Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Stanistani

Regarding tools
Tools come with election to ArbCom and WMF considers election to the position sufficiently substantial vetting for their purposes. So there is no need for a second RFA upon election, the ArbCom election is itself essentially an election for "tools for a limited period," which you say you shall seek. I believe this to be accurate, someone correct me if I am wrong. Good luck with the election. Carrite (talk) 16:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope you are correct. I looked around and could not find much on the issue. If a set of tools come with election to the Committee, I hope they do not include the blocking tools. That's not what I'm here for. &rarr; StaniStani 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they probably would include the tools to block, but speaking for myself the simple fact of having the tools to block does not mean that you are necessarily ever really going to use them. I know I used them only very rarely, and in situations where it struck me that doing so was the only reasonable alternative. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Emergency use would be my only exception, and I have a high threshold to pass for "emergency." &rarr; StaniStani 22:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Endorsement
I, as an individual, having looked over some of the activity of this individual as the main site administrator on the wikipediocracy site for some time now, and seeing that at least one of our current arbitrators, Worm, has said that he believes this individual is qualified, want to endorse this candidate for ArbCom.

There are other qualified candidates, of course. But most of them are, obviously, primarily qualified because of their activity here. Stanistani (who really might want to consider changing his name to the avaialble Zoloft) is probably the candidate most familiar with the "criticism" of wikipedia and the ArbCom in particular, from many of the editors there, which include not only some sitebanned editors and others who have expressed their discontent with wikipedia but also at least a few regular contributors whom I personally highly regarded as editors here. While much of that experience is probably of no particular use for an arbitrator, it is also I think likely that there have been or could be in the future some reasonable alternative remedies discussed there or suggested by comments there which others who don't watch the site as much might miss.

This individual is probably more likely to think outside the box than a lot of the other candidates, and that would be a definite plus for the committee in devising and implementing some remedies.John Carter (talk) 16:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Despite the relative lack of content creation, I have a very good feeling about Stanistani. He seems sensible and gets straight to the point. John Carter makes an excellent case for him as well.