This page is just for endorsements and "disendorsements". The actual vote ishere
This page is for the listing of endorsements either by or for specific users.
For a short period of time, opposition could be placed on the Disendorsements page. However, a community majority has indicate their preference for the latter page to be merged with this page, and all opposition has thus been merged. It is therefore advised not to use the Disendorsements page for such matters anymore.
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)
Strongly support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For what it's worth you've got my vote. Good Luck! Rje 01:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, I think you're a good sysop 172--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick@)---^--]] 08:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A scholar of quality who should be engaged as broadly as possible in the community. Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Pot calling the kettle black? Shorne 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Fred, as a current Arbitrator, I would hope you could at least provide one specific reason why you feel this way. "Fox in the henhouse" is a rather cryptic statement that leaves me wondering what the heck you're talking about. Please, can you provide some tips of what to look for in 172's edit history that makes you think he would be so dangerous to the other hens? --DV 14:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I won't respond to this bullshit. I will say, though, that this is an unacceptable slander from someone the stature in the community of a member of the Arbitration Committee. I am a professional historian; and most of my family was murdered in Nazi death camps. I do not tolerate being likened to Holocaust deniers. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC) [Just to contextualize these comments, they were in response to a point added earlier to Fred Bauder's statement above likening me to Holocaust deniers. This comment was removed by the election organizers. [1]172 09:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
I agree with the characterisation of Bauder's remarks as "bullshit". Like you, I don't intend to respond to them. Shorne 05:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians [2]. I suspect the reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientations. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It appears that I am being blacklisted for having "the same political orientation a Shorne." Yet I really doubt that Shorne thinks that we share the same political affliations, given that I'm a leader of a local U.S. Democratic Party organization. Not that this means much... Many of the victims of these kinds of McCarthyite attacks like the one above along with Fred Bauder's weren't communists either. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"Blacklisted" and "McCarthyism." I feel your pain, man. Of course, if the Democratic Party was made up primarily of people like you that'll bode well for the Republican Party's future, so keep on truckin'.
I am not going to respond here to the allegations that I "insulted" someone and that 172 supported the putative insult. I do wish to confirm that 172 and I do indeed part ways politically. I am openly contemptuous of the US Democratic Party, which I see as almost identical to the US Republican Party. Despite our significant political differences, I strongly endorse 172's candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.
172's comment on the dispute between Shorne and Stan suggests that he perceived the conflict in political terms ("Shorne and me [172] vs Stan and the rest of the rightwing clique"). But what really matters is not political motivation, but rather encouraging personal attacks. Boraczek 09:46, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
As is quite obvious to anyone who can read, 172 and I don't agree with the allegation of "personal attacks" supposedly made by me. Moreover, 172 was right to frame the conflict as a political one. Shorne 17:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
172, could you please see this [3] and say if in your opinion Shorne made a personal attack or not? Boraczek 20:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I see it and I had no comment then and I have no comment now. That was not the comment to which I was responding at the time; and I have no interest in commenting on it now. 172 11:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Frankly, I got the impression that you refused to answer so as not to "hurt" your protégé Shorne (or else to appear as partial). Boraczek 12:39, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Bauder and Boraczek are red-baiting 172. Intelligent readers will not fall for their cheap ploys. Shorne 05:30, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I've only had one encounter with 172, back in the days of Quickpolls. Admittedly, that was a contentious page; but I don't recall anyone more hostile than 172. His profanity is the only reason I've remembered him. Cribcage 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
On second thought, I don't want to make that accusation without offering citations. I've had no subsequent conversations with 172, so they were easy to find. Here's one, and here's another. To be fair, read the entire exchange in context. Cribcage 18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Both Fred Bauder & Cribcage have stated the reasons quite clearly. -- llywrch 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose; erratic and clearly not suitable for arbcom on a number of counts over and above those already eloquently stated. Sjc 07:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose; censors their own bad press example, doesn't set a good example for image file naming. examplediscussion --Rebroad 16:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Unwilling to discuss to work toward consensus, or even give evidence to back up his position. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Disappointing use of revert war [4] (see hostile commentary in history) rather than discussion and consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose I could never support a communist for Arbitration Commmittee.--198 04:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not a Communist (not that that matters to Bauder and the rest of them), but thanks for your honesty. The rest of the users above aren't bothering to state explicitly their political motivations for their attacks. 172 11:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You sure as hell sound like one to me, but thanks anyway 172.--198 00:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
In this opposition, probably more than any other below, users have cited specific examples and complaints. You've refused to address any of them directly. Instead, you've slung profanity and leveled ad hominem attacks. And you're accusing them of intellectual cowardice? Cribcage 23:28, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I have only interacted with 172 in the past few days, in the article on Saddam Hussein, but that interaction has left me with concerns about his impartiality and his respect for other Wikipedians. He repeatedly reverted edits by Wtmgeo; only after several days did he begin to address Wtmgeo's efforts to compromise, and his eventual talk page comments were slow to acknowledge our main concerns. 172's behavior may not have been entirely out of line, but it falls short of what I would hope for in an arbitration committee member.--Steuard 20:06, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC) (originally 20:10, Dec 11, 2004 (UTC))
Oppose. Knowledgeable guy, but his confrontational style of editing convinces me he's not suitable for the arbcom. It tends to be 172's way or the highway. --Robert Merkel 10:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. A knowledgeable guy for sure. But I had an edit war with him on his very early days here, in which he was aggressive and resorted to ad-hominem speculations. (I also agree with Fred Bauder about 172's leftish bias.) --FvdP 22:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
All these people are crawling out the woodwork whom I hardly remember. Everyone seems ready to report to HUAC Chairman Martin DiesFred Bauder. Don't these people know that the Cold War is over? They need to get with the times and start accusing people who upset their worldview with supporting terrorism. 172 19:27, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
See 172's ways ? He gets opposition, and automatically attributes it to the worldview(s) of his opponents. Never seems to think his own behaviour may be the source of discontent. --FvdP 18:12, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Maybe voting's over, whatever, don't care. Pseudo-intellectual and consistent Marxophiliac who takes himself way too fuckin' seriously. Has a great wit as you can see from the above remark -- haha. J. Parker Stone 05:45, 19 Dec 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, good user. func(talk) 19:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Strongly. Very sensible. Wolfman 02:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. I'm a new user, and she's one of the few Wikipedians I've found to be both impressive and capable of staying outside her own biases. Level-headedness is a must for this role, and Ambi's near cornered the market when it comes to Wikipedians. Insert various other echoes of ShaneKing's endorsement here. Shem 14:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Ambi has earned my endorsement. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 03:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Ambi has said that she has come to respect me despite significant ideological differences. I will more than return the compliment since I believe that Wikipedia must embrace not only divergent views, but also the people who see through people's opinions to the people themselves. Gladly support. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, very clear vision of what's wrong with the ArbCom and how to fix it. VeryVerily 10:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, has followed arbitration proceedings regularly and has provided useful feedback. Fred Bauder 20:03, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
100%, In my conversations with Ambi, she has demonstrated that she is a very understanding and coolheaded person. Ambi makes Wiki a better place.Tony the Marine
Good luck, ambi. Support. - Vague | Rant 10:01, Nov 27, 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 she were put into a position of power. Shorne 07:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I changed he to she on a previous version of this. Unfortunately, that correction was lost when Michael Snow deleted this page. Shorne 19:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Hurt my feelings. - Xed 13:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A glance at my talk page and archives reveals praise and disagreements alike. That was a one-off case several months ago, due to special circumstances, and I've had no reason to repeat it since. Ambi 04:45, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Would support in future if Ambi resists the bait and avoids taking sides. HistoryBuffEr 01:15, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
I've decided not to respond to comments in this section, because the majority of the users commenting are either trolling, or are users whom I've never even come into contact with. Plus I believe this whole page to be a joke.BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. His comments towards users on RfA are consistently unreasonable; he calls users trolls he disagrees with. VeryVerily 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose also. My only experience of Blankfaze is that he has reverted my contributions twice. First time with no explanation, and second time with an explanation that was no longer relevant, as I had made a different change the second time to cater for his objection. We are currently discussion his initial objection on his talk page, but at this stage I suspect it might be flawed! --Rebroad 19:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Too antagonistic. example --Rebroad 15:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I originally supported Blankfaze's self-nomination, but I have changed my mind in light of his revealing cabal-like behaviour. Shorne 04:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Increasingly sycophantic of late towards the 'benevolent dictator' (and harasser of left-wing users), Jimbo Wales - Xed 12:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose for same reason. CheeseDreams 12:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose A person who votes against a candidate for adminship just because he doesn't like one of the supporters and didn't even bother to take into consideration the candidates contributions or dedication , shows a lack of respect for the candidate and therefore cnanot be trusted as an arbitrator.Tony the Marine
Oppose, without concensus, he removed cricisms, including those of himself, from the endorsements page and created this ghetto page. Fred Bauder 11:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, he is still too new to hold such a position. Even I ,two years after being in this project, have not nominated myself for this position because I question my ability to be an arbitrator, a position that requires pshyclogical knowledge in order to find a solution between two wikipedians. "Antonio Mr Fun all Night Martin"
Oppose, several inappropriate behaviors as admin point to lack of maturity, perhaps due to youth. Vandalizes pages for "kicks" [6]; Engages in revert wars ignoring discussion in Talk (26x on Dore Gold) [7][8] --MPerel 07:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose --Mrfixter 21:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Based solely on candidate's smarmy remarks above. If this is the level of class and tact you display as a candidate trying to garner votes, what should we expect if you were expected to settle disputes as an arbiter? Cribcage 22:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Enitely unsuitable. Sjc 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbritration requires qualities that blankfaze is sadly lacking (see Rebroad's example). ed g2s • talk 15:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose on the basis of his RfA attitude. Sarge Baldy 20:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Not familiar with him, but if he "believe[s] this whole page to be a joke", then he shouldn't put himself in this position. Nelson Ricardo 08:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for the same reasons as above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. As you can see here and on the discussion page for this page. He doesn't believe in democracy. That doesn't mean he can't stand in an "election", but it does mean he's declared he's unsuitable for the post of arbcom. I think arbcom users will want their democratic rights of fre speech and equal treatment. I find he talks to people in a way that would be antagonising to arbitration users, and we know how much tact is needed in arbcom cases. There's no reason to assume he'll suddenly become more tactful if he's voted in. I also oppose all candidates who use these confusing names and symbols. In this case "(yto)". WikiUser 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support Ceropia has on occasions had to make judgement calls as a Bureaucrat. He always strikes me as fair and reasonable - qualities essential in an arbitrator. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia has earned my endorsement. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 04:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
We strongly disagree on a lot of ideological issues, but I've grown to respect Cecropia for his approach to these things, and he'll have my vote. Ambi 05:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly endorse. "Ceropia" is Greek and Latin for "fair minded and wise". :) Ceropia's personal integrity has never failed to impress and amaze me. func(talk) 20:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The only people who use names like "fair" and "wise" are those who are not. CheeseDreams 02:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I imagine it is worth noting that this opposition by a user I have never had interaction with follows hard on my commenting on the user's improper drawing of an RfC on User:Theresa knott without showing that s/he made any effort to resolve the dispute first. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, actually it results from my coming to the election page via an entirely different route and noting people remarking on calling onesself "fair" and "wise". In the same way, people in personals write "good looking young healthy male" when in fact they are "88 year old fat ugly (for his age) only-just-male with chronic liver failure". Until you just pointed it out, I didn't actually notice you were the same user. CheeseDreams 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Excuse me, I did not characterize myself as "fair" and "wise," one of the endorsees did, and I believe he was trying to be humorous. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What the...??? CheeseDreams: I was the one who called Cecropia fair and wise, (and I wasn't being humorous, Cercropia :) ). If you have no actual and legitimate statement to make concerning this user, then I suggest you remove your "disendorsement". func(talk) 22:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
No, it remains. CheeseDreams 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Of course if you wont remove your disendorsement of Cercropia even after the reason you chose to disendorse has been explaned as nonvalid then people are bound to draw their own conculsions as to your real reason for disendorsing him. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 19:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I categorically deny that I have paid CheeseDreams to disendorse me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Mildly oppose, just to show that Cecropia ain't no Mother Theresa. Cecropia can be fair, but sometimes needs to be beaten into it. In one case, it took Cecropia a long while to give up on using sysop privs to call a vote in which he participated. In another, Cecropia tried to decert a certified RfC, even lobbying one certifier to withdraw. And, curiously, in both cases Cecropia sided with the same POV. HistoryBuffEr 05:01, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Mildly respond, that no sysop privileges or powers were used in the issue at hand, so HistoryBuffEr can say he feels I acted wrongly, but not as a sysop. I removed the claim of certification because HistoryBuffEr, as complainant, had made no attempt to resolve the dispute with the editor he brought the RfC against, as required by the plainly posted rules. I advised him that he could rightly claim to be a certifier if he simply engaged the editor he was complaining of (and I suggested ways) but HistoryBuffEr felt he shouldn't have to do so. That was his right, but it disqualified him as a certifier.[9]. Without his certification, there weren't two certifiers so the RfC was simply not certified. q.e.d. As to the lobbying a certifier, the other editor also did not seem to have properly certified, and I informed him of this and he responded. [10]. My further conversations were a follow-up to his "blessing" that his cert be removed.[11] and another's action in restoring it.[12].
If I haven't lulled you to sleep, Buff, thanks for the opportunity to reminisce about old times. Thanks also for the nice things you said about me while "mildly" opposing me. As to characterizing me, one person did call me "fair" and "wise," which is a pleasing prospect, but I doubt anyone imagines me as Mother Theresa, a concept I find slightly flattering, not a little bit embarassing, and thoroughly inappropriate. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:29, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Cecropia for Prez, understood my humor. HistoryBuffEr 00:45, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Endorse - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace. --Wikimol 09:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Seems to contribute at superhuman rate with little or no negative feedback. Amazing! --Rebroad 13:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. So much good (often unnoticed) work in the main namespace and seeks the input of other users. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Sensitive and sensible and seems to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. Paul August 22:43, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Support. I was originally disinclined to vote for him, but he gave a very good answer on his talk page to my question. Thanks! - Scooter 04:04, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wasn't going to write here; but you may be thinking of the tall blond with the ponytail? Charles Matthews
Support with one caveat, see discussion below. He's done a lot to uphold and improve the quality of the mathematics pages. Terry 23:49, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
May we know why please? Paul August 22:50, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
As far as I know, my only interaction with him was on Talk:Local ring in May. Yet with only that as our background he opposed my adminship (without comment) in September. Read the talk page yourself to see how each of us handled a minor issue and whether his later action was proportionate. VeryVerily 01:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That kind of assumes I take no other notice of events on the site, mailing list, anything beyoud the personal. Have it your own way, but I'm not actually so blinkered. I wasn't the only one to think you would not be a good choice as admin. Charles Matthews
If you had another reason, you did not say so. And there were many on both sides of the aisle, some on yours notably undistinguished. VeryVerily 06:02, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am certainly quite happy to have anyone know I opposed you on RfA; treating that as a grudge matter rather makes my point. Charles Matthews
Disappointingly disconnected from what I've actually said. VeryVerily 08:29, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, you're making less sense than the occasion warrants. You seem to be saying that you want people not to vote for me for the ArbCom, on the grounds that I figured out that you are a provocative idiot (at times) other than by exchanges between the two of us. Well, I rest my case. Though I imagine you'll want a last word. Charles Matthews 22:57, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well it sounds like you're asking for an answer - provoking one, I might say. If you believe I am a "provocative idiot", you could have said so in September, and I could have cited Wikipedia:No personal attacks then instead of now. And, the characterization more starkly clarifies the quality (poverty) of your judgement skills, quite relevant for the AC. But to answer your concealed query, I'm dubious of condemnations from users who have never interacted with a candidate, and feel they at least warrant some manner of justification (which now you have been so kind as to belatedly provide, to your discredit). VeryVerily 00:00, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Staunchly Oppose For someone who claims ArbCom shouldn't be more prosecutorial, he certainly has become the equivalent of Torquemada by accusing me without evidence (and despite my denials) of planting a hoax (that existed before I came to Wikipedia), overreacting to a little issue, making baseless insinuations, and continuing to subject me to his harassment. His continued haranguing of me has provoked anger and hatred for him, something I try to avoid. He is a self-righteous jackass on a power trip. His treatment of VeryVerily above (who while I haven't had too much contact with, but what I have had has been good so far) is just an example of why he shouldn't be endorsed. —ExplorerCDT 22:06, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Still, he won't take "no, I'm not responsible" as an answer, no matter how many times I've said it. Hardly the impartial arbitrator. He's two steps above a stalker who ignores when his victim says "Go Away." —ExplorerCDT 00:20, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
One can see some further discussion of these allegations at User_talk:ExplorerCDT and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics. The matter appears to be nearing resolution; there were statements made by ExplorerCDT of a suspicious nature, which did merit an investigation by Chrarles and others, but these statements have mostly been retracted, and ExplorerCDT has sort of promised to provide a page reference that proves (as he has since repeatedly claimed) that his initial support of the hoax was based on a misreading rather than a deliberate attempt at disinformation. If that occurs and Charles does not acknowledge that his investigation was overzealous, then I would say that there is some grounds to this objection. In all other cases however I would support the candidacy. Terry 23:48, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
(for the record, I'm not SEEKING endorsements, although I'm happy to accept them and answer any questions that people have --Dante Alighieri | Talk 19:15, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC))
Support. Seems like a good sysop at least. example. --Rebroad 17:01, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. My experience with Dante is admittedly limited, but in his role as mediator he seemed willing to put in real effort to understand the conflict (much more than it seems current arbs do), to be fair and receptive to all parties, and to generally be patient, reasonable, and unassuming. If he displayed these qualities in the low-profile, often overlooked, often thankless, and perhaps even powerless job of mediator, I'd suppose that he would perform even better in the more noticeable and perhaps more important job of arbitrator. If I knew him better, I would be more sure. VeryVerily 04:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Just a note that I'm not exactly a "current" mediator as I'm on sabbatical from the Mediation Committee. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:11, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for the information. I have withdrawn the objection. I am neutral on Dante Alighieri. Shorne 02:58, 1 Dec 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)
Support. While I haven't worked directly with David here on Wikipedia (except to note that he has reverted a few of my edits ;), I have seen his work in a number of Usenet groups where he has shown intelligence & insight concerning many issues. I feel he would be an asset to the Arbitration Committee. -- llywrch 17:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. (Someone had to say it.) Shorne 03:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Only been here 2 months. Shows poor revert decisions. example --Rebroad 17:47, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
For the record I have been here for nearly a year, but my username was changed. I have had two usernames in the past, 207.99.6.125, and Not Wikipedia Administrator. I held out getting a named account for a long time because I had a static IP anyway and didn't think the benefits of a watchlist were worth it (now I disagree) and didn't want to deal with the hassle of logging in and out and so on. My second username was based on an amusing episode I noted involving some fool who got a username called "Wikipedia Administrator." Surprisingly, Guanaco immediately and without warning actually blocked me from the Wikipedia for (about?) a day (not just the username but the IP too). Although I was surprised at that, and was tempted to, you know, fight it and all that, blah, blah, as soon as the block seemed to expire I figured, whatever, who cares, and just switched to DG. It's not a very interesting name but it's simple, short, and meaningful (my initials). Sorry that you were under the misperception that I had only been here for a couple of months.
As for that "poor revert decision" I stand by it. What was wrong with it? I note that several edits later by other users, they're still there. D.G. 10:08, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. I completely disagree with Eds POV on most things, but there can be no doubt that he is one of the strongest fighters for NPOV. I also agree with him about temp bans, i think there should be far more of these. The bellman 11:29, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
An obvious choice, yes. —No-OneJones(m) 20:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. A POV warrior, but open-minded and fair. HistoryBuffEr
Support; even if we disagree politically, I'm sure that he has a genuine interest in fairness and would make a good arbitrator. Everyking 06:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Support Great user. nice person.--198 04:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Like others I disagree with a number of his POV's, but he supports the NPOV policy and is easy to work with. I've seen him explain the policy to newer users a number of times and believe he is truly committed to wikipedia's success. Wesley 17:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support great personality for this role. Even if a few times I was on the "other side" of a dispute, he was always corteous, genial and committed to good edits and NPOV. --Zappaz 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strong support. Like others have said, different POV on many things, but personality and commitment to NPOV make him very suitable. --Robert Merkel 11:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Does not follow Wikipedia policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above. Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Opppose due to POV-related issues. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. His response to three separate users opposing his reverts to an article: "i'll revert you till doomsday". Not even fit to be admin IMO. Not ArbCom material.
Add violating the 3rr to that as well. Reene (リニ) 10:45, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. seems unsuitable to be an admin as well. edit warring not to argue a point but simply to keep his version of an article without justifying. removed {{peerreview}} from the article without reason. See Autobiography (album). --Hemanshu 15:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
oppose I agree his behaviour seems unsuitable for an admin as well. Read Talk:Autobiography_(album) and especially Talk:Autobiography_(album)/Archive1 and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Autobiography_album_design and Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/La_La for details, e.g. "Your opinion has been registered, but nothing will come of it as long as I'm watching this article." or "I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing." IMHO the edits that others made or suggested were entirely reasonable and nowhere near "trashing the article" as he described. Finally I would say that in most of his comments on this subject he actually shows all the classic signs of a troll! - Drstuey 23:05, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
He's a good kid. Sarge Baldy 20:23, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Obviously. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 01:00, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Support One of the best for the job. Gives people a fair chance and is not a cold hearted VFDer :-) [[User:Squash|Squash(Talk)]] 07:42, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support!!! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, 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)
Grunt has earned my endorsement. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 04:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
I've never had any interactions with GRUNT but, I've noticed his nominations for adminship and his interaction with others and my gut feeling tells me that he's a good candidate.Tony the Marine
Strongly supportGeneralPatton 03:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support Is a nice person for the job [[User:Squash|Squash(Talk)]] 07:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Support. My experiences with Grunt have been nothing but positive. Reene (リニ) 08:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Very strongly support. Oven Fresh 21:53, 7 Dec 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)
I am curious: would you like to elaborate on your reasons for your opposition? Knowing this will help me to improve any flaws I feel I may have. -- Grunt🇪🇺 19:06, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
Wikipedia has more than enough geeks (for want of a better word). If Wikipedia is the be more than an encyclopedia for Babylon 5 fans, it needs people from a wider circle in administrative positions. - Xed 19:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed you do understand that this is an endorsement page not the vote itself (or a discussion page). It won't be like votes for admin. Most of the people who have anti endorsed a candidate have done so because they feel they need to tell the world about something they have actually seen the candidate do wrong. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Grunt asked. I answered. - Xed 20:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed is entitled to express his opinion. You seem to think it frivolous, but the same is true a fortiori of some of the favourable endorsements that appear here. Shorne 03:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I strongly oppose Grunt. If elected, Grunt will, as a minimum, have to remove himself from any discussions involving Americans or America-related issues (he publicly and persistently describeds himself as anti-American, and therefore would not be able to arbitrate objectively any such cases). Given the large number of American users, this would be a serious impediment to him filling this role. Accordingly, I disendorse Grunt. jguk 00:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I repeat myself: I do not bias against American individuals, a fact to which virtually any American on Wikipedia will attest (ask blankfaze, Fennec or any of the other Americans that are endorsing me). -- Grunt🇪🇺 21:45, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
You openly and persistently describe yourself as "anti-American". You then go on to qualify it by saying "only against typical Americans". The comment is indefensible and your persistency in keeping it on your user page despite all the criticism it has rightly received shows appalling judgment on your part. jguk 21:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Personally, I think thats a reason to vote for Grunt.CheeseDreams 23:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In principle I partly agree with jguk here. The crude stereotype of the "typical American" is so far from reality as to betray rather clouded judgement, and the issue of this has been brought up enough for him to have noticed. On the other hand, his judgement seems fine and unbiased on other matters, so I'm willing to treat this as an anomaly and give the benefit of the doubt. VeryVerily 03:55, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I cannot think of a possible response to this statement without directing you to the numerous qualifiers that I have placed on this; therefore, I shall refrain from giving an actual response. -- Grunt🇪🇺 22:04, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
Oppose. I can let people know that he's already had a test as an arbitrator and failed: [13]
If you read this, at the wikiEN-1 mailing list, (if the link works), you'll see that when I let people know about admin abuse on The Wikipedia, he chose to comment on the case, and showed that he doesn't know how an arbcom should act. For example he was antagonistic, and didn't bother to check the relevant history, but still made a strong condemnation of me. He thinks you can be blocked for "openly supporting" other users. And has false views about "consensus", etc. WikiUser 21:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hello all, glad to see that I finally have endorsements and disendorsements to talk about (my section was getting very lonely). I would be happy to talk about any disendorsements I have recieved. See User:Improv/arbcom_disendorsements for details (and feel free to edit that page within normal bounds of courtesy) --Improv 21:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
James F. is, in my opinion, a model arbitrator -- sensible, careful, rational, and hard-working. I wholeheartedly endorse his campaign for reelection: Jimmy chose well when he asked James F. to serve on the initial AC, and I believe the choice is no less clear now. Jwrosenzweig 00:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support! Has many times proved his worth to the arbcom. -- Grunt🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Oppose Based on his handling of the VeryVerily, Shore, and Gz cases. I have been hesitant to post disendorsements and I haven't so far; but I am brining myself to do so reluctantly in this case in order to spark a much needed discussion concerning the incumbent Arbitration Committee. Alienating and banning three valuable contributors for two months instead of thinking of a creative way of settling disputes over the inherently contentious topics on which these users write does not serve the community well. We need more creative problem-solvers on the Arbcom. 172 09:57, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. This person, a member of the arbitration commitee, has tried to make me loosen my objections on Talk:Princess Olga of Greece and Denmark using a pro-"Western world" advocacy (bigotry) that offends people of the Orient. Such short-sightedness can harm the spirit within Wikipedia's community, that is (and has to be) multinational. Furthermore, if someone who claims to represent the lowest common denominator of common sense in the so-called "Western world" has his way, then there's no chance for the rest of us to prove any point against him. Etz Haim 01:27, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
John may not be as notable as some of the other candidates, but I've come across him several times and he has always come across as a sensible person. I don't know him well enough to actually endorse him, but i do want to wish him the best of luck. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. In the absense of consensus regarding the matter, removed criticism of candidates from the endorsements page Fred Bauder 11:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of using the other for their warning) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. For reasons of the aforementioned presumptive action (which, according to the current state of the survey is quite the opposite to the desires of the community) CheeseDreams 12:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
If you were paying attention to the straw poll, it closes November 28. While it is highly unlikely there will be a sudden deluge of votes going in the opposite direction, I believe the common-sense thing to do is to avoid ruling out any possibility. Once the strawpoll's deadline is up, that will be that. I will respect the will of the majority, even if there's no consensus per se. I should note that the first poll of any kind — the survey Michael Snow started — is inconclusive, as nobody can even claim a simple majority, so it has no bearing on what happens to this page. As for Quadell's strawpoll, it's not over till it's over. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In addition to the reasons stated above by Fred Bauder and myself, the following is more evidence of Johnleemk's poor behavior that serves to weaken his candidacy.
Twice Johnleemk stated, "I won't feed the trolls." From there, he moved to advise another editor, "Just don't feed the troll..." Recently, he said, "Well, I've had enough of feeding trolls for now. Hope you enjoyed your supper."Johnleemk is unfit for the Arbitration Committee because he does not make due on his commitments. Put differently, Johnleemk does not practice what he preaches.
When Johnleemk is faced with an argument he disagrees with (or doesn't understand), he lashes out in anger using a variety of taunts attempting to bait his intellectual opposition into attacking him. Arbitrators that cause need for arbitration would be described as undesirable elements of Wikipedia. Johnleemk as an arbitrator would be an undesirable element.Adraeus 10:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, sure, because calling someone who claims that the NPOV and no original research policies apply outside the article namespace a troll is an ad hominem...sure. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Nice strawman agin, bub, but that won't work on me. While I may be ambivalent on how well-fed trolls should be, I certainly know when trolls try to make a loaded argument. That won't work, not on me, sir. Perhaps if you resorted to something other than the NPOV policy I would entertain you further, but until then, you think I'm going to reason with someone whose arguments completely lack it? Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, for reasons that ought mystify nobody. Snowspinner 17:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
The Wikipedia isn't the cosy club you suggest. There's about 200,000 or more registered with it. Your comment isn't valid. Even you have to provide evidence.WikiUser 21:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Sorry, simply opposing is of course allowed.WikiUser 21:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. As if it needs to be said. Cribcage 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Just for the record. Sjc 08:03, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. I support Mirv's election to ArbCom. I have never seen Mirv act in a way that wasn't fair and judicious. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:10, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. One of (too) few Wikipedians who defend neutrality in practice, even if it involves an unpopular cause. HistoryBuffEr 01:25, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Support. Good guy. Good citizen. Adraeus 02:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Have been impressed with Mirv's evenhandedness and good sense in dealing with several recent controversies. Wolfman 02:46, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. We need to get behind these people! Brequinda 14:44, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly supportGeneralPatton 03:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. Voters should note that some of the (ahem) flakier registered users appear to be mounting a campaign against Neutrality, hence some of the comments below. -- ChrisO 21:31, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Comment: I am assuming you're including me as one of the flakes. Have you ever wondered why so many people have bad things to say about this fellow? He whines and complains as the perpetual victim on his user page about people doing this and saying that against him! People have bad things to say about this guy because of his bad behavior. But you can label us as flakes because we have different beliefs or opinions than you that's fine with me. If people don't think like you they are flakes or nuts or weird or crazy or sick or stupid or dumb right? Intolerance has been going on since the dawn of mankind. Pitchka 03:22, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) Note: Neutrality reverted my comment immediately after I posted this! Look below people were allowed to make comments in the Oppose category!!! See what I mean Neutrality should never have been allowed to be an admin. I rest my case. Pitchka 03:34, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC) The Flake
ChrisO: "...registered users appear to be mounting a campaign against Neutrality,..."-Campaigning in an election? How unreasonable. Pitchka: "Note: Neutrality reverted my comment immediately after I posted this!"- Pitchka is right. Supporters' comments can be replied to if opposers' comments can. And people have been doing so, for example in "Neutrality"'s opposers' section. People have a right to information about a candidate in an election, (If this is one), so they can then judge whether to vote for the candidate.WikiUser 19:42, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strong Oppose After returing to this site for the first time since February, I came across this so-called "Neutrality" user and this project page through the Recent changes feature... Without bothering to state his reasoning, "Neutrality" reverted the addition of the funeral for a major African American cultural icon. (I am wondering if there is a racial motive for this; it seems as if Wikipedia users only post stories that concern its largely middle- to upper-class white American readership, as opposed to representing a variety of stories of interest to a diverse range of classes, national origins, racial backgrounds, etc.) Revert warriors must not be given positions of authority on Wikipedia.Wenteng 04:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Comment: This is about whether a notice about the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard's funeral should be made the top item on the "In the News" template, three days after his death was already reported on the template. Numerous editors seem to have thought it was inappropriate but Wenteng keeps reverting it (as of this posting, Neutrality has reverted it a total of one time compared to Wenteng's four times).--Fastfission 04:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Not even qualified as an admin, yet alone an arbitrator. - Xed 19:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Um, you know he is an admin, right? – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 20:07, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
I don't recognise his adminship. There were irregularities in his election. - Xed 20:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
What are these? I may withdraw my support if said irregularities point to a lack of integrity. Shorne 03:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Admins need 80% of the vote. Neutrality didn't get this. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality. Raul forged a number of 83%. In previous votes for adminship (I think he only got in the 2nd or 3rd time he was nominated), Neutrality repeatedly attempted to have opposing votes disbarred. Not really the kind of person suited to being an arbitrator - Xed 09:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I just re-read the transcript at the link provided above, and it does not reflect poorly on Neutrality at all. If anyone's actions were questionable, it would have been the folks conducting the vote, because Neutrality was not yet an Admin at the time. In any case, the logistics of that vote is all water under the bridge, as Neutrality has repeatedly proven himself to be a worthy Administrator. But don't take my word for it - I encourage voters to look at the edit history of Neutrality and compare it to the edit history of Xed, and judge for yourself. Be sure to click the "Next (500)" button a few times to get the full picture. --DV 09:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed, the notion that Raul "forged" anything or that Neutrality is not wholly fit to be an admin is nothing short of RIDICULOUS. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 11:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. His username is the antithesis of his actions. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 06:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Your opposing me is a badge of honor. I'm pleased you disendorsed me—surely I am not as qualified as the other users you disendorsed (Grunt, etc)? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 17:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Seconded. I hope for a disendorsement for Eequor as well. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Damn, too late. I've been endorsed! BLANKFAZE | (что??) 18:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
P.S. I see you endorsed Lir. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 04:54, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. (Kept this as short as I can.) He's given me unnecessary hassle when I'm trying
to use the site and I think he'll do it to others. Probably driving new people from the site, and causing people distress, and no one will know this is happening. I say causing distress because we all know that people don't like being discriminated against on notice boards and that they get really stressed by such abuse.
He mis-uses his position as an admin and I think he'll do real harm as an arbitrator. I thought he was just the sort of person who shouldn't be an admin. I voted against him and it seems clear to me since, that he's targetted me.
He blocked me on 13th Nov 04 for a month with no justification. He broke the Blocking Policy that says admins must put a warning on the user's talk page first and a notice telling them why they've been blocked after. He didn't do either. I just saw this as I edited:
"Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Neutrality.
The reason given is this:Maliciously acting in bad faith to disrupt Wikipedia"
He's made this nonsense up and he had no grounds to block me. A few days later, when I asked ,another admin un-bocked me. The next day I edited for the first time, a couple of notes about arbcom election propsals, and he blocked me again. Broke the Blocking Policy again as above and this time it was:
Needless to say I made no legal threats and I doubt if the Wikipedia mailing list is covered by the site rules anyway. (Anyone can join and use a mailing list if they've hgot an e-mail address.)
Mirv un-blocked me: "20:50, 26 Nov 2004 Mirv unblocked WikiUser (that is not a legal threat, but a complaint. In any case, legal threats are not a valid reason for blocking).
Either he doesn't know the rules, isn't interested in learning them, or he's deliberately breaking them. Whichever, he shouldn't be an admin/arbcom.
I think he enjoys blocking people for the sake of it. The Wikipedia:Block log shows that he blocks people longer than others and for less "misconduct". He often blocks for "indefinite" and "infinite". The fact that he blocked me for so long, and for more than he does others, too, shows I think, the misuse/grudge I was on about above.
He has some un-acceptable bad habits. Some I've seen are:
Deleting whole paragraphs by other people, including in contentious circumstances, and marking them minor edits.
Changing the meaning of a sentence and marking it a minor edit.
Deleting and moving other people's posts even when they're part of complaint procedures.
Taking control of people's talk pages using the same abusive methods.
Reverting without explanation ignoring the edits others have done in-between.
Reverting a page and marking it minor edit.
Calling perfectly reasonable people trolls when he doesn't like their views or them.
Lying: he's had on his user page for ages that Rex071404 vandalised that page. If you check
the history you'll see that all he did was make a polite request (28th July 04). And check out Neutrality's idea of reasonable discussion in the subsequent postings on his talk page at that time.
Often ignores people's enquiries complaints they put on his talk page. Also archives them straight away.
If something shows him in a bad light he deletes it while leaving everything else that was there on.
His candidate submission shows that he'll be too bureaucratic-can you understand what he's on about?. He's too keen on calling people vandals, trolls for no reason, deleting pushing around, and driving people away from the Wikipedia. His name will annoy and confuse, especially new readers who may have broken a rule without realising it. (From log-in page:"Avoid usernames that are ... confusing.")
He's high handed, can't understand how to judge on the facts rather than his personal opinions, rough on people he's supposed to help, but obsequious to anyone "above" him -arbcom board etc. Do you want this as arbcom behaviour?:
"Congratulations, moron. You've just been infinitely blocked. Have a nice day. Neutrality (hopefully!) 02:43, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)
Is that nice? Please don't stoop to the level of this user. Thanks. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:49, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I'll put in the example source links when I can.WikiUser 21:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'd like people to know that is is the same user who made these posts to the mailing list: [15][16]. Voters may also want to check this user's contribs, as he has a long history of trolling and vandalizing. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 23:21, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
So? What's wrong with those posts then? Except that they tell people about your actions on the Wiki, posted in the interests of all users. You think they're wrong simply because they don't praise you. - "Neutrality" also called it vandalism and threatened to ban me immediately just for pointing out (to other users) links to his admin election page and the arbitration case he did against Rex071404. Why's he so ashamed of them?
He calls everyone who has different views from him or who he doesn't like trolls and vandals. Including people who do perfectly innocuous edits, and drives people away from the wiki.
"...as he has a long history of trolling and vandalizing. " That's not true (I've written things he does not like) and I aim to file an arbitration complaint against him for this sort of abuse. I already asked him, (he's an admin), when he flamed my talk page:
"Can you tell me how to proceed with taking action against your abuse of me here? For example what is the next step? Seeking mediation? Or do I go straight to a Request For Arbitration?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WikiUser
-but he ignored my request as he so often does-check his history- when people put such requests on his talk page. People like him don't want to do the duties of admins or arbtrators-then they shouldn't stand.
I still want to know ...and I put it where if anyone is actually organising this "election" they would see it... why only "Neutrality" out of all the candidates can remove oppose comments posted against him, and control this page? (And it doesn't show on the main history, so many people wouldn't know he did it.) This "election" belong to him? Is he going to be allowed to trash the whole Wiki in such a way if he gets in?
Strongly oppose in light of recent actions by this user. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 20:53, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose
I strongly oppose Neutrality for anymore advancement or "power" he thinks that he runs this place already. I was contributing a lot to two lists of peoples Pro-Choice and Pro-Life and it was getting a lot of contributions from like minded people who are interested in this subject matter. There are a lot of people who don't like the list pages in general and then there are the ones like Neutrality who don't like certain subject matters for political reasons. He didn't like the Pro-Life list and would change the whole article and list to a re-direct page even after many people contributed to it. He wouldn't leave it alone. He didn't touch the Pro-Choice page and list, just the Pro-Life page, we can all see where his bias lies.
I and others got into a revert war on this page and he would not talk it over or anything, it was his way or nothing. Literally nothing! After the page was split because the list became so big Neutrality didn't like it so he and his "buddies" voted to delete both the list of pro-life and pro-choice supporters! But everyone knew he wanted to get rid of the pro-life list at all cost. This was proved when the Pro-Choice list was restarted sometime later and there were just a few votes to erase it and Neutrality had no problem with that list and didn't even bother voting either way and neither did his buddies many of them can bee seen on the above Supporters list!
If you cross this Neutrality he will get even with you. He seems to have problems. Pitchka 02:18, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I'm not always the perfect little wikipedian I wish I could be, so I don't blame anyone for disendorseing me. :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick@)---^--]] 08:16, 28 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)
Raul has earned my endorsement. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 05:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Raul has impressed during his first term on the Committee. He's played an important role in getting it functioning, and though I've been a critic of much of the Committee, I've rarely found fault with his fair and reasoned decisions. He'll have my vote. Ambi 05:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support, has good record as an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 20:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Very strong support - mav 22:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) In the time Raul has been a part of the ArbCom he has proved to be one of the most active members. His ability to manage such a high level of involvement and still be in charge of the Featured article process, is simply amazing. He is a fair-minded and very hard working individual who certainly deserves to be re-elected as a member.
Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
--Oppose-- somebody deleted all of raul's oppose endorsments and his disendorsment section, seems a bti fishy to me. Chuck F 03:00, 25 Nov 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)
Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Having looked into his record, I find him to be high-handed and condescending. - Xed 19:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Approaches disagreement without consideration, restraint, or grace. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 06:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Not strongly, but nevertheless. Cribcage 17:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Good user-- but his handling of the VeryVerily, Shore, and Gzornenplatz case has been very disappointing. VV, Shorne, and Gz are not vandals, cranks, or trolls; they are highly intelligent and prolific contributors. When the Arbcom had a chance to help them reach a modus vivideni, it instead alienated and banned these three valuable contributors for two months. When the Arbcom should have helped to resolve a series of conflicts, it intead treated these three users as criminals of sorts. Raul has done many great things for Wiki in other capacities, but IMHO we need arbitrators who can think of more creative ways of settling disputes. 172 10:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Entirely unsuitable, cannot detach own opinion from the role. Too easily assumes bad faith. --Rebroad 12:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. As stated by people above, he has contempt for the rights of other users. And in general none of the qualities needed by someone dealing with arbcom cases. People come to The Wikipedia believing its glowing propaganda, then can find themselves targeted by this user when they may not even know they've broken a rule. He blocked me for 24 hours against the stated rules. I also object because of the large amount of offensive material he's put on The Wikipedia. This web site doesn't have an "18 only" agreement on the front page, so he's therefore also exposing children to this. He just wants the position but doesn't want to do the work involved. In the case against Rex071404 other arbcoms voted but he kept everyone hanging on for weeks: [[17]]. (He kept them waiting for a month before they could even start the case: [[18]].)
Another sign of arrogance is he posted a comment to make it look as if I'd done it: [[19]] So in summary he doesn't have the necessary judgement, or manner, for dealing with the public or taking arbcom decisions. WikiUser 21:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I would support Sam. Sam has made excellent edits, particularly to articles involving religion and in particular Hinduism. Yes, he has strong views. But if you present him evidence, he will be swayed by your argument. One case in particular. I fukin explained to him that Shakti is not separate from Shiva and Shakti is worshipped to attain union with Shiva. Once presented, he did agree with me. You need a strong advocate like Sam especially on articles concerning religion. There's appears to be favor towards Western religious traditions and bias and ignorance towards Hinduism or Santana Dharma. There was no mention of Hindu saints or attributes of God in the article God until I put it in.
As for his view on atheism, atheism and religion, like politics are always highly charged emotional issues. Sometimes, you need to have two tough minded people in order to achieve a neutral point of view. Sam and I collaborated on discussions of Brahman. There were some who claimed that there was no discussion of Brahman in the early vedas. I convinced others by mentioning Shri Rudram. I think Sam, can be convinced to your point of view if you show him evidence. That has been my experience with him. I know that others may have different experiences but as for disputes involving religion, he will have a broadminded approach.
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 think that an endorsement (or disendorsement) from an anonymous user is inherently contradictory. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 14:29, Nov 24, 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)
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)
Oppose. Much too controversial, much too needy. Always going up for election, always failing, leads me to question his understanding and acceptance of consensus. Failed adminship(and failed adminship discussion page is also worth a visit), Failed ArbCom and his willingness to use questionable tactics here. He also believes "they also keep extensive "mailing lists"" to mobilise support against him, which sounds a mite like a conspiracy theory to me. If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. --Mrfixter 15:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. From first to last all my interactions with Sam Spade have started with a snarl from him. I don't think he is intentionally nasty, but he seems unable to stop trying to put other people down even when he is trying to be nice or apologetic. I don't mind so much being snarled at, but I do not see how he could function as an arbitrator. Patrick0Moran 152.17.115.182 21:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. In the strongest possible terms. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Vehemently. CheeseDreams 19:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. For reasons given a thousand times before Sam Spade is untrustworthy. His personality seems to change with weather or not he disagrees with an article or with another user. He might be cordial on pages that he agrees with, but utterly lacks civility on other pages. Btw, there is nothing wrong with other users publicizing what they believe to be Sam Spades' misdeeds (as long as they are honest); afterall doesn't free speech go both ways? And it only shows how strong and diverse an opposition has developed toward Sam Spade, and his hypocritical actions. millerc 06:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I am frankly somewhat appalled by the company my strong oppose puts me in, but I think that perhaps that says something in itself, that so many Wikipedians who certainly do not agree on anything else do agree that Sam Spade should not be on the ArbCom. Wikipedians need to know they can trust the ArbCom. I could not trust an ArbCom with Sam on it. My experience with him has been that he can talk a good game about fairness and NPOV but he will not walk the walk; he will always phrase what he wants to do in terms of nice, neutral principles but it doesn't take long at all to see him switch to a different set of principles when the ones he was just advocating are no longer convenient. ArbCom needs people willing to adhere to one standard for everyone, and I see no hint that Sam Spade plans to drop the double standards that have caused me to not trust him even as an editor, let alone as an Arbitrator. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Sam is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I admire him for the quality of his edits as well as the sheer amount of time he spends here. However, he has very strong beliefs on certain issues and will never put aside his POV in a dispute. If given arbitration power, I am certain he would abuse it. Sam makes a great contributor, but he would make a terrible arbitrator. (yes, I know this isn't a vote, but I felt I had to get this message across) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. ...and in the strongest terms. Sam is completely unsuitable because of his inability to keep his personal agenda away from Wikepedia articles. He wastes massive amounts of lots of good folks time who fruitlessly point out carefully his errors, and he just will not budge in the face of crushing evidence that he is mistaken. He is completely immune to intellectual honesty and I feel very strongly that he would most certainly abuse his admin power to foist his views and Wikipedia would be all the lesser for it. Sam displays the antithesis of the characteristics of a good Admin--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. I'm sympathetic to some of Sam's arguments, but nominating himself here doesn't say much about his perception of the reputation he's earned for himself. Cribcage 17:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
ROFL Vehement Oppose. The day this goon is elected to arbcom is the day I quit Wikipedia for good. Sjc 08:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose For all the reasons listed above. Ruy Lopez 04:48, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. For almost a year now Sam Spade has been repeatedly trying to impose his POV on several articles that I've been watching, and from my discussions with him over that period I've seen little evidence that Sam accepts the spirit of Wikipedia's NPOV policies. I don't believe it would be a good idea to put him in a position to be able to officially interpret and enforce those policies for others. Bryan 06:43, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. Sam relentlessly imposes his point of view on articles about topics he opposes. Also, he's far from civil as several users have indicated above. In fact, just today he added the heading "Haughty complaint" above a message I left on Michaelnickarz's talk page, and advised the user to ignore my message. The message I left was a {{test1}} template message regarding the user's addition of some non-NPOV spam that was reverted in the Anal sex article. Sam is a prolific editor who often goes out of his way to welcome newcomers; that doesn't make him a good candidate for arbitration committee, and if I were ever in the position where I needed to go to arbitration I would refuse to participate if Sam was involved. Exploding Boy 21:23, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. The only person I'm going to disendorse, after finding him argumentative and insistant on introducing POV content into articles that he appears to find in conflict with his morality — and revert-warring when he finds his views fail to make consensus. — OwenBlacker 22:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose His inability to do anything but push his own POV is strongly evidenced by his history on the libertarian socialism page amongst others. Kev 22:41, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. Sam is a friendly fellow and a probably nice enough sort of guy in general, but based on my experiences with him concerning edits of Pantheism, I feel that he is a man with very strong POVs, and I do not feel that the evidence supports his claim that he is able to put them aside when editing. I also feel that Sam's former advocacy for the now banned user Paul Vogel (a known Neo-Nazi sympathizer) throws some question on the suitability of his personal and political beliefs to the responsibilities involved with the office. If Sam sympathizes with bigoted views (and I am not saying he does or does not, only that his involvement with Vogel raises some questions), I would see such a fact as a potential problem with his candidacy. Sam probably has the editing skills and dedication for the position, but I am not convinced that he has the NPOV commitment for it. As mentioned by others, Sam is fairly immoveable in the face of evidence against his POV, and he is not impressed by any number of legitimate credentials other editors may have regarding the subject matter. It seems that if Sam is editing an article, it belongs to him, and his presence alone overrules evidence, credentials, and logical argument from others. I do think that Sam honestly believes that the majority of his edits are in fact neutral and NPOV, but I do not agree that the facts support him in such a belief. Despite his claims to uphold NPOV, I feel that Sam is one of the most consistent POV editors I have come into contact with. I have only dealt with him in regard to the Pantheism article, but his POV approach there has been pronounced and consistent since day one. --Nat 17:23, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Sam pays lip service to the NPOV policy whilst aggressively pursuing a campaign of politically motivated edits and edit wars across a wide range of articles (Far right, Atheism, the list goes on). His uncivil behaviour and inability to discuss topics on anything but his own terms makes discussion and compromise impossible and wastes people's time. It is a sad indictment of Wikipedia that he hasn't been banned yet, never mind giving him a position of responsibility and power on ArbCom. --Axon 11:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose I absolutely cannot imagine how Sam Spade (formely Jack Lynch) could do a good job. I've had numerous problems with him trying to push his POV in articles, getting into revert wars and leave less-than-civil message in people's talk pages (and constantly deleting and archiving what people wrote in his talk page). MikeCapone 22:14, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support - Very friendly person, even when nobody else much is friendly, she still is, will bring a new face of fairness, level-headness, and liberalness to the arbitration committe Chuck F 09:48, 22 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)
I thought I'd endorsed her already. Strongly support. Ambi 09:28, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Evenhanded. HistoryBuffEr 04:33, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Support Very nice person to know, one of the best for the job [[User:Squash|Squash(Talk)]] 07:46, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Anybody that takes a more than reasonable stab at coming between two editors engaged in a tooth-and-fang edit war and not only keeps their cool but stays objective deserves my (and others'!) support. Reene (リニ) 08:17, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Support seems very level headed, I believe that she is an asset to Wiki. User:Marine 69-71
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)
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)
Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator. Johnleemk | Talk 04:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support - Theresa has been a great force of good in the area of positive community development. She is fair and patient - two qualities that every ArbCom member should have. Note that the only person opposing so far has a case before the ArbCom right now. I very much look forward to working with Theresa on the ArbCom. --mav 23:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support very much. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 00:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support - Superhuman patience in dealing with the terminally exasperating. Stan 05:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott has earned my endorsement. I believe she would be uniquely suited to the toner task. – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 13:56, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Support, has done a lot of the dirty work of enforcement, but has done it fairly. Fred Bauder 20:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Support. Even-handed, level-headed, and no-nonsense. Believes no one is above the rules. Plus a sense of humor. What more could you want from arbcom? Wolfman 00:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Endorse for strong contributions, good personality. --Improv 04:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. --[[User:Eequor|ηυωρ]] 05:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Theresa has been kind, courteous, and incredibly pleasant every time I have come into contact with her. She is exactly the kind of person we need more of in Wikipedia. PZFUN 18:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. I followed the MyNaturalHealth debacle for a while, and feel that she handled It well. I have also seen her helping in other sections of the wikipedia. - Xgkkp 00:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support, Theresa is a whole human and shows it. She has humour, patience and diligency. ✏ Sverdrup 02:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Support. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Support, The only thing that I know about T.K. is that everybody I've come in contact with have told me what a great asset she is to Wiki. Good Luck. Tony the Marine
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)
OK I'm not sure if it's a good idea to defend myself here. But what the hell I'm going to do it anyway. I do not dismiss legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. I have spoken on many occasions to admins and other users if I feel they have behaved out of line to other users. RickK, 172, Gabriel Webber,Heph, Grunt I think(I confirm this -- Grunt🇪🇺 15:34, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)), the admin on apple pie whose name escapes me- Arminius, orthogonal, and loads more that I can't remember. When it comes to it I will reverse other admins if I feel they have not acted within policy. I did not "snap" at you. I reminded you that the AC decision was a tempory measure designed to protect wikipedia, and that your calling for the AC to be purged was whinging. The "other user" that I accused of whinging was Xed, who was complaining yet again, that he had been temp blocked over his insistance on keep adding jimbo's email to secretlondon to the requests for arbitration page despite the fact that it had already been rejected by the arbitrators. He used this blocking to attack me, even though I wasn't the one who blocked him. He also said that i appealed to authority when in actual fact i had said that the AC should not have duristiction over private emails. This is something I still think btw. All this happen months ago, so yes i do think that Xed brinig it up again is whinging. I also want to correct the "eventually apologised" statement you made. You complained that i was being condescending, I apologised for that the moment I read your complaint. There was no "eventually" about as any who reads jimbo's talk page can see. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 14:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I am displeased with how this Oppose section has turned out, and I am removing my opposition in sympathy with Theresa Knott. She has responded to fairly mean-spirited comments here admirably, and that is to her credit. El_C 04:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose protected POV version of page in edit war not pre-edit war version(s). CheeseDreams 22:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I did protect the page to stop the edit war. I have no idea if the version I protected was POV or not as I have no knowledge or interest in the subject. I was merely trying to stop the edit war. The edit war is between multiple users all reverting each other like crazy, there are hundreds and hundreds of edits to that article, I wouldn't have the faintest idea which version to revert to. Also note that this is the first interaction i have ever had with cheese dreams. He did not bring his concerns to me on my talk page, or on the talk page of the article. His first action on seeing me do something he didn't like was to start a rfc on me and then make this edit here. What can I say? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
CheeseDreams, this seems to be a misunderstanding about the protection policy. The admin protecting a page is not supposed to choose which version or decide which is POV. To do so would make the admin an involved party. VeryVerily 12:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Note the way other admins such as RickK revert to a version before an edit war before protecting - thus retaining the article, during the protection, in a state more agreeable to both sides than either of the edit war versions, or at least one which they don't object to continuing to exist for a while. CheeseDreams 23:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Reverting to a "stable version" is a somewhat controversial practice. I know RickK does it, but many other admins do not. See Wikipedia:Protection policy. VeryVerily 13:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - Election fraud making patronising comments seems her only skill. Regards admins as infallible. Believes defending users against arrogant admins is "trolling" and "whinging" - Xed 20:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC). changing vote to Support, since I believe that this is the best strategy for keeping Theresa off the streets - Xed 20:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This from the user who is the master of patronizing comments...the irony is thick here. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Knott has indeed been patronising and imperious. I wouldn't say that that's her only skill, however: she also seems to be good at making anagrams of her name. Shorne 03:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Actually I'm useless at making anagrams of my name. I rely on the talent of others in that respect. Quite a number of people have made numerous suggestions on my talk page. I just pick one I like every now and then. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Elitist. Useless at anagrams. Poor conception of basic sexual morality. Hardly admin material. Case closed - Xed 19:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
"Elitist. Useless at anagrams." -> "Lass is eager, eats stimulant." Also, "sexual morality" -> "I max u. Yes, a troll." – Quadell(talk) (help)[[]] 20:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
He's right about my sexual morality, I call myself a tart, and I show my naked tits to anyone who cares to look at them ;-) (See my user page) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very strong support. --Viriditas 23:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Theresa Xed --> The dear sex (I may be a tart but im not cheap) or -->He rated sex (So do I, what a coincidence)
Theresa Knott Xed --> Hot sex trade kent (I do actually live in north kent)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed you are a funny guy.You have changed your mind yet again on me! However this time you have made a very serious alligation. I suggest you explain how I have managed to to do this "election fraud" when the election hasn't even started yet. I would also like you to explain why my saying I support blankfazes organisation of this endorsement page means I have perfomed election fraud, especially when you haven't even opposed blankfaze. (In fact you supported him - you are ware that he was the one to move the oppose remarks to a seperate page?)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Supporters and opposers need to be able to see clearly the comments of all parties in relation to the potential candidate. Putting opposing comments on a separate page is virtually deleting those comments since not many will look at that page, because they either don't know it exists or because they can't be bothered to jump through so many hoops. There is no real sense in putting the opposing votes on a separate page, so the only real reason can be that some candidates don't want others to see them. This matches your general view that admins are beyond reproach and complaints against them are not to be acted on, or even listened to. As for supporting blankfaze, my support or otherwise is based on careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects. - Xed 16:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So you are saying that because you disagree with the way blankfaze organised the pages and I said "OK I can live with that" about it then it's acceptable to accuse me of election fraud but not him? Xed you are trolling. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This fits in with your worldview that admins are beyond criticism, and to do so is trolling. At least you're consistent. - Xed 16:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You are making incendiary comments, Xed. If you provide no solid reasoning behind them beyond saying you conducted "careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects", you are opening yourself to accusations of trolling. Your conduct of discussion is controversial enough to cause others to flame you, and that is the typical definition of trolling. Either explain why you have not accused blankfaze of election fraud (and why you accused Theresa of supporting it instead of merely saying she tolerates it, although that would still be quite unacceptable for most) or strike out your false accusations. Note: For the conspiracy theory-inclined, this is not an order, merely my opinion. I'm sure it is shared by many of my fellow members of the "cabal". Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There's nothing incendiary about my remarks. How I come to my desisions as really up to me. Blankfaze may be guilty of election fraud, but he doesn't share the numerous deficits of character that I have already shown Theresa to have. Theresa, by her words and actions, believes admins to be some sort of infallible clergy. She's even trying to make me withdraw my criticism of her intolerance of criticism! In Grunts nomination above (unless it's been deleted..), she criticized my giving an explanation for my opposition even though Grunt had asked for one. Thus my opinion of her is overwhelmingly negative, whereas my opinion of blankfaze is more ambiguous. You aren't asking the first user in Theresa's list to justify himself (Strongly endorse. —No-OneJones(m)). Again, criticism of the Wikiclique seems a lynching offense here.- Xed 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed I an happy for you to critisize me all you like. What I am complaining about is you lying about me. You have accused me of election fraud. That is a lie. Please retract it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep your wig on Terry. You supported a motion to ghettoise opposing comments so few would see them. Something similar happened in Florida a while ago. For some reason you don't want people to see criticism of the infallible admins. Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Xed, I did not ask Mirv to justify himself because he did not troll. If he had said "Support; anyone who commits fraud in an election is worthy of a position on the arbcom," yes, I would ask him to justify himself. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
You seem to agree with Theresa's view that criticizing admins amounts to trolling. That seems to be what Wikipedia has become - an encyclopaedia with daily show trials for the insufficiently sycophantic - Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
There is a big difference between making a criticism and lying about a person. --Viriditas 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, for instance you lied when you said I claimed Vanunu was a scientist, whereas I am criticizing Terry the Infallible - Xed 16:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
To Xed: First of all, props for the use of the word "ghettoise" and the "Keep your wig on Terry" and "Something similar happened in Florida a while ago" comments. A Good Laugh. However, I really do take offence at your notion that I "may be guilty of election fraud". Lastly I urge you to give up this campaign of yours against Theresa, because nothing good can come of it. Regardless of your opinion of her, you're only perpetuating a mean and nasty flame war here. Show your dissent with your VOTE, my friend. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 23:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
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
Shorne is trolling communism and politics pages, and his attack is the main reason we lost the contributor User:Adam Carr. For instance, see this edit. There is nothing shameful about being opposed by some of Wikipedia's worst trolls. VeryVerily 10:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
VeryVerily is the main reason that we are going to lose the contributor User:Shorne. Shorne 03:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I do not condone VV's breach of the three revert rule but s/he deserves credit for her/his fight against POV pushers and his attempt to keep Adam Carr in Wikipedia. S/he should not be fighting alone. Andries 12:09, 11 Dec 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)
Even if that were true, it would be of no significance. Shorne 03:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, re this supposed previous ban for 3RR violation: During the quickpolls process which once existed (where rapid blocking decisions were made by vote), I was judged blocked by one sysop and hours later unblocked by another as more votes came in. When the vote completed, I was well below the banning threshold. If I recall, Ruy Lopez was using the account Venceremos at the time. VeryVerily 19:42, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. VeryVerily is openly defiant of Wikipedia policy. An edit warrior like VV should not be given this kind of responsibility. --Ce garcon 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. In the strongest possible terms. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose Edited Henry Kissenger article (despite talk page concensus otherwise) to make the intro seem as if concerns raised about Kissinger were normal political concerns rather than those of Crimes against Humanity. CheeseDreams 23:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have you even read the article? Half the damn thing is about the accusations you note. VeryVerily 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose Been following his discussions; good contributor and glad to have him around, but simply waayyyyy too partisan for the arbitration committee. --Bletch 13:48, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose - can't even follow wikipedia's own 3RR rule example. --Rebroad 22:24, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Has contributed usefully on occasion, but cannot restrain himself from revert-wars or petty US-flag-waving. I cannot believe he would be a fair arbitrator. Gazpacho 22:30, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. LegCircus 15:37, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
Strongly oppose. Currently involved in yet another long-standing revert campaign on the anarchism and anarcho-capitalism pages in which his ratio of reverts vs. attempts to discuss on talk page are appalling, Arb Com for VV would be a disaster. Kev 22:37, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well, Kev is POV-pushing, that's the problem, but "long-standing revert campaign"? I made one edit to Anarcho-capitalism on Dec 6 (day of Kev's comment) after not having touched it since Sep 12. Even then, it was a pretty minor edit, with the last major flare-up being in March, nine months ago. It's all in the page history. Some campaign! VeryVerily 06:11, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
History speaks for itself, and any wikireader can see that your revert wars on that page (and so many others) has gone on for more than a year. Oh, and your latest "one minor edit" is not an edit at all, but a series of reversions, as the page history shows. Kev 10:19, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
To clarify for any would-be passer-by, by the pretty minor edit I was referring to Sep 12; the Dec 6 was a considerable edit defending against Kev's controversial and unjustified changes. VeryVerily 17:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Marginally oppose. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Oppose. A POV pusher without sufficient balance, see [22] and [23]. HistoryBuffEr 01:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. POV pusher. Reverts articles on-sight rather than on-content (but is honest enough to admit it in some edit summaries). Stalks users and reverts their edits regardless of what they are. CheeseDreams 20:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
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 following candidates aside from myself in no particular order that have toiled the hardest to write quality articles and maintain their quality:
I'm not fully sure if I could give my opinon but I shall nevertheless. I think the Arbitration Committee SHOULD be tough. likewise I support tough people for the Arbitration Committee.
Theresa-She may have blocked me for edit warring, but she is tough enough for me to like her.
Weak Oppose
Lir-I cannot support a Communist for Arbitration Committee, nevertheless he is much nicer and more tolerent of my opinons than the other communists I've met here (Like User:El_C, and User:Gzornenplatz).
172-Yet again another commie! However he does have guts that I think is good.
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)
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:
When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians [24]. I suspect the reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientations. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I have endorsed a number of editors who I know and respect. I don't want to enumerate them here as I may have missed someone worthy by foolish oversight or because I simply don't know them well enough. I have confidence that the community will elect the most appropriate candidates.
Frankly, since I am running myself, I am not comfortable with endorsing others lest it seem a quid pro quo or a solicitation of the same. However, since the endorsements are being widely done, I would feel bad to have others think I didn't care enough the worthies assembled here to express an opinion. Having said that, let me reiterate that I do not mean to downgrade those I haven't endorsed, and I will refrain from making negative endorsements. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Per the wishes of Jimbo Wales, I have removed all statements of my opposition to any of the candidates. In all fairness, this action requires that I also remove all of my endorsements.
I encourage everyone to vote their own conscience, without considering alliances, or whether or not you like the other contributors who are supporting a candidate you would otherwise support. --DV 13:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I encourage everyone to ignore the wishes of Jimbo Wales. This is a wiki, not a dictatorship. CheeseDreams 13:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am more than happy to elaborate on each and every one of my endorsements and/or lack thereof. Note that some may be forthcoming. El_C 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I am ambivalent about Raul and so have chosen not to vote. On the one hand, he does usually seem to aim for consensus and try to work out problems. On the other hand, I see him as a bit didactic. While he usually tries to be civil, he sometimes makes comments that are a little objectionable. I just don't know about this one, so I'm abstaining.
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. Also of concern, despite other candidates having done so in interest of complying with the Arbitration policy, Sam Spade has failed to disclose his past multiple accounts, JackLynch and Jack.
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 .
I strongly oppose candidates who persistantly edit from a particular point of view and who are not amenable to discussion. I have therefor warned against the candidates, User:172 and User:VeryVerily. The issue is not right or left or even engaging in edit wars with respect to contested edits. It is sustained insistance on getting their way. That said, it is possible they might grow into the role of arbitrator should they be elected, but it is likely that they would simply view the arbitration committee as an area for further point of view activities justified by the same sort of sophistry they use to justify POV edit warring. Fred Bauder 11:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
You are lying about me. VeryVerily 10:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No way, I sent you messages about repeated reversions and warned you that a day of reckoning would come. Your response was that everyone else does it and that somehow your activities were justified, meanwhile complaining bitterly about the activities of others who were only doing what you did. That in some cases you were reverting to edits I had made is beside the point. Unlike 172, who encourages the likes of Shorne and Ruy Lopez, I discouraged you and you ignored me. Fred Bauder 13:06, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
Like almost everything you say to me, this (besides being more lies - my response was not that and my complaints were content-related) is utterly beside the point and betrays a characteristic failure to connect one logical point to another. I consider it slander to be told I am not amenable to discussion and use sophistry to justify POV edit warring, and will happily call you a liar for making such scurrilous accusations. VeryVerily 21:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I also oppose User:blankfaze who, without consensus, created this ghetto page for criticisms of candidates and User:Johnleemk who has taken it upon himself to enforce this non-existent "policy". It seems very unlikely that either would respect other Wikipedia policies reached by consensus or be able to work on the arbitration committee productively. Fred Bauder 11:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC).
I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of the other) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 27 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)
Ambi: Oppose. Would support in future if Ambi resists the bait and avoids taking sides.
Cecropia: Mildly oppose, just to show that Cecropia ain't no Mother Theresa. Cecropia can be fair, but sometimes needs to be beaten into it. In one case, it took Cecropia a long while to give up on using sysop privs to call a vote in which he participated. In another, Cecropia tried to decert a certified RfC, even lobbying one certifier to withdraw. And, curiously, in both cases Cecropia sided with the same POV.
Improv: Oppose. A trail of bias without the balance and fairness required for an AC.
I appreciate the strike, but I've withdrawn! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed, that's why I did not move you under "Support", but I felt I needed to make this correction anyway. HistoryBuffEr 08:06, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
Others:
Apologies to all others who deserve an Endorsement (or a DisEndorsement) but have been left out because of insufficient familiarity (or excessive notoriety.)
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:
Ambi
David Gerard
Raul654
Shane King
Theresa knott
Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator.
Disclaimer: I am a current member of the Arbitration Committee, a Steward, and Wikimedia CFO, but my endorsements are not related to those official capacities. I'm only speaking for myself.
My endorsements so for the 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections. I'm still working on developing reasoning for these choices and researching the other candidates to see if I can endorse any of them as well. If you thought I would definitely support you, but your name isn’t here yet, then I probably just have not had time to add it yet. --mav
In the time Raul has been a part of the ArbCom he has proved to be one of the most active members. His ability to manage such a high level of involvement and still be in charge of the Featured article process, is simply amazing. He is a fair-minded and very hard working individual who certainly deserves to be re-elected as a member.
Theresa has been a great force of good in the area of positive community development. She is fair and patient - two qualities that every ArbCom member should have. Note that the only person opposing so far has a case before the ArbCom right now. I very much look forward to working with Theresa on the ArbCom.
Oppose I feel obliged to dis-endorse user Sam Spade because I deem him unsuiatable for the role of Admin. Specifically for his conduct on and related to the Talk Atheism pages, seemingly because they do not fit in with his agenda which as Felonious Monk details above, is well documented and sadly biggoted is not too strong a word. Here he simply will not accept well sourced multiple references and conceding the point on the wide use of the weak or passive definition of Atheism. Not only this he repeatedly fails to answer direct questions on his reasons for failing to accept these multiple, well sourced references and this is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. He also has sent a foul language abusive e-mail to Felonious Monk using the Wikipedia e-mail system following the start of these discussions. This is simply beyond the pale more especially in the light of his failure to express contrition for this.
Sam’s behaviour and style completely contra indicates his suitability for the important role of admin.--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
In my opinion, an arbitor is just a wiki-job, like tagging images or greeting newcomers. Not everyone is well suited to every job. There are some great editors I did not endorse. My endorsees are easy to find above; they're the ones sporting the QuaintQuadellQuality Seals of Approval.
For an arbitor, the requirements for my endorsement are:
to have proven they can admit when they're wrong.
to have shown restraint in situations where they could have made a snarky comments but didn't
to treat everyone – even trolls – with respect.
(Not all users, or even all admins, should fill those requirements; I think some people are much more fun because they don't. But arbitors should not necessarily be fun people.)
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)
Strongly support. I'm a new user, and she's one of the few Wikipedians I've found to be both impressive and capable of staying outside her own biases. Level-headedness is a must for this role, and Ambi's near cornered the market when it comes to Wikipedians. Insert various other echoes of ShaneKing's endorsement here. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Another one of the few level-headed Wikipedians I've seen around often since my arrival here. A good admin, and a good person for this role. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
[The following comments refer to the numerous attempts—successful for much of the month of November—to censor discussion here. Although those efforts seem ultimately to have failed, I am leaving this information here, as I believe it still to be relevant. Shorne 04:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)]
Totally disgusting. Negative comments, however true, are "discouraged" and shoved into a corner, whilst positive comments, however fatuous, are encouraged and put on a pedestal. No wonder the (mal)administration here is so hopelessly corrupt and oppressive. Shorne 04:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Excellent user. I highly recommend her! (this is probably going to knock off my vote, but I don't care if she gets in. She might be young, but she acts pretty maturely.) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'll be away during the period of the AC elections and unable to vote, so I'm recording my wishes here, in the hope that this will be counted as my vote. There are many good candidates standing, and I'm sure that most of them would do a good job if given the task. However, there are several that seem to me to be particularly outstanding contributors, and especially worthy of the positions. They are, in order:
I don't know if this will be accepted as a formal vote or not, but it's the best that I can do under the circumstances. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe this page (Disendorsements) was useful, exactly as Organizers say, as a handy reference to candidate's past conflicts. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and I want to know how candidates themselves resolved disputes in which they were personaly engaged. --Wikimol 08:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Charles Matthews - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace.
I simply endorse, because allready doing good work in Wikipedia comittees and similar structures.
In my "Letter from the Founder" I wrote: "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential, and both of those are helped along enormously when we feel favorably towards each other just as a natural result of being volunteers together on this incredible ridiculous crazy fun project to change the world.
None of us is perfect in these matters; such is the human condition. But each of us can try each day, in our editing, in our mailing list posts, in our irc chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love."
This page is a magnet and incentive for a different approach, one which I most vigorously reject for our community. I encourage people to avoid the use of this page, and instead stick to positive endorsements of people who you think will represent our values thoughtfully and rationally. If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Jimbo Wales 16:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's disappointing that Jimbo appears to attack as a troll anyone who has an objection to someone being an Arbitrator. Those who seek to discipline and judge us should surely be beyond reproach themselves and have the full support of the Wikipedia community. It's important that those who seek to set themselves above the rest are open to full scrutiny. I therefore encourage sensible use of this page. jguk 01:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's disappointing that Jimbo states "[t]he only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential" and then appears to call everyone he disagrees with a troll. Not everyone who has a strong disagreement with a nominee's candidacy is doing so out of malice; I concur with jguk, we should encourage sensible criticisms of the nominees' past actions. millerc 02:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I believe Jimbo is referring to the potential for this page to turn into a flame war. This place is truly the ideal place for a troll looking to cause problems.--Josiah 02:16, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
This page allows users to voice their concern about the candidates. Some candidates may simply by force of personality in their statements "appear" to be neutral, open minded candidates to be elected, when in actual fact they are nothing of the sort. It is important to prevent such obfuscation. In a real world election, it is never a case of each side stating how nice they are, without also warning the electorate about the dangers of choosing wrongly.
The red herring notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler was not elected democratically in the way most of us would view the term. His Nazi Party secured the most seats in the Reichstag, but never a majority, Communists also holding a large position, but not as many as the Nazis. After several dissolved governments, Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in perhaps history's most disastrous attaempt at what we '60s flower children would have called "co-opting": more like making the schoolyard bully into the head hall monitor in order to bind him to "the system." Hitler paid obeisence to Hindenburg. Some Germans were charmed: "The Field Marshall and the Corporal." Wasn't that warm and fuzzy? Not too many warm and fuzzy moments after that. After Hitler was chancellor the Nazis got 44% of the votes in the Reichstag, and only formed a government by making a coalition with another rightest party. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
but that is exactly my point - people who would abuse the system ought not to recieve any kind of power. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hitler had asked Hindenburg to appoint him "how would you answer to the German people if you did not"
To which Hindenburg replied "if I appointed you, how would I answer to God". CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
But Hindenburg did appoint Hitler, so your point is...?
P.s. getting power with over 43% of the vote is the dream of many unstable democracies. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Hitler had the power before the Nazis got 44% of the vote.
It was certainly poor form to invoke the law explicitly. And it's "Godwin" not "Goodwin" (your misspelling redirects to the properly spelled article). However, I concede the above remarks are a well-executed attempt by both CheeseDreams and Tagishsimon to shut down the discussion.
But Jimbo has already effectively shut down this discussion with his strong statement discouraging any further postings on this page, so seeing how it's his site, I will respect that request and no longer post in this thread, as once once of the founders of a site discourages something, you're pissing into the wind to persist at it. Cheers, --DV 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Run that by me again. Cheesedreams cites Hitler. I cite Godwin's law, in effect saying that to cite Hitler is in bad taste and loses the argument. And you lump me and Cheesedreams together and. think it in worse taste to cite Godwin's law that to make comparisons to Hitler in a discussion about the arbitration Committee. Go figure. And try working on your english comprehension. --Tagishsimon(talk)
It is officially considered bad form to invoke Godwin's law explicitely. See the article for confirmation. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Some things are more than their creators
if this is truly a wiki, the founder should have no more authority than any other, in fact, it would be a show of good faith if the founders were to recant all powers they have and hold the status of no higher than an anonymous user, and go on to comment on nothing, and seek to enforce no authority, only editing minor insignificant articles.
If god walked on earth, he would be the cleaner in a tibetan monastry. CheeseDreams 20:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
(A user attempted to supress this section - it has been restored, as Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, allowing the case for the existance of this page to be made as much as the case for its non-existance)
Since when did the NPOV policy apply to things outside of the article namespace??? Shane King 01:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
Oh, right, in that case, ill go and rewrite the Wikipedia:NPOV policy (which resides outside of the article namespace) to suit my POV, and castigate those disagreeing. CheeseDreams 08:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Pages outside the article namespace are governed by different policies, and large-scale rewrites are not permitted without community consensus, usually gathered from polls. If you read WP:NPOV carefully, you'll find it states several times that the policy applies to articles. The correct inference, then is that this does not apply to pages that are not articles. There is a reason why it does not say in the very first sentence (or anywhere else), "Wikipedia policy is that all pages should have a neutral point of view". Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
So, who had the large scale consensus to seperate this page and suggest it ought not to be used? Or was it just hypocracy? CheeseDreams 08:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The issue we were discussing was the validity of NPOV policy outside the main namespace, not the validity of blanking this page. I express no opinion either way, but NPOV policy most emphatically does not apply to pages outside the article namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
but the policy that DOES apply to pages outside of articles is that non-offensive comments cannot be removed just because it suits the POV of an editor CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I strongly believe in the ethical free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal. For any informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?
If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found on the Disendorsements page is beyond useful, it is required reading.--FeloniousMonk 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I tried to add an "Oppose" (of "Neutrality") and comment to this page and I have found it's not on the page. I'd like to know why, from the election organisers please. I'd also like to let other users know that it seems to have been removed by "Neutrality" himself. I found this on the page history:
"22:20, 3 Dec 2004 Neutrality (rm trollish nonsense. Every person is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.)
(cur) (last) 21:40, 3 Dec 2004 WikiUser (Oppose - Best I can do in interests of The Wikipedia.)"
and it's also on his history, yet it's not on the history of THIS page.
I call upon all who are concerned about the fairness of these elections to help me find out what's going on.
1. Why am I not allowed to post oppose comments here? And yet others can: Rebroad and LegCircus for example, who both opposed "Neutrality" after I did.
2. Why can "Neutrality", apparently, delete criticisms of him on this election page?
3. What other dodgy deletions are being done here?
We're told on the Community Portal: "Get involved- Review the candidates in the Arbitration Committee elections and vote before December 18."
The top of this page says: "Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse/oppose. Your reasoning is welcome but not required."
Sjc says: "Strong oppose.", and "Neutrality" says: "May I ask why?" But he deletes it when someone tries to tell him why.WikiUser 20:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Short answer: This is not the election page, see the bottom of Special:ArbComVote for the link to the actual election. Kim Bruning 22:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The tradition of public "oppose" statements that elucidate the rationale for opposition comes from WP:RFA, where candidates are chosen by consensus and an honest evaluation is a necessary, if sometimes troubling, part of the discussion process. The arbitration committee election, on the other hand, is a voting process rather than a consensus one. Accordingly, each vote is given equal weight regardless of its rationale, and the rationale for failing to support a candidate need not be shared.
On behalf of the election organizers, I would like draw special attention to the portion of our earlier statement where we ask you to show your disapproval only with your vote itself. It is our hope that this may be a collegial election. Since nearly all candidates are long-time contributors to the wiki, we would hope that the process will unfold in such a way that even those who are not elected will retain their dignity and the respect of the community.
In reviewing the "disendorsements" already made, I observe that few comments are surprising. Instead, allegiances and prior conflicts that have already been hashed out in the community are being trotted out for another go. Other than by serving as a handy index by gathering this material in a single place, little is accomplished through these listings.
We discourage additional listings on this page and suggest that those who have already added material here may wish to remove it.
On behalf of the election organizers,
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Danny 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) and Elian 18:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I agree. If you don't support someone, use your signature rather than flaming or bashing the person in question. If enough users have their signatures in opposition, people will get the idea that someone ought not to be elected, without spreading gossip--Josiah 02:19, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
Sweet Jebusl, do you want to increase the spillover of this whole thing? It's bad enough that we're fighting at all, but at least we're fighting on one page. Do you want to take this issue to every page where people talk? Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree on endorsements -- it's helpful to have reasons, both so the affected party can open a discussion with the endorser, in case it's an accident or based on a misunderstanding that can be cleared up, and so we can tell if a disendorsement by user X actually has good reason or not. Blank endorsements/disendorsements mean nothing to me. --Improv 21:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
υωρ]] 05:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC).gif){kind=small}
