Wikipedia:State route naming conventions poll/Judges

This page contains information regarding the nominations (and/or self-nominations) of the six judging administrators of the State route naming conventions poll.

Syrthiss

• Nobody appeared to be stepping up (I saw the notice on AN), so I'll step up...assuming that an admin can nominate themselves. Nominated by: (self-nom) Syrthiss 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Administrator, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • I don't believe I have ever touched a highway article, other than to change categorization related to my closing of debates at WP:CFD. I have however closed debates at CFD regarding highways and would understand if that is considered undue involvement. I believe that I have closed them without bias, especially since I cannot remember offhand what I closed and how I closed it. ;)
  • Administrator, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • Nope. I really care less whether we call highway articles Fooian State Route or whatever, but I see the need to have some consistency. I hate to see the back and forth between the highway factions that spills over to ANI / CFD / wherever, not to mention the two? three? arbcom cases that have been filed.
  • Administrator, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • Yes, to the best of my abilities. Is my understanding correct that a result of no consensus is ruled out in this discussion?
  • Administrator, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • Yes, to the best of my abilities. Fraud is reasonably easy to determine (I don't remember, are there suffrage clauses in the above?). I would need clarification of "unfair advantages", but I'd do my best to uphold wiki policy per vote stacking, personal attacks, intimidation of other editors, and disruption of wiki process. I would assume that my co-panel members would also back each other up in helping to root out naughtiness.

Discussion

• Sounds good. And we're pretty much ordered to come to some consensus per the ArbCom case. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
• I object; he's shown himself to not understand the difference between action and intent on CFD. --SPUI (T - C) 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say that was a mistake that he soon corrected. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It's the way he handled it that worries me. --SPUI (T - C) 18:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Could other people weigh in? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Always the charmer, SPUI. ;) Syrthiss 19:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I have not noticed problems with Syrthiss on CfD. Anyone doing closings is going to step on toes in some cases. Overall I think he has been fair in his actions. Vegaswikian 02:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nightstallion

• On the talk page, Nightstallion said that he would be willing to do it if we needed an admin, and I think we're at the stage where we need an admin. (Or two, or three, or four.) Nominated by: ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 17:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Administrator, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • No. Frankly, I personally couldn't care less about these articles, but I'm willing to serve as an objective judge in this, if you accept me.
  • Administrator, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • Not yet, as I have only encountered the problem a few times when I was still regularily doing WP:RM, and I simply resolved those on a case-by-case basis dependant on the specific vote; I'd like to hear all your arguments, though. ;)
  • Administrator, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • Aye, naturally so.
  • Administrator, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • With the caveat that I can not know beforehand what kind of unfair advantages that might be, I can state that I will of course strive to have the vote be as just and objective as possible.

Lar

• On the talk page, Lar volunteered if there were not enough admins. Nominated by: Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 03:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Lar, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • Peripherally. I have edited a few articles here and there, I-96 and M-6 and Grand River Avenue being the ones that come to mind. I've also seen this set of issues arise from time to time in all sorts of places.
  • Lar, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • Yes. I want to see an answer that serves the readership, principally lay readers not necessarily familiar with nuances, so that they can find what they are looking for easily. SPUI rightly points out, below, that I have expressed this opinion already. I don't see that as disqualifying though, unless we are operating on the principle that anyone knowing anything or having any opinion whatever is disqualified.
  • Lar, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • Yes, to the best of my ability.
  • Lar, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • Yes, to the best of my ability.

Discussion

Let me just state that I'd strongly recommend Lar for this job; I've always experienced him as a very fair and objective person as regards dispute, but also in everyday affairs. —Nightstallion (?) 05:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Object - he's argued for "a consistent nomenclature and binning of X Y and Z across all states". --SPUI (T - C) 05:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Gladly acknowledge having said that but don't see having an opinion as a DQ. If it is, this process will work about as well as modern US jury trials, that is, not very well. ++Lar: t/c 06:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I hope we're not playing the game of "Object to all the admins to stall the process". --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Ashibaka

• Since the official process wants five admins by tonight, and I am not doing anything else, I am volunteering to fill the gap so there won't be any more bureaucratic delays. Nominated by: self Ashibaka tock 19:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Administrator, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • No. I think highways are a pretty boring topic myself.
  • Administrator, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • I don't really mind either way, but I hope this poll will allow a unanimous consensus to be achieved.
  • Administrator, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • That I will.
  • Administrator, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • I'll do my best.

N.B. Please let me know by e-mail if I am going to miss a judging deadline.

CBD

• Looks like we are at least one short on the requisite five so I'll put my name in for consideration.

Nominated by: (self-nom) --CBD 22:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• • Administrator, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • Nope, I saw the ArbCom proposal and the notice on AN/I but that's about the extent of my knowledge. I'm not even sure who is arguing for what.
  • Administrator, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • I didn't, but on skimming the talk page here I wondered to myself, 'can't they just throw LOTS of redirects at it so people get to the right page/disambig regardless of what naming method they search with?' So I suppose that's an 'opinion' of sorts. Presumably there are arguments against that or it isn't the primary focus of the dispute, but 'full disclosure'.
  • Administrator, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • Sure, doesn't matter much to me either way so I can't imagine where I'd be 'partial'.
  • Administrator, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • Obviously this is somewhat subjective, but yes if someone starts spamming talk pages or e-mail for vote stacking or lots of new accounts start voting I'd discuss with the other 'judges' and work out how to evaluate the results without any biasing introduced by such actions.

CambridgeBayWeather

• I have worked with CambridgeBayWeather on aviation related articles. He seems to want to get correct information as shown by his work getting facts that can be supported by publications. Nominated by: Vegaswikian 05:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Administrator, are you involved or were you heavily involved in highway editing?
    • I do not believe so. I may have made some edits in passing but at this time I can't recall.
  • Administrator, do you have any opinion as to the dispute at hand?
    • No I don't.
  • Administrator, will you commit to making an impartial decision regarding this matter, based on the apparent consensus forming?
    • Yes I will.
  • Administrator, will you correct any fraud or unfair advantages that occur?
    • As far as is possible.