Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Inductionheating (talk | contribs) at 03:29, 5 December 2008 (→Answer particularly to ChrisO). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Acecandheader

Edit Analysis

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Misplaced Pages spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal statement from User:Jpgordon

I would be extremely happy if John were to be elected to ArbCom. I'm certain he could do a much better than job than I was able to; he's shown himself to be better suited to the task. Good luck, John. --jpgordon 02:15, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Josh. Much appreciated. John Vandenberg 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comments

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) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Replied at User talk:LessHeard vanU#Voting

John Vandenberg 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

AA involvement

I sadly note a number of Azerbaijan-Armenia related users have voted to oppose on the issue of my involvement in their topical area. This is an area I have recused, due to involvement in the editing and dispute resolution. I've posted an explanation here, and if there are questions not asked on my questions page, please do ask them. John Vandenberg 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Very troubling

Anyone else notice seven people attempting to oppose but are not eligible to vote? Ottava Rima (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Yep. Quack quack on off-wiki canvassing... Sceptre 22:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't going to go that far, but now that you mentioned it... :) They are all seemingly connected around the same pages, and haven't been editing in a while. They also seem to edit during disputes. Hmmmmm. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Azeri-Armenia. Sceptre 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've raised this issue at WP:AN#Possible ethnic block voting in ArbCom elections?. In my view, there's very clear evidence that editors have been canvassed off-wiki to oppose this candidacy. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorsing Jayvdb - please don't strategically oppose this candidate

Jayvdb is a great Wikipedian with a long history of service to the project. Because I'm running myself, I haven't commented at length on the other candidates, but this is a special circumstance. I feel Jayvdb has been unfairly attacked by off-site canvassing.

Because Jayvdb and I are now very close in the polls, I'm concerned that my supporters might want to strategically vote against this candidate. That would be unfortunate. Although I hope to be elected by the community, I want want's right for Misplaced Pages first. The campaign orchestrated against Jayvdb is not right, so I must oppose it.

Admittedly, Jayvdb and I very different answers to some questions. He's even voted, in good faith, to oppose my candidacy. We're clearly not clones of each other. That said, I do not doubt that he's a great editor, and I think he'd be a good addition to ArbCom. So, let me say unequivocally:

• I have reviewed the allegations against him and find them to be baseless. From what I can tell, he has conducted himself appropriately, and he has made a solemn promise to recuse himself from any cases involving AA. That isn't the behavior of a POV-pusher, that's the behavior of someone who cares deeply about our project.
• I support Jayvdb. Originally I cast a small number of support votes. I thought I would be done with voting, but I'm going to cast one more vote for Jayvdb. He deserves it, if for no other reason than to offset some of the opposes unfairly attacking him.
• If anyone is thinking about strategically opposing Jayvdb, DON'T. I especially urge my own supporters to not strategically oppose this candidate. You should evaluate this candidate on his own merits, and not oppose him just because you want me, or some other editor, to be elected arbitrator. Jayvdb has more than enough directed opposition.
• Even if you must tactically oppose Jayvdb, you should condemn the character attacks against him. I know some people will practice "tactical opposes", and no matter what I say. If you do, I insist, that you honestly list such vote as a tactical vote. Make it crystal clear that you do not oppose him because of these AA-related character attacks. It is important to the independence of our community that we resist these off-site overtures.
• Lastly, if there is anyone who is trying to "get back" at Jayvdb for some past content dispute, I'm not your candidate. I don't want that kind of support.

Thank you. Cool Hand Luke 15:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Answer particularly to ChrisO

This is addressed to ChrisO, and am saying it publically. Your allegations and singling of editors based on their ethnic background requires more investigation than the current canvassing issue. This smells vendetta at best because of recent issues on content(which mostly I`d side with you had I been here). The matter has nothing to do with content dispute but rather trust. Believe me those who are opposing him are doing it for better reason than dumb supports to balance votes. His endorsement of secret trials is quite contradictory with his endorsement of literally providing the authors and summary of privately submitted evidence to those concerned. The result of which will intimidate users and who will think twice before sending something to the committee. His propositions are geared toward preventing the arbitration to get at the bottom of real issues. He wants to reduce the scope of the cases, requiring that reduced scope being defined before it is voted. This sort of speeding will evidently force legitimate concerns not to be addressed. If you read between the lines you will find out that all those nonsense he propose are actually what was the main problem with AA1&2 and Ehud Lesar cases. And here I am not even talking about if the real issue is included in the limited scope, because from his double talk this will go to secret trial, ad even if he recuse he can still influence. Again, you have no idea why he is opposed so don`t talk about things which you ignore.

Coming to John behaviour, it is true that he made no technical mistakes. For instance his revert of this newly created account was not a technical mistake. What is interesting though is that it is a newly created account which appears during a period when he wastes his time to justify his actions about AA issues instead of answering Lar questions (there are reasons he did not, because some of his positions will inevitably lead users to oppose, I will come to that maybe later). If you pay attention his action was pro-Armenian on that edit, he even write in the talkpage of the user for the sake of accuracy . Intriguing actually, John has never edited the article. I will not go as far as making accusations that the account was created so that he can revert to make a pro-Armenian gesture to discredit the criticism about his conduct. This kind of things happened also after Ehud Lesar case, when John found himself reverting socks on the Armenian genocide article, when his conduct was questioned by different users. When I say that John did not make technical mistake, I am also saying that he did not make one when he blocked Fedayee, which result was to ignore the evidence he provided, or when he reverted my comment on Ehud Lesar talkpage at the first sight he saw it posted. The Clerk on the other hand left what I left in the evidence page there for a while before reverting.

His conduct as a whole makes anyone who knows the subjects concerned doubting his sincerity. It is for example obvious that Thatchers conduct on those articles was not doubtful, even if sometimes I questioned his judgement. The same goes to our clueless Moreschi and all those administrators on the enforcement talkpages who also by making at times clueless comments. John actions on the other hand coupled with other issues makes those who know the problem to see the bigger picture. Wikisource is a very important element of Wikimedia, because primary, secondary and tertiary brute materials are posted there. When you know that bigger picture and the fact that a certain lobbying group is involved (and please Lar, I`d like you to comment on that particular issue) and their intentions it does not take time to question the real intentions of John when working with legislations concerning copyright in Azerbaijan. Each little thing, like his unusual knowledge of obscure stuff pushed by that group, his selective actions against socks from one side and not the other leave a lot to be desired.

Suppose that there is even the slightest element of truth there, will you be willing to give access to the arbitrators mailing list to him as well as CU? There are other potential members who can become an arbitrator and him in the group or not won`t change much, but if there is the slightest chances that this is true then the harm is worst. I had many conflicts with White Cat in the past, involved in his first arbitration case, but if both users had equal number of votes on both sides, I’d vote for him without the slightest consideration. And most Armenian users would, and consider that I was directly involved in heavy intestine disputes with White Cat and that in terms of direct article disruption when singling articles was much worst in White Cat case than John.

Regarding John page on AA issues (this I suppose will get him more votes than answering questions), he very well know that he can present the case like he want the principal concerned who can address the issues is banned so he can obviously not reply

To conclude, all I saying is that people should vote for the candidate they want, those who are opposing him, and this regardless if there was canvassing, opposed him for a very long list of issues, some of it deliberately or not (as I will not question the Arbcom intentions) were thrown under the carpet and never addressed. I do admit that part of it was my fault, the evidence I gathered in AA1, was not all accurate after introspection, it was more accurate in AA2, and even more accurate in Ehud Lesar case and most of the issues now are confirmed. If it is a picture of John you want with Adil Baguirov, I have none, but I believe that if there is the slightest doubt that at least in a form or another he will be sending informations CU and mailing list. This is a legitimate reason to oppose because like I added the harms are worst than if he is totally blameless and he was thrown out.

If you want to vote strategy to get the candidates you want (this concerns anyone) on the Arbcom go ahead, your vote will be justified by you wanting a candidate or not wanting another or any similar tactics. But don`t vote to balance because you are deliberately undoing the votes of those who really don`t want him there.

I wish this remains here for a little bit before it gets reverted. This who don`t know it`s Fadix again. Let`s see now, this will mean I`ll be unbanned on December 4, 2009

Oh and, John, think about answering questions, if you really wanted the better of the project you will not buy your votes by forming friendship but you will answer the questions, the questions John, leave that AA page who no one reads and answer questions. If I was not to assume good faith, I`d believe that you are scarred that some answers will cause more oppose votes. It`s always easier to have supports based on friendship rather than your take on issues... because the first one does not give oppose votes, the second does.

I hope this was an unfortunate mistake, just words with no intention, because we don't need an arbitrator wo has such retaliatory mentality:

Ironically, if I do not end up in arbcom-land where I would be recused from any AA topics, I will be left to my own devices and am more than willing to counter this bias once again. --John Vandenberg (chat) 21:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Inductionheating (talk) 03:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)