Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe

WJBscribe's statement sounds good. I too have been disappointed at movement of discussion of arbitration decisions into private space. This started with cases of harassment of users and pedophilia advocates but seems to have become more the rule than the exception. One note, while one arbitrator may be willing to come to a conclusion relatively soon, it takes the arbitrators as a whole to make a decision. Mechanisms such as article probation are problematic, and in a way a lazy response, but actually following out the blow by blow for 8 or 10 warring editors is both tedious and inexact. Fred Talk 22:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding repetition, profanity, and other pejoratives...say three or so, referring user, again, to the meaning of appeal. Excluding those obvious cases of abuse, is there a limit on appeals? Say, for example, that the proposed boundaries are not big enough. 23:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.234.170.70 (talk)

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LessHeard vanU As I do not believe in a system where my support may be rendered ineffective by the considerations of Jimbo and the existing ArbCom I shall only be supporting Risker; however, had my vote potential been not been constrained by the apparatus employed I would have supported this candidate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was sitting on the fence here, but wheel-warring with an arb on a Giano block the type of drama-seeker we need[1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I don't see a wheelwar. Care to point it out to me on my talk? Majorly ^talk 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is loan ranger tactics - and unnecessarily dramatic use of the tools. If the block lacked arbcom sanction, then let an arb undo it. Same thing Slim was slapped for. (But I don't think this is the place to debate this)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it's a fine place to debate this. You made your point here, we can discuss it here. Deskana (the blocking arb) had no problem with WJB's unblock, even admitting the initial block was a mistake. Why do you have such a problem with it? ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have a problem with the unblock, we don't like that it was performed during the voting by a candidate. Well, it worked to some extent, winning WJBscribe several extra votes and turning this page into another battlefield between "supporters" and "critics" of Giano, as if this were the only problem on Wikipedia. Nice. Colchicum (talk) 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if anyone should have unblocked it was Deskana - but he was uncertain whether it was right to do so. If I had not retired for the night after my drawing the attention of the blocker (and everyone who watching Giano's page - purposely) I would have unblocked per the AE rationale once it was clear that D had not got that permission but was not going to undo the block. I was however indisposed (head to pillow) and it happened that WJB performed the necessary task. I would comment that it is the duty of anyone to cause the undo a bad block, since the tenet of AGF is fundamental. I believe that WBJ deserves an accolade in acting as he did not because of the small matter of running for arbcom, but in measuring the needed good of WP against the recent consequences of SV doing something that might have seemed similar. Accolades too for Deskanna in accepting his block was improper, explaining why he felt unable to reverse it, and in supporting WJB's actions. Now, can we get on with this election? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not vote in arb election. I not have enough edits, but if I could I'd vote for you. — JoJo • Talk • 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many will have noticed that I have been rather slow in responding to questions over the last few weeks, and that my contributions to Wikipedia in general have slowed. I had believed that this would be a temporary situation that would not last into the New Year. It has now become clear to me in the last few days that this will not be the case and that the amount of time I will be able to dedicate to the project will be much reduced from now on.

I have therefore come to the conclusion that, even were I to have a level of support sufficient to be elected to the Arbitration Committee, I would not be able to offer the time that the position requires. Contrary to the views of some, I have never sought the position for its own sake and see little value in being a member of the committee without the ability to achieve the changes I think are necessary to restore community confidence in the committee. I have therefore decided to withdraw from the 2008 elections.

To those who have supported my candidacy, placing faith in my integrity and ability to bring about those changes, I extend my warmest thanks. I regret that I will not have the opportunity to vindicate the confidence you have shown in me, and hope you will forgive me for letting you down now. It is truly one of the hardest decisions I have had to make, but I think it is the right thing to do - both for me and objectively for the good of the project. To those who have felt unable to support or my candidacy, and those that have opposed it, I can assure you that there are no hard feelings on my part. I hope that everyone (whatever their views on the candidates ultimately appointed) will join me in wishing them well with the difficult task they face. WJBscribe (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]