Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Hot Stop
<
Candidates
|
This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee. | ||
|---|---|---|
|
||
| ||
Your recent block
I see on your block log that you had a recent block over personal attacks. This seems to me like an absolute disqualification for being an ArbCom member. What do you say about this? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm inclined to say a block shouldn't be a disqualifier, obviously. But seeing as I was blocked simply for swearing, I'd say there are a lot worse things I could've done that actually hurt the project (socking, edit warring, vandalism, etc.). talk-contribs 12:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)]
- While I do believe that there is a statute of limitations on this, the block is too recent for that to count for the current elections. I believe that Arbs should be above the normal standard. Even mild NPA issues, not strong enough for a block, are problematic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the the official eligibility rule for a candidate requires that they not currently be blocked. While individual voters can adopt their own standards for candidates, a recent block does not officially disqualify a candidate. Monty845 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- I'm talking here about my standards. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- I find it hard to imagine that a lot of editors have standards so low that they would seriously consider an Arbcom candidate who joined the project on 11 April 2011, has a total edit count of less than 1000 (including 70 in article space), was recently blocked for this and then purged his talk page immediately afterwards without leaving any conveniently accessible archive behind. Hans Adler 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, Hans Adler. I don't know what "this" means. I looked at the diff and could not tell. Please elucidate, if possible. Thank you! talk) 22:08, 3 December 2011 (UTC)]
- The link is to a diff where he removed a warning on his talk page and used the edit summary "fuck off". Whether such a reaction is block-worthy actually depends on the context. In this case it was as follows: An IP editor added what looks to me like a completely irrelevant piece of trivia to a BLP article. [1] (Although this may just be my European bias.) Dp76764 removed it with edit summary "no source, plus this is a minor appearance". [2] Hot Stop restored it without edit summary. [3] SudoGhost removed it again, with edit summary "Unsourced. Needs reference per WP:V." , SudoGhost left the warning in question on Hot Stop's talk page. Very soon after removing the warning, Hot Stop added the text again, this time with a source [4]and the edit summary "in the time it took u to undo my last edit, you could've googled it".
- Most likely, Hot Stop knew that the factoid was true and was sure he would find a source, and reverted it back in with the intent to locate and add one, then got into an edit conflict with SudoGhost reverting him, saw the orange bar before posting the source, angrily removed the warning and finally came to the edit he had meant to do all the time.
- In my opinion, Hot Stop can't be blamed alone for what went wrong here, and the block was arguably an overreaction. But this was precisely the kind of needless escalations that editors should have left behind them a long time before they run for Arbcom. As arbitrators we need editors who can analyse such situations correctly rather than editors who cause them. Hans Adler 22:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
- The link is to a diff where he removed a warning on his talk page and used the edit summary "fuck off". Whether such a reaction is block-worthy actually depends on the context. In this case it was as follows: An IP editor added what looks to me like a completely irrelevant piece of trivia to a BLP article. [1] (Although this may just be my European bias.) Dp76764 removed it with edit summary "no source, plus this is a minor appearance". [2] Hot Stop restored it without edit summary. [3] SudoGhost removed it again, with edit summary "Unsourced. Needs reference per
- Hello, Hans Adler. I don't know what "this" means. I looked at the diff and could not tell. Please elucidate, if possible. Thank you!
- So, Mr. or Ms. Hot Stop used "fuck off" in an Edit Summary? talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)]
- It's Mister. And his timeline's slightly off, I sourced it [5] before the warning was slapped on my page [6] (all told it was about five minutes between SG's revert and his warning on my page). talk-contribs 04:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)]
- Yes. More precisely, he used "fuck off" in an edit summary because he was angry about a formally justified warning against edit warring an unsourced BLP claim into an article. Hans Adler 07:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, although exceedingly minor, I'll refer those of you with an interest in this matter to a dialog that Hot Stop had with me this morning, on another editor's Talk page, on a topic that was tangential to the main topic I had addressed to that editor, on that editor's Talk page. The discussion is here: good faith. I am not offended by it, and it would be no issue in general, but if Hot Stop has put himself forward for ArbComm, perhaps it is relevant to those of you who are studying the issue of his temperament and qualifications. Perhaps not. YMMV. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)]
- For what it's worth, although exceedingly minor, I'll refer those of you with an interest in this matter to a dialog that Hot Stop had with me this morning, on another editor's Talk page, on a topic that was tangential to the main topic I had addressed to that editor, on that editor's Talk page. The discussion is here:
- It's Mister. And his timeline's slightly off, I sourced it [5] before the warning was slapped on my page [6] (all told it was about five minutes between SG's revert and his warning on my page).
- I find it hard to imagine that a lot of editors have standards so low that they would seriously consider an Arbcom candidate who joined the project on 11 April 2011, has a total edit count of less than 1000 (including 70 in article space), was recently blocked for this and then purged his talk page immediately afterwards without leaving any conveniently accessible archive behind. Hans Adler 14:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
- I'm talking here about my standards. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, the the official eligibility rule for a candidate requires that they not currently be blocked. While individual voters can adopt their own standards for candidates, a recent block does not officially disqualify a candidate. Monty845 16:57, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
- While I do believe that there is a statute of limitations on this, the block is too recent for that to count for the current elections. I believe that Arbs should be above the normal standard. Even mild NPA issues, not strong enough for a block, are problematic. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:44, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
- Partly in response to Hans' concerns I set-up an archive with (hopefully) all past discussions. talk-contribs 13:27, 6 December 2011 (UTC)]