Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit
Comments moved from project page
edit- None yet, but if it's distracting, you're welcome to move my deleted vote and attached comments here. Unfocused 05:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- If anyone cares what I think: if it's a genuine comment, it should stay. I realize this is a vote format, but we don't have to go overboard. Reasoned discussion is helpful, after all. Dmcdevit·t 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"problem users" and "productive editors"
editSeveral voters have taken exception to Dmcdevit's use of the terms "problem users" and "productive editors" in his opening statement. I think some people are interpreting his comments to mean something he may not have meant to imply. I didn't read his comments as saying "People who come before the arbcom must be 'problem users'", but rather "people who are 'problem users' often come before the arbcom." I don't think Dmcdevit would be prejudiced to see someone as a problem user just because he/she came before the committee - but if anyone thinks that there are no users that can be accurately characterized as "problem users", then you probably haven't met enough Wikipedians. :)
Anyway, I wish Dmcdevit would clarify his position on this, but I strongly suspect he would agree that some users are almost entirely productive, some users almost exclusively cause problems, and most users are in the gray area inbetween. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- P.S. I've just asked Dmcdevit about this at his questions page. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)