Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/172

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004 | Candidate statements | Endorsements
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Elian (talk | contribs) at 22:02, 5 December 2004 (removed offensive comparison to revisionists (@fred: please contact me per mail)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

172

Support

  • 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)
  • Strongly support. Consistently reasonable and fair. Shorne 03:14, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth you've got my vote. Good Luck! Rje 01:17, 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)
  • Support. Everyking 07:20, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Tannin 08:09, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Strongly support. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Gzornenplatz 02:55, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
  • Support. Ruy Lopez 04:47, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
    • Pot calling the kettle black? Shorne 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Fred, as a current Arbitrator, I would hope you could at least provide one specific reason why you feel this way. "Fox in the henhouse" is a rather cryptic statement that leaves me wondering what the heck you're talking about. Please, can you provide some tips of what to look for in 172's edit history that makes you think he would be so dangerous to the other hens? --DV 14:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • 172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
        • I won't respond to this bullshit. I will say, though, that this is an unacceptable slander from someone the stature in the community of a member of the Arbitration Committee. I am a professional historian; and most of my family was murdered in Nazi death camps. I do not tolerate being likened to Holocaust deniers. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians [1]. I suspect the reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientations. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • It appears that I am being blacklisted for having "the same political orientation a Shorne." Yet I really doubt that Shorne thinks that we share the same political affliations, given that I'm a leader of a local U.S. Democratic Party organization. Not that this means much... Many of the victims of these kinds of McCarthyite attacks like the one above along with Fred Bauder's weren't communists either. 172 09:30, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose --Josiah 22:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've only had one encounter with 172, back in the days of Quickpolls. Admittedly, that was a contentious page; but I don't recall anyone more hostile than 172. His profanity is the only reason I've remembered him. Cribcage 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • On second thought, I don't want to make that accusation without offering citations. I've had no subsequent conversations with 172, so they were easy to find. Here's one, and here's another. To be fair, read the entire exchange in context. Cribcage 18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Both Fred Bauder & Cribcage have stated the reasons quite clearly. -- llywrch 20:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; erratic and clearly not suitable for arbcom on a number of counts over and above those already eloquently stated. Sjc 07:54, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose; censors their own bad press example, doesn't set a good example for image file naming. example discussion --Rebroad 16:47, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unwilling to discuss to work toward consensus, or even give evidence to back up his position. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 07:22, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Disappointing use of revert war [2] (see hostile commentary in history) rather than discussion and consensus. --Dhartung | Talk 08:50, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2004/Candidate_statements/Endorsements/172&oldid=8172753"