Final (0/8/1); Ended 2:28, December 14 2006 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 2 years and never bothered to become an administrator until recent events. During this time, I have generally frequented the political pages and been involved in a number of contentious disputes. If I could summarize my participation on Wikipedia, it is that I thrive on reasoned and civil conflict. During the election of 2004, I frequented many political articles (including George W. Bush as well as other politically controversial articles such as Ann Coulter). I like to be in the middle of conflict while trying to keep a cool head. In my vast experience in controversial articles, I know that policy rules all. While "Wiki-lawyering" and "IAR" are valid concepts that are applicable in a limited range of situations, IMHO they never trump WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, as well as WP:AGF WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
While this answer may seem like I simply want to become a user who wants the "block user" button available in a dispute, I feel that I have already been acting as a moderator who believes that given a heated dispute between parties, strict application of policy trumps all other matters (including article precedence). Part of the reason I want to become an administrator is the common violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA I see in disputes. Just recently, (without mentioning names) an editor who suggested replacing a fair-use image with a free image that looked worse who was entirely backed by policy was labeled "disruptive", a "one-trick pony", and was responded to with "Quit wiki-lawyering, it's only the internet." Clear cut violations of WP:AGF like this are very dangerous IMHO because they discourage good users from making legitimate suggestions to controversial articles if they are simply going to be accused of being "disruptive". I don't intend to use any of my administrative powers (should I be elected) to help me gain an advantage in a dispute, and I only foresee blocking someone (besides vandalism of course) in cases of egregious and repetitive violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA. My goal in becoming an administrator is to take a more official capacity in helping resolve disputes on contentious pages by using my intimate knowledge of relevant policy to help direct a heated dispute to a peaceful resolution.
Finally, I have done a lot of good and some bad here in my 2 years. I'd like to think that despite generally sticking to controversial articles, I have kept a cool head and tried to settle the matter civilly through reasoned arguments and appeal to policies. Of course, given my involvement in these articles, I have no doubt that editors that I have disagreed with in the past will deem me unfit to become an administrator. As a result, I have pre-emptively added several editors (if you disagree and actually do support my bid, then feel free to change) who I believe would not like me as an administrator.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Instead of answering the next boilerplate questions, let me put it down as the good, bad, and ugly (disputes)
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly (Disputes)
Add subsequent questions below:
Discussion
Withdrawn. I'd like to say much more but I'll keep my tongue in check. -- kizzle 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Support
Oppose
Neutral
Final (0/8/1); Ended 2:28, December 14 2006 (UTC)
I have been a Wikipedia contributor for over 2 years and never bothered to become an administrator until recent events. During this time, I have generally frequented the political pages and been involved in a number of contentious disputes. If I could summarize my participation on Wikipedia, it is that I thrive on reasoned and civil conflict. During the election of 2004, I frequented many political articles (including George W. Bush as well as other politically controversial articles such as Ann Coulter). I like to be in the middle of conflict while trying to keep a cool head. In my vast experience in controversial articles, I know that policy rules all. While "Wiki-lawyering" and "IAR" are valid concepts that are applicable in a limited range of situations, IMHO they never trump WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:BLP, as well as WP:AGF WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.
While this answer may seem like I simply want to become a user who wants the "block user" button available in a dispute, I feel that I have already been acting as a moderator who believes that given a heated dispute between parties, strict application of policy trumps all other matters (including article precedence). Part of the reason I want to become an administrator is the common violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA I see in disputes. Just recently, (without mentioning names) an editor who suggested replacing a fair-use image with a free image that looked worse who was entirely backed by policy was labeled "disruptive", a "one-trick pony", and was responded to with "Quit wiki-lawyering, it's only the internet." Clear cut violations of WP:AGF like this are very dangerous IMHO because they discourage good users from making legitimate suggestions to controversial articles if they are simply going to be accused of being "disruptive". I don't intend to use any of my administrative powers (should I be elected) to help me gain an advantage in a dispute, and I only foresee blocking someone (besides vandalism of course) in cases of egregious and repetitive violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, or WP:NPA. My goal in becoming an administrator is to take a more official capacity in helping resolve disputes on contentious pages by using my intimate knowledge of relevant policy to help direct a heated dispute to a peaceful resolution.
Finally, I have done a lot of good and some bad here in my 2 years. I'd like to think that despite generally sticking to controversial articles, I have kept a cool head and tried to settle the matter civilly through reasoned arguments and appeal to policies. Of course, given my involvement in these articles, I have no doubt that editors that I have disagreed with in the past will deem me unfit to become an administrator. As a result, I have pre-emptively added several editors (if you disagree and actually do support my bid, then feel free to change) who I believe would not like me as an administrator.
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:
Instead of answering the next boilerplate questions, let me put it down as the good, bad, and ugly (disputes)
The Good
The Bad
The Ugly (Disputes)
Add subsequent questions below:
Discussion
Withdrawn. I'd like to say much more but I'll keep my tongue in check. -- kizzle 02:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
Support
Oppose
Neutral