Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Silverback

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Silverback

Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.

Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.

Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].

An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it.[4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.

Questions

Support

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's a lost cause, but support. Wikipedia could have used you in great ways. Oh well. Matt Yeager 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support an exceptionally intelligent individual whose reasoning is unclouded by mysticism. RJII 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support ObsidianOrder 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Meekohi 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support.  Grue  14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support DTC 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Amazing how many people vote against a candidate that want to enforce rulls eqaully. Zeq 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support TestPilot 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Bill_Levinson 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but your account did not exist on 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150, so your vote cannot count. --TML1988 20:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--MichaelSirks 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Daniel11 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Appears to be a gutsy reformer. A few of those could save Wikipedia. --HK 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support per HK, Brendanfox 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Krash 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Rohirok 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Lawyer2b 05:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Has even edited to strongly oppose his own viewpoint on controversial topics. Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Ben 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Bright editor with committment to balance and fairness.--Agiantman 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Heh, no. Ambi 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose --Doc ask? 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose, due to his previous Arbcom case. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Previous ArbCom case did not fill me with confidence about ability as an arbitrator. Batmanand 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose--Duk 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose --Angelo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Talrias. Kit 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. No way. Grace Note 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [6]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:37, Jan. 9, 2006
  24. Oppose. --csloat 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --⟳ausa کui × 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Guettarda 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose"' --Crunch 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Per Ambi. 172 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose.--ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose: nothing personal, just not the best fit for this role. Jonathunder 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Calton | Talk 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. android79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose--cj | talk 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Absolutely not! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. — Rama 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose not on your life! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Wizzy…☎ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose too much of a wikilawyer, I dont think I could trust silverback to remain neutral.  ALKIVAR™ 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose, too much revert warring and personal attacks (per ArbCom case) aren't a good sign of levelheadedness. Radiant_>|< 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Why would we want an Arbcom member who mocks and insults other users merely because of political disagreements as soon he believes he can (and should) get away with it? / Peter Isotalo 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter Isotalo likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    He does. He edited formerly as User:Karmosin (contributions). Bishonen | talk 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  46. Oppose. Agree with above by Isotalo. Cberlet 16:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. — Dunc|☺ 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose --kingboyk 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:29Z
  50. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose: Too confrontational, seems to delight in the fight, and ArbCom is about achieving peace. Geogre 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Splashtalk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose: Rather than appoint to ArbCom, this is one admin I'd recommend de-adminning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI Silverback has never been an admin. 172 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I misspoke. Consider my vote a simple 'oppose'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Just got out of an unsuccessful ArbCom case. Wally 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. older≠wiser 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. oppose --Irpen 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Continue to "take and respond". Good attitude, a little to fascist for my taste right now. Quaaludes. Avriette 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose, don't agree with general attitude -- Gurch 14:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose, can't support an arbcom candidate currently on personal attack parole [7]. HGB 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Wikipedia may need ideologues, but ArbCom doesn't. (This includes ideologues I agree with, in whole or in part, as here.) Septentrionalis 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Controversial. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Arbitration is not a judicial process, the candidate seems to believe otherwise, "application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis". Fifelfoo 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't believe it is currently a judicial process, but that it should become more like one, with transparency and fairness, and evidence based decisions. Note that the comments of others treat the recent decision of the arbcom in my case, as if it were the result of a fair and reasoned judicial process, which it wasn't. Apparently our culture here does not believe, the decisions are merely ad hoc, so we should attempt to live up to that belief. In a community this size, I don't see what the alternative is. My arbcom case resulted from my objections to abuses of the system by User:172 and from a long run-in with a particularly territorial user on one article. Yes, I enjoy editing on controversial and contentious articles, but I attempt to bring reasoned balance to those issues.--Silverback 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest that an administrator look into blocking Silverback for violating the spirit of his personal attack parole with his comments above. 172 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You are going to need an abusive administrator on this one, such as Stirling Newberry had [8]. This was no personal attack, just a characterization of my arbcom case. Just because the arbcom ignored your abuses does not mean they didn't occur. Quit following me around.--Silverback 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll have no finding one. There is no even a category for rogue admins I'll tell them that I'm one of there own because I've protected global warming on the " the wrong version." In the meantime, given that the arbcom has a policy of ignoring my "abuses," I will consider appealing your case asking for tougher sanctions on your editing. Your current personal attack parole stemming from your conduct toward me does not seem to be working, given that you are still making disruptive charges of my "abuse." 172 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you have forgotten that you also showed up to protect Intelligent Design without any formal solicitation under strange circumstances, and that you reprotected Global Warming while you were blocked abusing your admin powers. Review that evidence to refresh your memory.--Silverback 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. siafu 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Sunray 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose.--Primalchaos 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Opposed. Not quite right for this job.--JK the unwise 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  73. Oppose, per HGB — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. Seems too excitable for arbitration. --JWSchmidt 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - I don't like your policy. --NorkNork 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. --Viriditas 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Davidpdx 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Dr. B 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose, too controversial -- Francs2000 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Too controversial. Velvetsmog 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose, POV pusher, makes lots of personal attacks and engages in edit wars. Not suitable for ArbCom. - ulayiti (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose no, no, a thousand times no! Derex 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Nay! dispruptive evangelist-campaigner -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Seems very contentious, and recent RfC and RfA are substantial baggage for ArbCom. --William Pietri 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Edit history seems to contradict claims of neutrality in moderation.--Omniwolf 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Motivations in doubt. Superm401 | Talk 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose. Preaky 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose crazyeddie 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose As I agree with the findings of his Recent Arbitration case. [9] -- Mr. Tibbs 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. per recent RfA. Youngamerican 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Robert McClenon 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose - kaal 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. 'Oppose' - Homey 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose —Phil | Talk 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose --Loopy e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Sorry, the ArbCom case in November doesn't make me feel comfortable supporting you for ArbCom election. Author782 08:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose — FireFox • T • 21:56, 20 January 2006
  101. Oppose why should people who have done something wrong in the past become fair targets for abuse? Cynical 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are confusing "something wrong" with mistakes. Mistakes happen, ignorance of the rules,lapses in judgement, etc, but "something wrong" is a matter of character, and it shows not just in behavior in the community, but in the content of articles. Repeatedly abusing the system to gain advantage over a long period of time is not a mistake. I also think you are confusing abusing the system with abusing people. I don't mind personal abuse, because I know my own character, but currently I am disadvantaged due to sanctions, and people can game that to hurt the community and the content of the articles.--Silverback 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Appears temperamentally unsuited to ArbCom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose KTC 12:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose WLD 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Silverback is sadly unable to put his own POV aside and write for the enemy. As such, I believe he would make a very biased arbitrator.[reply]
  107. Oppose CDThieme 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. Alai 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Silverback&oldid=1087298208"