Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Voice of All

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Statement[edit]

I have been following several important ArbCom cases and I believe that I could help move things along if elected. One thing I noticed is that only a few of the same arbitrators usually make the proposed decisions, mainly Fred Bauder. After learning the ropes and being on the committee for a while, I'd like help in that aspect of Arbitration, along with final voting. I am a member of the OTRS team and well aware of WP:LIVING/OTRS issues while maintaining WP:PP. I clerk for WP:RFCU and do Open Proxy checking of IPs. I am readily contactable via email and AIM, and often at IRC. While ArbCom often looks intimidating, I think I have enough experience to offer useful service to the community there.

My views of ArbCom:

  • The most important consideration about a possible case is not how "major" the scope of the issues are, but whether it can be resolved without ArbCom. On the other hand, if a rush of such cases are imminent, for the sake of expediency, such cases may be taken and considered so as to set a precedence to avoid the need for such future cases.
  • Decisions, while they have precedence in that future cases will likely end in similar result, are pragmatic and focus on resolving a dispute, not on interpreting the "wiki-constitution". It is not a "supreme court"
  • Mass probations that hurt many unrelated users are harmful if prolonged, such things should be kept to a minimum.
  • Arbcom is elected to act as a last-resort dispute resolution committee, and that is its main purpose. Other, special purposes, like rights assignments, should be done carefully and consider the will of the community. Nevertheless, until a new system is created, then ArbCom has the right to determine who is trusted enough for a special right.

Things I'd bring to ArbCom:

  • More proposed decisions, allowing for rulings that perhaps better fit the situation
  • More expedience in rejecting/accepting cases
  • Possible methods for dealing with Shared IP/AOL socks (see User:VoABot II)

Questions

Withdrawn -- Voice-of-All 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. -- Agathoclea 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alex Bakharev 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Majorly 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Gurch 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. MER-C 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Coredesat 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BhaiSaab talk 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Titoxd(?!?) 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Hello32020 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Peta 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Absolutely  Glen  01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. thadius856talk|airports|neutrality 02:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Tankred 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Terence Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Khoikhoi 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -THB 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Xoloz 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Srikeit 05:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. GeorgeMoney (talk) 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. W.marsh 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Bucketsofg 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. semper fi — Moe 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --BenBurch 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Riley 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Dylan Lake 06:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Nufy8 07:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support -- Mytwocents 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support good candidate.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Go ahead and good luck. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 11:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Rather strong support. Against punitive measures and with what seem clear ideas. --Sugaar 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Ghirla -трёп- 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. --Muchness 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Shyam (T/C) 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support-- danntm T C 14:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Jd2718 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --CBD 14:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. --§hanel 15:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. yes. -- Drini 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. ßottesiηi (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. ITAQALLAH 21:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Hyperbole 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support David D. (Talk) 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Definately. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Yup --Alf melmac 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support after reading promise to work hard and not leave it all to Fred Bauder.Stompin' Tom 23:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support WikieZach| talk 00:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong Support - productive and helpful user on the Wikipedia. If you ask me, if the can be trusted as a bot operator, he can be trusted not to abuse the powers of arbitration. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - --ElaragirlTalk|Count 02:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Treima 03:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. SupportWatermint 03:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Heimstern Läufer 06:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Bryan 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Jon Harald Søby 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Actions speak for themselves. -- RM 12:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Naturally. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Excellent user. - Taxman Talk 15:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. --Endroit 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Per Sugaar, and with the provision that I sincerely hope that VoA does partake vigorously of the writing of proposed decisions. Joe 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Great user. Nishkid64 01:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. --*Kat* 01:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Anomo 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. A great editor -- Selmo (talk)
  84. Addhoc 11:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Whispering 18:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Good Statement..PeaceTalkAbout 20:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support per the reasons given above. ---J.S (T/C) 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Trustworthy —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Ligulem 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sorry Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - crz crztalk 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. pschemp | talk 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Weak oppose. Rebecca 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Mira 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KPbIC 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose Aminz 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Weakly. – Chacor 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. cj | talk 11:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    # Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Finally answered. Anomo 03:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Active in discussions of policy on process, guidelines, and technical issues, but inactive on main namespace edits [1] More content editing is necessary for maintaining a clear vision of what the goal of the project is, and how to use the arbcom to advance that goal. 172 | Talk 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --Zleitzen 15:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Oppose Hard-to-understand answers to my questions; will need to be able to explain arbcom decisions. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Rewrite helped, but still complex. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Tizio 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose weakly. I am concerned that they would be reluctant to hold admins and beaurocrats accountable to the community. Eluchil404 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Answers to AnonEMouse's challenge questions do not demonstrate the clarity and purpose that I feel ArbCom requires. An otherwise qualified candidate who I could readily support in a later election given improvement in the presentation of his ideas. Serpent's Choice 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Silensor 05:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose.--ragesoss 09:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. robchurch | talk 11:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose--Mcginnly | Natter 12:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Yanksox 14:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak oppose. Maybe next time. Andre (talk) 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Given the importance and role of an arbcom member, I can not support someone who believes community membership should be "weighted" in favor of "strong" users: User:Voice of All/Consensus. I would hate to see that sort of two-tier mentality permeate arbcom. --JJay 23:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Bahn Mi 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Nothing personal. I think Arbs need to have a better knowledge of mainspace that is best achieved by experience in mainspace editing -- Samir धर्म 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. VoA made some serious errors of judgment in his mediation of the Neuro-Linguistic Programming article that enabled problems to persist unchecked for months, at which point others (mentors and admins) intervened. The root problem was a long term abuser (ultimately banned) who was dominating the discussion with literally dozens of socks. VoA failed to accurately assess the problem, and may have inadvertently prolonged it. Consider his comments on December 9, months into mediation: "If this is an alternate account, then I simply encourage you to stick to the main account" and "I definitely see nothing that constitutes any sort of trolling here...not yet at least." This approach received consistent praise from the puppet accounts, who regularly cited him to bully other editors. Whether the praise influenced his judgment or not, a track record of flattery by a malicious user does not reflect well on his role in the mediation. In February, in the wake of the arbcom, he finally realized what other editors had noted as early as August: "Socks/meatpuppets are a problem here", he wrote. The day before he had written, "If I was not mediating, people would have been blocked a long time ago." It seems he meant that as a good thing. Perhaps he's learned from his mistakes. I see many editors vote their good experience with him; this, unfortunately, is mine. -- Shunpiker 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak oppose as per JJay. I otherwise think this is a good candidate, but Wikipedia is not a democracy; we're about consensus, not voting, and the idea that anyone's vote or opinion is more important than someone else's because they contributed more / have been around for longer / ... runs counter to Wikipedia's principles. It's the message that counts, not the messenger. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Answer to Mailer Diablo's question shows a lack of understanding of why it is important that the community trust those with extra permissions. Total lack of mainspace edits for 10+ months is troubling also. GRBerry 18:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Voice_of_All&oldid=1142527007"