Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Ottava

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes2012.

This guide represents one of the most important of the voting guides. She has a keen eye for content and takes that perspective when looking at ArbCom. Unfortunately, she is the odd duck when it comes to such things. I do not agree with all of her statements, and have disagreed in the past. But it is an important perspective.

For example, I do not think RegentsParks shows the right mindset regardless of his answers. His approach to content left a lot to be wanting. I do not like his answer to the question, and he has in the past crossed some lines with content and aided those who crossed lines that would be instant disqualifiers for me.

I do agree with Sandy that Jack Merridew being allowed to roam is a major reason to not elect many of the candidates. He is one of the many sock masters that had experience in hounding content editors and doing whatever he could to cause problems. It is sad that John Vandenburg gave him any support, and many other Arbs also supported him (New York Brad in 2009, which shows why I could never see him as having good judgment).


I would support Elen though. She has been receptive to working on issues of copyright and other concerns I have brought up before her. Too many Arbitrators look the other way and just don't care about those issues.


Richwales is brought up by Sandy as a lean oppose. I look at his FA and see a lot of problems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-57 appears to be rampant. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-54 is used but nothing is used to cite the previous sentences. This is an old trick to allow in uncited material but make people think it is cited. It is also original research to link to the faculty page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-Wong_not_US_citizen_71-0 instead of a third party source is really sloppy.

Then you have close paraphrasing mixed with original research at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark#cite_ref-Semonche_1978_112_61-1, which he even quotes for you. Wikipedia: "and agreeing with the district judge who had heard Wong's original habeas corpus petition that comments in the Slaughterhouse Cases regarding the non-citizenship of children born to alien parents were obiter dicta and did not constitute a binding precedent" and the original "Gray then sidestepped language in earlier opinions of the Court that said children born of alien parents are not citizens by saying, in effect, that such conclusions were gratuitous statements not necessary to the decisions in those cases and therefore entitled to no weight as precedent."

Why even have the original? Why not just quote it in the article? He adds the word "obiter dicta" without it being in the ref while keeping the plagiarism of "children born of alien parents". This problem is consistent throughout the FA and I would have definitely opposed it.


Finally, I would support DavidFuchs. That is my take.

Posted by: Tarc

I was gonna toss in an application this year, out of morbid curiosity to see if anyone would be dim enough to vote for me, but didn't get around to it.

Posted by: Ottava

I'm sure there is a percentage of votes that go to individuals merely based on random chance or order the names are listed.

Posted by: The Joy

Please do and do an election video like this one:



Please don't shoot the horse, though.

Posted by: Ottava

Oh, that would be gold. I can't wait - election videos would be the inevitable next step. Tarc, if you need help creating campaign stuff, drop me a line. I have a lot of professional stuff I can dump on you to help you get started.