I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.
I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.
I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.
I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on
the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.
Support. "...this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to pretend to be a legal system." I couldn't agree more. --
Gmaxwell20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Please be more civil when making ArbCom rulings. Even though your incivility seems somewhat understandable, it is still incivility.
Superm401 |
Talk23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Ditto
Thryduulf. Arbcom requires one to read all evidence from users, even ones who don't express themselves well or are abrasive, and saying "shut up" instead of reading is inappropriate. –
Quadell(
talk) (
bounties)18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.
Fifelfoo23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible oppose. User is highly biased towards a certain single POV, and edits articles to ensure that bias. User operates as part of a clique in this manner. In addition, User totally fails to Assume Good Faith, and follow the principle of No Personal Attacks, even in the responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Against. Not an especially helpful admin, hasn't been good at dealing with users and is prone to make reverts claiming to be reverting vandalism when content is factual.
~ Jared ~23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Jpgordon has behaved extremely poorly in the Deeceevoice arbitration and I see no reason to believe that any user involved in arbitration could count on him to perform his duties fairly and ethically. —
phh19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. Mainly due to his belief that WP:CIVIL should be changed to "grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there". I only know him from the Deeceevoice thing, and his defence of Deeceevoice and
this personal attack at the time suggest he wouldn't be a great choice of Arbitrator for upholding civility policies.
— Matt Crypto18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.
I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.
I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.
I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on
the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.
Support. "...this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to pretend to be a legal system." I couldn't agree more. --
Gmaxwell20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Please be more civil when making ArbCom rulings. Even though your incivility seems somewhat understandable, it is still incivility.
Superm401 |
Talk23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Ditto
Thryduulf. Arbcom requires one to read all evidence from users, even ones who don't express themselves well or are abrasive, and saying "shut up" instead of reading is inappropriate. –
Quadell(
talk) (
bounties)18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.
Fifelfoo23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongest possible oppose. User is highly biased towards a certain single POV, and edits articles to ensure that bias. User operates as part of a clique in this manner. In addition, User totally fails to Assume Good Faith, and follow the principle of No Personal Attacks, even in the responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Against. Not an especially helpful admin, hasn't been good at dealing with users and is prone to make reverts claiming to be reverting vandalism when content is factual.
~ Jared ~23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Jpgordon has behaved extremely poorly in the Deeceevoice arbitration and I see no reason to believe that any user involved in arbitration could count on him to perform his duties fairly and ethically. —
phh19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strong oppose. Mainly due to his belief that WP:CIVIL should be changed to "grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there". I only know him from the Deeceevoice thing, and his defence of Deeceevoice and
this personal attack at the time suggest he wouldn't be a great choice of Arbitrator for upholding civility policies.
— Matt Crypto18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)reply