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

Support

 * Strongly endorse. &mdash;No-One Jones (m) 22:27, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa has shown remarkable resilience and good humor in the face of some of this site's worst trolls. I have seen in her both the patience necessary to deal with arbitration (an endeavor greatly requiring that virtue) and the soundness of judgment necessary to carry out reasonable remedies.  Finally, someone who has dealt with trolls of many types is, I think, excellently qualified to be an arbitrator, both because she understands the pressures good users are often placed under, and because she understands the importance of rising above trolls rather than engaging in their tactics -- I believe this would help her craft responses to cases that both recognize the straits good users find themselves in and push these good users to avoid bad behavior despite said straits. I wholeheartedly endorse her for this position. Jwrosenzweig 23:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:58, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
 * My strongest possible endorsement. When I think of the very best aspects of Wikipedia, there is one name that always rises to the top: Theresa Knott. I second everything that Jwrosenzweig just said, (and I am very angry with Jwrosenzweig for beating me to it ;-) ). func(talk) 00:01, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator. Johnleemk | Talk 04:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Theresa has been a great force of good in the area of positive community development. She is fair and patient - two qualities that every ArbCom member should have. Note that the only person opposing so far has a case before the ArbCom right now. I very much look forward to working with Theresa on the ArbCom. --mav 23:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support very much. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 00:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support - Superhuman patience in dealing with the terminally exasperating. Stan 05:20, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support without reservation. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott has earned my endorsement. I believe she would be uniquely suited to the toner task.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:56, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, has done a lot of the dirty work of enforcement, but has done it fairly. Fred Bauder 20:11, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Even-handed, level-headed, and no-nonsense.  Believes no one is above the rules.  Plus a sense of humor. What more could you want from arbcom? Wolfman 00:59, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wolfman - you are ruining the punchline! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 18:55, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oops, pulled it. Wolfman 02:17, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Endorse for strong contributions, good personality. --Improv 04:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --[[User:Eequor|η [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ υωρ ]]] 05:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Theresa has been kind, courteous, and incredibly pleasant every time I have come into contact with her.  She is exactly the kind of person we need more of in Wikipedia. PZFUN 18:01, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Rama 22:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, OneGuy 14:04, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Sam Hocevar 01:41, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support --jni 13:53, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Cribcage 17:43, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. My definite candidate of choice. Smart, cool, and unhasselled. Sjc 08:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Everyking 06:56, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. All of the above, plus add generic superlatives here before "Wikipedian". (I'm feeling very lazy today.) JRM 23:02, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)
 * Support. Helpful, active, fair-minded. Factitious 10:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Indeed. Rama 13:54, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. LegCircus 15:35, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.  Exploding Boy 22:04, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; OwenBlacker 22:36, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I followed the MyNaturalHealth debacle for a while, and feel that she handled It well. I have also seen her helping in other sections of the wikipedia. - Xgkkp 00:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, Theresa is a whole human and shows it. She has humour, patience and diligency. ✏ Sverdrup 02:39, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 00:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * A Huge Support. Timbo 05:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * user:Anthere
 * Strongly Support, The only thing that I know about T.K. is that everybody I've come in contact with have told me what a great asset she is to Wiki. Good Luck. Tony the Marine

Oppose

 * Strongly oppose. Theresa Knott has proven to be utterly supercilious, consistently taking the part of the administration and dismissing the legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. See, for example, her extensive discussion over the past few days in User talk:Jimbo Wales, where she snapped "Stop whinging" at me in response to a complaint that has received considerable popular support, then continued to accuse another user of "whinging". Although she did eventually apologise for this display of condescension, her partiality towards the administration coûte que coûte is precisely the opposite of what we need at a time when so many people are complaining&mdash;with justice&mdash;of an élite cabal. Shorne 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK I'm not sure if it's a good idea to defend myself here. But what the hell I'm going to do it anyway. I do not dismiss legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. I have spoken on many occasions to admins and other users if I feel they have behaved out of line to other users. RickK, 172, Gabriel Webber,Heph, Grunt I think (I confirm this -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:34, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)), the admin on apple pie whose name escapes me - Arminius, orthogonal, and loads more that I can't remember. When it comes to it I will reverse other admins if I feel they have not acted within policy. I did not "snap" at you. I reminded you that the AC decision was a tempory measure designed to protect wikipedia, and that your calling for the AC to be purged was whinging. The "other user" that I accused of whinging was Xed, who was complaining yet again, that he had been temp blocked over his insistance on keep adding jimbo's email to secretlondon to the requests for arbitration page despite the fact that it had already been rejected by the arbitrators. He used this blocking to attack me, even though I wasn't the one who blocked him. He also said that i appealed to authority when in actual fact i had said that the AC should not have duristiction over private emails. This is something I still think btw. All this happen months ago, so yes i do think that Xed brinig it up again is whinging. I also want to correct the "eventually apologised" statement you made. You complained that i was being condescending, I apologised for that the moment I read your complaint. There was no "eventually" about as any who reads jimbo's talk page can see. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 14:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC) I am displeased with how this Oppose section has turned out, and I am removing my opposition in sympathy with Theresa Knott. She has responded to fairly mean-spirited comments here admirably, and that is to her credit. El_C 04:35, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose protected POV version of page in edit war not pre-edit war version(s). CheeseDreams 22:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I did protect the page to stop the edit war. I have no idea if the version I protected was POV or not as I have no knowledge or interest in the subject. I was merely trying to stop the edit war. The edit war is between multiple users all reverting each other like crazy, there are hundreds and hundreds of edits to that article, I wouldn't have the faintest idea which version to revert to. Also note that this is the first interaction i have ever had with cheese dreams. He did not bring his concerns to me on my talk page, or on the talk page of the article. His first action on seeing me do something he didn't like was to start a rfc on me and then make this edit here. What can I say? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * CheeseDreams, this seems to be a misunderstanding about the protection policy. The admin protecting a page is not supposed to choose which version or decide which is POV.  To do so would make the admin an involved party. Very Verily  12:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note the way other admins such as RickK revert to a version before an edit war before protecting - thus retaining the article, during the protection, in a state more agreeable to both sides than either of the edit war versions, or at least one which they don't object to continuing to exist for a while. CheeseDreams 23:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a "stable version" is a somewhat controversial practice. I know RickK does it, but many other admins do not.  See Protection policy. Very Verily  13:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note also what rickK had to say on this matter Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Xed: First of all, props for the use of the word "ghettoise" and the "Keep your wig on Terry"  and "Something similar happened in Florida a while ago" comments. A Good Laugh. However, I really do take offence at your notion that I "may be guilty of election fraud". Lastly I urge you to give up this campaign of yours against Theresa, because nothing good can come of it. Regardless of your opinion of her, you're only perpetuating a mean and nasty flame war here. Show your dissent with your VOTE, my friend. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 23:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Election fraud making patronising comments seems her only skill. Regards admins as infallible. Believes defending users against arrogant admins is "trolling" and "whinging" - Xed 20:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC). changing vote to Support, since I believe that this is the best strategy for keeping Theresa off the streets - Xed 20:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (Interesting: "making patronising comments seems her only skill")   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * This from the user who is the master of patronizing comments...the irony is thick here. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott has indeed been patronising and imperious. I wouldn't say that that's her only skill, however: she also seems to be good at making anagrams of her name. Shorne 03:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm useless at making anagrams of my name. I rely on the talent of others in that respect. Quite a number of people have made numerous suggestions on my talk page. I just pick one I like every now and then. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Elitist. Useless at anagrams. Poor conception of basic sexual morality. Hardly admin material. Case closed - Xed 19:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Elitist. Useless at anagrams." -> "Lass is eager, eats stimulant." Also, "sexual morality" -> "I max u. Yes, a troll."   – Quadell (talk) (help)   20:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * He's right about my sexual morality, I call myself a tart, and I show my naked tits to anyone who cares to look at them ;-) (See my user page) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very strong support. --Viriditas 23:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa Xed --> The dear sex (I may be a tart but im not cheap) or -->He rated sex (So do I, what a coincidence)
 * Theresa Knott Xed --> Hot sex trade kent (I do actually live in north kent)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed you are a funny guy.You have changed your mind yet again on me! However this time you have made a very serious alligation. I suggest you explain how I have managed to to do this "election fraud" when the election hasn't even started yet. I would also like you to explain why my saying I support blankfazes organisation of this endorsement page means I have perfomed election fraud, especially when you haven't even opposed blankfaze. (In fact you supported him - you are ware that he was the one to move the oppose remarks to a seperate page?)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Supporters and opposers need to be able to see clearly the comments of all parties in relation to the potential candidate. Putting opposing comments on a separate page is virtually deleting those comments since not many will look at that page, because they either don't know it exists or because they can't be bothered to jump through so many hoops. There is no real sense in putting the opposing votes on a separate page, so the only real reason can be that some candidates don't want others to see them. This matches your general view that admins are beyond reproach and complaints against them are not to be acted on, or even listened to. As for supporting blankfaze, my support or otherwise is based on careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects. - Xed 16:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that because you disagree with the way blankfaze organised the pages and I said "OK I can live with that" about it then it's acceptable to accuse me of election fraud but not him? Xed you are trolling. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This fits in with your worldview that admins are beyond criticism, and to do so is trolling. At least you're consistent. - Xed 16:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are making incendiary comments, Xed. If you provide no solid reasoning behind them beyond saying you conducted "careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects", you are opening yourself to accusations of trolling. Your conduct of discussion is controversial enough to cause others to flame you, and that is the typical definition of trolling. Either explain why you have not accused blankfaze of election fraud (and why you accused Theresa of supporting it instead of merely saying she tolerates it, although that would still be quite unacceptable for most) or strike out your false accusations. Note: For the conspiracy theory-inclined, this is not an order, merely my opinion. I'm sure it is shared by many of my fellow members of the "cabal". Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There's nothing incendiary about my remarks. How I come to my desisions as really up to me. Blankfaze may be guilty of election fraud, but he doesn't share the numerous deficits of character that I have already shown Theresa to have. Theresa, by her words and actions, believes admins to be some sort of infallible clergy. She's even trying to make me withdraw my criticism of her intolerance of criticism! In Grunts nomination above (unless it's been deleted..), she criticized my giving an explanation for my opposition even though Grunt had asked for one. Thus my opinion of her is overwhelmingly negative, whereas my opinion of blankfaze is more ambiguous. You aren't asking the first user in Theresa's list to justify himself (Strongly endorse. &mdash;No-One Jones (m)). Again, criticism of the Wikiclique seems a lynching offense here.- Xed 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed I an happy for you to critisize me all you like. What I am complaining about is you lying about me. You have accused me of election fraud. That is a lie. Please retract it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep your wig on Terry. You supported a motion to ghettoise opposing comments so few would see them. Something similar happened in Florida a while ago. For some reason you don't want people to see criticism of the infallible admins. Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, I did not ask Mirv to justify himself because he did not troll. If he had said "Support; anyone who commits fraud in an election is worthy of a position on the arbcom," yes, I would ask him to justify himself. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to agree with Theresa's view that criticizing admins amounts to trolling. That seems to be what Wikipedia has become - an encyclopaedia with daily show trials for the insufficiently sycophantic - Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between making a criticism and lying about a person. --Viriditas 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, for instance you lied when you said I claimed Vanunu was a scientist, whereas I am criticizing Terry the Infallible - Xed 16:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Incompetent editors make worse arbitrators. Lirath Q. Pynnor