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

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 and 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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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 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 is 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)

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 - the heart-wrenching, the behind-the-back gossip-criticism, 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)