Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Discussion

Shortcuts WP:AC2009 WP:INDECISION2009 2009 Arbitration Committee Election status General questions were submitted and available for candidates to answer. Nominations are closed. Voting closed at 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009. Results have been published, 18th Dec. Feedback on the elections is solicited from participants.

This page collects the discussion pages for each of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee elections of December 2009. To discuss the elections in general, see Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009.

2009 Arbitration Committee Elections • Results • Voter log • Discuss the elections  • Give feedback on the elections v t e Election pages: Candidate guide • Candidate statements • Questions for the candidates • Discuss the candidates • Comment on the candidates Individuals' guides: Bfigura • Casliber • Ceranthor • CT Cooper • Elonka • JayHenry • Juliancolton • Lankiveil • Lar • Majorly  • MZMcBride • Riana • Rschen7754 • SandyGeorgia • Vyvyan Ade Basterd • William M. Connolley

Endorse - AGK is a candidate I am personally endorsing. I have had the pleasure of working with him in the clerking ranks and hold him in the highest regard. He will, in my opinion, make an excellent arbitrator. (Naturally I don't regard my opinion as particularly special, but there it is anyway). Manning (talk) 00:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well I'm not sure why the inflammatory threads initiated by AGK (see below), the peer ARBCom clerk were not deleted by EE secret emailing-list clerk, Manning Bartlett while he deleted and even warned, the former ArbCom clerk Thatcher who expressed in a less dramatic degree than AGK's.

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_5#"Community encouraged"

Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Eastern_European_mailing_list/Proposed_decision/Archive_4#Unacceptable severity of Piotrus remedies

As looking into current ArbCom cases, we can judge how aspired arbitrators would judge or make drafts for ArbCom cases in future. I think AGK's such view toward admins' abuse are problematic and too generous and make me wonder "Is Adminship a divine privilege? As well as his answers on community-based on desysopping suggestion, I feel he does not trust the community's ability of handing big issues. "Trust" is a basic element for becoming arbitrators. I can not agree that AGK could be an excellent arbitrator. --Caspian blue 23:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a degree of (possibly unintentional) misrepresentation in Caspian's comment above regarding the clerking actions I took. Thatcher's comments were directed at another editor (not permitted) whereas AGK was criticising an aspect of ArbCom's proposed decision (permitted). I would also note that my actions against Thatcher were (by my own admission) excessive and I subsequently deleted the warning and apologised. You are of course entitled to make the remainder of your points. Manning (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The inflammatory comments made by AGK are directed and opposed to the specific arbitrator(s) who suggested the proposal and I don't believe the threads did help the situation (rather inviting more dramas after that). Thatcher rather complained about what is missing in the proposals in general. I do appreciate your diligent work for the case, but I don't think I mispresent your clerking actions.--Caspian blue 23:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree. As much as I didn't care for the tone of AGK's remarks in that specific instance, I had no authority to remove them (at least as I understand the rules) as they were not directed at another editor in the dispute. And as noted above, my action against Thatcher was unjustified so I'm not attempting to defend it. Manning (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Caspian

I'm sorry that you feel I acted poorly in those threads. Strong rhetoric is quite unlike me, but I guess that, upon reading the "Community encouraged" remedy, I just got so frustrated that we were being faced with yet another weak remedy. When I said "spineless", I meant that the remedy carried no weight.( "Encouraged" is simply advice, and therefore is not a remedy in that it fixes no problems.) I was not attacking the arbitrator who proposed it, and indeed I was attacking nobody. I therefore think it's unfair to say that my comment was inflammatory (I don't think I've ever made an inflammatory comment.) Sometimes, speaking up in a blunt manner is just what's needed on an arbitration page. If you'd like to criticise me for speaking out against the committee, then you do of course have that right. But would it not be more wise to elect a candidate who has shown himself to be willing to think independently?

Regarding points on desysopping: I made it quite clear that I think Piotrus should be desysopped. What I disagreed with was banning him. I am strongly in favour of liberal use by the committee of desysopping remedies where administrators are found to be unfit for office.

Regarding your points on community desysopping: I actually state in my answers to the general questions that the community should be able to desysop users without committee intervention: see answer two (A2) to Avaraham's first question. As a candidate, I am broadly of the view that ideally the arbitration committee's role would be less prominent than it currently is: see answer two (A2) to Majorly. So to say that I "do not trust the community's ability of handing big issues" is not a fair representation of my candidacy.

Final point: of course, if I was elected, I would never have to resort to such strong rhetoric as I did in the two links you gave. People usually pay heed to an arbitrator's comments without them having to shout.

Are my responses to your concerns adequate, Caspian? That I appear to you in the way you describe alarms me, and I'm eager to set the record straight. AGK 00:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read your platform and your answers and I'm very satisfied. I'm interested in the second question of Heimstern about nationalist and ethnic edit wars, and I'm looking forward to your answer. Good luck. Sole Soul (talk) 14:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I'm glad you liked my answers. I've answered Heimstern's first question, but not his second and third yet. I should have within three days (I don't want to rush things when there's no real benefit from doing so, and a lot to lose). Regards, AGK 00:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/AGK. Franamax (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, listening to a real voice recording of what candidates say is really nice, but only 4 candidates so far presented their interviews via Skype. However, I'm just adding this files as a reference since the issue discussed in the interview is somewhat related to questions to the candidate although it happened one and 8 months ago. See Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode_08 for further information.

--Caspian blue 02:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not interviews. They were informal discussions on topics with a few of my fellow contributors. Are you going to reply to my comment above, btw? AGK 19:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it sounded to me as a kind of interview since the regulars of the WikiVoices said that they invited you, "one of Wiki celebrities" (they said so). As for your above responses, I have little to say about them since we clearly disagree with each other's view.--Caspian blue 21:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am less esteemed than most of the WikiVoices participants. I assure you, I was not a celebrity there; and if they referred to me so, it probably was in jest. :-)
Can you see no merits to what I say, at all? AGK 21:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I still disagree with your view, your response to me in the above thread was calm, which might be your usual self. However, your "Unacceptable severity" comment and the following drama made me very disappointed at your judgment not only on the EE case but also on the role of administrators and arbitrators. Moreover, if you are elected as an arbitrators, you could face many things including such the emergency case. Due to the case, I doubt you can effectively "de-dramatize" submitted "drama cases" when you find you're in disagreement with other arbitrators and the community. Many of discussions between ARbCom members seem to occur off-wiki, so I want to be very careful.--Caspian blue 21:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I have my way, much of that discussion will be moved on-wiki (cf User:AGK/Platform, second item). But I don't think it's fair to say that I handle drama-filled cases badly. In fact, I'd say I handle them well. I doubt I've have lasted as long as I have on the arbitration enforcement page if I wasn't able to keep things calm. I think you've got the wrong impression of what type of a user I am. My comments are always courteous and respectful. That wouldn't change if I was appointed as an arbitrator. AGK 21:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion, as am I as one of the community members. My comments are always courteous and respectful. -> clearly not for the inflammatory threads that you initiated. You admitted that you used "strong languages" to object to some of the proposed remedies. The self-evaluation is rather far from being modest. You can not be objective to yourself, even when you do things that people disagree with you.--Caspian blue 22:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, your accent suggests to me you are a Glaswegian, AGK. Would never have had a clue (Yeah, I know you're probably from Ardrossan or Lanark or something). 07:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk)

Surely some concessions must be made where an answer is one of many tens being answered at once? And are you basing this general condemnation of my writing abilities on just one of my edits? AGK 01:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were the first two I found - in fact, they were the first two questions I happened to check. I'm sure I could find more if need be. I understand that there were many questions asked, and unlike certain candidates, you did field an answer to all questions - which is commendable. I'm hardly perfect with my prose, either, as a quick scour through my edit history will reveal - but then again, I am not running for a seat. ArbCom cases aren't always stress-free (understatement of the _____), and I worry that imprecise communication can quickly snowball. I'm aware that my priorities and personal weights are somewhat "individualistic" (read: "kooky"), and apologize if I came across as unnecessarily harsh. Badger Drink (talk) 07:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your support and kind comments are appreciated. Best, AGK 18:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just stopped by to express how pleased I am that you're running. You are a man of formidable intellect and honorable character, Cla68. And you don't know how close to the truth you really are...bonne chance et Banzi!;)--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was a member of the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My my, you are on a one-issue crusade aren't you...or rather a non-issue crusade.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Cla68. Franamax (talk) 06:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please, please, please link to CLA68's Request for Adminship. In the opposers, note Mantanmoreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who was subsequently found to be abusing alternate accounts on precisely those articles he castigates CLA68 over and consequently community indef blocked, and also SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) who was subsequently a named party to an Arbitration request against CLA68 (which resulted in SV and CLA68 being admonished, and the original proposer desysopped). Further, the attempts to make reference to certain off wiki sites a sanctionable act failed - and it was further later held that removing links to those sites was not endorsed by existing WP policy - but were nevertheless used to remove comments during the RfA extension, disabling the rebuttal of many allegations made by opposers (of which, any ones that are not unproven were found incorrect). It should be noted that many of the opposers also participated on other RfA's of that period, often opposing on much the same basis, some of which failed and some of which did not. Finally, CLA68's RfA was succeeding until it was extended by request and a sufficient number of opposers were permitted to change the outcome (24 hour period - the extension - before closed as failed. See the tally at top of both examples). Had the RfA concluded when it should, and had not partisan individuals been allowed to participate then, it would have passed.
In response to the rationale that by not being granted sysop flags, or by further enquiring why no further attempt was made, I would respond that perhaps such an experience might influence a recipient in not exposing themselves to such an ordeal again. (Gracenotes has never stood for adminship again, although he continues to contribute.) It might, however, make someone more inclined to take up a role where policy is applied fairly and in keeping with existing policy, and to ensure that procedure is followed to allow all viewpoints to be considered.
This is my perspective and opinion only - and is not endorsed (as far as I am aware - certainly not at the time of writing) by the candidate. Brickbats to my talkpage. The only praise I would seek is a support of the candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This candidate asserts in his answer to a question, in relation to myself: "Also, the real person behind the account, who worked for a political party, made edits using the account to the BLP of a political leader from a rival political party. All in all, probably not the kind of behavior we would like to see in a member of a committee charged with supervising standards of editor and administrator conduct."

The first assertion of the first sentence is entirely untrue. Not merely do I not work for a political party, I never have worked for a political party. Moreover there is no source of which I know which when read correctly justifies such a claim. It is also irrelevant in the question the candidate was asked.

I think I should clarify that I interpret "worked for a political party" as meaning earning a living by being employed by a political party. The staff of Members of Parliament are employed by the Members directly and are not therefore working for the political party. Local authority councillors are not paid a salary as such but do receive some allowances for time spent on council business (which is not enough in itself to live on); the allowances are paid by the local authority. Sam Blacketer (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second assertion in the first sentence, when coupled with the second sentence as it is clearly intended to be, is both untrue and irrelevant. First, the edit of which notice was made (this one), was a reversion of vandalism. It is difficult to see the circumstances in which any user reverting vandalism is engaging in "not the kind of behaviour" we would like to see. Second, if the candidate happened not to be referring to an edit reverting vandalism, he would be wrong. There is no policy, rule, instruction or guidance on Wikipedia which prevents, restricts, impedes, discourages, or counsels against someone in my position contributing content to this or other equivalent articles.

There may be potential issues engaged of which the two most directly involved are Neutral Point of View and conflict of interest, but neither actually does apply. Neutral point of view applies if someone was editing in a way which endorsed a point of view. No-one has at any time suggested that my edits on this page (or indeed any other) themselves endorsed a point of view, or produced an article which was unbalanced. Andrew Dalby specifically refers to my contributions as neutral and describes critics as being unable to assert the contrary (page 142).

Having disposed of NPOV, is there a conflict of interest? The answer has to be no. As above it is manifest that there was no purpose in advancing outside interests here, just the purpose of improving an article about a significant figure in British politics who happened to be in another party. Indeed in political articles it is very rare that WP:COI can be engaged without also having violated WP:NPOV. There is no direct connection with the subject of the article: for that there would need to be direct political competition, which would only happen if someone happened to be standing for Parliament (not a local authority) in the relevant constituency. Holding a party political post in a local authority is not directly relevant to national politics. Membership of a political party has no significance greater than support for a political party. It is nowhere asserted that a supporter of one political party has a conflict of interest in writing neutral content about a subject who is affiliated with a different political party.

It may be true that when one reads a newspaper article covering a subject with which one has a personal interest, it invariably states a major fact incorrectly. However, a candidate for the arbitration committee ought really to check their assertions (which I invited this candidate to do) and to be able to verify where they have fallen into error. I regret that I must strongly urge the community to oppose this candidate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this back I think I ought to make clear that the issue raised in the first sentence was entirely irrelevant and unconnected to my resignation from the Arbitration Committee. Even had it been true it would not have been an answer to the question being asked. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like an error by Cla that could (a) be easily rectified and (b) have been brought up on his talk page prior to here. People screw up; we don't expect to be perfect or right 100% of the time. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you miss the point. Yes, it could be easily rectified, but not if it occurred on the arbitrator's private mailing list. And I did twice invite Cla68 to check this specific answer (which is a relatively short one with only six separate assertions of fact). Getting the facts right, not jumping to conclusions, not necessarily believing what you're told and being able to check things are all essential characteristics of an arbitrator. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam did take it up with me by email first, so I don't think he did anything wrong by posting about it here after trying to clear it up privately first. I'm still looking into it. If I need to change what I said I'll change it and say something about it here also. Cla68 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the full story supported by sources. Mr. Blacketer, videlicet the person behind the Blacketer account, did apparently only make one edit to the rival politico's entry, but as shown in that copy of the deleted article, he made other COI edits to other articles. Thus, I stand by my statement. In fact, if I had been an arbitrator at the time that this sordid story was revealed, I would have proposed a ban of at least one year for Mr. Blacketer. Cla68 (talk) 05:18, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is totally incorrect. There was and is no conflict of interest (as explained above); it is a complete misinterpretation of policy to claim there is; such a misinterpretation is incompatible with candidacy for the principle body responsible for interpreting policy. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the article to which you have linked is not the full story. Other versions existed that gave a much fuller part of the story. Part of the full story is in that article's AfD at WP:Articles for deletion/Sam Blacketer controversy. Part of the story is in the article's history and talk page (currently deleted). There was edit-warring at this article between editors who insisted on presenting only the information available in external reliable sources, i.e. mostly wrong information, and editors who insisted on at least including the information from a reliable primary source (Wikipedia diffs) that we are all much more qualified to interpret than the media. Sam Blacketer was attacked for having edited David Cameron's article. The history shows that he only removed vandalism there. The only specific example of a 'problematic' edit that was mentioned in the press was Revert choice of picture to one not carrying saintly overtones. One technical journalist didn't realise this edit summary was a humorous description of the (funny) vandalism that Sam Blacketer was removing. All the other clueless journalists simply copied from the first. The image that Sam Blacketer removed was one of these two. (I don't remember which of the two it was, and can't check since the article is deleted.) The picture that Sam Blacketer removed, and the serious one to which he reverted, together with an explanation of his edit, were eventually included in the Sam Blacketer article to at least undermine the disinformation from the "reliable" sources while this massive BLP violation was under discussion. Even this was edit-warred against on formal grounds such as "original research". The version to which you have linked has redlinks to the pictures, but without the pictures themselves it's pure misinformation. Except, the fact that even the Daily Mail said the alterations "were not inaccurate or overtly critical" should tell you something. Hans Adler 05:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth (being roughly what you paid for it), and commenting only because it does directly involve me, I agree with Cla68 on this. Sam Blacketer went to some lengths to distance himself from the original personally identifiable account which identified a conflict of interest, but the conflict of interest remains. An honourable man would have declared it, and probably most people would have thought that the rather minor office in question was not a strong enough conflict to make a significant difference. I accept the arbitration findings in the Abd case, but there again he chose not to reveal a material fact. This is a poor show. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • There is no conflict of interest involved in someone who supports one party editing an article about someone from a different party (or indeed someone from the same party). You are yourself a declared supporter of one British political party. Is that a conflict of interest for you on any British political article? No, of course it isn't, and you can't support your view by any reference to policy, guideline, or anything. I think you need to remember that this is absolutely irrelevant to membership of the Arbitration Committee. The opinion of cla68 which you appear to be endorsing is that there was a conflict of interest purely in the editing. How can that be resolved with the fact that editors generally can remain entirely anonymous and the recommendation to declare biases is entirely voluntary? In other words, there are probably very many anonymous or unidentified editors who are in exactly the same position, merrily editing away, and you would declare them utterly conflicted out. The issue you have to answer is this: What conflict of interest means I should not have done this this morning? Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • PS someone once said it was a perfectly good edit so they clearly didn't see any COI. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • PPS someone once said they would continue to allow drama mongers to control the discussion of things on this site. If one man's opinion negates all others, then this petty passive aggressive soap opera will never end and the project will ultimately fail. Vodello (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while back during discussions of Durova's block of User:!! (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova) and the "stalking" mailing list, Cla68 took it upon himself to assert a version of events which was disputed by every single person who was on the mailing list, including sitting arbitrators and Jimbo. Having failed to prevail in (acrimonious) debate on Wikipedia or wikien-l he took his version of events to a journalist with a long-standing agenda against Wikipedia. He then, in my view, worked with another editor who was also quoted in the article that journalist wrote, to ensure that it was cited as the sole version of events in Criticism of Wikipedia. I have no wish to refight old battles, but the pattern of WP:ABF, ignore all contrary opinions, and then got ot he press, seems like an extraordinarily bad precedent in a candidate for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 21:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to JzG's concern here. Cla68 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to go fir any kind of argument or debate on this. Criticism keeps us honest, but I do not think that someone who sets themselves up as a critic, which you undoubtedly do, is the right person for ArbCom. This is not to undervalue what you do and the positives in your criticism, it's about the ability to retain sufficient detachment. I'm afraid I am sceptical about that. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you insist that all Arbcom candidates must swear a loyalty oath to Wikipedia before they are allowed to run, Guy? That's basically what your above argument leads to. Besides being very indicative of an outdated 06-07 mindset, which is completely out of sync with current events.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Will Beback sees fit to remove this from the candidate statement page... ++Lar: t/c 04:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctantly oppose. Cla68 has done much to improve the encyclopedia. However, I don't get the sense that he'll have the objectivity needed to fulfill this role well. His answers to Sam Blacketer's questions were terrible. And although he must have an excellent grasp of content policies in order to have written so many FAs, I am troubled by a couple of cases in which his article edits have given seriously undue weight to fringe views: specifically in Eurasian Land Bridge and Polar Bear. On the one hand, open-mindedness towards minority viewpoints is good. On the other hand, arbitrators need to have a keen sense for when they're dealing with nutters. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate you taking the time to provide some constructive criticism, but I'm going to have to take exception with your last sentence. I think this is a mistake that too many editors make, and that is making value or moral judgements on aspects of the topics that we write about. We shouldn't do that. We just report what the sources say. If you believe that I placed undue weight on certain aspects of those two topics that you mention, that's one thing, but it sounds like you're saying that I should have made a value judgement on the merits of those views. Again, that's something that we're not supposed to do. Cla68 (talk) 12:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for asking for clarification on what I meant. To clarify, my comment that "arbitrators need to have a keen sense for when they're dealing with nutters" was referring to the people that arbitrators directly deal with, i.e. the people who write Wikipedia articles rather than the people who write sources. And by nutter I mean someone who tendentiously promotes giving undue weight to minority POV. These people present one of the biggest challenges we have at Wikipedia, and many arbcom cases center around how to identify and deal with them.

I'm definitely not saying that you're one of those people, but my feeling is that you wouldn't be as quick and effective at spotting them as I would like. Regards, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of something: Do you have any experiences you can share with us in which you've dealt with a tendentious promoter of minority POV in articles? I'm open to reconsidering my vote. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with someone who wanted to place a fringe or marginal theory in an article. Here, someone inserted a conspiracy theory into this article (Possible cover-up for nuclear war with Iran). I didn't just revert the editor and tell them to take a hike, because that probably would have just made them mad and escalated the situation. Instead, I participated in the discussion on the talk page and posted a request for review at the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. The section was removed, but the editor didn't violently protest, perhaps because he/she felt that some type of due process had been followed. I think as an arbitrator that's what I would be looking for, not trying to judge the merits of a particular "fringe" theory, but checking to see if the involved editors followed the rules and policies and engaged in good faith collaboration, cooperation, and utilized the independent review forums available (like the Fringe theories/Noticeboard) or the dispute resolution process (content RfCs, etc) to resolve disagreements. Cla68 (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That editor vandalized the article, inserting a reference to "wikinazis," in addition to adding a section on the conspiracy theory. The vandalism was dealt with swiftly, but the reaction to the rather blatant UNDUE violation was, in my view, somewhat weak. I think that you were correct in presenting the issue neutrally at the fringe theories noticeboard. However, at no point on the article talk page did you voice an opinion on whether UNDUE was violated. I would like to have seen something to the effect that "yes, UNDUE was violated because of X, Y and Z reason." Apparently, based on the talk page discussion, it took approx. nine days before the conspiracy section was removed, and that was on the basis of it being a copywright violation! No, I'm not at all clear this is an encouraging example of your approach to fringe theories and UNDUE. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you feel that way, but because we don't make moral or value judgements on the merits of any particular topic, we have to let the dispute resolution process run its course fairly and squarely. I can't think of anything that has more potential to escalate a content dispute than making editors feel like they have been treated unfairly. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm talking about one thing and you're responding on something else, and to be frank I didn't think I was being quite that unclear. What's at issue is not making moral or value judgments on the underlying issue, but on the whether text added to Wikipedia is acceptable under policy, in this case WP:UNDUE. The edit in question (adding a section on the conspiracy theory) was a clear case of UNDUE. Wasn't it? If you don't feel that way it's certainly your privilege, but I would appreciate a frank and direct answer on that point. Thanks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editors interpret UNDUE in different ways. I probably have a more liberal interpretation of it than some others, but that's what we have the content dispute resolution process for, to help establish a consensus among participating editors, such as was used with the article I linked-to above. The problem arises when someone deletes material without allowing content dispute resolution to take place, because that denies the editor who placed the content a chance to make the point as to why they think it should be included. From what I've observed, editors who delete what they consider to be fringe theories too quickly appear to be making value or moral judgements on the content. Whenever that happens, it often ends up escalating the dispute, and that is very unfortunate, as well as unnecessary. Cla68 (talk) 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they're engaging in value judgments or maybe they're applying policy to the best of their ability. Do you believe the editors who favored deletion of this text were engaging in value judgments of the underlying subject matter? In this instance, I have no particular opinion one way or the other on the subject matter. I'm totally agnostic. I could swing either way. But I looked at that edit and it struck me as an obvious UNDUE problem. I must tell you I'm baffled by your not wanting to express an opinion on this edit from an UNDUE standpoint, particularly considering that an overwhelming consensus was reached to remove it on that basis. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Thanks again for addressing this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, I guess we'll have to disagree. My approach in that situation was to request input by uninvolved editors on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and it worked. I hope that more editors will take advantage of the different noticeboards to help resolve content disputes, because, as happened in this instance, it is often very helpful in resolving the concerns. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is troubling. The inability to recognize problems with WP:UNDUE could lead to a simplistic "some say the earth is flat, while others say it is round" version of neutrality. One could argue that taking all viewpoints at face value regardless of their prevalence in reliable sources is indeed neutral in some abstract or philosphical sense. But Wikipedia policy requires otherwise. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Inability to recognize problems with UNDUE"? If you have a question about my views of undue, please feel free to ask. Cla68 (talk) 03:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you haven't given us much guidance on just what your views of WP:UNDUE happen to be. In one of the above comments you seem to be equating application of WP:UNDUE with "value or moral judgments" or with failure to follow dispute resolution processes. That's not at all what WP:UNDUE is about. I echo JohnnyB256's concern above that "I'm talking about one thing and you're responding on something else." Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I also think the example that Cla68 gives is troubling. Dude, if you see someone add crap to an article, get it out of the article. If it was good-faith crap, copy it to Talk and leave a note there. Don't leave it hanging around for days while you wait for the community to give you permission. It is sometimes problematic if a single editor reverts multiple times, but reverting zero times is not a shining example of how to deal with promotion of fringe POV either. As for your comment that "the problem arises when someone deletes material without allowing content dispute resolution to take place" I think it might reflect a lack of experience in dealing with fringe-POV edits. I've boldly deleted fringe-POV material from science articles a lot, and I've seen others do it a lot, and in my experience the bold approach usually resolves the issue instantaneously and does not lead to escalated conflict. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you disapprove of the method, but not the results, also. Well, ok then, but since the material was removed the editor has not tried to edit-war or used any other methods to try to reintroduce it like I've seen other editors do when their edits get reverted out-of-hand, I guess the method used was effective. I stand by it. I'll tell any editor who is quick on the revert button with newbie editors who introduce controversial material into articles, to consider carefully what they're doing, because there might be a more long-lasting, albeit initially slower, way of handling it. Remember, this is a wiki. Collaboration, cooperation, compromise, and consensus are the default methods we use here. Cla68 (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those are commendable sentiments. But reading through the talk page and noticeboard discussion, in an example that you provided, it appeared to me that either you had no opinion on whether the added text violated WP:NPOV, or you felt that it did not. I tried to clarify this by asking you whether it did or not violate UNDUE, and frankly your response was not the direct and frank answer that I would want to get from an arbcom member. That raises questions not just on your approach to NPOV but your approach to communication, both of which are significant for arbcom members. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the approach I took in that case. Again, I stand by it as the outcome was successful. Sorry that I didn't give you the answer that you were looking for. Also, you didn't ask me any questions about NPOV, so if you feel that it "raises questions about my NPOV" then please feel free to ask them. Cla68 (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you stand by it. You've said that several times. What you haven't said, and you were asked that directly, was whether you believed that the section that the user wanted to add violated UNDUE (a section of NPOV, as I'm sure you know). Please don't say you didn't give me the "answer I was looking for." That's not correct, as you didn't answer it at all. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the time the material in question was added, it was unduly long. If the consensus had been to keep a mention of the conspiracy theory in the article, I, or someone else, would have cut it down in size to at least one or two paragraphs. The article was promoted to FA-level about three months later. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lar, I think your choice of words here have the effect of waving at six people and saying, "I have no respect for some of you." Can you refactor your comment to make your point some other way? Or if you must indicate your distaste for the actions of some opposers in order to say why you support a candidate, can you or say which opposers you are opposed to, exactly? Am I one of them? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your anger is understandable but I'd rather we keep this focused on the candidate, who has been civil and has not indulged in personal remarks. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good candidate, I think, which makes me wonder why his candidate statement is so jelly-weak. "I believe my record speaks for itself" is not gonna cut it: no sense of "my strengths as an arb have been in blah and blah", and "I will work towards [reform, streamlining, whatever]". Unless it has all been tickety-boo until now—but it's not: we know there's hard change ahead to make ArbCom work better for the community and the arbs themselves. Tony (talk) 03:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that an expansive statement is that productive, really, and the Q&A is a much better way to see where my positions like and where I stand on various matters of interest.

The problem with the statement is that, with 400 words, I either end up having to gloss over or oversimplify matters to give electoral platitudes which might have sounded superficially good but could not have real substance (note how some of my answers to single questions can expand near or beyond 400 words). So I simply give the short summary ("I think I did a pretty good job"), and invite people to ask the questions that'll get at the heart of the matters which they see as important to assess my qualifications. — Coren ^(talk) 05:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Tony (talk) 15:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voted to create the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tony. I hoped that you would nominate yourself. However, I was disappointed by what I think are a statement and answers that don't cut it with those who are not familiar with your work. I voted for you. Sole Soul (talk) 06:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Coren. Franamax (talk) 06:23, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have raised on the discussion page for the candidate's questions a query about what appear to be tangential responses to quite a few questions. Examples are provided. Tony (talk) 02:36, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fred presided over the most ham-fisted handling of anything I have seen at Wikipedia since I joined in 2006: this arbitration case. Background is here, and two highlights of Fred's role are as follows:

Fred is the retired American lawyer who on the Workshop page, as part of his reasoning behind his proposed FoF, equated the Canadian concept of conditional discharge with a Colorado deferred prosecution. This is not correct: a Canadian conditional discharge requires the court to have determined that the defendant is guilty of a crime, whereas a Colorado deferred prosecution involves no plea or verdict.[1][2] In this particular case the defendant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a year's probation, but Fred said on the Workshop page that there is "no good source" for the allegations against the defendant.

Fred's performance on this case indicates to me that he will use his position on the Arbitration Committee to influence article content based on his own opinion on the subject rather than reliable sources, and furthermore that he will do so incompetently. Fred is also the arbitrator who used his administrative tools to delete and salt a talk subpage that consisted of a list of references to reliable sources. We need much better arbitrators than this. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication of an assertion by an individual in a generally reliable source does not convert it into a verifiable fact. Fred Talk 21:37, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An established Wikipedia editor (me) has made specific criticisms of your judgement, and instead of engaging in a substantive discussion of the points raised, your response is to state a platitude??? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Fred_Bauder. Franamax (talk) 06:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Fritzpoll. Franamax (talk) 06:31, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate in some ways that the election begins this week, because I have a long-standing trip arranged between the 4th and 7th of December. I lack the technical capability to edit Wikipedia over that period, but I shall be able to check e-mail so over that time, can you please direct questions there and feel free to post my full responses at this page. Best wishes, Fritzpoll (talk) 09:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from {{Arbitration Committee Elections comment page}} by  Skomorokh  09:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments - all feedback is very welcome. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe :) I'm delighted by this comment Fritzpoll (talk) 17:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Hersfold. Franamax (talk) 06:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mind if I ask why? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Election, December 2009 candidate: Jehochman • Cast your vote here v t e Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Discuss this candidate • Comment on this candidacy

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Jehochman. Franamax (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope springs eternal. If you post here, please be kind to me and to others. Wikipedia is not a battleground for personal disputes. Any comments of that nature ought to be ignored. Jehochman ^Talk 02:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, for my part, I've found you a sensible and able administrator; I'm voting Support.  Ravenswing  14:14, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know enough about Jehochman to give an opinion one way or the other. I would, however, like to say that I was impressed by the maturity and wisdom he and Wehwalt showed in sitting down together and hashing out a solution to the recent Die4Dixie incident on AN/I, and I think that speaks well for him. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Die4Dixie was community banned after making an anti-semitic slurs against myself and User:Slrubenstein. User:William S. Saturn has been tendentiously defending Die4Dixie.[3][4][5] The above comment appears to be retaliation on behalf of Die4Dixie. Jehochman ^Talk 20:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. This is a mischaracterization. I did not "tendentiously" defend the above user. I simply expressed an opinion as others such as Wehwalt did, which greatly offended Jehochman. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the personal attack based on my profession. Lovely. Jehochman ^Talk 11:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should clarify. I found the angle of this public interview disturbing. You advocate Google delisting Wikipedia for SEO purposes. You also advocate using the community's trust to dispel valid concerns of COI editing. Noone should be on Wikipedia to inform others about their business. In a related matter, the wording of this close was highly improper. I don't think you can separate Wikipedia from your job, which is a must for an arb. ThemFromSpace 23:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say I'm glad you are back for more punishment service and will be among your many, ardent supporters. But I still can't fathom why you would want to...after all you were FREEEE MAAAAAN!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:19, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voted to create the Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. Will have my Oppose vote. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and we all know how that terrible atrocity nearly destroyed all of Wikidom! It's a good thing vigilant Wikizans, such as yourself, with knee-jerk opposition, managed to destroy it before it was even given a chance to fail. Nonetheless, I'll be voting for Mr. Lokshin once again.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Tend toward support

I'm not 100% up to speed on the specifics, but I do look very favorably upon Kirill's willingness to, in essence, place himself on voluntary leave from Arbcom until he could stand for reconfirmation now.

Absolutely everyone has bad ideas. But all things being equal, it's infinitely easier to support someone if they have a proven track record of stepping aside if they suspect they've lose our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Kirill_Lokshin. Franamax (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, "neutral leaning oppose" sounds to me like "open to persuasion". I think you (and many others) misread the situation. I don't think Kirill was advocating an elite group to rule or control development. He (and others) saw a community paralyzed in indecision, unable to even propose reforms. They thought a group of handselected respected users of different wikipolitical stripes, if given some sort of vague moral opportunity to opine, could catalyze more productive discussion around important themes and potential reforms. Unfortunately, they misjudged the mood - rather than rallying around some sort of structure, the mob reacted negatively to the perception that someone could dictate, even though I see no evidence that was the intention. In retrospect, the attempt was an error in judgement - but in my mind a minor one compared to Kirill's pattern of solid contributions to the wiki. Martinp (talk) 19:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is difficult to see what difference one refusenik is going to make on a committee of 15 (and perhaps 18). If there were others, perhaps, but just one? Hard to see how Kurt could achieve his goals. Moreschi (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's more likely that any vote for Kmweber is going to be along the lines of a protest vote - i.e. one for "absolutely nobody." If he should win, then it really would be time to have a very serious discussion about disbanding ArbCom altogether. Ray^Talk 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kurt winning is a situation I feel comfortable not planning for. We'd deal with it if it ever happens. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Any support for Kurt, given his utter unrepentance for a campaign of serious off-wiki harassment he enacted a year ago, would be so stupid that you'd be technically brain-dead. Even if it's a protest vote. Unfortunately, the switch to secret balloting this year makes it harder to judge voters for possession of clue and sound judgement. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, Kurt recycles his catch phrases often enough, I might as well recycle my opposition from last year: "To be honest, I can't think of a single user more disruptive and destructive to this project than Kurt Weber. It can't even be claimed that he has the courage of his convictions: for someone so militantly and reflexively opposed to self-nomination to posts of power, for instance, he seems to do so himself often enough. Beyond that, Kurt's very premise is breathtakingly flawed. This is not some crackpot anarchist collective. The "community" doesn't own Wikipedia; the Foundation does, and it can delegate authority to whomever or whatever it wants, to whichever degree it finds good. Those who can't handle that an incorporated organization can manage its own private website to its own liking ... well, no doubt you can find some encyclopedia out there where you don't have to honor any rules or authority you find distasteful."  Ravenswing  14:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposing me is fine, but please don't lie and claim I hold a certain position on an issue that I don't, especially when I've explicitly explained my actual position multiple times (including in one of my responses to the questions on my ACEQ page). Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not Alice In Wonderland, and you don't get to call stating a position you've framed yourself a hundred times over a "lie." By the bye, there's this little interesting factoid; over half of your edits to Wikipedia over the last thirteen months have been concerning your two ArbCom candidacies. I see no reason to give any credit or consideration to someone who isn't, as it happens, a participating member of Wikipedia.  Ravenswing  15:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is that you didn't state the position I actually hold on the issue. I have never said "self-nominations are inherently bad," "self-nominations should be forbidden," "no one should ever self-nominate," etc. I have simply said that they are prima facie evidence of power-hunger, which simply means that absent compelling evidence to the contrary, one should presume that they are made out of power-hunger. My self-nominating myself in no way contradicts that point: while I know that I am not power-hungry, I don't expect others to be able to read my mind and know my motives, so they should presume I am power-hungry unless and until they are able to uncover compelling evidence to the contrary. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Tell you what; go ahead and pull up some self-nominated RfAs where you supported the candidate, instead of reflexively opposing every time you voted, and I'll reverse my vote on your candidacy. (Don't strain yourself looking, by the bye. I just did. You never have.)  Ravenswing  15:49, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You obviously didn't make much of an effort, or you would have come across this. And even if no such examples existed, then that would just have been because in no case was enough convincing evidence presented to overcome the massive doubt that a self-nom creates in my mind. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • In which case of course you understand your own self-nom reinforces the massive doubts in our minds.  Ravenswing  16:59, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Did you see above, where I said "while I know that I am not power-hungry, I don't expect others to be able to read my mind and know my motives, so they should presume I am power-hungry unless and until they are able to uncover compelling evidence to the contrary"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I did, but since you've fought so hard and vigorously in the past against the notion that your own credo applies to you as well, either you weren't being forthright with us then or you're not being forthright with us now. Which it is scarcely matters.  Ravenswing  19:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • "since you've fought so hard and vigorously in the past against the notion that your own credo applies to you as well,"--no, I haven't. More dishonesty. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 19:50, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He seems pretty serious about eliminating ArbCom, that's for sure. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone more serious about it wouldn't have taken a near-year long break from Wikipedia, as opposed to consensus-building.  Ravenswing  20:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Kmweber. Franamax (talk) 06:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt,

This could come across as a personal attack, so I begin by saying that it is not. For a number of years, you have been extremely dedicated to loudly expressing on Wikipedia a number of unfounded and caustic principles. When pressed, you have failed to provide a credible logic for your theories, time and time again.

Personally? I happen to agree that ArbCom is a waste of space filled with good, well-meaning people who once on the committee simply lose sight of the forest from the trees. The negative impact on the encyclopedia is that good people get kicked out of, or driven away from the project, while a large number of individuals such as yourself, who appear to have a pathological issue with Wikipedia are, if anything, emboldened to undermine the project. This view puts me in the awkward position of secretly wishing you get elected, while still holding out some kind of hope that ArbCom can some day get focused on doing things that actually help the project grow and improve in quality. In many respects, you are a creation of ArbCom, in that ArbCom reinforces the framework that gives you and your ilk the upper hand. Thusly, your election would only be an appropriate means for ArbCom to welcome you home.

At the same time, I do also worry about allowing Wikipedia to exist in a state that effectively takes advantage of individuals such as yourself. You generally strike me as something of a Sarah Palin; well meaning, but otherwise well informed enough only to be dangerous to objectivity. I honestly hope that you can find it in yourself to step back from the project more permanently (I don't think you've really been gone for a year) and focus on gathering perspective in support of the reality that Wikipedia is merely a website, and most likely nothing more than a footnote in history. I suspect that in 20 years, Wikipedia will be one of those cultural touch stones that people look back on as representative of this decade, much in the way people fondly recall Pong, mullets, Max Headrome, Usenet, the Goonies, bell bottoms, platform shoes, LSD, MC Hammer, the Information Super Highway, AOL/Time Warner, dignitude, neo-conservatism, Contract with America, not having sexual relations with that woman, Sosa/McGuire, Michigan Militia, Geocities, and Garbage Pale Kids. Nothing here really matters, and as pointed out above, we don't even own the place.

Wikipedia isn't yours, mine, or ours, it is the Foundation's, and we are the bored 20 and 30 somethings who's trival knowledge is harvested for free to the benefit of Jimbo. Loosing site of this simple truth, that we exist as a community only to benefit Jimbo, is what should be front and center in your mind any time you feel an anger welling up inside. Without Wikipedia, nobody knows who the hell Jimbo is. Without Wikipedia, most of us would not have a free way of loafing around on the internet in the office. Without us, Wikipedia has no content. Without content, Wikipedia doesn't make an article on Jimbo notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. We build it, we police it, we distribute it while Jimbo takes all the glory, credit, and yes, profit by way of cashing in on his fame. Yet we allowed it to happen by participating. Why waste your time "controlling" something if you can just make money off it.

If you want a real cause to obsess over, consider fomenting a Wikipedia strike wherein all long-term editors demand our fair share of Jimbo's profit. We're a cultural phenomenon that generates cash, media, and jobs by way of conventions, meet-ups, academic discussions, university courses, books, articles, and television coverage. As far as I can tell, only one guy gets a cut of any of it.

It is what it is, and we don't own it, so just take a few deep breaths and relax. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little concerned at the prospect of another AC clerk running for arbcom itself. This is becoming something of a trend, and not a welcome one, as the skillsets needed are entirely different. If the trend continues we may find ever-increasing competition over clerking spots, as right now they would be appear to the praetorship to arbcom's consulship. Moreschi (talk) 12:59, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a clerk, I find your logic completely nonsensical, and frankly offensive to clerks in general.

• For starters this is not a "trend" as only 5 out of 52 arbs have come from the clerking ranks. Your logic also fails to explain why so many current clerks (like myself) are NOT running.
• Secondly even if it was a trend, why would it be "unwelcome"? Clerks are experienced editors who are vetted by ArbCom for having the right temperament and good judgment. They then work extremely hard on difficult tasks that require numerous difficult judgement calls and are certainly not "mere housekeepers". To remain a clerk they must maintain a high standard of work, as (unlike any other position on WP) they can be dismissed by ArbCom without notice or appeal. Basically you seem to be saying that putting in long hours of thankless work for the benefit of the project should be regarded as a negative?
• Thirdly, there is no position in WP that specifically prepares someone for the Arbitrator role. FA work is even more dissimilar to Arb work than clerking, yet a number of candidates proudly cite their FA achievements (and rightly so). Should we now rule out those who work tirelessly on FA as having skills that are "too content-focused and inappropriate for ArbCom decision making"?

Manning (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • See here for a partial response. Moreschi (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manning, you did run for ArbCom (and did quite well, I might add). Admittedly, this was before you became a clerk, but it does seem to point up the overlap between clerks and ArbCom candidates, in contradiction to your first point. In contrast to Moreschi, I don't see it as a major problem - it's good for people to get their feet wet and know what they're in for, and there are some clerks (e.g. Thatcher) whom I'd put at the top of my list for ArbCom if they were insane enough to run. On the other hand, I think the concern is that we're forming a sort of career civil service, and I can see at least the reasonableness of that concern even if I don't fully agree in this case. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe AGK has run for arbcom as well, and probably a few others who slip my memory. Actually, my friend, if we were forming a career civil service, that wouldn't be a problem. The British civil service, for all its faults, is apolitical (independent of party politics), and as a result, self-contained. That is, you don't make the step from civil servant to politician: there is a clear delineation between decision-enablers and decision-makers, and there always has been. What I am worried about is the office of clerk being used as a simple step up the ladder, and it is worth noting that NYB (clerk turned arbitrator par excellence) was, I believe, a clerk for a year before running for arbcom. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah. I must have been blinded by our American civil service, which periodically needs to be cleansed of "commies" and "crazy libs" and restocked with "right-thinking Americans". MastCell ^Talk 22:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Moreschi: You are mistaken. I have never entered a candidacy into an election to the arbitration committee. In fact, I haven't ran in any type of election for going on two years. If you'd like to refresh your memory as to which clerks have gone on to become arbitrators, check the "Retired/Former" list at WP:AC/C#List. From the top of my head, FloNight and Rlevse are others. AGK 22:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • My apologies for the slip. Jayvdb as well. Rlevse, like Brad, served as a clerk for a year or more before stepping up, and I suggest this to be good practice, as it shows true commitment to the clerking job in its own right. Moreschi (talk) 23:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Moreschi: Is your objection to those who serve as clerks for a couple of months and then launch a committee bid, or simply to those who serve as clerks at all before running in the election? AGK 13:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • The former. Quite apart from anything else, we now have 3 clerks running, and all of you stand a good chance of getting elected. That's going to severely disrupt the efficiency of the clerking process: Coren, on my talk page, says that last year's elections had a similar result. Moreschi (talk) 12:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Fair point. I'll propose to the other clerks that we take on more trainees as a matter of urgency. I would agree with Coren's observations: when we lose three or four (or even two) clerks on a permanent basis, it does impact on the efficiency of the clerking system. AGK 13:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• To say that some clerks go on to run in an election to the arbitration committee is a valid observation. A clerk works extensively and closely with the arbitrators, and so inevitably comes to identify where the committee's weaknesses lie. That some decide that, equipped with the resulting good consequence of where the arbitration process could be improved, they might be in a position to arbitrate effectively is not illogical, and it certainly has happened in a number of cases (eg FloNight, Newyorkbrad, and Rlevse). To say that those editors who run for a seat on the committee became a clerk only to jump up one step closer to election success, however, is not a valid nor a fair comment. (Any who do volunteer to be a clerk because they think it will bolster their chances of success in a later election to the committee are mistaken.) I for one became a clerk because I am good at keeping together the paperwork of an unwieldy process, and not because I wanted a "feather in my cap" for a future candidacy.

  Two questions for Moreschi. First: if the community has elected such a high proportion of the clerks-turned-ACE-candidates, then who are we to criticise the practice? There clearly is something attractive to the community about candidates with experience of clerking, and it would be arrogant of us to say that what the community has opted for is foolish and mistaken. Second: what precisely is so objectionable about a candidate who chooses to serve as a clerk in order to gain experience for a planned committee candidacy? You might answer that it is status-seeking (widely agreed to be a Bad Thing), and I'd be inclined to partially agree with that. But I would also answer that it demonstrates a desire by the candidate to work for his seat; and people who are willing to jump through hoops for the community are usually the type of people who are good representatives. As Manning says: somebody who sets out to write some FAs before running for the committee is satisfying the community's desire for candidates with content experience. What is so wrong about somebody who sets out to get experience with the nitty-gritty of the arbitration machine?

  I am sorry for the excessive length of this comment, but I have considered entering a candidacy in the election this year—so this is an issue I have a lot of thoughts about. The take home points are: five out of fifty-two is hardly "concerning trend"; and why exactly would it not be welcome? AGK 23:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The burden here lies on the community. It's fine for any number of clerks to run for ArbCom, but the community needs to recognize that being a clerk is not in and of itself qualification committee membership. The community needs to critically evaluate the candidates' performance, both as clerks and outside their clerking roles. If clerkship has become or will become a stepping-stone to arbship, then it is, alas, because the community has allowed or will allow it to be so. I call on the community not to do this. The only stepping stone to the committee should be a pattern of good judgment. Whether this judgment is displayed in clerking duties or elsewhere is as irrelevant as whether the cat is black or white. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok my original argument above has been weakened by the recent candidacy of a few other clerks. Maybe there IS a bit too much of a pattern emerging. Still Heimstern makes a superb point above - The only stepping stone to the committee should be a pattern of good judgment. Whether this judgment is displayed in clerking duties or elsewhere is... irrelevant... Manning (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that being a clerk does not indicate suitability for the Committee. Doing a good job as a clerk does indicate several important points that may contribute to a broad analysis of the candidate(s) fitness for Committee membership. —Finn Casey * 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, experience as a clerk is ideal for acquiring part of the requisite skill-base of an arb. When I see that a candidate has been an effective clerk, I can relax about those aspects. However, the candidate still needs to be scrutinised in relation to the other parts of the skill-base. Tony (talk) 11:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The huge number of clerks running for the ArbCom worries me too. As well as promoting the kind of careerism Moreschi discusses, it promotes unwanted cabalism. It is a simple fact of human nature that people who become close will trust each other more and venerate each other's actions more, and it doesn't take much of that to get disastrous rulings caused by one arb's misreadings. We need independent minds analysing matters independently. I don't want the same group of like-minded chums filling up ArbCom (and think of how clerks are actually appointed). Group-think and lack of individuality are already too much of a problem in ArbCom. Well, those are my thoughts anyway. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 08:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deacon, there is almost nothing in your post that I am able to agree with.

• "Huge"—could you explain this, please?
• "Careerism"? So any experience in a responsible position in WP—admin or otherwise—is now framed as unhealthy?
• "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?

I am assuming that your comments, Deacon, and those of a few other people here, are motivated by good intentions. Tony (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your opinion with me Tony. I'll assume your comments too are motivated by good intentions. No closer to knowing why you disagree though ...

• "Huge"—could you explain this, please?

3+4 (if Manning runs) is "huge" relative to the number of actual clerks. You can read "large proportion of the" if you prefer.

• "Careerism"? So any experience in a responsible position in WP—admin or otherwise—is now framed as unhealthy
• "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?

Nope. Straw man, I didn't say that. Moreschi argues the point well above btw.

• "like-minded chums"—Please supply evidence supporting your assumption that clerks, arbs, CUs, OSs, admins, featured-content officials, are "like-minded". In any case, is a like-minded approach to fighting vandalism and pedophile infiltration of parts of WP a problem?

'Nother straw man. In any case, I only mentioned clerks and arbs. You added these other guys. If you actually want to know what I think, you can ask me without this kind of thing ...Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Deacon, there are actually 3 clerks running already (Seddon, KnightLago, AGK). This is not only a lot of clerks but also a lot of clerks relative to the actual number of total candidates. Groupthink may also be a danger: will one who has been a subordinate in the past always have the courage to stand up to those who were until recently his superiors? Our past clerks-turned-arbs were strong characters who had all been around a while, but for the future? Will clerks be able to think outside the arbitration box?

• Tony, the problem is not so much gaining experience, it's rapid acquiring of badges and hats in short order before going to the top. This has not happened in the past (well, it has, but none of the previous clerks-turned-arbitrators could be said to fit the description). My worry is about the future: that the clerking role will simply become a stepping stone to the top job. In the specific case of Seddon, I cannot see the point of him signing up to be a clerk in August only to run for ArbCom in November. That's no time allowed to gain any knowledge of how clerking should be done, let alone arbitrating. Clerking will suffer if this becomes a trend, and arbitration will suffer too. Moreschi (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moreschi, so which badge or hat is OK, in your view? FA and GA stars render one ineligible? Woe betide any admin who stands. And of course, Kirill and Coren are both tainted by having served already on the Committee, I guess. Incoming arbs should be limited to those who have never held office, let alone had anything to do with ArbCom, which makes them groupies.
    I say let everyone stand and allow the voters to judge them on their skill-base. Tony (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • You are correct that I have never participated in mediation. However, mediation is different than arbitration. The goal in mediation is "to try to resolve disputes, especially those involving content, to the mutual satisfaction of all." The Arbitration Committee does not deal in content, and very few arbitration cases end in mutual satisfaction due to what the committee is tasked with. Regarding the duties of a clerk, we do analyze evidence to determine if it falls within what the arbitrators consider evidence. We most certainly make decisions, the block you reference below is an example. Clerks also guide people through arbitration, and answer questions and help when appropriate. I am not directly comparing clerks to arbitrators, because arbitrators operate on an entirely different level, but we do some things you may not be aware of. Regarding the slightly contentious editing from February, I am the first person to admit when I make a mistake. In that case, my view was swayed by a news story. Upon realizing my error I admitted it, and acted to correct it. If I make a mistake as an arbitrator, I would do the same thing. Regarding the block of Kittybrewster, his or her unblock request was denied by an uninvolved administrator. My reasoning for the 72 hours is in the struck portion. After the block and denial of the unblock request, I gave Kittybrewster's the benefit of the doubt due to his or her apparent misunderstanding of the restriction and dropped the duration to time served. KnightLago (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • He was blocked for an edit summary of "blow me" in this edit. The edit took place after numerous warnings to all parties, and a final warning to all parties by Rlevse, the drafting arbitrator. KnightLago (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, but how is "blow me" incivil? I don't know where Aramgar comes from, but it doesn't necessarily mean "suck my dick". Over here we have a fairly common saying - "I'll be blowed" - which is simply a politer form of "I'll be damned" or just "I'm amazed", and "blow me" could just be a back-formation (is that the right word?) from that. Even if he did mean "suck my dick" (which hardly matches up with the content of his post), it was hardly directed at anyone in particular...to block reasonably productive editors over one slip in an edit summary seems overly harsh - if indeed this was a slip. Moreschi (talk) 20:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I completely understand your point. However, in the midst of this case, I, along with another clerk, and two arbitrators who reviewed the situation felt that his edit summary was inappropriate. KnightLago (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have to laugh suppose it depends who the incivility is against, blow me always means suck my dick and to pretend otherwise is a laugh. BigDunc 19:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What a deplorable display of group-think. "Somebody else also agreed with me, so it must be right" is not a type of argument we ever ought to accept from an arbitrator (but which, unfortunately, is heard already all too often from certain members of the present lot). As an arbitrator, you are supposed to form your own judgment, and stick with it. Pointing to somebody else's support when you don't have the balls to stand your own ground against an argumentative challenge just doesn't cut it. Of course, this just goes to confirm the overall picture I have of your performance back in that case: lack of sound power of judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I did form my own judgment, and I stand by it. I have already explained why I blocked him above. I mentioned the other clerk and arbitrators to show that my judgment was later examined and supported by others. The exact situation occurred as follows: An arbitrator sent an email to the clerks' mailing list pointing to the edit. I had not seen it yet on wiki at that point. When I got the email, I went and reviewed the situation on my own, and then blocked the user. I sent an email back to the list saying it had been taken care of. A half hour later another clerk chimed in agreeing with the block. The same arbitrator replied about 5 minutes after that. Five and a half hours later another arbitrator replied supporting the block. I understand you were affected deeply by this case, but please assume good faith. KnightLago (talk) 20:13, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I wasn't implying you were acting out of group-think then. I am saying you display group-think by defending your decision with this lamest of arguments now. And no, I wouldn't for a moment believe your actions showed a lack of good faith. They show a lack of good judgment, is all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • In addition to the above, however, one problem about emergent group-think, which appears from the above description, may well be the use of the clerks mailing list itself. I am getting the impression, from this and some other cases, that the clerks list is vulnerable to being misused as a privileged channel for behind-the-scenes block shopping by arbitrators. This would be particularly problematic, because such block-shopping would be conducted in an inherently top-down atmosphere of authority, where the clerks are operating under a implicit assumption of deference and reduced own responsibility vis-a-vis the arbs. Perhaps blocks cooked up behind closed doors on the clerks list ought to be generally deprecated just like blocks cooked up on #wikipedia-en-admins? In the particular case we were discussing here, there was certainly no objective need for any behind-the-scenes discussion of it in the first place, certainly not for behind-the-scenes discussion being chosen as a cheap substitute for talking with the affected user first and foremost, before coming to a judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I've moved this discussion here; please keep the adjacent page for brief comments only.  Skomorokh  16:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding group think, I think your impression from the comments you have found across cases is off base. Regarding, my judgment and the block of Aramgar, his edit summary was "blow me". I stand by my block. Regarding talking with users before making a judgment, I completely agree. A notable example is here. A party raised a question about what "nationalist ethnic essentialist" meant. Me, in my third and final year of pursuing a juris doctorate, and all the other users I asked, had no idea what it meant. So I did some research and asked, got a good response, and discounted the initial party's concern. Your analysis from my simple act of asking: I "[lack] the intellectual depth to understand typical content problems in contentious areas, and is therefore unable to appropriately read a situation." I understand you do not like me as a result of an arbitration case in which you were a party, that is fine as everyone is entitled to their opinions, but please do not insult my intelligence. KnightLago (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as saying "Blow me" being not uncivil, I can't imagine what planet folks live on who think that type of language is acceptable. Would you say that to your boss or your grandmother? I fully support that block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A UK planet? Particularly that of an older generation? I explained my reasoning quite carefully: that is a bona fide civil expression of disbelief over here, albeit somewhat falling into disuse now. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/KnightLago. Franamax (talk) 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm Ghost in teh machine and I endorse this candidate!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington and I endorse this candidate! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Mailer_diablo. Franamax (talk) 06:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a serious candidacy?--chaser (talk) 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not. I think it's intended as a hilarious and amusingly original joke. AGK 22:07, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, can we make a motion to strike down this joke candidacy?--Ipatrol (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No; the editor is eligible to run. There are no other restrictions, so unless there's consensus that it is disruptive, there is no issue here.  Skomorokh  02:06, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• His string of RfAs pretty much mocked the community, his ArbCom run last year had the brilliant candidate phrase "If you want to see the shit hit the fan, then vote for me" as well as the startling assertion that he was a drunk, not an alcoholic, and this isn't even touching his actions as an editor. He racked up ten times as many Opposes as non-moral Supports, and hasn't shown he merits any better this time, quite aside from his edit count showing he took most of 2009 off.  Ravenswing  14:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/RMHED. Franamax (talk) 06:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy shit! I know it's on the talk page of a user I'd see how far I can punt, but Wikipedia is a place of passive aggressive backstabbing, young man! I will give the man credit for at least speaking his mind instead of issuing veiled threats, that's for sure. Vodello (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen examples of poor usage of English from Ruslik frequently on Wikipedia, as can be seen from some of his answers on his candidacy page. This is a good one, criticising anothers (my) language[6]

"non-reasoning nay-saying is anti-Wikipedian" is not a good language.

— Ruslik

I think he lacks the skill to communicate with the efficacy required in ArbCom. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given that he was confused by the use of transitive property in this talk page[7]. What chance does he have of being able to handle any case that would come to ArbCom, as it is certain that they will be more complex than that simple question. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would either of these incidents impair his ability to perform the duties at ArbCom ? Can you cite anymore examples ? People make isolated mistakes. If his mental abilities are in question then it would take more than one example to establish it. The same would apply to his language skills. Thanks.--Adam in MO Talk 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap - he made a comprehension mistake and you're saying he's unable to be on ArbCom because of that? ceranthor 22:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'm glad you admit that it was a lack of comprehension. You are mistaken to call it a "mistake", implying it was done by accident. This was an error of understanding. He claims to be a theoretical physicist, he should not be so easily confused by the employment of transitive property in a question. The fact that he was is extremely troubling, for at least two reasons. He does not redeem himself in the rest of the talk page. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Ruslik0. Franamax (talk) 06:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my answer towards Wehwalt question, the first large gap was entirely my fault, but the second one not really, and I was still editing around. Thanks Secret ^account 16:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The clafity of writing has always been my weakness in the project. I should have mentioned this from the beginning that I have a mild form of dyslexia called dysgraphia. I could read and understand perfectly fine, but I have problems writing. But trust me it improved since I first entered the project. As for candidate statement, I know it was a weak statement as I came to the race late, but look at my answers towards the questions, I placed alot of thought into it and I understand that this is a challenging task. Thanks Secret ^account 00:35, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I also have dyslexia, so I understand and empathise with you. Mine, fortunately, takes a different form to yours - I have difficulty taking in information aurally, have difficulty with sequencing, get left and right confused, and have an appalling memory for names, dates and numbers. Only today I gave my date of birth as 17//11/59 and had to be corrected, as it is 17/11/56! Regards SilkTork *^YES! 15:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a majority of the community is overwhelming is destructive and I didn't mention that. The only editors that are destructive are sockpuppets, vandals, and those kind of users. I do believe in assume good faith, I just opposed question 9 because I felt that a subject that's hard to find consensus and can be easily abused. But right now I'm glad that consensus is going though Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship. Thanks Secret ^account 04:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please bear in mind the instructions at the top of the page. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Secret. Franamax (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another clerk? Oh, man. This is getting a bit much. Without wishing to impugn the motives of these two admins here, the feeling I get in general is that since clerking has proved a good way of getting onto the AC in the past, people are just using it now as an open political platform. It's good at showing you can handle responsibility, no? But at the same time, it's just doesn't, because there's a massive difference in the skills needed from shifting pages around and keeping order to actually making rulings. Moreschi (talk) 22:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no problems with Seddon running, the voters will decide whether to vote for him based on his overall work on wikipedia not just clerking. Loosmark (talk) 23:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your wording, Loosmark. You might disagree with Moreschi, but there's no need to dub his comments a "silly rant". Rebutting the argument itself is typically more effective, in any case. Respectfully, AGK 23:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Loosmark, you might care to strike through the extreme bit in accordance with civility policy. Please see my comment about clerk candidates under KnightLago above. Tony (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have removed the first sentence. I hope now it's ok. Loosmark (talk) 12:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Seddon. Franamax (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• In my opinion, listening to a real voice recording of what candidates say is really nice, but only 4 candidates so far presented their interviews via Skype. However, I'm just adding this files as a reference since the issue discussed in the interview is somewhat related to questions to the candidate although it happened one and 8 months ago. See Wikipedia:Wikivoices/Episode_13 for further information.

--Caspian blue 02:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I havn't listened to the second one yet but in the first one I am less than thrilled with my description of meta "where all the code is" and think I am talking pretty appallingly about everything. I do hope I have come on somewhat significantly from there. Hopefully ill be doing an interview with privatemusings next week should time permit so you guys should get a more realistic representation of me as I am now. Seddon ^talk|^WikimediaUK 08:57, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am delighted that Shell is running for Arbcom. I don't know Shell well, but in every situation where I have come accross the candidate's work as an Administrator, I have been impressed. Shell is extremely patient, fair-minded, modest, practical and productive. Shell will make an excellent arbitrator, and I recommend this editor's election. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Shell_Kinney. Franamax (talk) 07:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments for context. Shell ^babelfish 03:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/SirFozzie. Franamax (talk) 07:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we've gone to the secure, private vote for this year, but if you wish to, I'd appreciate any thoughts on what you've decided and why here. I appreciate the candor which probably will follow. Also, I'd like to make something clear. Last year, there was a lot of tactical voting, ie "I really want this person to win, so I'll support them and oppose everyone else, so it counts double." If you come to tactically oppose me, well, I don't like it, but, not really much I can do, is there? However, I'd like to ask something of the folks who are inclined to tactically vote for me. Please don't. If you think that some of the other well-qualified candidates would be fine as arbitrators, support them fully, and without hesitation.

Thanks. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were in The Muppets. That is good enough for me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good enough for me too. But in all seriousness I did vote for you, essentially because when I see you make comments they tend to be thoughtful and sensible. From that I infer that you possess pretty good judgment, and that combined with the fact that you know how things work around here suggests that you would do well as an Arb. Others seem to have concerns about possible inconsistency and impulsiveness on your part (e.g. resigning as an admin and then asking for the bit back later), but I do not see that as a major issue, and in general I think it's hard to predict at the outset which elected Arbs will be able to stay the course and serve out their full terms and which ones will resign for whatever reason, go inactive for long stretches of time, or flip out and do something semi-crazy. Basically what I look for in an arbitrator is evidence of thoughtfulness, good judgment, and enough knowledge of the mechanics and history of en.wikipedia to follow complex cases with relative ease. You seem to fit the bill, though if you are elected I will have to ask you to avoid going completely Wocka Wocka Wocka once you begin serving. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two contradictory definitions of play a straight bat are you using?—Finell 19:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is a privilege to recommend Steve for Arbcom. I have seen Steve's work as an Administrator on several occasions, and I have always found him to be extremely perceptive, open minded, patient, fair, practical and productive. Steve will make an excellent arbitrator, and I recommend his election without any reservations whatever. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Steve_Smith. Franamax (talk) 07:11, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Committee Election, December 2009 candidate: unomi • Cast your vote here v t e Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Discuss this candidate • Comment on this candidacy

Thank you for your comment, you are right, I have very few mainspace edits to my name. I have so far mainly involved myself in improving articles which are considered controversial, as such the majority of the editing work is done through consensus building on talkpages and as such I do not aim for accruing mainspace edits. This approach has however given me experience regarding dispute resolution and policy. If anything that I have as many mainspace edits as I do reflects my early inexperience with working in those areas. Unomi (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opposed as well. 127 mainspace edits isn't even enough to vote in the election, nevermind run. -DJSasso (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that readers will take the time to read the information kindly provided by Kcaco. Unomi (talk) 12:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please restrict posts there to a single brief comment on the candidate or explanation of your vote.  Skomorokh  16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Unomi. Franamax (talk) 07:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've been highly impressed by you everywhere I see you on Wiki, and I think you're highly qualified and will definitely vote for you since you're running. That said, I hope you'll forgive me if I say that I hope you don't win: you have a rare gift as far as article writing goes. I am extremely impressed by your ability to write great expository prose, at high volume without losing nuance, on extremely complex topics (to use some recent examples, the lives and political careers of Nikita Khruschev and Neville Chamberlain). Frankly, I think it's easier on Wikipedia to find people who are willing to do housekeeping chores, or pass judgment on particular disputes, than it is to find somebody with the skill and obvious joy in research and encyclopedic writing that you possess. Every hour you take away from your writing to put into arbitration is, I think, a loss as far as the articles you might have written in that extra time go. Ray^Talk 22:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I appreciate it. I just feel this is something I need to do, for a term, to pay Wikipedia back. I will still be writing, never fear.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've had a recent disagreement over a mixture of content and policy with Wehwalt. My feelings became heated. Wehwalt displayed great maturity and integrity. Wehwalt attempted to resolve the issue in the best community manners. As a result of Wehwalt's actions, I feel a great deal of respect towards Wehwalt. Wehwalt displays editorial attributes I would associate with an excellent arbitrator. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question In cases related to the Israel-Palestine domain, will you be recusing yourself? Tiamut^talk 08:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I can and will be fair to all to come before the committee. I am inclined to recuse only in matters or with people which I have had close, recent involvement. I do not think I have edited in that area in the last six months. I am not an I/P partisan, and I would ask you to look over my record, and if you think I can be fair to all, vote for me.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I was at all hesitant about this user's candidacy before, his failure to recuse himself from Arab-Israeli related cases[8] completely disqualifies him in my view. He is plainly far from an impartial participant in this topic area, as demonstrated by his editing history and the opinion of those who have edited alongside him on such pages. That he would try to pass himself off as such is an obvious cause for concern, not only because it calls into question his motives for doing so, but, more importantly at this time, because it shows either incomprehension of, or disregard for, a basic principle of jurisprudence. I couldn't possibly vote for someone whose judgement in regards to even so basic a principle as COI is awry.

Other than that, his lack of participation in project areas that would allow the community to assess his ability to make sound judgements is also a concern. His only apparent participation in potentially controversial project space appears to be his early interest in AFD, which by his own admission was not particularly impressive.[9] Certainly he's done some fine work in regards to content creation, but we have lots of excellent content contributors who can't even make it to admin status. Wehwalt simply doesn't have the track record one would expect to see of an arbcom candidate. Finally, I found his answers to questions at his candidate pages to be for the most part vague and unimpressive. For all these reasons, I will be voting oppose for this candidate. Gatoclass (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response I will not routinely reply to posts here, since I think all voters should vote with the same info in this very extensive election, but Gatoclass's comment moved me to reply. Gatoclass appears unaware that ArbCom deals with issues of conduct not of content. Further, ArbCom procedures provide that in any case, you can ask an arb to recuse himself. If he is unwilling, you can ask the remainder of the ArbCom to exclude him, a decision in which he does not participate. Thus, recusal is still available, and it basically falls in the judgment of the committee, for sure if the committee feels I am biased (I am not), I won't have to be told a second time. That really addresses the thrust of his COI argument, which is probably more the appearance of impropriety, as I have no vested interest in the I/P dispute, I am not a member of the PLO governing council or of the Knesset, so there is no direct COI. A spot on ArbCom in the hope a case might come along which wouldn't be about content anyway and that ten arbs wouldn't find it better to recuse me? Please. That is an awfully thin reed for someone to do all the work required of an arbitrator, in the hope that a case where one can justify his partisanship and get away with it will come along. You'd have to be tremendously motivated as a partisan there, and that would undoubtedly spill out. You'd have to have the self control of a saint to leave the issue aside while building up the street creds to run for arb credibly. And then, the vote of ten arbs can make it all for nothing! For all Gatoclass suggests that my motives are open to question (that's probably a smear, designed to make people think of the CAMERA incident), no one can say with any credibility that I am running for ArbCom for any other reason then to help Wikipedia, a project in which I strongly believe.

I will not spend much time going over the other damning with faint praise that Gatoclass indulges in to make at least a surface claim that he really cares about more than a single issue. I'd put up my involvement at TFA/R over AFD any day of the week, No one comes to TFA/R who is not a solid editor, who has gone through FAC (by the way, Gatoclass has never had a FAC, failed or successful, so does not know what is involved in steering 14 articles through that process as I have) and who passionately cares about seeing his article on the Main Page. Someone had to step up and informally mediate that page, and I have and still do, and I get few complaints.

Gatoclass's arguments, such as they are, fall of their own lack of substance. Were I a partisan, I could influence Wikipedia through my (as Gatoclass grudgingly admits) "fine work" on articles, and would have the credibility of a top content creator behind me and could influence an awful lot of articles that way. Then, I could use my status as an admin to do the same thing, presumably also hoping I wouldn't be seen as involved.

While I understand that Gatoclass passionately feels his opinions and arguments, in the final (or in any) analysis they are overblown and without substance. However, I thank him for his feedback and will take it to heart.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass appears unaware that ArbCom deals with issues of conduct not of content.

You've done a rather good job of raising straw men in your responses to me thus far and this is another example. Of course, I am quite aware that arbcom (at least supposedly) deals with "conduct not content". But the essence of your argument here is that while an arbitrator's political views might influence his perception of content issues, they won't affect his judgement at all when it comes to judging the conduct of his political opponents. I put it to you that that is a patently absurd argument. Why do you think we have rules about only "uninvolved" admins issuing blocks and bans to misbehaving users? Plainly, because there is a clear conflict of interest for involved administrators when it comes to judging the conduct of those with whom they disagree. That you apparently cannot comprehend this simple fact, or don't want to acknowledge it, even after having it pointed out to you, is of growing concern to me, and ought to be to anyone thinking of voting for you.

In regards to your comment that "the rest of arbcom" can exclude one of their colleagues who refuses to acknowledge a COI, my response is simply - why should we want to elect such a person to arbcom in the first place? I want arbitrators who have sound judgement and a firm sense of right and wrong, of what is and is not appropriate propriety, if they have to be instructed in such matters by their colleagues, they were clearly not suitable for the position to begin with. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the thought. I tell you I've had a firm grasp on right and wrong since second grade or so, but I'm grateful for the refresher course. We simply disagree. I'm a bit saddened that you can only conceive that someone who has made, as you see it, edits contrary to your point of view and quite some time ago, is exactly equivalent to a raging, present day, partisan. That isn't how it is in my world. As an attorney, I've regularly represented court appointed clients who appall me. They get zealous representation. As an arb, I will be fair to all. And if a request is made for me to recuse in a particular case, I will look at the evidence, consider it seriously, and consult with other arbs.

You've conceded, I think, that I've made no such edits as you complain of anywhere near recently and have kept out of it as an admin. You seem to conceive that I would act differently as an arb. Not so. Because let me tell you: I want a reputation left when I complete my service as an arb. I will still be here, you will still be here, Wikipedia will still be here. I want my reputation as a fair editor (maybe you don't share it, but I'm a thinkin' it's the majority view) to still be there too. And you know what? The I-P problem will still be there too!

I suspect in a way we aren't really talking to each other, but to the voters, a lot of whom have already cast their ballots, so perhaps we should wind this down?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-Huzzah for Arbs who write articles and not just opinions and judgments!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt's unblock of Die4Dixie without prior discussion or a valid explanation not only causes me to need to vote against him, but to wonder whether he should even have the admin bit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thought! As can be seen from the AN/I thread, there was an awful lot of prior discussion, in which I engaged and am still engaging. A prompt explanation was posted. Jehochman had blocked without a valid stated reason for blocking. Do you seek Arbs who will do what is popular, or what is right? And would you want to be blocked without proper grounds being stated? Wouldn't you want an uninvolved admin to look at the situation and deal with it neutrally? Sorry I don't have your vote, but a decision between a vote and doing what is right is an easy one.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't want ones that are both contrary, wrong and wedded to policy over encyclopedia. Hipocrite (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My purpose in commenting here is twofold: First, to express my strong support for Wehwalt's candidacy. He has shown himself at all times to be thoughtful and considerate, reluctant to make hasty judgements, and able to keep his cool in the most heated debates. Second, I would like to council anybody reading these comments and debating whether or not to vote for Wehwalt to first read the thread here [10] and determine for yourselves if his actions were inappropriate. Quite the contrary, I contend that his nuanced and dispassionate appraisal of the incident and the actions of editors involved makes him a prime candidate for arbcom. I would further advise anybody reading these comments to give appropriate weight to the comments of opposing editors above who felt personnaly offended by the conduct of D4D in the above case. While I understand that they feel very strongly about the issue, I am disheartened that they have allowed those feelings to colour their appraisal of this excellent editor. Wikipedia is fortunate to count Wehwalt amongst its members. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I resolved not to go on record with my votes this year, but in this case I'll make an exception. I am concerned by Wehwalt's unblock of Die4Dixie (talk · contribs). I would suggest reading through this thread up to the point at which Wehwalt unblocked Die4Dixie. I see no consensus to overturn the block (if anything, outside input was predominantly supportive). Nor did Wehwalt notify Protonk (talk · contribs), whose indefinite block he overturned, either before or after reversing him. It's cavalier and disrespectful both to administrative colleagues and to community feedback to overturn a block over the objections of the blocking admin and without anything resembling community consensus to do so (and without even notifying the blocking admin to give the the chance to comment or elaborate). Wehwalt doesn't seem to see the problem here, whereas it seems incredibly obvious to me. And so I'm not comfortable putting him in a position to adjudicate inter-admin disputes.

  It's not about Die4Dixie per se. I'd personally lean toward giving him a second chance too - in fact I have done so in the past (see his block log). It's a matter of self-awareness and accountability. If someone is unaccountable to feedback as an admin, then enshrining them on ArbCom seems like a worrisome prospect to me. I could even be persuaded that it's a one-off and just agree to disagree about the specific incident if there was any sign that Wehwalt took these concerns on board. But I get the sense that Wehwalt's response is: "Oh well, I did what I know was right." There is no mechanism to force introspection or self-awareness on Arbs, and it is virtually impossible to force accountability on even the most problematic Arbitrators after their election. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response The block I overturned was that of Jehochman. Protonk was an earlier reviewing admin, who extended the block. There had been a considerable discussion of it at AN/I, I felt the stronger argument was with the unblockers. Consensus, even if it is required for an unblock, is not a numerical count. Jehochman had not stated any valid reason for the initial block, and so the argument to remain blocked was weak. Jehochman weighed in within three minutes of the unblock (alleviating the need for me to notify him) and we engaged constructively with each other. Perhaps you should address yourself to Protonk, who while not an Arb candidate, extended the block with no community consultation; I see no note left by him on Jehochman's talk page. Aren't you rather exhibiting a double standard? Shouldn't you remonstrate with Protonk? I'm waiting ...

I'm not clear why you say I am "unaccountable to feedback", I've stated on AN/I, in response to you in fact here that had I thought of the option you suggested, I would have seriously considered it, and suggested yet another way to act. If being "unaccountable to feedback" means "crawling on the ground hoping to get votes", you've come to the wrong shop. I think we agree on the basic issue, that I was within my rights to unblock D4D, we seem to have differences on the procedure involved. You have every right to oppose. This thread suggests (by your agreement with the author of an guide which opposed me) that you were planning to anyway or most likely already had, since you voted at 0534 on 2 December, before this went down, and have not changed your vote. That's your right.

I suggest that the reader read the entire AN/I threads, not just the bit of it suggested by Mastcell. The idea is to be fair to everyone, something I wish you would take on board. You view this as a mistake, but you say nothing about anything else I have done at Wikipedia, very odd indeed. I have every confidence in Wikipedians to read the whole thread, and not to be inflamed by the subject matter, and to be fair in their votes. You have to do what is right, and please keep in mind that next time, it may be you on the unpopular side of a dispute. Will you want an admin to deal with you fairly, or will you want him to be sweating about his vote count? You decide.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to get into a back-and-forth here. I linked the thread, not a series of diffs, so that people can read as much of it as they like. I didn't "remonstrate" with Protonk because, among other things, Protonk isn't running for ArbCom where he will be expected to adjudicate exactly these sorts of questions. You are.

Maybe I didn't communicate my concern effectively. I don't think you "had the right" to unblock Die4Dixie without discussing it with the blocking admin (whose judgment you saw fit to question in the indelible block log without even asking him to defend his decision), nor in the absence of a consensus to overturn the block. But that's not even the point. You've cast this as a principled stand. I don't see how overturning another admin's block without even notification, and in the face of community support for the block, is a principled stand. It looks to me like a disdain for accountability, which is where my concern comes from. I feel justified in weighing this incident heavily, since you seem determined to spin it into part of your campaign platform.

Since you mention my voting habits: it's the holiday season and I'm busy. I didn't want to let the deadline slip by, so I cast a slate of votes based on my initial impressions. I intend to revise them, but in case I don't get around to it, at least I won't have completely disenfranchised myself. If you care, I was neutral on you. I'll go back at some point to switch over to oppose. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protonk, however, is an administrator. You came down hard on me in the AN/I thread for what you saw as a lack of courtesy in notifying Jehochman, even though we had engaged in a rather lengthy thread. I gave it a few hours to see if any more arguments were made, and then acted. Jehochman responded in three minutes, alleviating the need for me to notify him. Protonk never notified Jehochman, and you never said a word to him about it. AN/I stands for "Administrator's noticeboard/incidents", not "Arbcomcandidates Noticeboard/Incidents" Obviously equal treatment should have been your standard. I guess we can conclude one of two things, either you remonstrated with me, and not him, because you didn't like my decision (but liked his) or because I am an ArbCom candidate. Whatever, the importance is not terribly great. And yes, I did have the right to undo that block, there was clear error by Jehochman in doing the block without stating any valid block rationale. D4D's complaint was not frivilolous, he was not out of line in maintaining it, when one participant at AN/I, William S. Saturn, had already agreed with him." The only other ground stated was that D4D had a block log. That's no reason for another block, many valued editors have been blocked.

I think I've admitted I could have handled it better procedurally. However, that most likely would not have changed my decision, and would not have altered much of the deluge, but it is possible to take a stand, and have made procedural mistakes in doing it. But I agree, unless you have something profound to say, let's agree to disagree and leave it to the voters.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extending a block is not undoing it. You do not need to consult a blocking admin to further block someone they have blocked - in effect, you are merely stating "after your week block, I'll block him for XYZ." That you think unblocking someone is something you can do without discussing is troubling - people have been stripped of their tools for that, and that you are neither accountable to the community as an admin and that ArbCom is such a shit-show right now doesn't mean your behavior was not, and is not continuing to be, abusive. Hipocrite (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you feel that way, but I would submit that you are altering another admins decision. In fact, Protonk said it wasn't long enough, and that is why he went indef. By that logic, I would have been better off altering the block to one second. And there was an extensive discussion, in which both Jehochman and I participated, at which the question of the appropriateness of the block was very much on the table. Surprised you would say that.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By that argument, if you were to block User:Giano II right now you would be overturning the decision of Moni3? Get real. This demonstrates a complete lack of clue. Extending a block absent abnormal situation - which this most certainly was not, does not contravene the initial blocker. Reducing a block does. This is wheel-warring 101. Hipocrite (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with you, sorry. And if you have anything further to state, can I ask that you use edit summaries for the purpose intended, rather than for snide comments?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also responded there. I thank Gatoclass for his opinions, as profoundly as I may disagree with him, I do respect him.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(The discussion to which Wehwalt refers is in the section above). Gatoclass (talk) 06:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I wrote, please see my comments. Many thanks, sorry I didn't get your vote!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most people think we need arbs with a variety of viewpoints. Usually the complaint is too little article creation, I may be the first arb candidate to get "too much article creation"! Your oppose made me smile at a tense time, thanks!--Wehwalt (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking is that working on ArbCom will take you away from creating content; also, that creating content is not quite the same as dealing with behaviour problems - same as experience in welding together cars does not quite prepare one to become an F1 driver in the same way that driving rally cars does. However, as I have moved through each on the candidates I have noticed that I have been neutral on those lacking experience, but with other positive qualities, and have only opposed when I felt there was something negative. So I am actually voting Neutral. Regards (and good luck!) 12:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry you both feel that way, but I would advise anyone reading these comments to read the thread in question at [11] and decide for yourselves if his comments represented poor judgement. I personally couldn't disagree more, and it was his level-headedness in this affair that led, in part, to my voicing my support for him. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also sorry they feel that way, but I intend, as an arb, or an admin, to continue to be fair to everyone who edits Wikipedia without fear or favor. Both the er, "good faith editor" and the "highly problematic editor" deserve fairness without favoritism. I hope that Mathsci and AniMate come to see that and change their votes. If not, there are more important things than elections. All the best, --Wehwalt (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, apart from this problematic incident, you are still one of the strongest candidates. This particular case is quite exceptional and it remains to be seen what will happen. You'll probably get my vote back when the dust settles in a few days time :) Mathsci (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mathsci. Please check the long screed that D4D left on my talk page about Jehochman. If he had left that before I acted (obviously not while blocked), I would have had second thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:52, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded there. Note that MastCell's comments were posted 1 day and 14 hour after his vote, and he did not subsequently change his vote before posting (and has not as of this writing). Not saying he has no right to post, just saying that what he posted apparently did not influence his vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. See [12] (last paragraph). MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if you think I am naive and would favor Israel over the Palestinians, which is what you and a couple of others seem to be saying. --Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't say the latter, although others may have. Naive, yes, however. The value of Kirill to the AC in the old days was precisely his ability to see where people were coming from, that is, to assess and analyse their biases. Which is why I'm voting for him again. I don't think you can do this, or, if you can, you don't think it's relevant. I disagree: arbitrators must possess the virtue of imaginative realism. Your assertion that Zeq and the rest of the Israpedia crowd had the wiki's best interests at heart was at the same time spectacularly unimaginative and unrealistic. I am not closely familiar with the Die4Dixie situation but I'd imagine something pretty similar is going on. Moreschi (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, getting to your specific complaint, can you give me a diff on what you say I said? that is my "assertiaon that Zeq and the rest of ..." bit. I just searched that page and can't seem to find it. I looked at every comment I made, too!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly that's not a literal quote, but a summation of your position. As for what you did say..."With a little massaging, the CAMERA emails could have been phrased in a way that might cause some to gnash their teeth, but would be perfectly proper.", or the frequent references to "lynch mob mentality", or, most tellingly, "as well as an assumption that CAMERA's NPOV differs radically from everyone else's NPOV. Those assumptions are really why the bans are taking place." - come on - how does CAMERA's NPOV not differ from a normal person's NPOV. They're an effing advocacy group! Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even your cherrypicking does me no discredit. Yes, they could have massaged it. Suppose they had urged their readers to get involved in WP since it was the history book of the future from which Jewish History and that of the Holocaust would one day be read, and urged readers to get involved in WP to help write it properly. That might cause some to gnash teeth, as I've said, but I doubt there would have been bans handed out.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which would not be massaging. Not in the slightest. That would be rewriting. Did you actually bother to read the 130-odd emails on the list?

Plus, I probably didn't comment at the time, but I don't think any of us (myself, FPAS, Chris0) really appreciated being told we were displaying "lynch mob mentality" that was "sickenening". At best this assumed pointless bad faith of fellow administrators. Moreschi (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wasn't an administrator at the time, nor is ChrisO currently my colleague as an admin, as you know he's been desysoped for going a bit too far. Second, it didn't refer to you. Here is the diff:[13]/Wikilobby_campaign#Note_that_signature_name_.22Juanita.22_is_user_.22Dajudem.22] which referred to questioning the good faith of having a signature displaying a different name, and that the user had used for three years. As you the reader who clicks on the link (which Moreschi did not provide, sadly) it has nothing to do with you and was perfectly in order. Sorry. What's next?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous, as you then repeated the lynch mob accusation at [14], this time quite clearly aiming it at the admins who imposed the bans and specifically the one on Zeq. That would be myself, as I extended the initial block of a week to 1 year. Moreschi (talk) 21:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so. Thank you. Hardly disingenuous, I simply ran a search and saw the other one. That was a formal statement to AC. The AC has every right to strike any abusive comments, as do its clerks. I don't see you or your colleague and our former colleague taking affront there either. I see the comment was first used by Avi, who I was agreeing with. Actually, I don't see anyone taking offense to either comment at the time, whether Arb, clerk, or innocent bystander. If you were offended, I am sorry, but a nice note at the time on my talk page probably would have caused me to change it to something like "too much of a rush to judgment". It's too bad if you were offended, but I can't offer to go out and settle it over a couple of glasses of beer if you don't SAY anything, Moreschi. But I'm willing now. Not asking you to change your vote or your position, but I could have found a better phrase even without being prompted. Shake?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please restrict posts there to a single brief comment on the candidate or explanation of your vote.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Wehwalt. Franamax (talk) 07:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A note from your candidate: I'm assuming this page is mostly for people to talk about me. I'll do my best to let you do that without intervening. If you have questions, it would be natural to add them to the "questions" page. If you have minor questions too trivial for there, then my talk page is open William M. Connolley (talk) 18:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I am just allowed to add comments here, allow me to remark that I think that good arbitration is about being fair, being conscientious and perhaps being logical. There should be no requirement to be well liked or popular. We should not vote for or against WMC based on our like or dislike of him but out of respect for his fairness. The greatest strength of WMC as an Arbcom candidate is that as well as being eye-wateringly fair, and careful with details he does not much seek the approval of other people. The huge percentage of "grunt work" he has done on WP:3RR reflects fairness and not seeking approval. He takes on things in the knowledge that someone will dislike him for it but because it needs to be done. I do not think he would be a very good emperor but he would be excellent sitting as one of a set of judges. As I understand the proper role of Arbcom (arbitration) it is very hard to think of anyone better suited to the role. As with the mop, Arbcom membership is a duty not an honour and perhaps we should regard him serving a term there as community service in penance for being just a little bit too polemic over faults with the current Arbcom. --BozMo talk 10:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry. Ignoring appeals for help with edit warring until it is stale and then shifting blame is not a sign of fairness or good judgement. Ikip has listed some examples of what has been characterized as poor judgement here. Quite frankly this user should be before Arbcom, not sitting on it. Unomi (talk) 14:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  For full disclosure, a number of these issues of "poor judgement" were blocks of confirmed sockpuppets... maybe they hadn't been chekusered at the time of their blocks, but if one lives in the cesspool of Wiki-climate, Scibaby socks are often very easy to spot. Also, User:Spotfixer, who is quoted as talking about Connolley's bad behavior, is has been indefed for some time now... I can't speak to the other issues that Unomi brought up as I don't know about those, but I feel it's necessary to point out that this is far from black-and-white. I happen to agree with BozMo, for the record. Awickert (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Eye-wateringly fair" is not the first phrase that comes to mind with respect to WMC. The ArbCom case that closed in September found that he "misused his administrator tools by acting while involved...on a number of occasions." This finding added credence to longstanding (as in years long) complaints by numerous editors (including many fellow admins) that WMC regularly used the tools improperly, e.g. blocking editors with whom he was edit warring, editing pages after protecting them, etc. As a result of the finding in the ArbCom case WMC was of course desysopped and also admonished not to edit war. WMC clearly did a lot of great work as an admin, but he also apparently had significant difficulty at times determining whether or not he was too involved to take administrative action, and in general exhibited rather poor judgment on a number of occasions. Obviously those are major concerns with respect to a prospective arbitrator. Being "a little bit too polemic over faults with the current Arbcom" may or may not be an issue, but questions about WMC's judgment and fairness clearly are, at least for many editors (and obviously WMC has a number of strong supporters as well). I only point all this out in reply to BozMo's comment which, while certainly expressing a perfectly valid opinion, rather screamed for a counterpoint in my view. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Unomi: Apparently all administrators on Wikipedia have ignored your edit warring report. Picking on the one (unpaid volunteer) who eventually did process it seems not particularly fair. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It is certainly true that no other admin did intervene, but at the time WMC was quite active on the 3rr board and would have been hard pressed to not have seen it, it could be that due to the fact that OM and verbal were downplaying it WMC thought it best to leave it alone. Regardless, closing it with 'Fault is with U, who is lucky that this report is now stale' etc to a new editor without any attempt at pointing in the right direction does nothing to help the project. Unomi (talk) 01:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, eye-wateringly fair. --BozMo talk 06:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I must admit, the prospect of an ArbCom member who has previously been sanctioned by ArbCom appeals to my sense of mischief, and one who lists as his principal credential editing frequently on a subject while holding strong viewpoints and an arguably professional conflict of interest is particularly noteworthy. I think WMC will need to explain, at length, why he considers these strengths rather than weaknesses to his candidacy. Ray^Talk 20:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we do not want to turn this into a referendum on the rather shoddy treatment of WMC by Arbcom. I suspect if we did, he might get elected rather easily... at least if people could be bothered to read through the history properly. Not that he was without blame too of course, being right and being seen to be right are two different things and he should have cared more about the latter. However the professional conflict of interest you mention is very hard to argue. Aside from having previously been a tenured academic (and therefore de facto neutral) AFAIK WMC currently works for a software house with no relationship at all to the subjects where he has the highest number of edits? --BozMo talk 21:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't regard these as insurmountable. His Arbcom issues were long ago, and I'm willing to listen to any argument he wants to make about actions by Arbcoms long before I joined that may be inappropriate in the light of time. Conflict of interest is a tricky thing - it raises a flag, but the flag is not red for me, but yellow - I need to know what was going on. Especially on academic matters, the distinctions can be very fine, and depend very much on the case - we should most definitely welcome academics writing on research in their area (and, in some cases, even their own). But if they're writing about academic controversies where they have a stake, then things start becoming murkier (for instance, to use a completely counterfactual hypothetical, if Wikipedia existed in the 1920s-1930s, everybody should welcome having Niels Bohr writing about the hydrogen atom and quantum mechanics. But things become a lot murkier if he starts addressing philosophical discussions against his preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics, or anything in what was a grade-A dispute in the science of the day). Since WMC chose to raise it, I think I need to hear his position on what he was doing, and why, and where he thinks he might have brushed up against the line, and what he learned from the experience. Ray^Talk 23:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on getting WMC to provide some answers at some point. But I am looking forward to the vote cos I do not know how it will go. On Bohr I thought WP existed to represent consensus rather than be correct? Correct as an aim would invite any amount of OR but consensus has to bow to experts even though (as with the millenium bug) many of them turn out to be jokers. --BozMo talk 23:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to answer questions, though not at length, but if you think that His Arbcom issues were long ago you need to do your research properly William M. Connolley (talk) 23:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentI would like to raise my concerns about this candidate: Whilst Mr Connolley, is a very enthusiastic editor and has made valuable contributions particularly on climate articles, he simply cannot see "the another side"... that people can quite legitimately differ in their views and that both sides of a public debate must be documented in Wikipedia. To be blunt, he has no concept of "NPOV" and having seen his antics over a number of years there is no doubt in my mind that he will abuse any position of authority to push his own POV. (Sorry William, it has to be said, the world is a better place because of single-minded enthusiasm like yours, but that single mindedness makes you the wrong person for this role). (I would also like to point out that this statement was removed from his candidate statement with absolutely no communication - I admit that I was mistaken to put it there - I misunderstood what "via" that site meant - this kind of unwikipedia behaviour just encapsulates my concern about this candidate.)Isonomia (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Sometimes comments about other editors tell you more about the commentator than the editor they are commenting on. Verbal chat 19:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbal, it does me no credit to say these things, and if I had the time and enthusiasm of William, I've no doubt it would carry much more weight and to be honest I've been lazy, and not put in the effort to help William tackle his problem, however dispite my own failings which are many and despite my dislike of personal attacks, in this case it had to be said. Isonomia (talk) 21:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this a joke? --This guy is a POV-warrior, who has been reported for 3RR twice this week! [15] [16]

--Duchamps_comb MFA 07:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)A user currently blocked for disruptive editing--BozMo talk 20:37, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It is less the reports, more the results that count. The first ended with "Result: No Violation, WP:BLP clearly applies" - it is unclear why you think defending wiki against gross BLP violations is a bad idea. The second ended in me being trouted, which I think was fair enough. This is all about Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, which is under constant attack from POV warriors. Like you; you've broken 3RR there yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A vote for WMC is a vote for a person who cares about content, and the integrity of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia above all else. Mostlyharmless (talk) 11:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I have nothing against Connolley, and I often have much sympathy with him in all the disagreements he gets into. But we don't want an arbitrator who has constant arguments with people. Connolley is also one of the editors you meet who are always certain that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Arbitrators should be unusually cool-headed, open-minded people. This is the wrong job for WMC. Sorry. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

except of course that almost all the time he is right per WP:DUCK, and prepared to take on the argumentative and vexacious souls whom the rest of us quietly ignore. Not always though, the recent 3RR was well trouted. If not WMC then who? There don't seem to be any ideal candidates at all in Arbcom this time though. Why is the field so poor? Have all the serious editors decided it is too much stress and decided to leave it to people of more limited capacities? --BozMo talk 16:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided I do not have the time to make a decent job of it, especially not with the current ArbCom style, where the general approach seems to be to wait for continental drift to build mountains, the erosion of which will then cover the problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does "read the f*ck*ng diff" represent the kind of temperament we want in an arbitrator? I don't think so. ATren (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Removal of talk page comment - This edit, from today, is the latest in a long pattern of WMC removing other editors' comments from article talk pages. He does it mainly on the Global Warming related articles, where he has an unquestioned POV. There is absolutely nothing abusive about the edit he removed, and it is from an editor in good standing. This kind of aggressive, partisan behavior is exactly not what is needed on a committee whose purpose is to resolve disputes, not escalate them. ATren (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ...and now he's edit warring to remove it. ATren (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Far too many editors have got into the habit of using article talk pages for chatter or to work off their humours or make barbed comments at other editors. Article talk pages are for discussions about improving the articles. Comments that fail this should be removed William M. Connolley (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page comments should be reserved to those comments which are clearly abusive. There was nothing abusive about what you removed, not even by the most stringent talk page standard. And it's made worse by the fact that the editor is someone whom is in opposition to your own POV on those pages. What this reveals is that you are unwilling or incapable of restraining yourself in situations where restraint is the best approach -- indeed, you have a long history of such aggressiveness. Not even your desysopping, which itself was the direct result of your inability to show restraint as an admin, has changed your behavior; you instead chose to lash out at the committee for handing down what most consider to be a non-controversial decision. If you can't even show restraint as a named party in an arbcom case, or even when running for arbcom, is there any reason to believe you will develop that restraint if you are elected? I don't think so. ATren (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing talk page comments should be reserved to those comments which are clearly abusive - no. That is incorrect. As I said: comments that are nothing to do with improving the article can and should be removed, abusive or not. I don't claim to be entirely consistent about this; on non-controversial or low-traffic articles a little light relief does no harm. But irrelevance on high traffic pages disrupts important discussion; adding (or worse, re-adding) such stuff is disruptive William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the editor in question was simply comparing the relative tone of two articles in the same subject area -- an entirely valid content concern. His comment was short and to the point, and another editor responded in good faith. Your pattern of removing such relevant comments (always from editors with an opposing POV) is invariably much more disruptive than the original edits. Your attitude and behavior escalates conflicts and creates drama, which makes you entirely unqualified to serve on a committee whose role is to resolve conflicts. ATren (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC is a hard POV warrior. He is pretending to care about the quality of articles but in reality he pushes his POV. --Pevos (talk) 20:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am enjoying these contributions hugely, please let us have some more? I haven't seen UBer here yet for example, and there other litigants WMC has had to block too. E e cummings said in Maggie and Milly and Molly and May "For whatever we lose(like a you or a me) it's always ourselves we find in the sea". Here too we learn a lot about the frustrations of other angry editors but of course not so much about WMC.--BozMo talk 20:48, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, how about from me? I've never had any dealings with WMC, never any axes to grind with him, never any conflicts. But in poring over the records, the diffs, the ArbCom cases, I'm quite comfortable with the assessment that he's been disruptive and divisive, and moreover that he just doesn't get it. Bizarre as this might sound to you, it's perfectly possible for disinterested bystanders to oppose WMC's candidacy without their being Out To Get Him.  Ravenswing  15:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't sound bizarre at all, no. And if the discussion was limited to between reasonable quality editors perhaps we would all take a more reconcilatory tone. However there is so must rubbish thrown at WMC because he did more of the 3RR blocks than rest of us put together, that those with serious reservation will get hidden amongst the trash. Look again at the Arbcom thing going right back. --BozMo talk 19:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Another quote from today: "If you really think that makes any sense, then you simply haven't got a clue... do you realise how little you know about this stuff?" ATren (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Over diagnosis of Dunning–Kruger effect perhaps :). --BozMo talk 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, WMC has an overdosis of Dunning–Kruger: He overestimates his ability to act as an arbitrator. In this job impartiality is necessary, and an arbitrator has to be accepted by both sides of a dispute. --Pevos (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• WMC is undoubtedly highly competent, much more so than most or perhaps all of his vocal critics. But he does not make allowance in all circumstances for the fact that other people may not have the cognitive ability to recognise his superiority. Occupational hazard I guess, and his greatest weakness. --BozMo talk 21:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you're saying here is WMC is unable or unwilling to suffer fools gladly. Yet that is probably the most important skill for an arbitrator to have. Couple that with WMC's habit of applying the "incompetent" label to everyone who disagrees with him, and he's even less fit to serve in that role. ATren (talk) 21:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well you said I should correct you if you were wrong... but I am inclined to agree that WMC is unwilling to suffer fools gladly. But I am a grumpy old man and so, in my view, that is an enormous strength in his candidacy to be arbitrator. There are too many admins and on Arbcom who appear to desperately want to be loved and do all sorts of anti-project things (like desysoping WMC) in order to try to appeal to teenage community members of marginal net contribution. You remember the rather sad school teachers who want to be hip and in with the teenagers... are some of the current Arbcom members are very reminiscent of them? Arbcom should very specifically restrict itself to disputes where there are admins ranged on both sides and this very specifically requires a high degree of analysis and care to judge them correctly. Hip lazy and not too bright is not good for the project. Arbcom members should not be MPs with weekly surgeries or try to out admin admins, or super welcome newbies. They do not need to suffer fools gladly at all. --BozMo talk 22:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the primary role of the committee is to resolve conflicts. WMC's style and attitude escalates conflicts, which is why I believe he is unfit. And regarding his desysop - he blocked the opposing party in an active case! Such a block is practically the definition of What Not To Do As An Administrator, and I find it astounding that WMC and his supporters continue to treat this like a crucifixion. ATren (talk) 22:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, and Bentley, you finding something astounding is not really anyone else's problem, is it? --BozMo talk 22:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's for them to decide. ATren (talk) 17:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/William_M._Connolley. Franamax (talk) 07:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I encountered this editor since yesterday, in relation to Climate Change articles, after my limited experiences, I am left with the impression that he didn't assume good faith ... he blanked my articles with sources ... and he may be pushing a POV. Folks can be off at times, for now I can grant him the benefit of the doubt in my assumptions. However, the experience makes me not want to vote for him as an arbitrator. I am not left with a sense of fairness. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The incident above appears to have involved the creation of an article by a WP:copyvio and has been deleted as such. Vsmith (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characterizing Uncertainty in Climate Assessment, for anyone wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Appearances can be deceiving. Although realistic, the concern for copyright was not brought to my attention by William M. Connolley, the article was speadly deleated, and I am investigating an apeal, becasue I didn't have fair notice or time to comment. I have been accused of a personal attack for commenting on this editors POV. (Admit, I felt harassed elsewhere by the editor.) In all, the absence of a sense of fairness, seems to be validated now. My instincts tell me this editor will be facing the Arb Com comitte one day again. I pray not, and not by me. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC, do you agree or disagree with the paragraph quoted here? I ask because your opposition to privacy here was striking and unlike you, I thought. Have the climate change trenches made you too quick to perceive enmity? 99.56.137.239 (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see the connection between your two links. Also anons are not eligible to vote, or ask questions. Sorry William M. Connolley (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're not eligible to vote, but I have a hard time figuring out why questions from anons are something to duck.  Ravenswing  19:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of questions by anon's, this anon has a question: has anybody seen this article on Connolley?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx

Or perhaps a more recent version?

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/17635

Perhaps you users with voting rights might want to look into these articles, and allegations made, before making this man a member of the arbitration committee (of all things..). Just my 2cents. 188.103.180.152 (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know that Solomon has unique and "valuable" opinions on several issues, and a way of fact-checking that seems to consist of asking a magic 8-ball. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I was literally sitting here waiting to see how quickly either you or Kim D Peterson would swoop down on this edit. It took you a good 37 minutes (you all used to be much faster). Personally, I do not edit wikipedia, but I have over the past several years followed, say once every two/three weeks, the relentless battering of any critic of any GW-related talk-page by WMC, you and Kim. I now went to check how the Climategate site was progressing, and there you guys were again!! I followed the link to Connolley's wiki page and talk page and bumped into this voting process! I felt I had to share my experience, not as an editor, but as a disgruntled user. Because of WMC's actions, and yours for that matter mr. Schulz, I have stopped using wikipedia as a source for anything remotely controversial, as have many of my friends (who all, like me, either have a PhD in quantitative fields or are in the process of obtaining one). Now, let the ad hominem's, for which WMC and you are much more famous than you realize, begin! 188.103.180.152 (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but argumentum ad IP numerem does not cut it for me. Your form of address is wrong, however, and as a (budding?) Ph.D. you should get this right. What is a "quantitative field"? 3 acres? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for my insufficient, non-native, knowledge of the English language, dear mr. Schulz. The field I'm talking about is econometrics and statistical modeling, you know, the empirical testing of scientific hypotheses. Note that this puts me in a much better position to judge much of the scientific evidence on AGW, that you and WMC generally 'dismiss' as faulty and irrelevant when presented by a skeptic on a talk page, than your computer software/hardware/whatever background puts you. This lack of scientific background has however never stopped you or WMC (who is a mathematician turned software engineer, again, no real statistics background) claiming 'scientific superiority', in every discussion you have ever engaged in regarding the topics I have followed. When you run out of arguments, you start attacking people personally, just like WMC, and just like you are doing right now. When this doesn't discourage them from contributing to wikipedia, you (yes, you, WMC and KDP) find some arcane reason to ban them. The page then gets archived, and we all 'forget' about it. This at least, is the cycle I have witnessed numerous times as a spectator on GW related talk pages, over the past two and a half years.

Please do go on proving my point.

As for my IP address being 'wrong', I truly have no idea what you are talking about.188.103.180.152 (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at forms of address. Your form of address is wrong in any language I'm aware of, and this has nothing to do with IP networks, but rather with common courtesy. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duly noted. Allow me to extend my apologies for any inconvenience caused by this alleged lack of courtesy.188.103.180.152 (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Do we want arbs stereotyping editors by one edit, with not even a nod in the direction of AGF? I hope not. See this. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WMC is one of the most problematic editors I have had the mispleasure to run across here on Wikipedia. He is rude, disruptive, ignores his many WP:COI’s and his gratuitous use of uncivil edit summaries would have paved the way for a very long mandatory vacation had he been a less well connected editor (or conversely if there were more administrators with backbone around here).

It would be a tragedy and an outrage if he were to be allowed to wield such power and influence as he would have in Arbcom. WVBluefield (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For those watching: if you're wondering what this is about, WVB is a global warming skeptic who doesn't like the current state of wiki's articles on same; I'm a convenient target. This is probably a good place to mention, if I haven't already, that I'd need to recuse on strongly GW-related article disputes William M. Connolley (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[[removed - already made this point above]]

This is indeed a quite fascinating comment, but not quite so fascinating as to make it twice - I think the version in the section above, to which I've replied, should suffice William M. Connolley (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looking back they are very similar comments in two places, so I've removed this one. ATren (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ATren and WVBluefield, I very strongly agree with you --Pevos (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid my experience of working with William on a recent GW related page makes me nervous about his ability to maintain sufficient NPOV and civility in this role. I'm sure he means well, but he's just too bound up in the issues, and personally too abrasive in style. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the campaign slogan the Cabal came up with for William is "No Bullshit". No wonder some people are quivering in their boots... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "haven't got a clue what you're on about."
• "alas it seems I cannot rely on your word" PA directed at an editor (Pete Tillman) whom WMC accused of not following through on an earlier point, even though PT politely told him he was working on a new draft less than one hour earlier. This is typical of WMC's aggressive, argumentative style when dealing with editors on "the other side" ATren (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• An earlier attempt by PT to appease WMC while PT was working on compromise wording: "I'm working on it. Patience, please". WMC responded with more impatience.

• "put up or shut up" ATren (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. But don't you think you're obsessing just a teensy bit? William M. Connolley (talk) 19:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. ATren (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Conflict of interest editing: WMC used to contribute regularly to the RealClimate blog, yet he is making non-trivial reverts [17][18] to that article. ATren (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  another ATren (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC) And now you've joined the fun [20] William M. Connolley (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why should I avoid editing there? Unlike you, I don't have any association with that site. Do you not see the difference between me and you editing that article? ATren (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i am an avid user, but completely new to the whole weird wiki administrator ecosystem. i bumped across WMC in connection with recent AGW events and have out of curiosity read the statements here and some of the history of his edits of AGW material. this may not matter at all to any of you, and WMC may exercise whatever authority he has to wipe them out in a heartbeat, but my word, if someone like this assumes a position of authority in this wiki then I weep for the corruption of what i always admired as a great, noble enterprise. and i think everyone here knows what i mean. signed, just your average user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbbrooks (talk • contribs) 03:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Herbbrooks, I agree. And I want to add that WMC has a close relationship to the AGW industry science, i.e. he is computer modeller in this domain, therefore he should avoid or at least be careful editing articles concerning this, but instead he is edit-warring and pushing his POV. He would do this also as arbitrator, I'm sure. --Pevos (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pevos, WMC does not work as a modeller any longer. It states this on his userpage and he has written a goodbye post on RealClimate, as he stopped working as a scientist. He now works for CSR for 2 years. And CSR has nothing to do with AGW at all.83.86.0.82 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was going to say that. And in case it isn't obvious, like any arb I'd have to recuse in cases where I have an obvious COI - I would have to recuse on anything hinging on Global warming for example. Or to take a more likely case, if Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ came up I'd recuse. I might give evidence, though William M. Connolley (talk) 09:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you continue to edit RealClimate, even though you have a conflict of interest there? If you can't avoid COI edits today, how can we be confident that you'll recuse from such topics on the committee? ATren (talk) 19:05, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should judge my likely future actions based on my current edits. As for COI, you're welcome to your own opinion, but the world disagrees with you: [21] William M. Connolley (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Or to take a more likely case, if Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident‎ came up I'd recuse." and "I think you should judge my likely future actions based on my current edits." - You mean like these edits?

[22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]

Is this an example of you showing self-restraint in the face of what you seem to acknowledge is a WP:COI above? --GoRight (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly would be WMC's conflict of interest on that page? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the emails were to/from/about him. Dduff442 (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, has any reliable sources picked up on this? Is there anything controversial or otherwise incriminatory (lets even say by a long shot), in those mails (by your own estimation)? Is he part of an investigation? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume he's part of the investigation into alleged scientific misconduct by default, though I've heard neither anything to suggest he's a direct target nor a word of scandal (which I'm sure his opponents have been working hard to find). The CoI issue here relates to the credibility of 'senior' users; WMC seems to have little understanding of the need to maintain eds' faith in the editorial process. Sailing so close to the wind (to be polite about it) as he habitually does is damaging to the credibility of this institution. There are clear precedents in law, politics and journalism relating to CoI. Anyone with any subtlety knows to err on the safe side to protect the good name of the institution; not WMC, alas.Dduff442 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very well said. His inability to recognize the importance of avoiding the appearance of impropriety is one of the top reasons why he is a poor candidate for the committee. Or for adminship, for that matter. ATren (talk) 01:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC) And, speaking of credibility of the institution, Connolley's aggressive actions on-wiki have actually drawn the attention of the media. Now, I don't have a very good opinion of Solomon, but seeing Connolley quoted in a major media outlet saying "Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here" made me cringe. His aggressive attitude gives his opponents, both inside and outside Wikipedia, ammunition to attack him and his cause. Yet he continues that attitude to this day. ATren (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His blindness to the damage done to his own chosen cause is lamentable. Most people would be given pause if they saw their own words being employed in the other side's propaganda. Not WMC. Dduff442 (talk) 02:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was merely referring to his own claim of having a COI above. Perhaps you should inquire further with him directly as to his meaning? Dduff442 does make an excellent point, though. --GoRight (talk) 00:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, others have raised the same issue with your COI there. ATren (talk) 20:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be based on an error on MastCell's part. I have asked him to clarify 21:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you are listed as a contributor (page 2), one of 11 total contributors to that site. Your contributions there spanned 3 years, and your last contribution was May of last year, 5 months after your announced departure. This seems to be a pretty strong association, and the fact that you see nothing wrong with editing RealClimate despite such a long association with that site, leads me to believe your standard of recusal will be far less stringent than the what I would expect. ATren (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, I didn't write the post. I'm only there for my nominal support for the bet that didn't happen William M. Connolley (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your name is in the byline. Whether it indicates "nominal support" or actual co-authorship, it reflects your close association with that site. I believe you genuinely fail to see how this would be a concern to others, which indicates (to me) that you have a blind spot when it comes to your own associations and POV. ATren (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're certainly welcome to your POV, as I said, even if you're wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR: Is it just me, or does anyone else see Original Research supporting a POV in the Candidates series of edits posted above by GoRight? Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though he does invoke BLP when it suits him, i.e. when the LP is someone he agrees with. ATren (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure why you use this hypothetical case as an example; I wouldn't make such an edit and I would not expect to "win" such a case regardless who is elected. And WMC promised to recuse himself from any GW debate, anyway. --Tjsynkral (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

His science knowledge makes him a good editor, but not necessarily a good arbitrator or (as we've seen) admin. His science knowledge is not in question; it's his confrontational style and history of partisan editing that makes him unfit for the committee. ATren (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• A judge who doesn't think the truth matters will deliver Sharia-style justice. Count Iblis (talk) 16:50, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the truth matters, but decorum, civility, and policy matter too, and WMC has frequently demonstrated his deficiencies in those latter three. ATren (talk) 21:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What could it be worth, come to that? Unless something's suddenly changed, admins get no more of a vote than any other editor.  Ravenswing  03:50, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess my reason for the remark is in case people wondering how to vote came by here, to get a flavour of the candidate. At a first glance at this page WMC does look rather more contraversial than he perhaps is because there are a number of frivolous editors commenting here. On the other hand I quite understand that there are serious editors with misgivings. At a rough glance the complaints about aggressive style have more credibility than the complaints about POV in my view. The balance amongst more credible editors is quite hard to call (there are a lot of people I can think of who must find this a difficult decision). At the same time there are not many candidates without drawbacks and Arbcom members do not have to be sweet. --BozMo talk 06:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have moved the above discussions from the comment page. Please restrict posts there to a single brief comment on the candidate or explanation of your vote.  Skomorokh  16:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noted at this page top the WP:CIVIL requirements are:

• Be polite
• Assume good faith
• No personal attacks

William M. Connolley has established a reputation in conflict with these principles for wiki talk which are specific to ArbCom dispute resolutions. He seems to advance that conflict makes better articles. Frankly, he has been a "pain in the xxx NPOV." His recent Conflict of Interest declaration to abstain from Climate Change articles ArbCom issues is nobel. However, he hasn't shown sufficient restrain in actual article disputes and has demonstrated many times that he aggressively escalates issues, by possibly assuming bad faith in other editors. Moreover, his talk page indicates that the Climate Change lobby advanced his nomination for their agenda, which calls to question his true intentions. [50] It is astounding that he shuns BLP and yet he desires to help resolve disputes among people. He has made many good contributions to wiki however, this is not sufficient for ArbCom where civil dispute procedure is necessary. There should be no escalation in ArbCom, there should be civil resolution. I doubt William M. Connolley whould even make a good orderly clerk there, but for a disruptive knack. I am left to assume William M. Connolley places his interest above WP:FIVE.Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 16:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better not assume such, he has been grated an opportunity to answer himself.

Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements/William_M._Connolley/Questions_for_the_candidate#Questions_from_GoRight

Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[51] if you're wondering what this is about William M. Connolley (talk) 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes reader, make your own choice. Is this about me or a history of escalation without talk. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I joined Wikipedia approximately a year ago, I went in search of things to do. I stumbled up WMC's userpage and have been watching what transpires ever since. I think many of the people commenting in opposition here are simply people who get what they want by never shutting their mouths. In my opinion, WMC will not stand for any of these shenanigans. I won't mention names as it seems these certain people respond to criticism with hounding and personal attacks. If you're really curious as to what WMC is like, do the research yourself and you'll see that his actions are nothing but fair to an eye watering degree. Don't take my word for it. Like I said, do the research yourself. OlYeller^Talktome 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not thrive on all of us holding each other to an eye-watering standard of fairness. believe it or not, several articles have thrived when various editors showed willingness to coexist with other people's differing philosophies, ideas and editing approaches.

Also, "eye-watering standard of fairness" is a good thing only for someone who is mediating a dispute, when it is applied consistently to both sides. When an editor is involved in a dispute, they are supposed to approach with some flexibility and openness to others. When an editor is a party to a dispute, then "eye-watering standard of fairness" is simply another word for being tendentious and contentious in regards to editing other people's material. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I think that's disingenuous. I used the phrase above originally referring to WMC overturning one of my blocks (the only one ever overturned) because I had put 3RR instead of edit warring in the block summary. He is incredibly fair and in my experience puts fairness way above personal loyalty,POV and so on. As an admin he was one of the most solicited for help but sometimes blocked the complainant if fault was against them. I appreciate that people sometimes feel that social nicety is more important than getting the content right and that compromise is better than accuracy. WMC plays by a strict logical interpretation of the rules and does so with a great deal of care and logic. On rare occasions where he is wrong he listens and U-turns. About 90% of the complainants on this page were people clearly in the wrong who resent the bright light of his scrutiny. 10% of the complainants have a reasonably point. --BozMo talk 19:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BozMo, I have watched WMC's edit patterns for a long time now, and my impression is this: WMC has a completely different attitude in dealing with people who agree with him. I don't know your POV, but I'm guessing you are either "don't care" or "pro" on the AGW debate. For those whom he views as "skeptics" his antipathy is palpable. If you want an example, take a look at his interactions with Alex Harvey, a skeptic who has repeatedly reached out to WMC in an attempt to find common ground -- in every case, WMC has completely rebuffed him. I've had similar experiences with him, which is one of the reasons I have been so active on these pages (and, BTW, I'm not even a skeptic, just not enough of a supporter).

So I have no doubt that your experiences with him were good, because he treats perceived allies very well. But don't oppose his POV, or you'll be branded "waste of time" for life. ATren (talk) 01:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right although I see some of his interactions with others (I don't have the time to read all) and I don't notice him categorising with POV. FWIW I might be technically sceptical or technically agnostic on AGW depending on precise definition (I certainly do not personally think scientific consensus is always right) but I admit I am antagonistic to lobby groups who try to influence science and my only actual contribution apart from burning logs to heat my house was being (as a senior manager in Shell) partly behind Shell Oil Quitting the Global Climate Coalition more than a decade ago (it cost me time and a 1963 bottle of port to Rob Walvis who was head of public affairs). Where I have common ground with WMC though is us both being PhD mathematicians with some serious understanding of logic, set theory, analogy etc. not to mention peer review. I know that he reasons in a particular way and tend to agree with his reasoning because I have a similar training. The problem I have with a number of those on his page is they do not follow rules of logic, non-sequitors and false analogies abound in their arguments and quite often it is hard to follow any kind of reasoning at all. I don't know if this is the Dunning–Kruger_effect and they cannot see the difference between high and low quality arguments or whether I am just failing to be sufficiently broad minded and egalitarian to embrace people who reason differently. In general I think the projects interests are that we are just a teeny bit elitist about this kind of thing but socially I am inclusive and so I struggle. The fact that I struggle means I spend time trying to explain things to people more than WMC does. Perhaps his clear sight on the issue makes him superior, certainly his acheivements here are spectacularly more than mine. --BozMo talk 08:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozmo,

About 90% of the complainants on this page were people clearly in the wrong who resent the bright light of scrutiny. 10% of the complainants have a reasonably point.

that is your OPINION. By that, I mean that it is an opinion, and it is one which you hold. hope you see my point. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, really it is my judgement, in the same way that what consitutes NPOV can only be a judgement. But no, I am afraid I don't see your point (or ZP5's mysterious point below). If it is not strictly relevant to the topic here (e.g. it is about me) then feel free to expound on it at my talk page. --BozMo talk 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for the “silenced” editors this candidate may have driven off from wiki. I am involved with a dispute, and from my investigation and comments contributed so far, there is “about as likely as not” that there are other editors who feel as I do and are not represented here. After my own investigation, I have a “high degree of confidence” that when reasonable and disinterested folks look into this candidate’s dispute resolution practices, they will find:

a. Escalated issues without adequate talk,

b. Ignoring attempts to talk, and

c. The Candidate's attempts to resolve disputes may create greater disruption than benefit to wiki principals.

I am very pleased to see editors attempt to quantify their opinions; however, where now is the agreed upon measurement scale but in your owe opinion right now. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozmo, I disagree completely with your blanket generalization about your fellow editors, that all of them are wrong. your statements are stark proof of your own divergence from some basic principles. have you ever been involved in an edit dispute where you were able to admit that there were legitimate concerns and opinions on both sides? That is one of the fundamental and basic ways that disputes are resiolved successfully here at Wikipedia.

If you wish to make dismissive statements about me, or about "90% of the editors" here, or about anyone else who holds opinions which are different in any way, then that seems less than fully constructive. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozmo, the Arbcom's findings faulted Connolley for misusing Admin tools. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley#William_M._Connolley.E2.80.99s_use_of_administrator_tools_while_involved. Are THEY part of the 90% who are supposedly wrong? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom are not on this page, wisely. I wonder how many of them have the courage to vote yes in the interests of Wikipedia and against their own cosy life. And anyway yes in that case the few members of Arbcom who heard the case, except NewYorkBrad who dissented were sloppy and wrong. As was said by a crowd of people including at least six or seven admin spectators at the time. They should never have taken a case of that sort and in general should never take a case without a sponsoring admin. As for here I am reading the statements here carefully and looking at the editors contributions to conclude 90%. There are credible statements I disagree with and there are statements by non-credible contributors. But I am behind with reading and answering things and am pretty busy. --BozMo talk 08:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having only recently become aware of these on-going elections, I wanted to ask a few questions of this candidate so I posted them here and then gave the candidate a courtesy notice here. The candidate responded by questioning the validity of having late questions, which he is technically within his rights to do, and started a discussion here. Since I am late in asking the questions the candidate prefers that they be removed rather than responding to them since he considers them to be "thinly veiled POV". See the full discussion here.

Now, with that as the underlying context and background, I humbly reproduce my questions here and respectfully ask the candidate to reconsider his position and respond to them as he sees fit. --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. As I am sure you are aware, the proper application of WP:NPOV sometimes involves the inclusion of certain points of view that some may find disagreeable. As an arbitrator, would you seek to ensure that minority points of view are protected from being silenced by the tyranny of the majority? If so, what are the primary tools which you would employ in trying to achieve that goal? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2. Can you describe for us some examples of the types of things that you consider to be valid WP:NPOV disputes? Under what circumstances do you feel it is appropriate to place the {{POV}} template on a given article, if ever? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3. On the issue of WP:CIVIL you have indicated that the best you believe we can hope for is parliamentary language. If we had a Wikipedia-specific list of unacceptable words and or phrases, what types of things do you believe should be included? As an arbitrator would you be in favor of developing such a list? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

4. Many people believe that humility is an important trait for any leader or person of authority. Looking back on all of your experiences here at Wikipedia, have you ever felt humbled in any way and if so would you care to briefly relate what you consider to be your most humbling experience here? (Obviously it is OK if you prefer not to respond.) --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

5. You have obviously been very involved in the Global Warming related articles. Given your significant level of involvement in that area, should a case come up related to Global Warming would you be likely to recuse yourself, or not, for that case? --GoRight (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The candidate indicated that in the discussion on his talk page that he had already addressed this issue in the questions. Looking through them I assume he is referring to his response to Vecrumba, specifically:

"Objectivity is hard to maintain in issues you care about (I would have to recuse in cases related strongly to global warming, for example, but arbcomm is there to decide not to recuse so I would not do so too freely), but is a state I cultivate; you can look at my block log if you like."

Can the candidate please elaborate on "I would not do so too freely?" Can you please provide some examples where you would be likely to recuse? --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respose: it would happear the you 'ave been taking lesson in 'umble from AH. These are largely POV-pushing disguised as questions; as I said before you haven't even troubled to do your homework. It isn't clear what puts you above the std question deadline; your deliberate desire to be disbliging [52], however, puts you in no position to ask favours William M. Connolley (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It isn't clear what puts you above the std question deadline" - I don't put myself above anything. I have agreed to let the questions be removed from the "questions page" where I now note that you directed me to go with your comment at the top of this very page. There is no deadline that I am aware of for asking the questions here, or am I incorrect on that as well?

You should read the top of this page; you're abusing this page for your POV. Removing the questions to here and expecting answers appears about as meaningful as imposing a 1000 word evidence limit but permitting linking to sub pages. Answering your questions here appers to me to be a violation of the spirit of the time restriction. However, there is a talk page for getting those in charge of the election to discuss such problems. You should ask them William M. Connolley (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You should read the top of this page; you're abusing this page for your POV." - I have read the top of the page. This page is for discussing you as a candidate. There is no restriction on my asking you questions here, nor is there any particular reason that you cannot respond to questions posted here. As I said, you are free to answer as you see fit ... i.e. answer or not as you choose. I fail to see how this is an abuse of anything. I have asked you neutrally worded questions that are relevant to the topic at hand.

"Answering your questions here appears to me to be a violation of the spirit of the time restriction." - So your argument is that you would answer my questions but you are somehow being prevented from doing so by the time restriction? I fail to see any merit to this argument. The time restriction was on my submitting questions to that page, not on you being able to engage in good faith discussions after that deadline. That would clearly be silly and counter-productive. Answer, or not, as you choose but not responding reflects poorly on you, IMHO. Others can decide for themselves on that point.

Per our discussion here, I will simply note the selective manner in which you have chosen to handle late questions and leave it at that. Is this an example of the even handed treatment editors can expect of you as an arbitrator? --GoRight (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the deadlines, the simple fact of the matter is that one of your fellow editors is asking you legitimate questions regarding how you would respond as an arbitrator. Are these intended to be hard questions for you to answer? Of course. I am not obligated to toss you softball questions, nor is it in your best interests, IMHO, for you to try and dodge the harder ones. How one responds to one's critics in the face of situations such as this is a good test of one's character, IMHO, which is why I am asking hard questions. I shall leave it to others to decide whether you are taking a high or a low road in this case.

My questions are worded in a perfectly WP:CIVIL and neutral manner, completely consistent with parliamentary language as far as I can tell. Rather than dodging them and making it appear as you have something to hide or that you prefer to squabble about personal conflicts in this context, I would think that you are politically astute enough to surmise that you would be far better off simply giving an answer here if you are serious about being an open and transparent arbitrator as you have stated you aspire to be. Note that there is no right or wrong answer to any of these questions, so it is not like there is some hidden trap buried inside them. I honestly want to know how you would respond.

While we are obviously in disagreement over the best manner in which to document the global warming controversies, outside of that context my opinion of you as a potential candidate here is likely much more neutral than you might suspect. Seriously. Thus far I have not taken a stand either way and I await your responses to help me make up my mind as, I am sure, are others. --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoRight put together very fair and balanced questions. The current response is typical "you're pointless" or "you're a POV". Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, WMC expects everyone here to be contentious, and to phrase their questions in a difficult manner. then his own conduct makes that into a self-fulfilling expectation. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 02:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BINGO!! Give Sm8900 a prize for a "straight on the row" about the candidate. Ignoring the shadow as they might say, conflict starts within. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 04:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've not been actively involved in WP for probably a couple of years (at least) now, although I visit constantly and anon-edit a bit. But when I saw WMC was up for ArbCom I came here immediately, and almost as quickly went to vote "Oppose". Except, then I thought I'd read the candidate statements and questions pages, and decided that would be quite unfair. Although my only experiences with this editor have been fairly negative (hey, I got involved on a page about a rather one-sided global warming documentary, what did I expect would happen) I would much rather have someone who'll at least try to be active on ArbCom than a load of wiki-lawyers who'll just tiptoe around the issues or drag them out over weeks/months/years. QmunkE (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was active on several resolutions and compromises on editing disputes in Israeli-Palestinian articles. i can honestly say that many of the positive measures which we found useful there would probably be contradicted by this editor's approach to various editing issues and to dispute resolutions. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late, I know, but I promised a letter of recommendation.

"Realize that WMC's NPOV record is disconcerting, but remember he'll be on average outnumbered one to nine." - With all due respect, acknowledging that WMC even HAS a disconcerting record on WP:NPOV given that policy's prominent role here isn't much of a recommendation. Nor is having to rely upon his being "on average outnumbered one to nine" particularly reassuring that this disconcerting record won't be elevated to an entirely new level. Surely we can elect candidates who don't come with this much baggage. --GoRight (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. If my letter were only positive platitudes, it would be rather shallow. Go Right, I think you just don't like WMC. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you yourself point out, it isn't actually about his being popular ... with me or anyone else. I don't bear any particular animosity towards WMC personally. He has conviction and I can respect that. I can even be friends with people who hold different opinions than mine so long as we can agree to disagree. But here, in this context, where we are discussing things greater and more important than ourselves as individual editors, the question is as a candidate can he rise above the interpersonal sniping and be objective and put his personal differences aside for that greater good? I believe that his refusal to answer neutrally worded questions simply because of who is asking them speaks volumes on that point. I leave it to others to decide for themselves exactly what it is saying. --GoRight (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would we elect one corrupt supreme court justice in the hope that they'll always be out-voted? --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I trust the above analogy will not be reverted again by WMC who has a rather obvious COI..... --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess now you have explained it is an analogy it won't although the argument is contorted. ChyranandChloe I wouldn't worry about GoRight's dislike of WMC too much if you look at the history. @WMC a quick diff on any history between you and MichaelCPrice would be handy or I might have to adjust 90-10 to 86-14. --BozMo talk 11:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling to see how anyone could understand that it was anything but an analogy. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bozmo; so the reason that dozens of good-faith editors object here to WMC's candidacy is that ALL of them are wrong, correct? Did you ever hear of respecting different opinions? --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I can only count fingers of one hand on "good-faith editors" objecting. Must be innumerate I guess. Plenty of editors I know well enough to judge the project would be better off without them mind you. --BozMo talk 18:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? How great for you. I on the other hand, cannot think of a single editor whom I would take it upon myself to decide that we're better off without them; that includes you. Guess i just don't have your infallible ability to pass judgments on everyone who holds a differing opinion. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain Bozmo's comment about adjusting the votes? Is it a sick joke, or does previous history w.r.t. WMC determine voting eligibility? --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all about adjusting votes -- BozMo made a comment earlier (a few sections above) that maybe only 10% of editors have a valid beef against WMC and the rest were just bitter due to conflicts with him. By adjusting to 14% in responding to you, I think maybe he was actually conceding that you have a valid concern, but I don't want to put words into his mouth so I'll leave it to him to clarify. ATren (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Michael C. Price ^talk 16:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that BozMo (a trained mathematican, he claims) requires an editor's previous history to determine whether an editor's currently making a logical argument.... No wonder he can't find fault with WMC. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a mathematician I realise you did not present a logical argument but you presented an opinion. You appear to have been blocked for 3RR by WMC in the past but I am not really in a position to judge if your negative opinion is based on that, something worse or something valid. It is a strange coincidence what a high proportion of negative views here seem to have an axe to grind. --BozMo talk 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is my opinion that we don't elect corrupt judges for the same reason that we shouldn't elect desysoped admins who care little for NPOV; I didn't realise a maths PhD would stop you seeing the logic of this. As for the block from almost three years back, if you investigate further you will see that I accepted the block as fair, and said so at the time. Thanks for confirming your inability to move beyond ad hominem judgements. I can see now why you are such an ardent WMC supporter. --Michael C. Price ^talk 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is certain, I would be happy for anyone to read what you actually said above, what I actually said and judge on that basis. --BozMo talk 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try it. do i qualify as "anyone"? hmmm, let me see...hmmm, hmm and hmmm. welll, sorry, i agree with Michael, and disagree with Bozmo. thanks. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am crying into my coffee with concern about your opinion Steve. Anyone else who wishes too is very welcome too. --BozMo talk 19:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Militancy proves especially dangerous when combined with political power. It creates a delusional sense in those who rule of being chosen by God for a divine purpose and reward. It encourages the conviction that their norms alone are absolute, their form of government superior to all others and their faith is the only really true religion. Such fundamentalists demonize 'the other' as evil in the psychological equivalent of declaring war, cutting off all possibility of dialogue or compromise. They no longer feel obliged to treat opponents as human beings. Problems to which they might have contributed are blamed entirely on the enemy. But such self-confidence is inherently dangerous to themselves as well as their enemies. The belief in divine assistance encourages fundamentalists to take risks, convinced that mounting odds are merely part of God's plan to test their faith. They remain convinced that ultimate victory is theirs by right. This can stiffen resolve and motivate stubborn resistance, but it is poorly suited to achieving military success. Fundamentalists have no real knowledge of their opponents whom they refuse to understand.

Peter Wilson, Europe's Tragedy, p. 10

Wilson's shrewd insights relate to the religious conflicts of the Thirty Years' War, but nearly everything he says is applicable to Al-Qaida, say, or the Imperial Japanese Army. Every ideology throws up a sprinkling of such individuals. There are certain characteristics that unite all fundamentalists regardless of whether the cause is reasonable or unreasonable. Sadly, though I share Connolley's 'faith' and reasoning, I believe his 'inherently dangerous self-confidence', his denial of 'all possibility of dialogue or compromise', his failure to accept any responsibility for 'problems to which he might have contributed' and crucially his lack of 'real knowledge of his opponents whom he refuses to understand' make him totally unsuited to a position of authority in Wikipedia. Dduff442 (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support 100% ATren (talk) 23:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hits the nail on the head. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[53] if you were wondering William M. Connolley (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In 1944 Japan despatched a mixed force of fighters and bombers to Guam. The bombers arrived safely but the fighters were delayed by poor weather.

With the US fleet closing in, the local Japanese commander was faced with a decision: risk the loss of the bombers on the ground while awaiting the fighters or send them on a suicidal attack without escort. In spite of his subordinates' desperate pleas he chose the latter option, the bombers attacked and were annihilated without troubling the Americans in any way.

So what prompted this act of stupidity? The Japanese commander risked criticism for inaction if he failed to attack whereas he had an excuse handy if he did do so -- the fighters' failure to arrive.

At this point it should be mentioned that the officer's physical courage in his Emperor's cause was certainly absolute. His decision to attack was nonetheless an enormous failure of moral courage as it entailed squandering a huge amount of blood and treasure -- things rightly belonging to the Emperor in that worldview -- in defense of his own status. How can this paradox be understood?

When faced with danger the average person is caught between fear of death and hope of escape. In contrast, when the fanatic is faced with danger he is caught between the twin fires of fear of death on the one hand and an even greater fear of shame on the other. This is true whether the fear is of shame in his own eyes or those of his peers though the details vary depending on which is the case. The fanatic is made of the same stuff as the rest of us but his worldview subjects him to inner strain the human mind simply cannot endure. Like the rest of us he is human, all too human.

Therein lies the explanation for a paradoxical pattern of direct fearlessness interspersed with occasional but repeated and massive failures of moral courage that characterised the Japanese war effort. The career of Masanobu Tsuji is emblematic of this pattern. Whereas Tsuji was a brilliant staff officer he was also insubordinate to the point of mutiny, helped provoke a disastrous military confrontation with the USSR at Khalkin Gol in spite of orders to the contrary, regularly lied to his superiors, sent thousands of men to a pointless death on Guadalcanal with one such lie, and yet still believed himself to be a paragon of moral virtue. His partly justified certainty in his own brilliance blinded him to a moral rot obvious to everyone but himself, making him archetypal of the kind of self-defeating militant decried by Wilson.

Now I have no way of knowing how much of this applies to the candidate. Certainly I've no reason to suppose he's some sort of maniac and this is not what I'm trying to convey. The pattern of blindness to his own counter-productive actions is not inconsistent with a mild form of this mindset, however.

Most people would reconsider their position if they found their statements being employed in propaganda for their opponents' consolation, or if some action of theirs were subject to basically universal condemnation as happened in the incident resulting in WMC losing his admin privileges. I've seen nothing in WMC's case to suggest he doesn't believe himself to be morally exemplary.

I contrasted the relative success of the campaign against the evil propaganda of Big Tobacco during the 1960s and 1970s with the seemingly faltering effort to achieve universal acceptance of AGW here [54]. The cancer researchers retained their credibility throughout the campaign making their victory over the well-funded tobacco company propaganda ultimately inevitable.

My diferences with the candidate are tactical rather than principled. I believe he hurts his chosen cause as much as helping it. Dduff442 (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a firm believer in AGW, and the threat it poses, I regret to say I knew I had to oppose WMC's candidacy as soon as I became aware of it. It's not even so much that WMC is POV pushing, but that he seems to be far too sure of his own opinion to be an effective, or useful, arbitrator. My impression is he knows he's right, and acts accordingly. Odd thing is, in my experience to-date he has always been right about the substantive stuff. But, ultimately, the encyclopaedia depends upon the volunteer community, and upon the policies and guidelines that make it a functional community. To over-simplify and over-dramatise, a benevolent dictator can never be a good thing in an already functioning flawed-democracy. Genuinely sorry WMC. :-/ Jaymax (talk) 15:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that not everybody allows their POV to overwhelm their sense of judicial fair play. --Michael C. Price ^talk 15:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I almost think the best thing that could happen is that WMC is elected. He will so bring ArbCom into disrepute within Wikipedia, and Wikipedia into disrepute generally, that much-needed reform will become inescapable. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I voted in favor, precisely because Arbcom needs no-nonsense Arbitrators who will find pragmatic solutions to problems. The criticism against William's conduct as Admin makes him actually more suitable as Arbitrator. If you have an interventionist mentality, then it is easy to abuse your power as an Admin (I'm not saying that William actually abused Admin tools). But as Arbitrator, you would be more motivated to accept requests for arbitration and to spend the time to find good solutions to the problem. There is no risk of abuse of power here, as decisions are taken by consensus among Arbitrators.

One thing is sure, William would never have done what Tznkai did here. The only other Arbitrator here, Ncmvocalist, happens to be the only one who backed Tznkai's view that Brews violated his topic ban. Count Iblis (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no risk of abuse of power here, as decisions are taken by consensus among Arbitrators. I'm amazed that this excuse gets trotted out and supported by intelligent editors. Would you dream of electing a corrupt supreme court judge on this basis? --Michael C. Price ^talk 05:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "corrupt judge" analogy is not appropriate. A corrupt judge could be someone who will let his judgement affect by personal gain. In this case, Williams critics assert that he become too much involved in disutes when he was exercising his powers as an Admin. But as an Arbitrator it is actually a good thing to have such an interventionist mentality. If you are someone who is not motivated to get involved in editing conflicts you may as an Arbitrator typically vote not to accept requests for Arbitrations.

Also, even if the Arbitration case somehow gets affected by bad judgements, the Arbitrators depend on the Wiki community and other Admnoins to enforce their rulings. If you read my link to Tznkai's attempt to ban Brews Ohare for a year, you see that he got nowhere with his request, despite the fact that both Arbitrators in that discussion agreed that Brewes violated his topic ban. Had Tznkai blocked Brews, another Admin would have unblocked him.

Note that I voted against Jehochman, because I think he is the mirror image of William. He is not someone who would use his Admin powers when he is even slightly involved in a dispute (e.g. he unblocked Brews and David during the AN/I discussions preceding the Arbcom case). But after the Arbcom case, he did make some statements during Arbcom clarification/enforcement discussions involving Brews requesting Brews to be baned simply because people were bringing enforcement requests against Brews (except in the last request). So, he could be the kind of Arbitrator who doesn't look deeply at the actual facts of the case. Count Iblis (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anarchists for this thread. Up WMC, down Wiki!! Oi Oi Oi Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is an edit-warrior and hard-core POV pusher who's repeatedly violated WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I understand. So you've reported them for this and... ? --BozMo talk 21:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To who? Admins are notoriously reluctant to exercise their powers, even when it's a no-brainer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cast my vote in favor of three candidates only, out of the four with whom I have had interaction of Wikipedia. The reason I decided to make a point of supporting William M. Connolley's candidacy is because he is a no-nonsense administrator, who is willing to take action where it is needed and at the time it is needed. Other editors often discuss too much to be of any good. This type of admin in a committee, any committee, will be a valuable asset to it, in my opinion. Debresser (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed analysis of this candidate's edits in article, user and project space can be found at User:Franamax/Ucontribs-2009/Xavexgoem. Franamax (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]