Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Cla68

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Cla68 or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * I have voted to Oppose this candidate and many other candidates due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Whether or not I agree with the candidate's stances in such conflicts is negligible. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members. Vodello (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I feel that Cla68's incredible featured level work is his forte and that he should not be sidetracked from continuing in that direction by having to deal with arbitration matters.--MONGO 03:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted to Support. Cla68's tenacity in pursuing what he feels is the right path is very important. His communications are always articulate and he is fair and generally cool under pressure. With his wiki-background he will bring a different lens from some of the "wiki-careerists" and therefore enrich the committee. Martinp (talk) 22:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Candidate is valuable content editor, though, other than often commenting in ArbCom cases, shows no solid evidence of content resolution experience or skills. Has shown poor judgement when nominating the Weiss article for deletion. Doesn't have the trust of the community. And seems to have become involved in some political allegiances within Wikipedia which would unsettle ArbCom discussions and decisions. As ArbCom members tend to slow down on their content creation, it would be of greater value to the project as a whole if the candidate continued creating content rather than enter a potentially difficult and troublesome arena. Uncomfortable with candidate's support of Advisory Council on Project Development. Unsure on candidate's motivation to join ArbCom (nothing clear in statement, and fudged the question during the interview). Uncomfortable, especially given the number of anti-admin remarks in answers to questions, that candidate states belief in the interview that he feels that ArbCom is "in charge of the administrators". SilkTork  *YES! 11:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Excellent content contributor who has Wikipedia's best interests at heart. Despite being unfairly treated in his own adminship nomination, has continued to churn out and incredible amount of high quality content. Not being an admin, having been hard done by, and being such a prolific content contributor will make him more cautious than others when taking controversial decisions that will no doubt draw upon his ability to gauge what the wider community is feeling. Has shown senstivity, the ability to forgive, and is eminently reasonable in his comments in high drama cases. Good luck Cla68. T i a m u t talk 10:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm opposing. As I read Cla68's answers, I see a common theme of making proposals that sound like they would help one situation or another, without thinking through the potential implications or unintended consequences. One prominent example of this is that Cla68 strongly backs the "Default to Delete" BLP proposal, which takes the notion of consensus that Wikipedia runs on and turns it on its head: this proposal makes it possible to make a controversial change by destroying consensus instead of building it. (Yes, I am aware that other candidates support the same proposal, and am taking that into account.) rspεεr (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Concerns regard his approach to WP:WEIGHT and minority views trouble me as well. Also I'm not seeing the temperment I'd want from an arbcom member. His recent exchange with Michael Godwin bothers me. He was right to question Godwin, but he showed a lack of tact. Godwin had just been the subject of a personally embarassing article. Cla68 rubbed this in his face - "still think you did the right thing?" - and seemed to be "piling on" Godwin, kicking him while he was down. I'd expect more empathy from a member of arbcom, both for the sake of Godwin's feelings and also as a better method of obtaining useful answers.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I have further concerns regarding this candidate's unwillingness/inability to communicate clearly and frankly, based on his evasive and unresponsive answers in this discussion.  --JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - Outstanding article contributions but I don't agree fully with his platform, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Outstanding content contributor. Outstanding contributions to making this a better project as well. All around great candidate, my strongest support. Also, per some of those opposing. Sometimes you can judge a person by the sorts of enemies he's made, more than by the friends he has. ++Lar: t/c 16:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  07:02, 15 December 2009 (UTC)