Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana

Comments moved from voting page

Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

W.marsh

Bureaucratic, inconsistent. Deskana drove User:Android Mouse from the project by running a checkuser with no evidence then publicly outing AM. Deskana then refused to run similar checkusers, blanked my questions about why not, tried to guilt trip me by claiming twice he'd no longer run checkusers as he once did because of me (empty promises both times) then complained about me on a private mailing list, again with guilt trips about how I was going to make him stop doing checkusers, and enticed all manner of bureaucratic types to come at me on misinformation. All that was really needed between us was a simple discussion but his tactics made that impossible. As an arbcommer I have no confidence people would be treated fairly or consistently. Deskana might be the greatest guy in the world if you are being nice to him... but in my experience he has a wild reaction to criticism. See [1] here for the main discussion, which links to all relevant earlier discussion. W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick

Support, and I understand the Opposes below, so I would hope that Deskana would be open to stepping down if the demands of being an arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat and administrator impact on his work on the Arbcom. Hopefully with recent additional checkusers (both non arbs and the soon to be former arbs) together with a new 'crat, there shouldn't be a huge workload away from the Arbcom to contend with. Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Nishkid64

Oppose. Essentially, I feel Deskana has his priority issues here on Wikipedia. He's made thousands of edits to Wikipedia in recent months, but hardly any to the mainspace. I understand he has responsibilities on Wikipedia as a bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter, but frankly, if that detracts from his encyclopedic contributions, then I don't think he should be accumulating more responsibilities here. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments

Ok guys. This the start of a interesting two weeks, so please be courteous and patient. Daniel did right by moving W Marsh's comments, As I did Nick's. Consensus was reached a while ago that this is the correct process. The problem is notification was not adequately performed, in my view. I notified Nick of my action, and I took a while to finish it, and Daniel ended up finishing for me. Remember, extended comments belong on talk pages, but moves should be followed by proper notifications. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that, but the removal was followed by the explanation that it's okay to make persuasive arguments in support votes but not in opposes. That's not good. --W.marsh 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I know, and I can't explain for it. I can only promise to be quicker about it in the future. It's been one hour and I've seen hundreds of votes, kinda hard to keep track of. But, it's the first day. Let's give it time. You can help too. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Who was it that said that long support comments were ok but not for oppose? Cla68 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

No one said it. It was just that Daniel moved W.Marsh's oppose comment but did not move support comment similar in length. This made it appear like that. But as I said above, this was a misunderstanding. All long comments should be moved, regardless of the position (+ or -). This has been done so. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I said that I felt that support comments were less contentious than oppose comments. This, combined with the fact that Nick's comment was shorter, meant I wanted a second opinion. Daniel 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Cla68 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I know, Daniel. This is just a misunderstanding for a newly opened election. We're not bots, so our edits are not fast and perfect at the same time. I've received some comments too with some of my other moves, but it's part of the job. Besides, this particular issue has already been resolved. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

• After careful consideration, I must oppose. While my initial reaction to the candidacy was positive, I am a bit concerned about concentrating positions of trust/power in a single editor. I think that Wikipedia is better served by spreading such positions around and having lots of editors who concentrate on the areas of their strengths rather than a few editors who handle a large number of administrative tasks. However, it is W.Marsh's comment that tipped me over the edge to oppose. I have a great deal of respect for him and his concerns are very troubling. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)