Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:09, 4 December 2006

Statement

After being involved in having arbitration being brought up against me and my involvement in two other arbitration cases, as well as enforcement of past decisions, I know I am well versed in the process and procedures of arbitration. My biggest concern is a desire to see an improvement in the decision making timeline. I don't see anything as broken with the system, but will always be open to changes suggested by anyone, and will be more than happy to forward all reasonable requests to fellow arbitrators and the foundation. I have over 20,000 edits with 11,000 or so of those in wiki article space, four featured articles I either started or assisted on as well as another 200 plus other article starts. I am a strong defender of precedent and policy, demand heavily on the use of reliable sources and oppose attempts to misuse Misplaced Pages as a platform for advocacy. I will always recuse myself in cases I have a conflict of interest in, will be completely open to recall/review and demonstrate complete transparency in my edits, as I always have. Most of all, I want to ensure that those editors and issues which are problematic to ensuring we create the world's most reliable encyclopedic source are dealt with swiftly and fairly. Thank you for your time.

Questions

Support

1. Levelheaded in disputes yet firm in resolve. --physicq (c) 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Very weak support. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Bishonen | talk 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
4. Support, I trust his judgement and his answers on the 100k+ question page. Every one has a POV, he stated he will recuse himself if there is a conflict of interest. --Dual Freq 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. Support JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Not generic. Arbcom doesn't need members who will blindly follow the rules. I believe he will make good judgements. Also as per Dual Freq --snowolfD4 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Moral Support and saying he will step down if he has pov on the subject.--John Lake 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
8. Support. Cautiously, since I have at times been in pretty strong disagreement with MONGO's actions. But judgement is sound in general and I think that people who would put up with the E.D. harrasment crap as well as MONGO did are few and far between. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Support. I think he will have a uniquely relevant perspective and sympathy for besieged users. That seems like a good thing to have on ArbCom to me. —Doug Bell  07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
10. --Ghirla 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Support per Sjakkalle (second sentence) and Doug Bell. Also, MONGO was helpful and sympathetic to harassment victims before he was harassed himself. Those who find him too "controversial" might suddenly find themselves "controversial" if they became victims of the kind of abuse MONGO has had to put up with. The ED problems on Misplaced Pages would never have reached those proportions if other WIkipedians had given him the support they should have; and in all other matters (e.g. dealing with sockpuppets), he's been civil and fair. AnnH ♫ 10:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
12. --Zleitzen 10:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Providing MONGO recuses himself of topics which he feels passionate about, his ability to cut through the crap could be a major benefit.
13. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω 10:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Strong support - knows the difference between a troll and someone just venting off. Knows that admins can sometimes be abusive (even if unintentionately). --Sugaar 11:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Strong support I couldn't have said it any better than AnnH. He uses good judgment in his interactions with others. Experienced and mature. --rogerd 11:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. — Nearly Headless Nick 12:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
17. Has common sense, good judgement. Tom Harrison 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Support 172 | Talk 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Support Despite our off-wiki POV differences, I have found MONGO consistently of sound judgment. I do trust him to recuse where necessary. Although he didn't act perfectly, I can't hold the ED stuff against him (exceptional circumstance not of his own making, per AnnH.) I do think he would bring a valuable perspective to the committee. Xoloz 17:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
20. Weak support I don't see why not Dragomiloff 17:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Strong Support per comments by User:Anomo --Tbeatty 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Support. Antandrus (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Support; good judgement, committed to quality. Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
24. Support - stop relying on WR and Wikitruth for your news, people. Civility can't trump common sense. --Elaragirl 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. KillerChihuahua 22:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. MONGO is involved in far too many controversies to make me feel comfortable voting for him. --Cyde Weys 00:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
2. Major, major, major civility concerns. Arbitrators should be at LEAST above average at following WP:CIVIL. -Amarkov _edits 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
4. Strong oppose. Consistently incivil, consistently abuses the tools he has, and is incapable of resolving his own conflicts with users properly, making me wonder why he feels he can resolve the conflicts of others. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
5. --Majorly 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
6. Nothing personal, but I can't say I'm enamoured with the idea of arbitrator recall, for much the same reason that I dislike administrator recall, except stronger. The power entrusted to arbitrators is great, and I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of an arbitrator that can be recalled. theProject 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
7. Gurch 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
8. I feel his personal opinions may get in the way of arbitrator duties. BhaiSaab 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
9. Too many controversies. Cowman109 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
10. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
11. Titoxd 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
12. - crz crztalk 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
13. Agree, too controversial. --Coredesat 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
14. Sadly Jaranda 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
15. Due to the many controversies. Hello32020 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
16. Prior conflicts are too significant to warrant support. Also proposes arbitrator recall, an idea that can only serve to compromise decision making. --bainer (talk) 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
17. No. - Mailer Diablo 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
18. Sarah Ewart 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
19. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
20. --Striver 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose. Too much controversy. Jd2718 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose, can't trust him after fully seeing his approach to existing disputes, don't think he should take on new ones. — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
23. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
24. KPbIC 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
25. Too controversial, involved in too many disputes. ^demon 03:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
26. —Mira 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose per Cyde Weys KazakhPol 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    • KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

27. Oppose per above. Takes controversies way too personally. Patstuart 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
28. Rebecca 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
29. Aminz 03:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
30. Too much of a lightning rod himself. Sorry.--BenBurch 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
31. Holding to a policy that recent ArbCom dispute participants are automatic oppose-votes at this time. Opposing without prejudice towards a future election. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
32. Ars Scriptor 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
33. (1)not neutral(2)involved in many controversies. what will happen if he/she sit at Arbcom? Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
35. Terence Ong 04:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
36. Absoutely not, way to many controversies surrounding this user to make him part of the final process of decision making here on Misplaced Pages. semper fi — Moe 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
37. Strongly oppose. It has been my experience that this user uses moderator powers in highly questionable ways, puts his POV before policy, and is consistently incivil to those he disagrees with. He is perhaps the worst possible candidate on Misplaced Pages for the ArbCom. --Hyperbole 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose MONGO needs to block way more editors than the drawn out arbitration process provides for. Imagine if all those whacky conpsiracy nuts needed ArbCom before being banned indefinitely? It's better that MONGO blocks them and lets them appeal his actions than having to wait for the ArbCom to create a block. Telegrams from MONGO should be delivered immediately, not delayed. --Tbeatty 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Change to Support per Anomo --Tbeatty 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

38. Nufy8 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
39. Dylan Lake 06:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. Not enough respect for WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. --Alecmconroy 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
41. Has not evidenced the measured judgment and even temperament one would want to find in a prospective arbitrator. Joe 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
42. NO...    N...    O...    NO... nuff said.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
43. NOT IN A BILLION YEARS per Armakov. Has no dispute resolution experience except as a frequent participant. SchmuckyTheCat 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
44. Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
45. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
46. Agree with Cyde, a bit too controversial for ArbCom. – Chacor 09:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
47. Oppose - Temper --Van helsing 09:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
48. cj | talk 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose, sadly - all-around good guy, but has a tendency to act a bit rashly and to take matters a bit too personally -- Ferkelparade π 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
50. Weak oppose, sadly. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
51. Oppose per Ferkelparade. - Aksi_great (talk) 13:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
52. Oppose on various temperament issues noted above. --CBD 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
53. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
54. Shyam 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose -- from interactions, user's aim appears to be advancement of personal goals/beliefs as opposed to the greater good of the project. Short tempered. · XP · 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
56. Oppose In the questions, he shows dishonesty, pretends not to know what homeland security is (when he said he worked there and everyone in the USA knows what it is), then makes a joke about it by the standard military denial procedures--he later claimed never to have worked for the military, then falsely claims USDHS is not homeland security, when proven wrong he claims not to work there which give dates that conflict the dates he said he worked there and it's unlikely he'd quit right after he made that statement. Also his answer to "Question from Sugaar" was hypocritical. Also MONGO always gets too personally involved in things (see his first request for comment and his request for arbitration) so would be unlikely to recuse himself if he had personal bias in an arbitration issue. (let's assume new paragraph) He also constantly feeds trolls instead of ignoring them. Before he came to the Encyclopedia Dramatica article, there was almost no trolling there--just stuff easily ignored and things other admins quickly fixed. But MONGO comes in and provokes the trolls, bans innocent people, and basically creates massive disruption and ever since there's been nothing but disruption stemming from this. Anomo 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
57. Oppose, past interactions not too pleasant, unsure if MONGO is capable of a much larger role here. - SpLoT _{(*T* C+u+g+v)} 15:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
58. --Conti|✉ 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
59. Oppose --BostonMA 18:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
60. oppose because arbcom members need to be right and this user is too often wrong, in my experience and opinion. User:Pedant 18:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
61. oppose user has to be able to get along with fellow editors better first.-- danntm _C 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
62. Oppose controversial and too often involved in conflict. Eluchil404 20:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
64. Oppose Shows to much WP:POV and some WP:OWN. "Snorkel | Talk" 20:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
65. Oppose He is emotional and brusque, both qualities that, in my opinion, do not mesh with my view of an able arbitrator. Mattisse(talk) 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Oppose ITAQALLAH 21:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
67. Oppose --Howrealisreal 21:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Oppose David D. (Talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)