Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Fish and karate

This is the talk page for discussing a candidate for election to the Arbitration Committee.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Use third-level headers for new sections. Example: === Heading title ===. Unsure about the election process? Please review the election rules. Issue with inappropriate commentary or questions? Please notify an election volunteer.	Be civil No personal attacks Refrain from canvassing and harassment Discuss the election, or ask questions here
v t e Arbitration Committee Election 2008 candidate: Fish and karate Candidate statement (create) Questions for the candidate (create) Discuss this candidate (create)

User:Neil → User:Fish and karate. Worst name change ever? --maclean 15:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, and submit it is the best name change ever. fish&karate 16:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is a matter of taste. At least you didn't call yourself User:Phantom Menace or User:Vista. I would think 'User:Clatto, Verata, Necktie' → 'User:Clatto, Verata, Nickel' would be the best name change ever. --maclean 23:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A detailed breakdown of this candidate's edits in article and Wikipedia spaces can be found here. Franamax (talk) 02:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Re Ryan Postlethwaites oppose; WR is not a blog or mailing list, comments there can be argued - sometimes WP will not allow that luxury. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it's not a blog or mailing list, but the majority of the community don't have accounts there or even read it. If there's problems, we can fix them from the inside where all WP members can be involved. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only within the prescribed areas, the proscribed ones are potentially the most problematic as there is no ability to ask questions. Outside spaces provide that potential, of which WR has a readership that includes those who may be deemed to operate within those spaces. As ever, it is the effectiveness of the manner of communication that matters - not the means. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, I believe strongly in all decisions being made on-wiki. Discussion is not decision-making. At least using Wikipedia Review or any other publicly-accessible forum leaves everything visible should someone choose to read it - this is better for discussion than IRC or a subscriber-only mailing list. I have never made a decision regarding Wikipedia based on Wikipedia Review, or participated in a discussion that led to a decision being made on Wikipedia by another; I don't believe a decision has ever been made on WR that affected Wikipedia in the manner you suggest. fish&karate 13:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In your answer to Pixelface's first question, you indicate that Wikipedia should have 28 arbs, in "seven tranches of four". Should that read "four tranches of seven", and/or are you batshit insane? These are your only choices. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]