Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Raul654

Support

 * &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 21:01, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * While Raul and I do not always agree on matters of policy, I have seen in these last few months that he is a dedicated and intelligent arbitrator, who works well in pushing for consensus, and whose commitment to keeping this site an excellent and reliable resource is firm. I am pleased he is running for reelection, and believe the community would do well to reaffirm the trust they indicated in his judgment in August. Jwrosenzweig 00:01, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * support Xtra 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support very much. &mdash; Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, despite the comments above opposition below. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely the most qualified and fitting user I know. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 22:21, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Raul has earned my endorsement.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   05:13, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Raul has impressed during his first term on the Committee. He's played an important role in getting it functioning, and though I've been a critic of much of the Committee, I've rarely found fault with his fair and reasoned decisions. He'll have my vote. Ambi 05:21, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support CheeseDreams 20:02, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, has good record as an arbitrator. Fred Bauder 20:08, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Very strong support - mav 22:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) In the time Raul has been a part of the ArbCom he has proved to be one of the most active members. His ability to manage such a high level of involvement and still be in charge of the Featured article process, is simply amazing. He is a fair-minded and very hard working individual who certainly deserves to be re-elected as a member.
 * Support. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 20:03, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support --Josiah 22:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Jondel 11:11, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Slim 12:44, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support GeneralPatton 03:13, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Does a ton of administrative and cleanup work, and generally fair to users.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   10:33, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; OwenBlacker 22:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --Oppose-- somebody deleted all of raul's oppose endorsments and his disendorsment section, seems a bti fishy to me. Chuck F 03:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive. Gzornenplatz 01:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz's words are a bit strong. But Raul654 has been striking me as a bit cabalish lately; and he doesn't do nearly as good of a job explaining his reasoning in cases as, say, Jwrosenzweig. 172 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anti-endorsements belong here, but I (shockingly) agree with these sentiments. Although I once thought Raul was clearheaded and voted for him in the last election, my recent experiences have been very poor.  He, in his role as arbitrator, made demeaning comments to me based on something he mistakenly believed I had done, due to failing to look at the material he had been given.  There was no response to my further queries, much less an apology for his error. Very Verily  07:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed that a number of arbitrators, along with a number of the likely "frontrunners" in this race, have a bit of a self-righteous and condescending streak to them. They seem to believe that they have earned the trust of the community; and with they feel that they are entitled to 'talk down' to general users. However, their source of status may not be too impressive. Users like Raul are simply more 'trusted' and popular than users like Gzornenplatz because they can avoid certain kinds of conflict. This isn't the case because they are inherently better behaved than users who get in revert wars; it's just easy to steer clear of edit wars when you're spending most of your time on cleanup, meta, IRC, or the mailing list and not working on the contentious topics in which Gzornenplatz and VV are interested. 172 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * World, take note: 172, I, and possibly Gz agree on something. People whose passions are in particle physics, ancient Greece, or children's toys will simply not be exposed to the same stresses that editors on communism or nationalism are.  But this is a dubious ground for the air of superiority, of being a better person, the former type often exude vis-a-vis the latter. Very Verily  13:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with VeryVerily. People like me are blackened as "edit warriors" solely because we write primarily on contentious political topics and have to put up with impossible people who revert everything we do without discussion. Those who deal primarily with macramé or rhubarb get a good reputation merely by dint of avoiding controversial topics. As for Raul654 and the other haughty arbitrators, their record is available for anyone who cares to look at it. (See below for some references.) Merely being incumbents should bring them no glory: they have proven to be appallingly biased, unaccountable, and vindictive, not to mention slow to take their (unjust) actions. Shorne 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In my own defense - for those who are unaware, all of the complaining users above (Gzornenplatz, 172, VeryVerily, and Shorne) are currently under investigation by the arbitration committee. In fact, taken together they are involved in almost half (5 out of 13) of the current cases. →Raul654 06:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Before concluding from this insertion that we "complaining users" are acting out of spite, users would do well to consider why people whose cases are pending would antagonise an arbitrator. If we were acting wholly out of self-interest, we would curry favour with Raul654. Readers should also look into the record of Raul654. I have provided three links below that prove every single allegation stated above: inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive, demeaning, self-righteous, condescending, superior, haughty, unaccountable, slow. More proof could easily be found. After all, every bit of it is logged here for posterity. Shorne 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. I oppose the reëlection of any current arbitrator. All active members of the current arbitration commitee have demonstrated themselves to be corrupt, unaccountable, and unresponsive. This includes Raul654. For some evidence, please see Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. Shorne 03:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See also the case for mediation filed against Raul654 by Netoholic: Requests for mediation/Archive 11. Shorne 07:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having looked into his record, I find him to be high-handed and condescending. - Xed 19:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Approaches disagreement without consideration, restraint, or grace.  --[[User:Eequor|η [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ υωρ ]]] 06:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not strongly, but nevertheless. Cribcage 17:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good user-- but his handling of the VeryVerily, Shore, and Gzornenplatz case has been very disappointing. VV, Shorne, and Gz are not vandals, cranks, or trolls; they are highly intelligent and prolific contributors. When the Arbcom had a chance to help them reach a modus vivideni, it instead alienated and banned these three valuable contributors for two months. When the Arbcom should have helped to resolve a series of conflicts, it intead treated these three users as criminals of sorts. Raul has done many great things for Wiki in other capacities, but IMHO we need arbitrators who can think of more creative ways of settling disputes. 172 10:11, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Entirely unsuitable, cannot detach own opinion from the role. Too easily assumes bad faith. --Rebroad 12:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose -Rrjanbiah 10:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Corrupt, unjust, and full of himself. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Oppose. As stated by people above, he has contempt for the rights of other users. And in general none of the qualities needed by someone dealing with arbcom cases. People come to The Wikipedia believing its glowing propaganda, then can find themselves targeted by this user when they may not even know they've broken a rule. He blocked me for 24 hours against the stated rules. I also object because of the large amount of offensive material he's put on The Wikipedia. This web site doesn't have an "18 only" agreement on the front page, so he's therefore also exposing children to this. He just wants the position but doesn't want to do the work involved. In the case against Rex071404 other arbcoms voted but he kept everyone hanging on for weeks: []. (He kept them waiting for a month before they could even start the case: [].) Another sign of arrogance is he posted a comment to make it look as if I'd done it: [] So in summary he doesn't have the necessary judgement, or manner, for dealing with the public or taking arbcom decisions. WikiUser 21:20, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)