Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Geogre

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Comment moved from Cyde's vote

start

  1. After the way he's treated other ArbCom candidates during this election, I could not possibly support. Some level of decorum is necessary. Calling other candidates "wolves in the manger" is beyond the pail. --Cyde Weys 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For those who are curious, it was "dog in the manger," and it was even linked. Please click on The Dog in the Manger. Geogre 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

end

Minor pedantry: beyond the pale. Carcharoth 14:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde later changed his comment. The now meaningless reply from Geogre was removed by Ideogram, restored by Bishonen, and was left there after an edit war that led to a block for Ideogram for 3RR. It was later removed by me (Carcharoth) as no-one seemed to notice that Cyde had changed his comment earlier, removing the incorrect 'wolf' reference, thus making Geogre's reply meaningless. I have asked Cyde to indicate on the voting page that he changed his comment. (This comment was also updated and re-signed). Carcharoth 15:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde's claim that Geogre was recommended for desysopping.

Cyde has made the claim that a member of the arbcom recommended Geogre be desysopped. While strictly true, the claim is misleading and used to be qualified as follows:

Cyde, you know that recommendation was rejected by every other member of arbcom hearing the case. I know Geogre is one of a number of people you have issues with, but please present the facts fairly. Thanks, Ben Aveling 12:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cyde moved the clarification here, without context. And Giano restored it.

In hindsight, I shouldn't have implied that Cyde was deliberatly misrepresenting the facts to hurt Geogre's chances, for which I hereby apologise. I have reworded the comment to be purely a clarification.

My prefered outcome would be Cyde to strike and clarify his own comment so that the clarification is unnecessary and can be removed. Cyde, is that acceptable to you? Regards, Ben Aveling 22:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the objections. My claim is entirely accurate. Even being recommended for desysopping by one arbitrator is enough, in my mind, to rule someone out for ArbCom candidacy. --Cyde Weys 00:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A statement can be strictly accurate within its four corners and yet misleading by omission (see, for example, the text of paragraph (b) of SEC Rule 10b-5, not that I am comparing the issue here to that rule, just as an example). In this context, it could reasonably be seen as unfairly skewed to note in Oppose vote #1 that one arbitrator suggested desysopping, without also noting or linking to the fact that the other participating arbitrators voted down the proposal with comments such as "Absolutely not. None of the evidence justifies this at all. Why is this even proposed?" and "Ridiculous proposal" and "I don't see that Geogre's behaviour warrants this. He has not misused his admin status nor said he is going to do so, nor does his behaviour meet the level of disruption required to remove admin status due to lack of trust." The format of these pages and the fact that Cyde was the first oppose voter gives undue weight to the recommendation for desysopping, which is certainly a negative for the candidate, without noting the other arbitrators' reaction (to say nothing of the uproar that arose on Proposed Decision-talk). I hasten to add that this is not Cyde's fault, as he had nothing to do with designing the format of the voting pages or process. The page as currently set up presents no way for, say, Support voter #75 to effectively respond to Oppose voter #1 (nor vice versa). Newyorkbrad 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A more relevant hypothetical situation is that it would be perfectly possible if an arbitrator was running for re-election to poke through three years of arbitration and find a way to misrepresent something an arbitrator said and bring it to people's attention in the first oppose vote. That would easily torpedo any arbitrator running for re-election if it was left uncontested. The more I think about this, the more I am unhappy that Cyde's initial comment was left uncontested for so long. I really do wish that everyone reading Cyde's comment could, in the following sentences, have read the quotes from the other arbitrators. Whether it would have made any difference, we'll never know. Carcharoth 01:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre's vow

In voting against Kelly Martin, Geogre says he cannot "honor a vow not to vote against anyone (made before this candidate's candidacy) in this case." I find it interesting that he goes on to vote against (and for) many other candidates as well. Apparently if you eat one cookie, you may as well eat the whole jar. --Ideogram 03:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geogre, I happen to like you personally, so I think the best thing to do at this point is for us to stop discussing the subject. --Ideogram 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Looking at the page, I am genuinely surprized at the number of voters who essentialize an artifically provoked incident over the carefully prepared program and years of impeccable performance. I am inclined to second Kelly's famous dictum that most wikipedians are just a fickle and ill-informed populace. They expect candidates to be silent during the vital moments in the development of the project, otherwise they are deemed too prominent, too controversial, too outspoken. That's why, after the voting, it so often appears that we have bought a pig in a poke. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's a remarkably unkind and uncivil comment and I have great difficulty imaging how you expect anything constructive to come of it. Mackensen (talk) 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Years of impeccable performance" is hardly accurate. This isn't nearly the only time Geogre has had major problems dealing with other editors. A lot of us are simply (rightfully) acknowledging this and saying that he wouldn't be a good choice for an arbitrator. You seem to think arbitrator is a given for any "good" editor. It's not. It takes a very special skill-set and it very much needs to be earned. Geogre hasn't earned it. --Cyde Weys 19:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cyde, please don't attribute any specific vision of an ideal arbitrator to me. I have not expressed my opinions on the subject as yet. Nevertheless, I confess that I am guilty of having advised some people I know and respect to run this race, if only to help their colleagues show their true colors. Sometimes it's healthy to learn their true attitudes towards oneself and such elections present one with a unique opportunity of doing so. --Ghirla -трёп- 19:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Color me naive, but I would prefer to think that each candidate in this election is running because he or she thinks he or she is qualified to serve on, and would do a good job as a member of, the Arbitration Committee and not for any other reason. Newyorkbrad 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how one object excludes the other. --Ghirla -трёп- 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it is an either/or. I thought I'd make a good arb, I also knew that is was highly improbably that I'd be elected. But I saw merit in running despite that. Although I've now withdrawn, I don't regret testing the waters.--Docg 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


(Tennyson) Applies to other things as well. ~Kylu (u|t) 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Geogre"