Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Harvestman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006‎ | Vote

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 14:13, 14 March 2023 (Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (29x)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Statement

[edit]

The process of arbitration is a positive way to resolve conflicts where negotiation and mediation failed. Arbitrators have to be impartial, meaning that they won't help or oppose any of the disputing parties on a personal basis : their opinion has to be based, more than upon the facts, upon the better dispute resolving means.

A party that has shown bad faith in his declarations, ways and means may be ultimately right when his goals are proved to be included in the community’s one. A sanction may be necessary ; the goals must be supported.

As a community, Wikipedia’s goals are extensively, if not clearly, defined. Too much policy can only bring more disputes. There is not one and only one solution, there is a way to bring forth knowledge. This has to be done by following a defined process where raw information is first brought upon, then refined.

Conflicts arise when the quality of information declines ; they must not begin just because it is poor. Larry Sanger criticises WP and wants a bunch of experts to have the final word : that is not our actual policy.

I'm a French IT consultant who gnomily contributes to WP articles and RD answers, quite recently proofreading Gutemberg project's books. An arbitrator is not free for the customer : I may spend less time for articles.

Addendum -- "My mood in a nutshell" is added here, please read it before asking questions --

WP says that it is not a democracy. In such a state, three independent powers are required. Here, it looks as if it was a little similar, as anyone proposes policies and votes for them ; various empowered users try to protect articles and users ; arbitrators give decisions (those should not use any more superpowers than requiring sensible information.)

The activities of each category of Wpian is clear and distinct. Arbs are allowed to know nothing of encyclopedia subjects, the same for admins. Editors may ignore all rules, except when it protects them or they lack respect to others. WP is fine.

Problems arise with people's temper, as they put their heart in what they write. This may be treated quite easily.

Problems arise with visibility. Google any word and ask why the WP's article is not n°1 by now. WP is no more fine with such a situation, as more and more energy is directed towards good order and taken off good editing.

Problems are sometimes linked with fandom and creed (political or else). These subjects are, or are not, encyclopedical. Fandom about notable memes (TV series, music or film heroes, games, the glory of the place you were haphazard born in) may be understood.

Creeds are a part of human experience and are welcome too. The first French encyclopedia dealt with powers and creeds in a perfect POV manner, according to its own agenda. There may not be any agenda, even a politically correct one, here : go and create your own 'pedia elsewhere.

May editors remember what they used to search for, find and like in an old style encyclopedia. WP is not that, but its contents must respect the reader searching anything in it. -- DLL .. T 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

[edit]
  1. Moral Support Stick around longer. semper fi — Moe 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aminz 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: "ArbComs are here for the policies & the policies are for individuals whatever their power". --Sugaar 10:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moral support per above. Addhoc 11:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Chris 14:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --t ALL IN c 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Cpuwhiz11 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Candidate is coming from a culture outside the Anglosphere, and will bring a fresh perspective to discussions. Eludium-q36 18:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support Obviously language could be a barrier, but he seems perfectly able. David Fuchs (talk • contribs) 15:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support A little pointless at this point oh well--ElvisThePrince 23:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. - crz crztalk 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Weak oppose. --Coredesat 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SuperMachine 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Awolf002 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Jd2718 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KPbIC 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Mira 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Terence Ong 04:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Rebecca 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Peta 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mailer Diablo 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Inexperience. Xoloz 05:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Nufy8 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Serpent's Choice 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Although I am, I must admit, confused by a few locutions in the candidate's statement (which confusion perhaps speaks to my doltishness than to anything else), I'm inclined to think he would make a fine ArbCommer; there's just not enough experience here to render that inclination empirical. Joe 07:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose due to answers to questions and lack of familiarity.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —Doug Bell talk 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. cj | talk 09:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. – Chacor 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Shyam (T/C) 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Inexperience, mangled english. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose (based on answers to my questions) Would have been neutral for vague answers to my questions--English not first language? Then I saw mcginnley's oppose mentioned the mangled English so I'm thinking if they have trouble with the language of this portal, that will impair their ArbCom ability. Anomo 14:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. TewfikTalk 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. issues that could be solved over time GRBerry 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Brian Boru is awesome 20:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Non, merci beaucoup. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Michael Snow 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Viriditas | Talk 01:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Too vague in answers, too vague in his initial 400-word presentation and not a fluent english speaker. Should probably stick around and try his hand at the ArbComm later on. Lincher 01:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Decisions need to be communicated carefully and using precise language. The candidate's lack of fluency in English is thus a concern. Raymond Arritt 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Nothing personal. However, your lack of sufficient fluency with English is a concern. While it detracts nothing from a good editor, ArbCom decisions require sufficient succinctness, utmost clarity, and proper diction to convey one's ideas, lest complications and more disputes arise. --210physicq (c) 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sorry, this is the English Wikipedia; you must at least be fluent in it. --Cyde Weys 18:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Answers aren't that great, and I'm a bit worried how your fluency will affect your capability to arbitrate. Nishkid64 20:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, I appreciate what this user has contributed to articles but I'm looking for more. Gazpacho 05:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. oppose Pete.Hurd 06:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - Sorry, you seem like a nice guy, but you really need to work on your writing skills a bit. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. I find myself unable to parse much of what this candidate is saying. --Danaman5 07:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose inexperience--Aldux 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose, per Schnee. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScotch 09:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScotch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC). - Aksi_great (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Shagmaestro 11:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. riana_dzasta 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - While I like a lot of what this candiate says, there's not enough experience or history of moderation to indicate that he would be a good member --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Your manner of answering questions makes me think you're not experienced enough. Conscious 13:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Michael 23:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Sarah Ewart 01:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  Satori Son 04:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose for inexperience and confusing, circumlocutive writing style. (An arbitrator should be able to express decisions clearly without making the reader go "huh?") —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose as per Josiah Lost Kiwi(talk)22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose per Josiah. the wub "?!" 12:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose candidate is to cavalier with his analysis of the topic related to SPOV. In particular, candidate seems to be too accomodationist and vaguely opposed to editorial standards in science articles. --ScienceApologist 16:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose, "Problems are sometimes linked with fandom and creed (political or else). These subjects are, or are not, encyclopedical". Does that mean the candidate thinks that articles about fandoms and political/religious parties can't be encyclopedic? Voretustalk 18:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose, although please stick around :en; I think you'd be an asset here! -- Samir धर्म 20:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. —Xyrael / 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose sorry, based on writing skills - ArbCom needs much clearer writing Krich (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. oppose english skills need to be improved. Kiwidude 07:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Not loving the Questions, prefer admins. — xaosflux Talk 16:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Harvestman&oldid=1144586447"