This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
Just stopped by to express how pleased I am that you're running. You are a man of formidable intellect and honorable character, Cla68. And you don't know how close to the truth you really are...bonne chance et Banzi!;)-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Was a member of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
My my, you are on a one-issue crusade aren't you...or rather a non-issue crusade.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68. Franamax ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, please, please link to CLA68's
Request for Adminship. In the opposers, note
Mantanmoreland (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and
consequently community indef blocked, and also
SlimVirgin (
talk ·
contribs) who was subsequently a named party to
an Arbitration request against CLA68 (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a
sanctionable act
failed - and
it was further later held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by existing WP policy - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which
failed and some of which
did not. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was
extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were
permitted to change the outcome (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then,
it would have passed.
In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. (
Gracenotes has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered.
This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This candidate asserts in his answer to a question, in relation to myself: "Also, the real person behind the account, who worked for a political party, made edits using the account to the BLP of a political leader from a rival political party. All in all, probably not the kind of behavior we would like to see in a member of a committee charged with supervising standards of editor and administrator conduct."
The first assertion of the first sentence is entirely untrue. Not merely do I not work for a political party, I never have worked for a political party. Moreover there is no source of which I know which when read correctly justifies such a claim. It is also irrelevant in the question the candidate was asked.
The second assertion in the first sentence, when coupled with the second sentence as it is clearly intended to be, is both untrue and irrelevant. First, the edit of which notice was made ( this one), was a reversion of vandalism. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which any user reverting vandalism is engaging in "not the kind of behaviour" we would like to see. Second, if the candidate happened not to be referring to an edit reverting vandalism, he would be wrong. There is no policy, rule, instruction or guidance on Wikipedia which prevents, restricts, impedes, discourages, or counsels against someone in my position contributing content to this or other equivalent articles.
There may be potential issues engaged of which the two most directly involved are Neutral Point of View and conflict of interest, but neither actually does apply. Neutral point of view applies if someone was editing in a way which endorsed a point of view. No-one has at any time suggested that my edits on this page (or indeed any other) themselves endorsed a point of view, or produced an article which was unbalanced. Andrew Dalby specifically refers to my contributions as neutral and describes critics as being unable to assert the contrary (page 142).
Having disposed of NPOV, is there a conflict of interest? The answer has to be no. As above it is manifest that there was no purpose in advancing outside interests here, just the purpose of improving an article about a significant figure in British politics who happened to be in another party. Indeed in political articles it is very rare that WP:COI can be engaged without also having violated WP:NPOV. There is no direct connection with the subject of the article: for that there would need to be direct political competition, which would only happen if someone happened to be standing for Parliament (not a local authority) in the relevant constituency. Holding a party political post in a local authority is not directly relevant to national politics. Membership of a political party has no significance greater than support for a political party. It is nowhere asserted that a supporter of one political party has a conflict of interest in writing neutral content about a subject who is affiliated with a different political party.
It may be true that when one reads a newspaper article covering a subject with which one has a personal interest, it invariably states a major fact incorrectly. However, a candidate for the arbitration committee ought really to check their assertions (which I invited this candidate to do) and to be able to verify where they have fallen into error. I regret that I must strongly urge the community to oppose this candidate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A while back during discussions of Durova's block of User:!! (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova) and the "stalking" mailing list, Cla68 took it upon himself to assert a version of events which was disputed by every single person who was on the mailing list, including sitting arbitrators and Jimbo. Having failed to prevail in (acrimonious) debate on Wikipedia or wikien-l he took his version of events to a journalist with a long-standing agenda against Wikipedia. He then, in my view, worked with another editor who was also quoted in the article that journalist wrote, to ensure that it was cited as the sole version of events in Criticism of Wikipedia. I have no wish to refight old battles, but the pattern of WP:ABF, ignore all contrary opinions, and then got ot he press, seems like an extraordinarily bad precedent in a candidate for ArbCom. Guy ( Help!) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A conversation with
Cla68
Since Will Beback sees fit to remove this from the candidate statement page... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just thought of something: Do you have any experiences you can share with us in which you've dealt with a tendentious promoter of minority POV in articles? I'm open to reconsidering my vote. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, I think your choice of words here have the effect of waving at six people and saying, "I have no respect for some of you." Can you refactor your comment to make your point some other way? Or if you must indicate your distaste for the actions of some opposers in order to say why you support a candidate, can you or say which opposers you are opposed to, exactly? Am I one of them? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | |||
---|---|---|---|
|
|||
|
Just stopped by to express how pleased I am that you're running. You are a man of formidable intellect and honorable character, Cla68. And you don't know how close to the truth you really are...bonne chance et Banzi!;)-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Was a member of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? ( talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
My my, you are on a one-issue crusade aren't you...or rather a non-issue crusade.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68. Franamax ( talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Please, please, please link to CLA68's
Request for Adminship. In the opposers, note
Mantanmoreland (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
nuke contribs ·
logs ·
filter log ·
block user ·
block log) who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and
consequently community indef blocked, and also
SlimVirgin (
talk ·
contribs) who was subsequently a named party to
an Arbitration request against CLA68 (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a
sanctionable act
failed - and
it was further later held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by existing WP policy - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which
failed and some of which
did not. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was
extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were
permitted to change the outcome (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then,
it would have passed.
In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. (
Gracenotes has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered.
This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate.
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
This candidate asserts in his answer to a question, in relation to myself: "Also, the real person behind the account, who worked for a political party, made edits using the account to the BLP of a political leader from a rival political party. All in all, probably not the kind of behavior we would like to see in a member of a committee charged with supervising standards of editor and administrator conduct."
The first assertion of the first sentence is entirely untrue. Not merely do I not work for a political party, I never have worked for a political party. Moreover there is no source of which I know which when read correctly justifies such a claim. It is also irrelevant in the question the candidate was asked.
The second assertion in the first sentence, when coupled with the second sentence as it is clearly intended to be, is both untrue and irrelevant. First, the edit of which notice was made ( this one), was a reversion of vandalism. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which any user reverting vandalism is engaging in "not the kind of behaviour" we would like to see. Second, if the candidate happened not to be referring to an edit reverting vandalism, he would be wrong. There is no policy, rule, instruction or guidance on Wikipedia which prevents, restricts, impedes, discourages, or counsels against someone in my position contributing content to this or other equivalent articles.
There may be potential issues engaged of which the two most directly involved are Neutral Point of View and conflict of interest, but neither actually does apply. Neutral point of view applies if someone was editing in a way which endorsed a point of view. No-one has at any time suggested that my edits on this page (or indeed any other) themselves endorsed a point of view, or produced an article which was unbalanced. Andrew Dalby specifically refers to my contributions as neutral and describes critics as being unable to assert the contrary (page 142).
Having disposed of NPOV, is there a conflict of interest? The answer has to be no. As above it is manifest that there was no purpose in advancing outside interests here, just the purpose of improving an article about a significant figure in British politics who happened to be in another party. Indeed in political articles it is very rare that WP:COI can be engaged without also having violated WP:NPOV. There is no direct connection with the subject of the article: for that there would need to be direct political competition, which would only happen if someone happened to be standing for Parliament (not a local authority) in the relevant constituency. Holding a party political post in a local authority is not directly relevant to national politics. Membership of a political party has no significance greater than support for a political party. It is nowhere asserted that a supporter of one political party has a conflict of interest in writing neutral content about a subject who is affiliated with a different political party.
It may be true that when one reads a newspaper article covering a subject with which one has a personal interest, it invariably states a major fact incorrectly. However, a candidate for the arbitration committee ought really to check their assertions (which I invited this candidate to do) and to be able to verify where they have fallen into error. I regret that I must strongly urge the community to oppose this candidate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A while back during discussions of Durova's block of User:!! (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova) and the "stalking" mailing list, Cla68 took it upon himself to assert a version of events which was disputed by every single person who was on the mailing list, including sitting arbitrators and Jimbo. Having failed to prevail in (acrimonious) debate on Wikipedia or wikien-l he took his version of events to a journalist with a long-standing agenda against Wikipedia. He then, in my view, worked with another editor who was also quoted in the article that journalist wrote, to ensure that it was cited as the sole version of events in Criticism of Wikipedia. I have no wish to refight old battles, but the pattern of WP:ABF, ignore all contrary opinions, and then got ot he press, seems like an extraordinarily bad precedent in a candidate for ArbCom. Guy ( Help!) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A conversation with
Cla68
Since Will Beback sees fit to remove this from the candidate statement page... ++ Lar: t/ c 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Just thought of something: Do you have any experiences you can share with us in which you've dealt with a tendentious promoter of minority POV in articles? I'm open to reconsidering my vote. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Lar, I think your choice of words here have the effect of waving at six people and saying, "I have no respect for some of you." Can you refactor your comment to make your point some other way? Or if you must indicate your distaste for the actions of some opposers in order to say why you support a candidate, can you or say which opposers you are opposed to, exactly? Am I one of them? Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)