats on the Arbitration Committee? If not, how would you propose alleviating the present arbitration backlog?

4. Have you voted over at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules? If not, why not? If so, please summarize your votes.

Thank you for your kind consideration of and answers to these questions. —James S. 06:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

  1. Yes, unconditionally.
  2. No, not at all.
  3. I will. The Committee should be a static body. As long as all members are qualified to serve, they should be allowed to.
  4. I have voted on many of the earlier proposals; the newest ones I have not voted on. In short:
  • I support allowing the Committee to be open to all tiers of users, not just admins.
  • Although it may not be relevant now, I support bloc voting for electing the ArbCom.
  • Although it may not be relevant now, I support midyear elections.
  • I support the expansion of the committee. A specific quantity is not important.
  • I oppose a run-off election, not just because of voter fatigue, but I simply find it unlikely and probably irrelevant to the system that we are set to use.
  • I support the idea that, if the committee is not expanded, alternates should be chosen in case they are needed.
  • Although I support the idea of a Condorcet method generally, I do not think it is a good idea for selecting ArbCom members.
  • I oppose any change in the length of ArbCom terms. Regular elections are a good way to refresh the arbitrator pool, especially if resignations and drop-outs continue.
  • I support the idea of nullifying all sockpuppet/puppetmaster votes. These people are uncool and, in my opinion, have forfeited their credibility. --King of All the Franks 08:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question from Celestianpower

Vital question for attaining my vote. What is your favourite flavour of ice cream? Think carefully... --Celestianpower háblame 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If the trick is to be NPOV, I would say that I'll have whatever you're having. If not, mint chocolate chip. --King of All the Franks 00:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh good - a man after my own heart. I love Mint Choc Chip :). Not my favourite as that would have to be strawberry but still, it's a close second... --Celestianpower háblame 11:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I see, I see... --King of All the Franks 13:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Not to butt in but we appear to have the same tastes :) Gotta be careful on the WP:NPOV when we work together ;) —Ilyanep (Talk) 18:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, two is certainly nowhere near "consensus" either.  :) --King of All the Franks 19:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

meta:List of Wikipedians by favorite ice cream flavor. :-) the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking! --King of All the Franks 15:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns over personal attack templates

User:Improv, who is also a candidate for the arbitration committee, has placed the following statement on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy):

I am concerned about templates surviving AfD that appear to contrast with established policy. In particular, I feel that these templates are Poisoning the well when it comes for how we treat our fellow wikipedians. There are circumstances where knowing too much about one's neighbours politicises how one deals with them. This is, to an extent, unavoidable in society, but wearing signs of hate as badges on our shoulders takes what is a small problem that we can usually deal with into the realm of being damaging to the community. Already, there have been signs of people refusing to help each other because they are on different ends of a political spectrum -- this seems likely to get worse if this trend continues. Some people cry that this is an attack on their first amendment rights (if they're American, anyhow), but that doesn't apply here because Wikipedia is not the U.S. government -- it is a community that has always self-regulated, and more importantly it is an encyclopedia with a goal of producing encyclopedic content. We have a tradition of respecting a certain amount of autonomy on userpages, but never absolute autonomy. We might imagine, for example, templates with little swastikas saying "this user hates jews". I am not saying that such a thing would be morally equivalent to this template against scientology, but rather that we should aim to minimise that aspect of ourselves, at least on Wikipedia, so we can make a better encyclopedia. The spirit of NPOV does not mean that we cannot have strong views and still be wikipedians, but rather that we should not wear signs of our views like badges, strive not to have our views be immediately obvious in what we edit and how we argue, and fully express ourselves in other places (Myspace? Personal webpage?) where it is more appropriate and less divisive. [4]

I am inviting all candidates, including Improv, to expand on this theme on their questions pages. Do you agree that this is a cause for concern as we move into 2006? How do you see the role of the arbitration committee in interpreting the interpretation of Wikipedia policy in the light of this concern? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Improv has taken things in a good direction. Templates such as the aforementioned may be viewed as disruptive, especially since they can hit somebody a lot harded than, say, a template disapproving of a musical group. I think that these particularly hostile things should be minimized because Wikipedia is NOT a soapbox, public or personal.
As far as the Arbitration Committee's role in all of this, there should certainly be some intervention if disputes arise over the use of these controversial templates. Personally, I think that the templates can be trivializing (making light of) something rather serious, and potentially sensitive. Despite my relatively liberal wiki-stance on self-expression, civility and diplomacy are virtues, and should be expected to some degree of all users. --King of All the Franks 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why do you ignore the results of votes taken?

Why did you redirect an article in which more than 100 users had already voted to keep the article and not to redirect it?

Why do you feel that you personally, a single individual (aged 17), have the right to cancel the contributions of so many users?

I certainly feel that you should not be elected. I am shocked to learn that you are an administrator. Sam Sloan 18:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you please specify what article you're talking about? --King of All the Franks 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid to say, for fear that he will go back and redirect it again.
He also deleted the entire history, which only an administrator can do, so you cannot really see clearly what he did. Sam Sloan 00:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
But if you don't name the article, I won't be able to respond to your original claim. I won't bite.  :) --King of All the Franks 00:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I see. You have done this so often, both redirecting an article AFTER a vote had been taken to KEEP and also erasing the entire history to that the contributions of one hundred different users are deleted, that you cannot remember or even figure out which article I am writing about.
I note that another user is also complaining about you erasing the history of another article.
You certainly should be removed from your status as an administrator and go back to being one of us peons. Sam Sloan 14:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I make plenty of redirects, but I simply don't remember anything like what you're claiming. As Tony has suggested, please bring this issue up with the formal dispute resolution system, where it is more relevant and be dealt with better. --King of All the Franks 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
If I might intervene, I'd just like to suggest that Sam Sloan take his problem with the candidate to dispute resolution. While the accusation, if it were substantiated, could be relevant to the candidacy, the questioning here is not serving any electoral purpose and the tone is verging on the abusive. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Thank you kindly for your input, sir. --King of All the Franks 19:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Hold on just a minute! I found what Sam is talking about. I had moved Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) to Brian Chase (hoaxer), because I thought it was too self-referential (there aren't that many Brian Chases who have pulled large-scale hoaxes like that). Anyway, it looks like Sam moved it back (or copy-pasted) it, so the question is moot now. I won't bother to pursue the issue further; somebody else can do that. --King of All the Franks
It is not moot because you also blanked the entire history page. If you look at [[5]] as you have left it, it looks like the page was created a few days ago and there have been only two edits. Actually, the page was created in November and there have been more than one hundred edits, involving numerous different people. (Almost none were by me, incidentally.) The fact that you have erased the work product of one hundred different users shows that you do not respect the opinions of others. Several other users had suggested various name changes and one other user actually made the change you made only to have it reverted back. A heated debate and vote was taken and it was decided to keep the name. Then you came along and probably without even reading the history and familiarizing yourself with the issues, decided to blank the entire history. I am still waiting for you to restore the history page, which I assume that you have the power to do, so that everybody can see what happened. Sam Sloan 23:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, there are many edits in the history of the redirect [6]. Additionally, there are a number of deleted edits. I assume you would like me to restore those? --King of All the Franks 23:43, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not clear to me exactly what you did, and that indeed is part of the problem or indeed the main problem. However, it does appear that the history of Brian Chase (Wikipedia hoaxer) was moved over to Brian Chase (hoaxer). In that case you should move it back to where it was.
Here is what the most rabid advocate of the redirect just posted:

I'd be inclined to go ahead and turn that article into a redirect, if it weren't for the fact that I did it a couple times in weeks past and it was reverted. There are some folks who are rabidly opposed to such a merge, so I was curious what the people who watch this article think. Friday (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This person User:Friday repeatedly called for the move and merge. He was almost the only one who felt that way however. You should have learned about this before your took your precipituous action. Sam Sloan 01:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry about that. Anyway, I have restored all deleted versions of Brian Chase (hoaxer). I'm not planning on doing anything else with the article, unless there's something you can think of. I can't think of how I could move the history to the right page, but it's all back and publicly viewable now. --King of All the Franks 01:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Candidate_statements_Merovingian_dd5b.html"