Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/JzG

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

[edit] Statement

Withdrawn per concerns raised by several editors whose opinion I trust, especially the comment "handles trolls badly", which is bang on the money as a casual reading of the candidate questions page will readily demonstrate.

Registered as Just zis Guy, you know? (talk · contribs) in 2004, active since September 2005, changed my account to JzG (talk · contribs) to make my sig shorter in talk pages, sysop since January 2006. The handle dates back a long ways, real name and contact details are no secret and never have been. I am a 42-year-old Englishman, married, kids, electrical engineering degree, working as a sysadmin for a Fortune 500 company. In other words, I'm a geek but not a teenager. I try to spend time every week actually building the encyclopaedia, but often fail due to the distractions of adminship.

I have two favourite quotes: from H. L. Mencken, "for every complex problem there is a solution which is simple, neat and wrong"; and from Bertrand Russell, "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so sure of themselves, and wiser men so full of doubts." I am constantly plagued by doubts and the question I most often ask myself is "what if I'm wrong?"

This is an encyclopaedia. Everything should be traceable back to core policy and justified by benefit to the encyclopaedia. My inclusion standards are pretty high and biased towards actual research and subjects outside of popular culture; it seems to me that the benefit of all this hard work should be to provide verifiable information which a thirty-second Google search will not reveal.

I support community-based solutions to problems of disruptive editing, but wish more of the community were involved in those discussions. As a top ten site, we are now the number one target for people promoting an agenda. ArbCom is our final line of defence, and by the time ArbCom deliberates (which it must, to ensure fairness) we may have had months of disruption and wasted editor effort. I like temporary injunctions, but these should of course not give an advantage to one side in a good-faith dispute.

I put in a fair bit of effort on Wikipedia, and I do my best to be fair, open to criticism, and to explain my actions and the thoughts which underly them. I am not perfect, and certainly not always right, but I do my best.

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. DarthVader 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. One of the best admins in the biz, and would be one of the best arbitrators we've had. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Alex Bakharev 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Ourai т с 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. With no sympathy for...some people, shall we say. Also per Cyde. --210physicq (c) 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Coredesat 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Just this support, you know? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. I will support this user ANY TIME. Total trust and approval. You will make a tremendous Wikipedia Supreme Court Justice - crz crztalk 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    BhaiSaab talk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Jaranda wat's sup 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Hello32020 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Khoikhoi 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. SuperMachine 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Ars Scriptor 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. --RobthTalk 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Geogre 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Dr Zak 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support a wise and easy-going guy. Just who we need. --Irpen 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    He is already doing so much good work for Wikipedia, won't Arbcom be overload? :) Removed, per ATren below and on talk page. Ashibaka tock 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Excellent editor and admin, cares about the policies, lots of common sense. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Terence Ong 04:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Merzbow 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Opabinia regalis 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Bishonen | talk 04:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
  28. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Dylan Lake 05:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Although my support is not nearly as strong as Crz's, and although I am a bit disconcerted by some of the putative incivility adduced below, I think it quite plain that JzG well understands the role of ArbCom and is well equipped to act consistent with such conception. Joe 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support --Folantin 10:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Kusma (討論) 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support The Crawford affair and the occasional nonsenical AfD aside (e.g. Fast Company & Inc. Magazine), the vast majority of what I see from JzG is positive. With so much activity, it's inevitable that most of us won't agree with him 100% of the time, so we must look to the big picture. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support; scrupulously fair. Tom Harrison Talk 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support although he has had his lumps, he still is one of the best contributors we have.-- danntm T C 16:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. ➨ ЯEDVERS 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support --Pjacobi 19:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support - excellent admin, would serve well as arbitrator. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Always admired the username, mate. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support outstanding candidate. JChap2007 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support, of course. This is the very model of a modern Wikipedian. Good admin and will doubtless shine as an arbitrator. Someone I can trust. Moreschi 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Intolerance to trolls is not that bad in an arbitrator. Sandstein 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support David D. (Talk) 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Guettarda 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support •Jim62sch• 23:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. I wish I had as much common sense as he does -- Samir धर्म 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support - a knowledgeable administrator and editor who has dealt with some very difficult situations over the months I have been here and done a fine job. Familiar with ArbCom processes and procedures as a case participant, but not through any fault of his own. As for recent disagreements as discussed by some opposers, not every word he wrote was phrased as I would have done, but he gets the credit of not ducking a couple of difficult situations just because this election was around the corner, and I will give him the credit of understanding if he's elected that admins and arbitrators play different roles. Newyorkbrad 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. supportJoshuaZ 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Agent 86 03:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support IrishGuy talk 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support, the kind of person we need more of here. —ptk✰fgs 04:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Glen 05:30, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Shinhan 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Duja► 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - has sound understanding and judgment. Metamagician3000 09:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The below votes were cast after the candidate withdrew.

  • Support. —Angr 09:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Steel 00:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Strong oppose per this edit. WP:NPA is part of the five pillars and doesn't have exceptions. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose - Just in the last few weeks, he's engaged in personal attacks ("idiot","idiot"), incivility ("f_ck off", "f_ck off"), biting a new user ("pissing me off"), and revealing the identity of an anonymous user (here, then again here after the user removed it to preserve his identity). I don't care what the other editors did, should an admin and arb com candidate be calling someone an idiot and telling them to f_ck off? See also my mediation experience with JzG on the talk page. ATren 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose per his behavior as described on the talk page. also, user opposed ban for deletionist/troll Brian G. Crawford who had made grotesque personal attacks and death threats, saying "due process" was needed, then banned User:Dvac and deleted most of his edits, accusing him of simply "spamming", when in fact he was creating new articles about real buildings/structures. Can't trust him to act neutrally, sorry. — CharlotteWebb 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. KPbIC 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Mira 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose per Atren KazakhPol 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose per Atren. Heimstern Läufer 03:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. - regardless of the rights and wrongs of the dispute with User:Fys, JzG's approach does not suggest suitability for ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Atren.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Recent experience with what is considered 'trolling' scared me. If ArbCom would have similar views... I am sorry, but I have to say no, at the very least ArbCom members must be extra careful while throwing such labels around.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose. Rebecca 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose THB 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Being an arbitrator requires more patience than JzG has shown in the diffs above. Bucketsofg 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. semper fi — Moe 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Nufy8 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Strong Oppose Per the biting the newbies. Doesn't assume enough good faith. GizzaChat © 06:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. With sadness. Deals poorly with trolls. —Cryptic 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Most reluctant of reluctant opposes - does an outstanding job, but the civility is an issue. BigDT 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per User Fys.--John Lake 06:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Very reluctantly because JzG is one of our most prolific contributors and of good judgement in general. It would be a joy to support a person like this, but it is his support for a troll who came with death threats, attacks and harrassment way beyond the point of no return which is of concern to me, making me question the suitability for ArbCom. As an administrator he does excellent work. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Just not enough patience to be on arbcom... sorry JzG...  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose strongly. Everyking 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Weak oppose. – Chacor 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. cj | talk 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong oppose. He pays attention, what is a pro. But accepts punishment blocks in very unclear cases. --Sugaar 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Per on-wiki civility concerns raised here. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. —Viriditas | Talk 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. I sympathize, but Arbcom members need to be our most patient and civil editors. --Alecmconroy 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Shyam (T/C) 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose -- MightyWarrior 15:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. TewfikTalk 16:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Very sad oppose per Sjakkalle. He is a wonderful admin, and a humorist without peer; but, he is not the best-suited in this great field of candidates. Xoloz 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose I think not Dragomiloff 17:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. --Conti|✉ 18:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Per Atren and the civility issues highlited. WP:CIVIL is a basic concept that cannot be worked around. --NuclearZer0 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Reluctantly. Generally a good guy, and a long-term, productive contributor. A solid admin. Just too much recent, intemperate reaction to trolls; Arbs need to have a very thick skin. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Reluctant oppose. Good admin, good editor, but conflicted views on arbcom from answers to my questions: 1 - arbcom can close debate on a failed policy but not a successful one? 5 - Finds 3 disagreements, but would recuse rather than disagree. AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Personal attacks and consistent advocacy for banned vandal prove inaptitude for the job. --JJay 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Too many personal attacks. Will you also do it in Arbcom? Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Michael Snow 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose per his behavior on meta pages linked above. bbx 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. JYolkowski // talk 00:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Delta Tango • Talk 03:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. ArbCom members have to exhibit respect to other editors. --Pkchan 05:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. Silensor 06:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose for civility concerns and for his comments: here [1] and here [2] in which he seemed to be making up his own notability criteria and dismissing reliable sources. Kla'quot 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose, too many AfD votes that I disagree with. --Liface 07:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Reluctant Oppose per above concerns. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. If he is not willing to close a simple AfD in a normal, standard way (see [3]) and reacts paranoic after being asked why, he cannot be an arbiter and rule complicated procedural problems.--Ioannes Pragensis 08:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)