User:Shorne/Arbitration election endorsements

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

172[edit]

  • Strong support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi[edit]

  • 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)

blankfaze[edit]

  • Support. Shorne 03:16, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I endorse Blankfaze in spite of his endorsement of Raul654, which shows amazingly poor judgement. Shorne 05:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Chuck F[edit]

  • Oppose. These elections are not a forum for promoting VeryVerily. Shorne 15:45, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri[edit]

  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

David Gerard[edit]

  • Support. Shorne 03:20, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

DG[edit]

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

Grunt[edit]

  • 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)

James F.[edit]

jguk[edit]

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

Mirv[edit]

  • Support. Shorne 04:10, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

  • Support. Shorne 04:11, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Raul654[edit]

Sam Spade[edit]

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)

sannse[edit]

  • Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Theresa knott[edit]

  • 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)


VeryVerily[edit]

  • 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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Shorne/Arbitration_election_endorsements&oldid=1083182549"