Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 | Candidate statements

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Quadell (talk | contribs) at 13:56, 22 November 2004 (Theresa Knott has earned my endorsement.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Endorsements listed by candidate

Sign under the name of the candidate or candidates you endorse. Your reasoning is welcome but not required.

172

  • Support, a hard working and impartial scholar. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, impartial, would be a good member. Xtra 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, Has a good vision of where Wiki has to go as it expands from a group of talented personalities into an entity with its own emergent behavior. Gzuckier 16:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, I think you're a good sysop 172--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 08:37, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • A scholar of quality who should be engaged as broadly as possible in the community. Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:34, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. 172 provided a carefully thought out reply to specific questions that were asked of him. He doesn't talk to potential voters solely in abstractions - he is willing to provide real, practical insights into how he would conduct himself as an Arbitrator. 172 is able to explain in detail how he would work with controversial editors when their cases were brought into arbitration. This candidate moves to the top of my list of endorsements. --DV 07:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyking 07:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi

  • Support, industrious and clear-thinking user. 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi has my endorsement because I believe her to be one of the current AC's wisest and fairest critics -- I know from my conversations with her that she has thought at length and with depth about the problems the AC has faced, and while I do not always agree with her conclusions, I respect greatly her openmindedness, her fairness, and her willingness to innovate. Jwrosenzweig 23:58, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi is everything a wikipedian should be: level headed, hard working and willing to do the unglamorous organisational tasks. The strongest recomendation I can give is that if preferential voting is used for the election, I will be placing Ambi above myself on the ballot. Shane King 00:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, good user. func(talk) 19:50, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Strongly. Very sensible. Wolfman 02:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Ambi intruded into a request for mediation to insert personal comments with no substance whatsoever. (See Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Archive 11.) We could expect the same tendentiousness if he were put into a position of power. Shorne 07:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Ambi is female. RickK 06:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
      • I changed he to she on a previous version of this. Unfortunately, that correction was lost when Michael Snow deleted this page. Shorne 19:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. I'm a new user, and she's one of the few Wikipedians I've found to be both impressive and capable of staying outside her own biases. Level-headedness is a must for this role, and Ambi's near cornered the market when it comes to Wikipedians. Insert various other echoes of ShaneKing's endorsement here. Shem 14:56, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 03:58, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Ambi has said that she has come to respect me despite significant ideological differences. I will more than return the compliment since I believe that Wikipedia must embrace not only divergent views, but also the people who see through people's opinions to the people themselves. Gladly support. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:39, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support, very clear vision of what's wrong with the ArbCom and how to fix it. VeryVerily 10:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze

  • Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • /me ezafknalbs - and supports. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support. This user meets with my personal standards... oh, wait, I don't have any. ;-) func(talk) 19:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 03:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. Several points in favor of blankfaze: 1. A strong endorsement from Neutrality. 2. A promise for expedient rulings. (Justice delayed is justice denied.) 3. He is honest about his political viewpoints right on his user page. 4. Lastly, blankfaze is pro-serial comma (what more could you ask for? :). --DV 07:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 04:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His comments towards users on RfA are consistently unreasonable; he calls users trolls he disagrees with. VeryVerily 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia

You may have your say here. ;-) Cheers -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 09:25, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support Ceropia has on occasions had to make judgement calls as a Bureaucrat. He always strikes me as fair and reasonable - qualities essential in an arbitrator. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 20:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 23:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Cecropia has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • We strongly disagree on a lot of ideological issues, but I've grown to respect Cecropia for his approach to these things, and he'll have my vote. Ambi 05:15, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Charles Matthews

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace. --Wikimol 09:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:13, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:54, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

  • Few people know Dante. From what little I know of him, I feel he would make a good arbitrator. Therefore support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Since we are following Shorne's policy of "no censorship", I would strongly encourge everyone to look over Shorne's long and fascinating edit history before placing any stock in his "opposing endorsements". func(talk) 05:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • I'm not standing for election. People are welcome to look at my edit history; indeed, following me around and reverting everything I do has become a popular sport in certain trolling circles. But I can prove the charge against Dante Alighieri and the other mediators with facts. Personalities should not enter into this discussion. Shorne 05:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Wow, and you accuse others here of ad hominems?--FeloniousMonk 05:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Sometimes, an eye for an eye is just a cigar.... func(talk) 05:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Hypocrisy and shamelessness blended in equal parts make a potent combination. Shorne 05:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • William M. Connolley 23:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • David has long had my respect for his ability to describe and understand the various problems at Wikipedia -- his approach to conflicts is very reasonable, in my opinion, and I believe he strikes an excellent balance between assuming good faith (as so many seem to abandon these days) and allowing users to wreak havoc (which also seems prevalent). I believe his intelligence and his ability to collaborate would be of real help to the Arbitration Committee. Jwrosenzweig 00:09, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Johnleemk | Talk 05:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 03:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support very much. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:37, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. i agree with everything William says above Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:15, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • David Gerard has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:43, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. I respect his fairness and judgement. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Absolutely, unconditionally, support. It was a shame there wasn't an extra spot for him last time. Ambi 05:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:58, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DG

  • Oppose. (Someone had to say it.) Shorne 03:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Everyking

  • Endorse. I like the cut of his jib (matey). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:01, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong support. One of our best and most prolific editors. 172 07:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Hardworking editor who appreciates other hardworking editors. VeryVerily 10:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fennec

Grunt

  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support!!! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I believe that the AC needs the perspective of those who are commited vandal fighters, and Grunt fits the bill perfectly. Shane King 00:59, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • I don't know, Grunt, you're almost overqualified. ;) Really- I hope to have the privellege of serving together with you. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Yea, verily.--FeloniousMonk 19:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 00:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. (I must admit that Grunt replied promptly to a recent complaint; however, the general unresponsiveness of the mediators, including their complete failure even to acknowledge a case brought against Wikipedia's worst troll [VeryVerily], suggests to me that no current mediator is cut out to be an arbitrator.) Shorne 03:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Grunt has my support Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Grunt has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Hephaestos

James F.

  • James F. has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 04:56, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

jguk

  • Support. Shorne 03:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk

  1. Support --Mrfixter 14:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  2. Support also--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 08:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  3. John may not be as notable as some of the other candidates, but I've come across him several times and he has always come across as a sensible person. I don't know him well enough to actually endorse him, but i do want to wish him the best of luck. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lir

<3 (this is Angie) ;)--64.12.116.138 09:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mirv

Neutrality

  • Support 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support-- Neutrality's contributions to many discussions show him to be unbiased, wise, and cool as a cucumber. Ashibaka tlk 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Very much so. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. 172 03:49, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 00:42, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Shorne 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutrality has been a positive influence wherever I have seen him contribute (I appreciate his contributions to Asian-related articles), and his user page is both honest and utilitarian, and shows he is here to get something done. --DV 07:11, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose After returing to this site for the first time since February, I came across this so-called "Neutrality" user and this project page through the Recent changes feature... Without bothering to state his reasoning, "Neutrality" reverted the addition of the funeral for a major African American cultural icon. (I am wondering if there is a racial motive for this; it seems as if Wikipedia users only post stories that concern its largely middle- to upper-class white American readership, as opposed to representing a variety of stories of interest to a diverse range of classes, national origins, racial backgrounds, etc.) Revert warriors must not be given positions of authority on Wikipedia. Wenteng 04:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is about whether a notice about the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard's funeral should be made the top item on the "In the News" template, three days after his death was already reported on the template. Numerous editors seem to have thought it was inappropriate but Wenteng keeps reverting it (as of this posting, Neutrality has reverted it a total of one time compared to Wenteng's four times).--Fastfission 04:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Stan 05:29, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Neutrality has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:10, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Plato

Raul654

  • —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. — 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 | (что??) 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)
  • 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)
  • 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)

Opposition

  • 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. VeryVerily 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. VeryVerily 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)
  • 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)

Sam Spade

Oppose for the following reasons: See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade (which is only a partia record of Sam's views.) 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I disagree with Sam on many issues (check our declared biases on our user pages!), but I know that he's willing to take the flak others throw time and time again and keep on going. He is a tireless contributor when others would have just given up, and a strict adherant to policy, which is essential for the AC. Shane King 01:02, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions .--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Support, and for those "voting" oppose... this isn't a vote. This is an "endorsements" page, so knock it off. func(talk) 19:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • If people can speak in favour, others can speak against. Otherwise this would merely be a POV page biased in favour of the candidates. See the talk page. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically.

If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose, much too controversial, much too needy. Always going up for election, always failing, leads me to question his understanding and acceptance of consensus. Failed adminship(and failed adminship discussion page is also worth a visit), Failed ArbCom and his willingness to use questionable tactics here. He also believes "they also keep extensive "mailing lists"" to mobilise support against him, which sounds a mite like a conspiracy theory to me.

If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. --Mrfixter 15:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oppose. From first to last all my interactions with Sam Spade have started with a snarl from him. I don't think he is intentionally nasty, but he seems unable to stop trying to put other people down even when he is trying to be nice or apologetic. I don't mind so much being snarled at, but I do not see how he could function as an arbitrator. Patrick0Moran 152.17.115.182 21:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • My Lord there is a lot of opposition here! I suppose other people must see a very different side of Sam than me, but in my dealings with him I've gone from thinking of him as a right twat (Sorry Sam, that was my first impression) to respect. It's true that he has some negative qualities, but he has some positive ones too. He is brave, is not intimidated by anyone, and stands up for what he believes in. Always going up for election? What are you talking about? Oh do you mean admin? If that's the case then you should no that he was nominated by someone else. Questionable tactics? He put Vote Sam for Arbiter in his signature - I suppose you could argue that anything anyone questions is questionable, but it should at least be clearly stated here what he did. (Otherwise casual visitors might think it was something much worse). I honestly don't know if Sam would make a good arbitrator or not. I suspect he probably would but I'm not sure enough to endorse him. I just wanted to point out to anyone reading this page that he is not hated by everyone, and to wish him best of luck. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Oh yeah - one more thing, Sam is right about "mailing lists". There were certain people who tried to rally opposition against him for adminship. (Just because you are paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you) by posting messages on lots of peoples talk page. See this vote on VFA "Support - I wasn't going to vote here because from the time I first saw the vote it has been clear that consensus isn't going to be reached this time round (and I very rarely vote here anyway). But with the recent posts to various talk pages - something I can only describe as a smear campaign - I have decided to belatedly add my support for Sam. I disagree with his views on many subjects but do not doubt his good intent and believe he would be fully capable of separating his views from any admin duties. -- sannse (talk) 14:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)" So Mrfixter you appear to be mistaken on that count.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Those are fair points you have made:
  1. You should know that he accepted the nomination for the adminship, and he was under no obligation to do so...
  2. I did clearly state what he did, or at least provided a link to what was said. I have provided links so people can make up their own minds. "Questionable tactics" is a far more polite term than could have been used, and it is disingenuous to suggest that the opinions expressed about the "questionable tactics" should not be aired and do not reflect on the candidate.
  3. "Extensive "mailing lists"" is a statement he had no proof for, or who he thought "they" were. --Mrfixter 12:30, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am frankly somewhat appalled by the company my strong oppose puts me in, but I think that perhaps that says something in itself, that so many Wikipedians who certainly do not agree on anything else do agree that Sam Spade should not be on the ArbCom. Wikipedians need to know they can trust the ArbCom. I could not trust an ArbCom with Sam on it. My experience with him has been that he can talk a good game about fairness and NPOV but he will not walk the walk; he will always phrase what he wants to do in terms of nice, neutral principles but it doesn't take long at all to see him switch to a different set of principles when the ones he was just advocating are no longer convenient. ArbCom needs people willing to adhere to one standard for everyone, and I see no hint that Sam Spade plans to drop the double standards that have caused me to not trust him even as an editor, let alone as an Arbitrator. -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose- while carefuly abide by wording of a wikipedia policy, frequently acting completely against spirit of the policy. IMO his intelligent and cultivated, but uncompromising way of pushing his POVs is in global perpective more devastating than obvious trolling. (My judgement is based primary on interaction with Sam Spade on articles Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and Evacuation of East Prussia. Talkpages and histories provide "evidence".) --Wikimol 09:22, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


sannse

  • Support - Very friendly person, even when nobody else much is friendly, she still is, will bring a new face of fairness, level-headness, and liberalness to the arbitration committe Chuck F 09:48, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • —No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I am a little reluctant to endorse sannse, purely because I have such great respect for her work with the Mediation Committee that I almost hate to see her leave it, even for so important a task as arbitration. But ultimately I feel compelled to endorse her, as I believe sannse's experience in moderating disputes and working with users to try and bring them together on issues would make her a particularly wise and inventive arbitrator -- we're constantly looking for new ways of resolving issues and applying fair remedies on the AC, and I think sannse's background suits her ideally to contribute in that way (in addition to her generally excellent judgment and keen sense of fairness). Jwrosenzweig 00:13, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Dysprosia 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support! -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Support very much. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Endorse. func(talk) 20:12, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. --Wikimol 09:55, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • My strongest possible endorsement.Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:18, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Sannse has earned my endorsement. – Quadell (talk) (help)[[]] 05:15, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu

  • Single-handedly broke my unopposed support record for adminship and still going strong. Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
  • Strongly endorse... in fact, I think the ArbCom should be made up entirely of good-hearted Aussies. ;-) func(talk) 19:59, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Another one of the few level-headed Wikipedians I've seen around often since my arrival here. He's been a good admin (from what I've looked at), and a good person for this role. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 18:19, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa knott

  • Strongly endorse. —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)
  • Absolutely. Theresa seems to have patience above and beyond the call of duty, given what I've seen her put up with. Shane King 00:00, Nov 19, 2004 (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)
  • 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#Purge the arbitration committee, 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—with justice—of an élite cabal. Shorne 04:04, 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. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 00:38, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support - Superhuman patience in dealing with with the terminally exasperating. Stan 05:20, 21 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)

VeryVerily

  • Strongly oppose. I was appalled to see this name on the list of candidates. His self-nomination is a sick joke. There could not possibly be a worse candidate than someone, currently the object of four cases before the arbitration committee, who openly disdains the rules (especially the three-revert rule), refuses time and time again to enter into discussion, and repeatedly reverts everything that does not suit his POV. Shorne 04:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC
    • Shorne is trolling communism and politics pages, and his attack is the main reason we lost the contributor User:Adam Carr. For instance, see this edit. There is nothing shameful about being opposed by some of Wikipedia's worst trolls. VeryVerily 10:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly Oppose. VeryVerily exhibits a pattern of reverting other user's contributions on sight, without discussion on the talk pages. This is reason enough to strongly oppose VeryVerily's candidacy for election to the Arbitration Committee. --DV 07:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • This is simply not true. I suspect "David Vasquez" does not know much about the history with the army of sockpuppets I was reverting. VeryVerily 10:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you are up against an army of sockpuppets, once you have exhausted your three reverts per an article, you should ask others for assistance. But you should only be reverting in the first place after a discussion. Even if it's a monolog on your part, and the other side isn't listening, you have to make that effort. That's the process around here.
There are a number of fair-minded administrators on this site who can help out when there are edit conflicts, so you simply have no excuse for reverting changes on sight, without discussing them on the talk page.
(You could try building relationships with other individual contributors as well, as they will come to your aid when you get into a fix.)
I looked good and hard at your history, and you have simply not taken advantage of the benefits of teamwork. When the batter steps up to the plate, there is an opportunity for individual accomplishment, but that batter is still a part of a team. Your history shows that you don't care to call on your teammates very often, which is a shame, because you'd be much more effective if you did so more often, especially when your opponents are ganging up on you!
Again, I encourage voters to simply click on VeryVerily's history (go back a few weeks or so to get a good picture, look for entries with the initials "rv" [stands for revert] in them), and see for themselves. VeryVerily does not have a strong history as a team player, and so I oppose his candidacy for the Arbitration Committee. --DV 13:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose. VerilyVerily is openly defiant of Wikipedia policy. An edit warrior like VV should not be given this kind of responsibility. --Ce garcon 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support Very is pretty good user and quite capable of compromise--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @)---^--]] 08:41, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yoshiah ap (Josiah)

(Please add names of further candidate/s)

Listing of individuals making endorsements

This is a list of users who have posted endorsements regarding the Arbitration Committee elections.

172

For the Arbitration Committee to play a constructive role in producing an encyclopedia, its members must understand just what is involved in writing a good article on Wikipedia; and its members must understand that there is a difference between serious editors and trolls sabotoging the work of serious editors. Too many of current members of the committee, along with a number of candidates currently running, view disputes from a prism up high from the IRC channel, mailing list, or the conflict resolution pages. They are not the colleagues of the active editors and writers but rather increasingly distant and unsympathetic authorities over us. However, to be an arbitrator as constructive and accessible as, say, Jwrosenzweig, one has to engage with the community not just from the top down but also from the bottom up. This is why I feel compelled to endorse the candidates aside from myself that have toiled the hardest to write quality articles and maintain their quality:

172 08:59, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus

Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically.
If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ashibaka

Support-- Neutrality's contributions to many discussions show him to be unbiased, wise, and cool as a cucumber.

Ashibaka tlk 23:31, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia

I have endorsed a number of editors who I know and respect. I don't want to enumerate them here as I may have missed someone worthy by foolish oversight or because I simply don't know them well enough. I have confidence that the community will elect the most appropriate candidates.

Frankly, since I am running myself, I am not comfortable with endorsing others lest it seem a quid pro quo or a solicitation of the same. However, since the endorsements are being widely done, I would feel bad to have others think I didn't care enough the worthies assembled here to express an opinion. Having said that, let me reiterate that I do not mean to downgrade those I haven't endorsed, and I will refrain from making negative endorsements. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:44, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shem

Endorsements:

Strongly support. I'm a new user, and she's one of the few Wikipedians I've found to be both impressive and capable of staying outside her own biases. Level-headedness is a must for this role, and Ambi's near cornered the market when it comes to Wikipedians. Insert various other echoes of ShaneKing's endorsement here. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Another one of the few level-headed Wikipedians I've seen around often since my arrival here. A good admin, and a good person for this role. Shem 15:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Vasquez

Here are the candidates that I either endorse or oppose for election to the Arbitration Committee:

Strongly support. 172 provided a carefully thought out reply to specific questions that were asked of him. He doesn't talk to potential voters solely in abstractions - he is willing to provide real, practical insights into how he would conduct himself as an Arbitrator. 172 is able to explain in detail how he would work with controversial editors when their cases were brought into arbitration. This candidate moves to the top of my list of endorsements. --DV 06:59, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. Several points in favor of blankfaze: 1. A strong endorsement from Neutrality. 2. A promise for expedient rulings. (Justice delayed is justice denied.) 3. He is honest about his political viewpoints right on his user page. 4. Lastly, blankfaze is pro-serial comma (what more could you ask for? :). --DV 14:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Neutrality has been a positive influence wherever I have seen him contribute (I appreciate his contributions to Asian-related articles), and his user page is both honest and utilitarian, and shows he is here to get something done. --DV 14:23, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly Oppose. VeryVerily exhibits a pattern of reverting other user's contributions on sight, without discussion on the talk pages. This is reason enough to strongly oppose VeryVerily's candidacy for election to the Arbitration Committee. --DV 06:30, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
This is simply not true. I suspect "David Vasquez" does not know much about the history with the army of sockpuppets I was reverting. VeryVerily 10:00, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
When you are up against an army of sockpuppets, once you have exhausted your three reverts per an article, you should ask others for assistance. But you should only be reverting in the first place after a discussion. Even if it's a monolog on your part, and the other side isn't listening, you have to make that effort. That's the process around here.
There are a number of fair-minded administrators on this site who can help out when there are edit conflicts, so you simply have no excuse for reverting changes on sight, without discussing them on the talk page.
(You could try building relationships with other individual contributors as well, as they will come to your aid when you get into a fix.)
I looked good and hard at your history, and you have simply not taken advantage of the benefits of teamwork. When the batter steps up to the plate, there is an opportunity for individual accomplishment, but that batter is still a part of a team. Your history shows that you don't care to call on your teammates very often, which is a shame, because you'd be much more effective if you did so more often, especially when your opponents are ganging up on you!
Again, I encourage voters to simply click on VeryVerily's history (go back a few weeks or so to get a good picture, look for entries with the initials "rv" [stands for revert] in them), and see for themselves. VeryVerily does not have a strong history as a team player, and so I oppose his candidacy for the Arbitration Committee.
Cheers,
--DV 13:05, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dysprosia

Arbcom candidate endorsements:

FeloniousMonk

Yea, verily.--FeloniousMonk 19:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. Also of concern, despite other candidates having done so in interest of complying with the Arbitration policy, Sam Spade has failed to disclose his past multiple accounts, JackLynch and Jack.
That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions .

--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fennec (はさばくのきつね)

Arbitration election endorsements:

I don't know, Grunt, you're almost overqualified. ;) Really- I hope to have the privellege of serving together with you. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grunt

Arbitration election endorsements:

Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
/me ezafknalbs - and supports. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
lol. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:17, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Few people know Dante. From what little I know of him, I feel he would make a good arbitrator. Therefore support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
-- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Good ol' FireFennec. :) -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Support! Has many times proved his worth to the arbcom. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
-- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Support! -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Single-handedly broke my unopposed support record for adminship and still going strong. Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
Support. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 23:58, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)

Gzuckier

Arbitration election endorsements:

Support, Has a good vision of where Wiki has to go as it expands from a group of talented personalities into an entity with its own emergent behavior. Gzuckier 16:56, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam

I have some confidence in the wisdom and neutrality of these users:

  • Charles Matthews
  • David Gerard
  • Shane King

Sam [Spade] 11:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk

From my interactions with these users (and those they have had with others that I had chance to observe) I have seen nothing but good, and I just have this nice feeling inside about them being arbitrators, considering their grasp of policy. This is not to say that I don't think other candidates are great; I just feel these would make the best arbitrators among all the candidates. Ta bu shi da yu, sannse, Neutrality and Mirv were pretty close, though, but I feel I haven't seen enough of them to be sure they'd make good arbitrators:

  • Ambi
  • David Gerard
  • Raul654
  • Shane King
  • Theresa knott
Definitely support. Theresa would make an excellent arbitrator.
Johnleemk | Talk 04:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk | Talk 18:05, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Mackensen

Mackensen (talk) 17:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. Mackensen (talk) 17:44, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Maveric149

Disclaimer: I am a current member of the Arbitration Committee, a Steward, and Wikimedia CFO, but my endorsements are not related to those official capacities. I'm only speaking for myself.

My endorsements so for the 2004 Arbitration Committee Elections. I'm still working on developing reasoning for these choices and researching the other candidates to see if I can endorse any of them as well. If you thought I would definitely support you, but your name isn’t here yet, then I probably just have not had time to add it yet. --mav

  • Raul654 (statement)
  • 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.
  • Theresa knott (statement)
  • 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.

Neutrality

Endorsements:

  • Ambi
Strongly support. Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • blankfaze
Strongly support. Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Grunt
Strongly support!!! Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Mirv
Support!! Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:56, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
  • Raul654
Strongly support. Neutrality (hopefully!) 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

Disendorsements:

  • Everyking
  • Jongarrettuk
  • Lir
  • Plato
  • Ruy Lopez
  • Sam Spade
  • VeryVerily

BLANKFAZE | (что??)

what blankfaze has to say

I'd just like to say that I think most everyone running, save for a handful of obviously unqualified nogoodniks, is worthy and qualified and I wish all such candidates the best of luck. As such, I see no need or ability to endorse certain candidates moreso than others – with two exceptions. I was going to attempt to endorse one candidate who I felt was hands-down the best man running; but such could not be done. Both David Gerard and Raul654 came to mind. Hence, I endorse both of them and would like to vouch that they are both men of honour, neutrality, and levelheadedness:

  • David Gerard
  • Raul654

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 22:26, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]]

Endorsements:

Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:41, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Very much so. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support very much. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:46, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support very much. — Ðåñηÿßôý | Talk 01:45, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez

Endorsements and opposition:

Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the Wikipedia: Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week. The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like. I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne

  • Blankfaze
I endorse Blankfaze in spite of his endorsement of Raul654, which shows amazingly poor judgement. Shorne 05:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ta bu shi da yu

Endorsements:

Support. Excellent user. I highly recommend her! (this is probably going to knock off my vote, but I don't care if she gets in. She might be young, but she acts pretty maturely.) - Ta bu shi da yu 13:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Support. I think he'd make an excellent arbitrator. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Strongly support. Does a fantastic job. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:32, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Tannin

I'll be away during the period of the AC elections and unable to vote, so I'm recording my wishes here, in the hope that this will be counted as my vote. There are many good candidates standing, and I'm sure that most of them would do a good job if given the task. However, there are several that seem to me to be particularly outstanding contributors, and especially worthy of the positions. They are, in order:

  1. Theresa knott
  2. Hephaestos
  3. Mirv
  4. Neutrality
  5. David Gerard
  6. 172

I don't know if this will be accepted as a formal vote or not, but it's the best that I can do under the circumstances. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimol

Endorsements

  • Charles Matthews - after reading a lot from his edit history I believe he would be good arbitor. IMO also the fact he is spending more time on contributing excelent articles than on wikipolitics is an advantage. Arbitrators should have touch with the work and problems of Main namespace.
I simply endorse, because allready doing good work in Wikipedia comittees and similar structures.

Anti-endorsements

  • User:Sam Spade - while carefuly abide by wording of a wikipedia policy, frequently acting completely against spirit of the policy. IMO his intelligent and cultivated, but uncompromising way of pushing his POVs is in global perpective more devastating than obvious trolling. (My judgement is based primary on interaction with Sam Spade on articles Pursuit of Nazi collaborators and Evacuation of East Prussia. Talkpages and histories provide "evidence".)
  • User:VeryVerily - frequently object of arbitration/mediation, breaking policy, obviously not
  • User:SPUI - self-declared troll
  • User:Lir - trolling on the election page

William M. Connolley

This is a slightly strange page... it got created by someone else after I added an endorsement to DG. Well, I still endorse him (and may others) though I'm slightly unsure if anyone cares for my opinion.

William M. Connolley 23:43, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Xtra

Endorsements:

Support, impartial, would be a good member. Xtra 01:11, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
support Xtra 01:39, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements&oldid=7750225"