Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements

''This page is just for endorsements and "disendorsements". The actual vote is'' here

This page is for the listing of endorsements either by or for specific users.

For a short period of time, opposition could be placed on the Disendorsements page. However, a community majority has indicate their preference for the latter page to be merged with this page, and all opposition has thus been merged. It is therefore advised not to use the Disendorsements page for such matters anymore.

Endorsements listed by candidate
Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse/oppose. Your reasoning is welcome but not required.

(Please add names of further candidate/s)

Listing of individuals making endorsements
This is a list of users who have posted endorsements regarding the Arbitration Committee elections.

172
For the Arbitration Committee to play a constructive role in producing an encyclopedia, its members must understand just what is involved in writing a good article on Wikipedia; and its members must understand that there is a difference between serious editors and trolls sabotoging the work of serious editors. Too many of current members of the committee, along with a number of candidates currently running, view disputes from a prism up high from the IRC channel, mailing list, or the conflict resolution pages. They are not the colleagues of the active editors and writers but rather increasingly distant and unsympathetic authorities over us. However, to be an arbitrator as constructive and accessible as, say, Jwrosenzweig, one has to engage with the community not just from the top down but also from the bottom up. This is why I feel compelled to endorse the following candidates aside from myself in no particular order that have toiled the hardest to write quality articles and maintain their quality:
 * Hephaestos
 * Everyking
 * Mirv
 * Cecropia
 * Neutrality

172 08:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

198
I'm not fully sure if I could give my opinon but I shall nevertheless. I think the Arbitration Committee SHOULD be tough. likewise I support tough people for the Arbitration Committee.

Strong Support


 * Ed-nice and a professional user
 * VV-nice and professional also

Weak Support


 * Theresa-She may have blocked me for edit warring, but she is tough enough for me to like her.

Weak Oppose


 * Lir-I cannot support a Communist for Arbitration Committee, nevertheless he is much nicer and more tolerent of my opinons than the other communists I've met here (Like User:El_C, and User:Gzornenplatz).


 * 172-Yet again another commie! However he does have guts that I think is good.


 * User:Mirv-"Socialist" which I cannot support.

The rest of the people running I don't know, or don't care about.--198 02:36, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ashibaka tlk 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus

 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically.


 * If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashibaka

 * Neutrality
 * Support-- Neutrality's contributions to many discussions show him to be unbiased, wise, and cool as a cucumber.

blankfaze
what blankfaze has to say:

I'd just like to say that I think most everyone running, save for a handful of obviously unqualified nogoodniks, is worthy and qualified and I wish all such candidates the best of luck. As such, I see no need or ability to endorse certain candidates moreso than others – with two exceptions. I was going to attempt to endorse one candidate who I felt was hands-down the best man running; but such could not be done. Both David Gerard and Raul654 came to mind. Hence, I endorse both of them and would like to vouch that they are both men of honour, neutrality, and levelheadedness:


 * David Gerard
 * Raul654

BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek
When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians. I suspect the reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientations. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 172

Cecropia
I have endorsed a number of editors who I know and respect. I don't want to enumerate them here as I may have missed someone worthy by foolish oversight or because I simply don't know them well enough. I have confidence that the community will elect the most appropriate candidates.

Frankly, since I am running myself, I am not comfortable with endorsing others lest it seem a quid pro quo or a solicitation of the same. However, since the endorsements are being widely done, I would feel bad to have others think I didn't care enough the worthies assembled here to express an opinion. Having said that, let me reiterate that I do not mean to downgrade those I haven't endorsed, and I will refrain from making negative endorsements. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Vasquez
Per the wishes of Jimbo Wales, I have removed all statements of my opposition to any of the candidates. In all fairness, this action requires that I also remove all of my endorsements.

I encourage everyone to vote their own conscience, without considering alliances, or whether or not you like the other contributors who are supporting a candidate you would otherwise support. --DV 13:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I encourage everyone to ignore the wishes of Jimbo Wales. This is a wiki, not a dictatorship. CheeseDreams 13:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encylopedia! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki encyclopedia, not one run by dictatorship. CheeseDreams 11:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia
Arbcom candidate endorsements:
 * Ambi: Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * sannse: Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

El_C
I am more than happy to elaborate on each and every one of my endorsements and/or lack thereof. Note that some may be forthcoming. El_C 20:47, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strong Support:
 * 172


 * Support:
 * Dante Alighieri
 * Cecropia
 * Everyking
 * Hephaestos
 * Mirv
 * Neutrality
 * Sannse


 * Opposition:
 * Theresa knott
 * Lir


 * Strong Opposition:
 * Sam Spade
 * VeryVerily

Exploding Boy
I strongly oppose Sam Spade and Ed Poor.

I support Ambi and Theresa Knott.

I am ambivalent about Raul and so have chosen not to vote. On the one hand, he does usually seem to aim for consensus and try to work out problems. On the other hand, I see him as a bit didactic. While he usually tries to be civil, he sometimes makes comments that are a little objectionable. I just don't know about this one, so I'm abstaining.

FeloniousMonk

 * Grunt
 * Yea, verily.--FeloniousMonk 19:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. Also of concern, despite other candidates having done so in interest of complying with the Arbitration policy, Sam Spade has failed to disclose his past multiple accounts, JackLynch and Jack.


 * That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions.

--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder
I endorse User:Ambi, User:Ed Poor, User:Jdforrester, User:Raul654, User:sannse and User:Theresa knott. I would warn against the elections of edit warriors such as User:172 and User:VeryVerily. Fred Bauder 22:53, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

I strongly oppose candidates who persistantly edit from a particular point of view and who are not amenable to discussion. I have therefor warned against the candidates, User:172 and User:VeryVerily. The issue is not right or left or even engaging in edit wars with respect to contested edits. It is sustained insistance on getting their way. That said, it is possible they might grow into the role of arbitrator should they be elected, but it is likely that they would simply view the arbitration committee as an area for further point of view activities justified by the same sort of sophistry they use to justify POV edit warring. Fred Bauder 11:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * You are lying about me. Very Verily 10:53, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No way, I sent you messages about repeated reversions and warned you that a day of reckoning would come. Your response was that everyone else does it and that somehow your activities were justified, meanwhile complaining bitterly about the activities of others who were only doing what you did. That in some cases you were reverting to edits I had made is beside the point. Unlike 172, who encourages the likes of Shorne and Ruy Lopez, I discouraged you and you ignored me. Fred Bauder 13:06, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Like almost everything you say to me, this (besides being more lies - my response was not that and my complaints were content-related) is utterly beside the point and betrays a characteristic failure to connect one logical point to another. I consider it slander to be told I am not amenable to discussion and use sophistry to justify POV edit warring, and will happily call you a liar for making such scurrilous accusations. Very Verily  21:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I also oppose User:blankfaze who, without consensus, created this ghetto page for criticisms of candidates and User:Johnleemk who has taken it upon himself to enforce this non-existent "policy". It seems very unlikely that either would respect other Wikipedia policies reached by consensus or be able to work on the arbitration committee productively. Fred Bauder 11:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC).


 * I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of the other) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grunt
Arbitration election endorsements:


 * Ambi
 * Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * blankfaze
 * /me ezafknalbs - and supports. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * lol. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Dante Alighieri
 * Few people know Dante. From what little I know of him, I feel he would make a good arbitrator. Therefore support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * David Gerard
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Fennec
 * Good ol' FireFennec. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * James F.
 * Support! Has many times proved his worth to the arbcom. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Mirv
 * Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Neutrality
 * Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Raul654
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * sannse
 * Support! -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Ta bu shi da yu
 * Single-handedly broke my unopposed support record for adminship and still going strong. Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)


 * Theresa knott
 * Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:58, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Gzuckier
Arbitration election endorsements:
 * 172
 * Support, Has a good vision of where Wiki has to go as it expands from a group of talented personalities into an entity with its own emergent behavior. Gzuckier 16:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr
Endorsements:


 * 1) Ed Poor: Support. A POV warrior, but open-minded and fair.
 * 2) Mirv: Support. One of (too) few Wikipedians who defend neutrality in practice, even if it involves an unpopular cause.
 * 3) sannse: Support. Evenhanded.

DisEndorsements:


 * 1) Ambi:  Oppose. Would support in future if Ambi resists the bait and avoids taking sides.
 * 2) Cecropia: Mildly oppose, just to show that Cecropia ain't no Mother Theresa. Cecropia can be fair, but sometimes needs to be beaten into it. In one case, it took Cecropia a long while to give up on using sysop privs to call a vote in which he participated. In another, Cecropia tried to decert a certified RfC, even lobbying one certifier to withdraw. And, curiously, in both cases Cecropia sided with the same POV.
 * 3) Improv: Oppose. A trail of bias without the balance and fairness required for an AC.
 * 4) Neutrality: Oppose. Neutrality is, of course, anything but. See "Neutrality" at work: supporting breaking rules and playing on a POV pushing team.
 * 5) Ta bu shi da yu: Oppose. Takes sides, does not understand rules, and even defends sysops breaking rules.
 * I appreciate the strike, but I've withdrawn! - Ta bu shi da yu 06:58, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed, that's why I did not move you under "Support", but I felt I needed to make this correction anyway. HistoryBuffEr 08:06, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)
 * 1) Yoshiah ap (Josiah): Oppose. A POV pusher without sufficient balance, see  and.

Others: Apologies to all others who deserve an Endorsement (or a DisEndorsement) but have been left out because of insufficient familiarity (or excessive notoriety.)

HistoryBuffEr 05:43, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)

Jfdwolff
Resist the silliness of disendorsements. Endorsed:
 * Charles Matthews
 * David Gerard
 * Ed Poor
 * Neutrality
 * Yosiah_ap

Johnleemk
From my interactions with these users (and those they have had with others that I had chance to observe) I have seen nothing but good, and I just have this nice feeling inside about them being arbitrators, considering their grasp of policy. This is not to say that I don't think other candidates are great; I just feel these would make the best arbitrators among all the candidates. Ta bu shi da yu, sannse, Neutrality and Mirv were pretty close, though, but I feel I haven't seen enough of them to be sure they'd make good arbitrators:


 * Ambi
 * David Gerard
 * Raul654
 * Shane King
 * Theresa knott
 * Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator.
 * Johnleemk | Talk 04:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mackensen

 * James F.
 * Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutrality
 * Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul654
 * Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * Endorsements:
 * Ambi
 * Blankfaze
 * Grunt
 * Mirv
 * Raul654
 * Other people who would be good Arbitrators
 * 172
 * Cecropia
 * David Gerard
 * Fennec
 * Hephaestos
 * James F.
 * Johnleemk
 * Sannse (I prefer sannse on the MedCom)
 * Theresa knott

All the others fall into four categories: trolls, revert warriors, rude/mean people, and friendly but unqualified people.

Nick-In-South-Africa

 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I feel obliged to dis-endorse user Sam Spade because I deem him unsuiatable for the role of Admin. Specifically for his conduct on and related to the Talk Atheism pages, seemingly because they do not fit in with his agenda which as Felonious Monk details above, is well documented and sadly biggoted is not too strong a word. Here he simply will not accept well sourced multiple references and conceding the point on the wide use of the weak or passive definition of Atheism. Not only this he repeatedly fails to answer direct questions on his reasons for failing to accept these multiple, well sourced references and this is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. He also has sent a foul language abusive e-mail to Felonious Monk using the Wikipedia e-mail system following the start of these discussions. This is simply beyond the pale more especially in the light of his failure to express contrition for this.


 * Sam’s behaviour and style completely contra indicates his suitability for the important role of admin.--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quadell
In my opinion, an arbitor is just a wiki-job, like tagging images or greeting newcomers. Not everyone is well suited to every job. There are some great editors I did not endorse. My endorsees are easy to find above; they're the ones sporting the QuaintQuadellQuality Seals of Approval.

For an arbitor, the requirements for my endorsement are:
 * 1) to have proven they can admit when they're wrong.
 * 2) to have shown restraint in situations where they could have made a snarky comments but didn't
 * 3) to treat everyone – even trolls – with respect.

(Not all users, or even all admins, should fill those requirements; I think some people are much more fun because they don't. But arbitors should not necessarily be fun people.)

Rdsmith4
Endorsements:
 * Ambi
 * Very much so. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Grunt
 * Very much so. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * James F.
 * Very much so. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Neutrality
 * Very much so. &mdash; Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul654
 * Support very much. &mdash; Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * sannse
 * Support very much. &mdash; Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

 * VeryVerily
 * Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the  Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week.  The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like.  I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Scooter
Just your average Wikiguy, managing to avoid Wikiholism by deftly filling my brain with far too much to do. Thanks to all who ran.

Shem
Endorsements:


 * Ambi
 * Strongly support. I'm a new user, and she's one of the few Wikipedians I've found to be both impressive and capable of staying outside her own biases. Level-headedness is a must for this role, and Ambi's near cornered the market when it comes to Wikipedians. Insert various other echoes of ShaneKing's endorsement here. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Ta bu shi da ya
 * Support. Another one of the few level-headed Wikipedians I've seen around often since my arrival here.  A good admin, and a good person for this role. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne
[The following comments refer to the numerous attempts&mdash;successful for much of the month of November&mdash;to censor discussion here. Although those efforts seem ultimately to have failed, I am leaving this information here, as I believe it still to be relevant. Shorne 04:03, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)]

Totally disgusting. Negative comments, however true, are "discouraged" and shoved into a corner, whilst positive comments, however fatuous, are encouraged and put on a pedestal. No wonder the (mal)administration here is so hopelessly corrupt and oppressive. Shorne 04:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu
Endorsements:


 * Ambi
 * Support. Excellent user. I highly recommend her! (this is probably going to knock off my vote, but I don't care if she gets in. She might be young, but she acts pretty maturely.) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * David Gerard
 * Support. I think he'd make an excellent arbitrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul654
 * Strongly support. Does a fantastic job. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Taco Deposit
I have endorsed Cecropia and David Gerard. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 16:19, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Tannin
I'll be away during the period of the AC elections and unable to vote, so I'm recording my wishes here, in the hope that this will be counted as my vote. There are many good candidates standing, and I'm sure that most of them would do a good job if given the task. However, there are several that seem to me to be particularly outstanding contributors, and especially worthy of the positions. They are, in order:


 * 1) Theresa knott
 * 2) Hephaestos
 * 3) Mirv
 * 4) Neutrality
 * 5) David Gerard
 * 6) 172

I don't know if this will be accepted as a formal vote or not, but it's the best that I can do under the circumstances. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimol
My comments on candites can be found at User:Wikimol/Arbitration election endorsements.

I believe this page (Disendorsements) was useful, exactly as Organizers say, as a handy reference to candidate's past conflicts. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and I want to know how candidates themselves resolved disputes in which they were personaly engaged. --Wikimol 08:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Endorsements

 * Charles Matthews - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace.


 * I simply endorse, because allready doing good work in Wikipedia comittees and similar structures.


 * User:Sannse
 * User:Jdforrester

William M. Connolley
Endorse:


 * David Gerard
 * Theresa knott

William M. Connolley 21:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtra
Endorsements:


 * 172
 * Support, impartial, would be a good member. Xtra 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Raul654
 * support Xtra 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope this page (Disendorsements) will not be used
In my "Letter from the Founder" I wrote: "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential, and both of those are helped along enormously when we feel favorably towards each other just as a natural result of being volunteers together on this incredible ridiculous crazy fun project to change the world.

None of us is perfect in these matters; such is the human condition. But each of us can try each day, in our editing, in our mailing list posts, in our irc chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love."

This page is a magnet and incentive for a different approach, one which I most vigorously reject for our community. I encourage people to avoid the use of this page, and instead stick to positive endorsements of people who you think will represent our values thoughtfully and rationally. If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Jimbo Wales 16:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing that Jimbo appears to attack as a troll anyone who has an objection to someone being an Arbitrator. Those who seek to discipline and judge us should surely be beyond reproach themselves and have the full support of the Wikipedia community. It's important that those who seek to set themselves above the rest are open to full scrutiny. I therefore encourage sensible use of this page. jguk 01:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing that Jimbo states "[t]he only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential" and then appears to call everyone he disagrees with a troll. Not everyone who has a strong disagreement with a nominee's candidacy is doing so out of malice; I concur with jguk, we should encourage sensible criticisms of the nominees' past actions. millerc 02:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I believe Jimbo is referring to the potential for this page to turn into a flame war. This place is truly the ideal place for a troll looking to cause problems.--Josiah 02:16, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope this page (Disendorsements) will be used
This page allows users to voice their concern about the candidates. Some candidates may simply by force of personality in their statements "appear" to be neutral, open minded candidates to be elected, when in actual fact they are nothing of the sort. It is important to prevent such obfuscation. In a real world election, it is never a case of each side stating how nice they are, without also warning the electorate about the dangers of choosing wrongly.

Hitler was elected democratically.

CheeseDreams 23:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks up Godwin's Law. Draws own conclusion --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * The red herring notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler was not elected democratically in the way most of us would view the term. His Nazi Party secured the most seats in the Reichstag, but never a majority, Communists also holding a large position, but not as many as the Nazis. After several dissolved governments, Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in perhaps history's most disastrous attaempt at what we '60s flower children would have called "co-opting": more like making the schoolyard bully into the head hall monitor in order to bind him to "the system." Hitler paid obeisence to Hindenburg. Some Germans were charmed: "The Field Marshall and the Corporal." Wasn't that warm and fuzzy? Not too many warm and fuzzy moments after that. After Hitler was chancellor the Nazis got 44% of the votes in the Reichstag, and only formed a government by making a coalition with another rightest party. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * but that is exactly my point - people who would abuse the system ought not to recieve any kind of power. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hitler had asked Hindenburg to appoint him "how would you answer to the German people if you did not"
 * To which Hindenburg replied "if I appointed you, how would I answer to God". CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But Hindenburg did appoint Hitler, so your point is...?


 * P.s. getting power with over 43% of the vote is the dream of many unstable democracies. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hitler had the power before the Nazis got 44% of the vote.


 * It was certainly poor form to invoke the law explicitly. And it's "Godwin" not "Goodwin" (your misspelling redirects to the properly spelled article). However, I concede the above remarks are a well-executed attempt by both CheeseDreams and Tagishsimon to shut down the discussion.


 * But Jimbo has already effectively shut down this discussion with his strong statement discouraging any further postings on this page, so seeing how it's his site, I will respect that request and no longer post in this thread, as once once of the founders of a site discourages something, you're pissing into the wind to persist at it. Cheers, --DV 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Run that by me again. Cheesedreams cites Hitler. I cite Godwin's law, in effect saying that to cite Hitler is in bad taste and loses the argument. And you lump me and Cheesedreams together and. think it in worse taste to cite Godwin's law that to make comparisons to Hitler in a discussion about the arbitration Committee. Go figure. And try working on your english comprehension. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * It is officially considered bad form to invoke Godwin's law explicitely. See the article for confirmation. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Some things are more than their creators


 * if this is truly a wiki, the founder should have no more authority than any other, in fact, it would be a show of good faith if the founders were to recant all powers they have and hold the status of no higher than an anonymous user, and go on to comment on nothing, and seek to enforce no authority, only editing minor insignificant articles.


 * If god walked on earth, he would be the cleaner in a tibetan monastry. CheeseDreams 20:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(A user attempted to supress this section - it has been restored, as Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, allowing the case for the existance of this page to be made as much as the case for its non-existance)


 * Since when did the NPOV policy apply to things outside of the article namespace??? Shane King 01:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, in that case, ill go and rewrite the Wikipedia:NPOV policy (which resides outside of the article namespace) to suit my POV, and castigate those disagreeing. CheeseDreams 08:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Pages outside the article namespace are governed by different policies, and large-scale rewrites are not permitted without community consensus, usually gathered from polls. If you read WP:NPOV carefully, you'll find it states several times that the policy applies to articles. The correct inference, then is that this does not apply to pages that are not articles. There is a reason why it does not say in the very first sentence (or anywhere else), "Wikipedia policy is that all pages should have a neutral point of view". Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So, who had the large scale consensus to seperate this page and suggest it ought not to be used? Or was it just hypocracy? CheeseDreams 08:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue we were discussing was the validity of NPOV policy outside the main namespace, not the validity of blanking this page. I express no opinion either way, but NPOV policy most emphatically does not apply to pages outside the article namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * but the policy that DOES apply to pages outside of articles is that non-offensive comments cannot be removed just because it suits the POV of an editor CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Johnleemk | Talk 07:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly believe in the ethical free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal. For any informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?

If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found on the Disendorsements page is beyond useful, it is required reading.--FeloniousMonk 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! --Rebroad 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I tried to add an "Oppose" (of "Neutrality") and comment to this page and I have found it's not on the page. I'd like to know why, from the election organisers please. I'd also like to let other users know that it seems to have been removed by "Neutrality" himself. I found this on the page history:

"22:20, 3 Dec 2004 Neutrality (rm trollish nonsense. Every person is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.) (cur) (last)  21:40, 3 Dec 2004 WikiUser (Oppose - Best I can do in interests of The Wikipedia.)"

FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/Neutrality&diff=8113462&oldid=8095213

and it's also on his history, yet it's not on the history of THIS page.

I call upon all who are concerned about the fairness of these elections to help me find out what's going on. 1. Why am I not allowed to post oppose comments here? And yet others can: Rebroad and LegCircus for example, who both opposed "Neutrality" after I did. 2. Why can "Neutrality", apparently, delete criticisms of him on this election page? 3. What other dodgy deletions are being done here?

We're told on the Community Portal: "Get involved- Review the candidates in the Arbitration Committee elections and vote before December 18." The top of this page says: "Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse/oppose. Your reasoning is welcome but not required." Sjc says: "Strong oppose.", and "Neutrality" says: "May I ask why?" But he deletes it when someone tries to tell him why.WikiUser 20:01, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Short answer: This is not the election page, see the bottom of Special:ArbComVote for the link to the actual election. Kim Bruning 22:00, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Election organizers' views regarding this page (Disendorsements)
The tradition of public "oppose" statements that elucidate the rationale for opposition comes from WP:RFA, where candidates are chosen by consensus and an honest evaluation is a necessary, if sometimes troubling, part of the discussion process. The arbitration committee election, on the other hand, is a voting process rather than a consensus one. Accordingly, each vote is given equal weight regardless of its rationale, and the rationale for failing to support a candidate need not be shared.

On behalf of the election organizers, I would like draw special attention to the portion of our earlier statement where we ask you to show your disapproval only with your vote itself. It is our hope that this may be a collegial election. Since nearly all candidates are long-time contributors to the wiki, we would hope that the process will unfold in such a way that even those who are not elected will retain their dignity and the respect of the community.

In reviewing the "disendorsements" already made, I observe that few comments are surprising. Instead, allegiances and prior conflicts that have already been hashed out in the community are being trotted out for another go. Other than by serving as a handy index by gathering this material in a single place, little is accomplished through these listings.

We discourage additional listings on this page and suggest that those who have already added material here may wish to remove it.

On behalf of the election organizers, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Danny 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) and Elian 18:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. If you don't support someone, use your signature rather than flaming or bashing the person in question. If enough users have their signatures in opposition, people will get the idea that someone ought not to be elected, without spreading gossip--Josiah 02:19, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sweet Jebusl, do you want to increase the spillover of this whole thing? It's bad enough that we're fighting at all, but at least we're fighting on one page. Do you want to take this issue to every page where people talk? Johnleemk | Talk 08:14, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I disagree on endorsements -- it's helpful to have reasons, both so the affected party can open a discussion with the endorser, in case it's an accident or based on a misunderstanding that can be cleared up, and so we can tell if a disendorsement by user X actually has good reason or not. Blank endorsements/disendorsements mean nothing to me. --Improv 21:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)