Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/LawAndOrder: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:03, 12 January 2006

LawAndOrder

General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 is the most biased admin that I've seen.

I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.

BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, and IanManka have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Carnildo, Thryduulf, and Roddurbar, in their very vote comments, have used the sly tactic of falsely portraying truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks. I hold those 12 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.

Questions

Support

That's right. Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate really is just plain awful. Seriously. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
~~Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]
Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support freestylefrappe 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support: the user is an Iconoclast. -- Michalis Famelis 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The owner of all 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User does not have suffrage - created account in November, has less than 50 edits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; I agree with the user's statement that I am the most biased admin. Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. JSIN 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support All in 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously.--Sean|Black 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Oppose --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Evil Eye 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of a userpage doesn't help. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly neccessary but oppose --Doc ^ask? 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A little overzealous with second-guessing intentions; inexperience. --DanielCD 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose b/c account doesn't even qualify to vote. --AySz88^-^ 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Angelo 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lack of a user page doesn't help your case. Aside from that, I really am not satisfied with any aspect of your submission. --Vortex 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.--ragesoss 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Wikipedia:User name Kit 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: dilatory submission. Jonathunder 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per OMGWTFBBQ is this? FCYTravis 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Viriditas 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Paul August ☎ 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bobet 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Crunch 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. — Catherine\^talk 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose of course. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no experience. Mate, do you actually know what you are in for? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agree with most above comments TrafficBenBoy 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of XP and, apparently, grasp on reality. —Nightstallion (?) 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but I must oppose. ALKIVAR™ 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose meh. Grue 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Happy sparkly oppose per candidate statements. Tomer ^talk 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Next time, creating a user page before you run may help your case. Kafziel 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This must be a joke, right? No user page, signed up this week. He's not even eligible to vote! --kingboyk 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per all of the above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Kingboyk. --Thorri 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. siafu 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No experience, no userpage --Comics 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for attacking another admin in his candidate statement (regardless of the rights or wrongs of his assessment of the other admin). TerraGreen 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 20:14Z
'Oppose - too new. Awolf002 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I agree with some of his (vague) ideas, but, really, to say that he has no track record is an understatement. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No userpage, no identity ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not really entering into the spirit of it, I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Bad attitude. ArbCom candidate statements aren't the place to air disagreements with admins. H e rmione1980 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Splash^talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Step 1. Create a user page. Avriette 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Biased, immature, reactive, inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
older≠wiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose if the user can't be bothered to make his own user page...Rayc 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for some of the reasons cited above, and potentially misleading username -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I hate to jump on the dogpile, and I hate to be using agecountitis, but this is an extreme case. No. Sorry. Try again in a year or two year's time, if you've built up suffrage. WikiFanatic 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ditto. Cjpuffin 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raven4x4x 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No userpage, no vote. Dave Kielpinski 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Dave Kielpinski does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 03:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 68 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too new. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Lack of experience. Too new. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Pushing a specific agenda. Smeggysmeg 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- dishonest vote; Smeggysmeg does not have suffrage; account created on October 20th, 2005 LawAndOrder 23:16, 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. Fifelfoo 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lack of experience, civility. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I wasn't intending to vote in this, and I apologize in advance for piling on, but seeing how he is calling out specific oppose voters and saying, "I hold those 8 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.", he seems like he takes offense far too easily and is not nearly stable enough to be on the ArbCom. Oppose votes are not personal attacks, and WP:NPOV only applies to articles, definitely not to voting. I know it's hard, but please don't take oppose votes personally. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Vsmith 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. wiki trust is built on a transparent record --JWSchmidt 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for personal attack in candidate statement. --Carnildo 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the statement is just one personal attack after another. Thryduulf 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
For some odd reason, I oppose. Hedley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Wikipedia:No personal attacks Robdurbar 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.
-BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, and IanManka have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Idont_havaname's offense is the most grievous yet. I hold those 9 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.
+BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, and IanManka have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Carnildo, Thryduulf, and Roddurbar, in their very vote comments, have used the sly tactic of falsely portraying truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks. I hold those 12 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.
 [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/LawAndOrder|Questions]]