Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Use third-level headers for new sections.
- Example: === Heading title ===.
Unsure about the election process?
- Please review the election rules.
Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions?
- Please notify an election volunteer.

Arbitration Committee Election 2008 candidate: Rlevse

Best of luck

Hope you do well. So many candidates to vote for, and all so good! —Ceran^{(sing / see)} 23:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Major reservations

I am very concerned about how heavy-handed this particular user is. I believe he is involved in Wikipedia ~~solely for the power-trip~~ for reasons stemming more from his desire to create a particular kind of community rather than create a good encyclopedia. He has taken particular glee in contesting my actions at every turn. At one point he left Wikipedia in a very abrupt way only to return a month later. I've done the same, but I'm not running for arbcom. Is this the kind of drama that people want to have on arbcom?

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SA, do you have a diff or two on that so we could look further? Thanks! Franamax (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm actually more comfortable with him now that he's promised to recuse himself in any case where I was a named party. Perhaps a bit selfish, but at least it makes him look less power-hungry than I thought. In any case, the diffs go back almost a year and involve activities at WP:AE. He has consistently jockeyed for me to be blocked/banned/etc.

So, if you still want them, I'll provide them, but I'm inclined to let some water pass under the bridge.

One concern I have is how he views WP:CIV. I think his "scouting" tendencies may lead him to think that it is more important than writing a reliable, neutral, verifiable encyclopedia. I will compose a question to that effect.

ScienceApologist (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a sound article is our top goal, but not our only goal. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the nexus of our dispute. I'm of the opinion that the other goals are not in line with WP:ENC. I think what I see is a sort of "community building operation" that you seem to advocate along with a number of other people who seem to follow in your footsteps. The problem with this is that it isn't respectful of differences of opinion: it's this kind of attitude that civility trumps all else: that civil people should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia even if they make bad edits while people who make good edits who swear once and a while should be blocked. In this, only one particular kind of culture is respected: a sort of main street American good-ol'-boys gospel revival mentality. I'm all for respecting that culture, but I'm afraid you are trying to impose its "values" in a kind of Wikipedia culture war. That's my major concern. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all for letting bygones be bygones. Can you strike some parts of your post then? Franamax (talk) 22:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What parts would you like me to strike? ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole second sentence is a concern, where you speculate on personal motivations. You are of course entitled to form a belief, but if you wish to express it in such a forum as this, you should give a detailed explanation of what would make you form such a belief - or retract the statement. Franamax (talk) 07:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, well, I'm concerned that he has taken a lot of the principles of his leadership position in scouting and is attempting to force Wikipedia into such a situation. I do not know that it is necessarily solely for the power trip, so striking that seems reasonable. But I think there is an aspect of Rlevse attempting to impose his will onto the processes of Wikipedia that I am beginning to see manifest itself in these discussions. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good enough I guess, thanks. I somewhat share your view that civility is over-pursued as its own end, IMO because it's easy to spot swear words and more difficult to pick out the more subtle malign behaviour, admins want to feel that they're contributing - and often take the easy way out by focussing only on the instance of incivility. That said, civility certainly is important and is an easy goal to attain. You are probably one of the counter-exemplars, wading into difficult areas and erupting in frustration. Franamax (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief, that's something of a failure to assume good faith. The world does not revolve around you. That's among the most important things to understand in Wikipedia and in life. I have been a casual acquaintance of Rlevse in real life for several years and the "power trip" person you describe does not exist. --B (talk) 12:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of my arbcom vote and my concerns about the general direction of arbcom, I'm entitled to a thorough disclosure. I'm very familiar with your actions and perspectives as well, User:B. You've also behaved in a somewhat similar fashion to User:Rlevse (including leaving Wikipedia in a huff) and seem to have the same problems ("civility trumps all") I outline above. I remember when you ran what essentially amounted to a ~~protection racket~~ problematic support for User:Profg for a very long time: even well after it was clear he was just here to disrupt. It seemed to me that you were protecting him out of a kind of hope that his perspective might be protected on Wikipedia in defiance of a lot of the principles of solid research, etc. That you know Rlevse in real life (through scouting, maybe?) doesn't surprise me, but it certainly doesn't inspire any good faith confidence in the situation. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse knows what he's doing, don't worry. I would hope that all the candidates would be experienced enough to understand what ArbCom is about - dsws, and sadly, being wise enough to realize that sometimes experienced admins who may have been their friends might have to be banned. —Ceran^{(sing / see)} (2102 uıןɐd) 22:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that last thing ever happen? Only if they're ex friends of the arbs, surely? :) Unless you mean User:Archtransit or something? Sticky Parkin 03:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A protection racket??? You really ought to at least read the article on the subject so you know what it is that you are libeling me by accusing me of. I unblocked a user who was denied anything resembling due process and who NOT A SINGLE uninvolved user supported leaving blocked. That has nothing whatsoever to do with a protection racket and your claim is utter nonsense. The admin who blocked him was eventually desysopped, although I did not agree and do not agree with that desysopping. When Profg violated the terms of his probation, I reinstated the block myself. The user's off-site disruption (basically, calling for meat puppets from his website) was all long after the fact. Your inability to assume good faith about anyone with whom you disagree is troubling. I would love for you to show me somewhere that I have said or implied that "civility trumps all". --B (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SLR is a great example the so called "community building operation" that assured, it was "respectful of differences of opinion". Rlevse played an important role in that process. Today we have our share Ga quality articles because of that effort. For example see Jaffna kingdom, Aryacakravarti dynasty and Sri Lankan Tamil people. These articles were visciously contested before SLR was able to solve most of the problems and "problem makers".Taprobanus (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. While I sometimes wished Rlevse had been more patient in that project, I think that some quick decision making is a good thing for ArbCom, where things tend to go rather slowly. Quick admin action can make you enemies, but if it secures the ground for good writers like Taprobanus, then it's well placed. — Sebastian 21:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

I want to express my support of Rlevse. On a couple of occasions in the past year, he has attempted to pacify some heavy editing disputes over in the articles where I edit. I found him fair, firm and professional. I cannot go on for as much bandwidth as the detractors do, but I want to emphasize the way Rlevse can stay calm when the editing and personality conflicts get hot. If he has banned or otherwise sanctioned anyone, I do believe that they clearly must have deserved it, because I found him to be someone who was very good at keeping his powder dry. Good luck Montanabw^(talk) 05:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have full confidence in Rlevse here. If Rlevse takes on disruptive editors in a way they don't like. Fine. MaxPont (talk) 14:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Rlevse ends up banning you for disruptive editing, I'd be thrilled. ScienceApologist (talk) 07:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Analysis

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on candiacy, from AGK.: I have recused myself for voting for Rlevse due almost fully to my extensive prior involvement with him. We converse frequently on ArbCom Clerking and administrator matters, and I would probably agree that he is as much a friend as a colleague. (Offering my support to him, therefore, could be easily coloured as cronyism, which would reflect poorly on his candidacy as well as on me.) I do wish to note for the record my agreement with what seems to be the consensus of a sizable majority of the community: Rlevse would make a very good Arbitrator, and is an excellent choice this election. Good luck, Rlevse. AGK 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't there be two sections, not one?

Esses and Ohs are all mixed together. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ling.Nut. I take it you're talking about the support and oppose sections on the voting. They are in different sections it seems, so I'm not quite sure what your question is here. Could you please elaborate? Thank you. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]