Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana

message: :Moved per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".
===W.marsh===
Bureaucratic, inconsistent. Deskana drove User:Android Mouse from the project by running a checkuser with no evidence then publicly outing AM. Deskana then refused to run similar checkusers, blanked my questions about why not, tried to guilt trip me by claiming twice he'd no longer run checkusers as he once did because of me (empty promises both times) then complained about me on a private mailing list, again with guilt trips about how I was going to make him stop doing checkusers, and enticed all manner of bureaucratic types to come at me on misinformation. All that was really needed between us was a simple discussion but his tactics made that impossible. As an arbcommer I have no confidence people would be treated fairly or consistently. Deskana might be the greatest guy in the world if you are being nice to him... but in my experience he has a wild reaction to criticism. See  here for the main discussion, which links to all relevant earlier discussion. W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to take the chance to respond to this. When I was a newer checkuser, I checked an account called User:Neil Larson that had edited RFA disruptively. I found that it was Android Mouse. I didn't keep this a secret, at the time. I agree that it was unnecessary for Android Mouse to leave. Since then, when checking similar SPAs, I have acted more tactfully and preferred to warn the users in question privately via e-mail first, before taking any public action. When it seemed that W.marsh had a complaint about how I'd used checkuser, I told him the appropriate places to complain: the Arbitration Committee and the Ombudsman Commission, but he responded by telling me "how bureaucratic". I do not think sending a quick e-mail to one (or both) of these committees is bureaucrat. And yes, I did get angry and upset when dealing with W.marsh, because when you spend hours upon hours of your life doing people favours by being a checkuser and get more hassle about it than you do thanks, it can be very frustrating. --Deskana (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is bureaucratic because it amounts to a refusal to consider discussing the question with a respectable editor, in favour of referring them to higher authorities immediately - pillar to post, in effect. Furthermore, everyone knows that anyone who actually sends an email to those places is instantly accused of litigious trolling for doing so. You should be prepared to contemplate things one-to-one rather than one-to-committee. Splash - tk 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did discuss this issue with him on my talk page, shortly after the check was performed. The discussion referred to above (that was initiated by W.marsh on an unrelated RFCU page) was initiated several months after the event. I did not wish to discuss the issue again, as my opinion had not changed. The original discussion was here: User talk:Deskana/Archive 15#Check. As my opinion had not changed since that discussion, I invited W.marsh to send an e-mail, since it was obvious that we were never going to agree on my usage of the tool. --Deskana (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you really misunderstand me. My hope was always that we could come to an agreement by discussing this as two editors who've been around for a long time. I would never arbitrate you or send e-mails to private committees or so on... that's just not my style. You said this was my only option though... this is very frustrating to someone who doesn't want to deal with bureaucracy, and it's not a good attitude for an arbitrator. Some people are going to criticize you... throwing bureaucracy at them can be a disaster, as it was in this case. I always had the feeling you were treating me more like a troll than an admin. --W.marsh 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi @pple. Just a couple of things I'd like to point out if that's OK. Arbitrators cannot serve on the Mediation Committee as that has long been seen as a COI, therefore Deskana would have to resign that role were he elected. Also if you look through the current ArbCom members you will see that most of them have oversight and checkuser access - it just so happens that Deskana has already been trusted with those permission levels. A lot also have OTRS access as this is given to trusted people pretty much reagrdless of how much use they will make of it (and ArbCom members need to be confirmed to the Foundation anyway). It is true that only two ArbCom members at present are also bureaucrats but I would point out that Deskana stepped forward to offer to serve in that role when we we're terribly short of active crats and faced mounting backlogs. He has been very active as a crat. However a number of crats who were away then are now active again and recently as you know I also became a bureaucrat - I intend to be very active in that role. I take your point, and I'm sure Deskana does too, about mainspace editing but I thought it worth clarifying that Deskana would not have that much extra time requirements of him on-wiki that the other present Arbitrators. WjBscribe 14:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect Scribe, where is there any evidence that Deskana cares about his lack of mainspace contributions?  Rather than become a checkuser and an oversight and a bureaucrat and OTRS, he could have edited content.  He chose not to work on the encyclopedia.  It's didn't just somehow happen. --JayHenry (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I echo JayHenry's remarks on this. The prime function of a Wikipedia editor is editing articles and we seem to be seeing the development of a strata of super-user functionaries who are increasingly distanced from this. I have no difficulty seeing the need for the various functionary roles: I'd simply prefer them to spread out over a much wider userbase of active editors.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in my support, editcountitis is bad, including whereweretheeditsmadecountitis. Every major organization requires backroom support for the frontline personnel, and eventually, that requires having some people who are dedicated mainly to such support and only occasionally see what's happening up front. Love it or hate it, that's the reality of any large organization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hear, hear! :) --DarkFalls talk 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments moved from voting page

message: Bureaucratic, inconsistent. Deskana drove User:Android Mouse from the project by running a checkuser with no evidence then publicly outing AM. Deskana then refused to run similar checkusers, blanked my questions about why not, tried to guilt trip me by claiming twice he'd no longer run checkusers as he once did because of me (empty promises both times) then complained about me on a private mailing list, again with guilt trips about how I was going to make him stop doing checkusers, and enticed all manner of bureaucratic types to come at me on misinformation. All that was really needed between us was a simple discussion but his tactics made that impossible. As an arbcommer I have no confidence people would be treated fairly or consistently. Deskana might be the greatest guy in the world if you are being nice to him... but in my experience he has a wild reaction to criticism. See  here for the main discussion, which links to all relevant earlier discussion. W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to take the chance to respond to this. When I was a newer checkuser, I checked an account called User:Neil Larson that had edited RFA disruptively. I found that it was Android Mouse. I didn't keep this a secret, at the time. I agree that it was unnecessary for Android Mouse to leave. Since then, when checking similar SPAs, I have acted more tactfully and preferred to warn the users in question privately via e-mail first, before taking any public action. When it seemed that W.marsh had a complaint about how I'd used checkuser, I told him the appropriate places to complain: the Arbitration Committee and the Ombudsman Commission, but he responded by telling me "how bureaucratic". I do not think sending a quick e-mail to one (or both) of these committees is bureaucrat. And yes, I did get angry and upset when dealing with W.marsh, because when you spend hours upon hours of your life doing people favours by being a checkuser and get more hassle about it than you do thanks, it can be very frustrating. --Deskana (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is bureaucratic because it amounts to a refusal to consider discussing the question with a respectable editor, in favour of referring them to higher authorities immediately - pillar to post, in effect. Furthermore, everyone knows that anyone who actually sends an email to those places is instantly accused of litigious trolling for doing so. You should be prepared to contemplate things one-to-one rather than one-to-committee. Splash - tk 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did discuss this issue with him on my talk page, shortly after the check was performed. The discussion referred to above (that was initiated by W.marsh on an unrelated RFCU page) was initiated several months after the event. I did not wish to discuss the issue again, as my opinion had not changed. The original discussion was here: User talk:Deskana/Archive 15#Check. As my opinion had not changed since that discussion, I invited W.marsh to send an e-mail, since it was obvious that we were never going to agree on my usage of the tool. --Deskana (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you really misunderstand me. My hope was always that we could come to an agreement by discussing this as two editors who've been around for a long time. I would never arbitrate you or send e-mails to private committees or so on... that's just not my style. You said this was my only option though... this is very frustrating to someone who doesn't want to deal with bureaucracy, and it's not a good attitude for an arbitrator. Some people are going to criticize you... throwing bureaucracy at them can be a disaster, as it was in this case. I always had the feeling you were treating me more like a troll than an admin. --W.marsh 15:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: W.marsh

message: Support, and I understand the Opposes below, so I would hope that Deskana would be open to stepping down if the demands of being an arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter, bureaucrat and administrator impact on his work on the Arbcom. Hopefully with recent additional checkusers (both non arbs and the soon to be former arbs) together with a new 'crat, there shouldn't be a huge workload away from the Arbcom to contend with. Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick

message: Oppose. Essentially, I feel Deskana has his priority issues here on Wikipedia. He's made thousands of edits to Wikipedia in recent months, but hardly any to the mainspace. I understand he has responsibilities on Wikipedia as a bureaucrat, checkuser and oversighter, but frankly, if that detracts from his encyclopedic contributions, then I don't think he should be accumulating more responsibilities here. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nishkid64

message: Weak Oppose. I don't dislike or distrust Deskana. He's a good admin and a mature, level-headed guy, and I even think he's been a good 'crat (an accolade I grant to few, seeing as I have a long-standing dislike of the concept of bureaucratship itself). But I am worried about the concentration of power issues. No one should serve simultaneously as checkuser, bureaucrat, oversighter and arbitrator; it perpetuates the perception, even if not the reality, of an oligarchic elite running Wikipedia. We need democracy and accountability. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings cannot be trusted with too much power - and Deskana, like all of us, is only human. WaltonOne 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Walton One

message: *I cannot vote either way. You'd be great in the Arbitration Committee, but I feel that we need you to remain in the Mediation Committee. Kingturtle 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kingturtle 

message: Strong oppose, an admin, a crat, a checkuser, an oversighter, member of OTRS and mediation committee and a student in real life? And now a future arbcommer? With an average active level can you accomplish all the complex tasks in those different roles? Not to mention a severe lack of mainspace editing along with being an advanced mathematician but no contributions to any mathematics articles now and before. No thanks! @pple complain 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi @pple. Just a couple of things I'd like to point out if that's OK. Arbitrators cannot serve on the Mediation Committee as that has long been seen as a COI, therefore Deskana would have to resign that role were he elected. Also if you look through the current ArbCom members you will see that most of them have oversight and checkuser access - it just so happens that Deskana has already been trusted with those permission levels. A lot also have OTRS access as this is given to trusted people pretty much reagrdless of how much use they will make of it (and ArbCom members need to be confirmed to the Foundation anyway). It is true that only two ArbCom members at present are also bureaucrats but I would point out that Deskana stepped forward to offer to serve in that role when we we're terribly short of active crats and faced mounting backlogs. He has been very active as a crat. However a number of crats who were away then are now active again and recently as you know I also became a bureaucrat - I intend to be very active in that role. I take your point, and I'm sure Deskana does too, about mainspace editing but I thought it worth clarifying that Deskana would not have that much extra time requirements of him on-wiki that the other present Arbitrators. WjBscribe 14:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  With respect Scribe, where is there any evidence that Deskana cares about his lack of mainspace contributions?  Rather than become a checkuser and an oversight and a bureaucrat and OTRS, he could have edited content.  He chose not to work on the encyclopedia.  It's didn't just somehow happen. --JayHenry (talk) 07:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  I echo JayHenry's remarks on this. The prime function of a Wikipedia editor is editing articles and we seem to be seeing the development of a strata of super-user functionaries who are increasingly distanced from this. I have no difficulty seeing the need for the various functionary roles: I'd simply prefer them to spread out over a much wider userbase of active editors.--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in my support, editcountitis is bad, including whereweretheeditsmadecountitis. Every major organization requires backroom support for the frontline personnel, and eventually, that requires having some people who are dedicated mainly to such support and only occasionally see what's happening up front. Love it or hate it, that's the reality of any large organization. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: @pple

message: I'd just like to say that this was possibly the hardest vote for me. Dan is a good friend and I admit this almost pushed me to support straightaway, but I decided to think about it for a little while. The lack of mainspace editing in the past few months is a concern. The concentration of power is also a concern. However, I ultimately believe that Deskana has the best interests of the project at heart. If the people we have apparently elected as our best and brightest consider this to be the case, I see no reason why I shouldn't. He is accustomed to making difficult decisions and weighing options - also, despite the important roles he has to juggle, I've never once found him to be anything but a thoughtful, considerate and intelligent person. What I dread most is the so-called cabalists getting on arbcom and turning arbitration into even more of a intimidating process than it already is for us 'rank and file editors' - I don't see that danger here. Good luck, ~ Riana ⁂ 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hear, hear! :) --DarkFalls talk 08:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Riana

message: Ok guys. This the start of a interesting two weeks, so please be courteous and patient. Daniel did right by moving W Marsh's comments, As I did Nick's. Consensus was reached a while ago that this is the correct process. The problem is notification was not adequately performed, in my view. I notified Nick of my action, and I took a while to finish it, and Daniel ended up finishing for me. Remember, extended comments belong on talk pages, but moves should be followed by proper notifications. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could live with that, but the removal was followed by the explanation that it's okay to make persuasive arguments in support votes but not in opposes. That's not good. --W.marsh 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and I can't explain for it. I can only promise to be quicker about it in the future. It's been one hour and I've seen hundreds of votes, kinda hard to keep track of. But, it's the first day. Let's give it time. You can help too. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was it that said that long support comments were ok but not for oppose? Cla68 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No one said it. It was just that Daniel moved W.Marsh's oppose comment but did not move support comment similar in length. This made it appear like that. But as I said above, this was a misunderstanding. All long comments should be moved, regardless of the position (+ or -). This has been done so. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I said that I felt that support comments were less contentious than oppose comments. This, combined with the fact that Nick's comment was shorter, meant I wanted a second opinion. Daniel 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. Cla68 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  (ec) I know, Daniel. This is just a misunderstanding for a newly opened election. We're not bots, so our edits are not fast and perfect at the same time. I've received some comments too with some of my other moves, but it's part of the job. Besides, this particular issue has already been resolved. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other comments

message: Although I can't vote (too new), I'd say that while Deskana is probably capable, I wouldn't support him. This would be due to the fact he is relatively inexperienced, and he has too much on his plate already. Too much on his plate without doing a lot either - that is, writing articles. I'd rather the arbcom was not made up of policemen, but by people who actually improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for running though. Redrocketboy 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment from Redrocketboy 

message: Deskana seems to have amassed a lot of "power" (perhaps a bad word for it) in a short time; so count me among those concerned about concentration of power.  I do not know how common this is.  It's kind of hard for me to judge how he has done using his new tools in this short period of time.  I would most likely support him in the next election if there are no incidents.  I liked the answers to his questions and he most likely would be a great arb but the amount of tools and the time period he has gained them troubles me a bit daveh4h 09:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: daveh4h

message: While I agree that Deskana has his hands full, it does not mean that he cannot carry out his responsibilities well. I've read many comments concerning his mainspace edits and many positions as an arbitrator, checkuser, oversighter and whatnot. I feel that we are putting too much concern on his mainspace edits. 2444+ edits to articles are excellent; just how many users have that many edits? Clearly, the importance of having a huge edit count is being overrated here. Regarding Deskana's numerous positions, I think he is a good example of being a productive user. Not many would have been able to take up so many responsibiities and carry them out without fail. And there are some that question his experiences as an editor and doubt his abilities to be able to use his tools fairly. However, we should all be reminded that this user is a bureaucrat and an admin; it is already clear that Deskana will know how to use his new tools accordingly. People, I hope that you'll trust him to get his job done. I wish him good luck. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zachary crimsonwolf