Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Netoholic: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:44, 10 January 2006 view sourceBkonrad (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators219,020 edits →Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 03:27, 10 January 2006 view source Irpen (talk | contribs)32,604 edits opposeNext edit →
Line 20: Line 20:
#'''Support'''. ] 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Support'''. ] 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' on basis of strong platform alone. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Support''' on basis of strong platform alone. ]<font color="#008000">]</font>]] 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' good ideas, atypical arbitrator who I feel can do the job and add good perspective -] 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Support''' Very fairminded on the ocassions when I've encountered him and his work. Will be approachable to many users. {{unsigned|EuropracBHIT}}
#'''Support'''. Dislike the need to "give more power" to anyone. It's "no big deal." Everything else seems correct. ] 23:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#:'''Support''' ] 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#:*OnceBitten does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 01:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 71 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (]) &mdash;] ] 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#


==Oppose== ==Oppose==
Line 101: Line 95:
#'''Oppose'''. Does not seem to have sufficient interpersonal skills. ] ] 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Does not seem to have sufficient interpersonal skills. ] ] 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Candidate lacks patience and tolerance an arbitrator needs.&mdash;] 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Oppose'''. Candidate lacks patience and tolerance an arbitrator needs.&mdash;] 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' ] <small>]</small> 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) $'''oppose'''. --] 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --] 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --] 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too nitpicky. ] 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' ] ] 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Too nitpicky...doesn't bother to communicate with other people when offering to destroy their hard work. ]<font style="color:#FF72E3;"><span class="Unicode">&#09660;</span></font>'''<sup>]</sup>'''<font color="#FF0000" size="+1"><span class="Unicode">&#09829;</span></font><sup>''']'''</sup><font color="#5500FF" size="+1">'''<span class="Unicode">&#09809;</span>'''</font> 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. <span class="user-sig user-Quarl"><i>&mdash;] <sup>(])</sup> <small>]&nbsp;20:45]</small></i></span>
#'''Oppose'''. Shocked he even put his name forward - ] 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' as Ëzhiki --] 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' Not arbcom temperament. —] (]:]) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# ] | ] 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per pretty much everyone above. ]]]''']''' 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' -- ] ] 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. ] 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
# ]&ne;] 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:27, 10 January 2006

Netoholic

Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.

  • I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors must end and the spirit of true arbitration must return.
  • I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.
  • I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally dealing with problems, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.

I'll expand on the last item. More problem users should be handled by community/administrator consensus alone. If they feel unfairly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process; but both (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. On the other hand, if that user is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while making it easier to review the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (revised 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, I would have opposed if I didn't find the statement and questions interesting. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support.  Grue  13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support on basis of strong platform alone. Tomer 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Mo0 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Zach 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. No. Ambi 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. —Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Jtkiefer ---- 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. --Jaranda 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. User:Zoe| 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. —David Levy 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. – Quadell 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. No way. — Omegatron 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Sorry, but you are just too new. Batmanand 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --Christopher Thomas 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose inexperience, policy, whatever. --Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Nah. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose I seriously question editor's judgment; see his post in my talk archive. Xoloz 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Tony the Marine 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:37, Jan. 9, 2006
  28. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose--Jiang 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Too abrasive and confrontational to be tempermentally suited to Arbcom. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose 172 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Bobet 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose —Optikos 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose --Tabor 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. android79 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose--cj | talk 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. Skillful, intelligent, and motivated, but the job requires better people skills than I have encountered with him. — Catherine\ 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, on the basis of judgment and interpersonal relations. --MCB 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose, excellent contributor, but not the right one for this job. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. People skills. utcursch | talk 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose I think his platform will make wikipedia worse. --- Charles Stewart 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. OpposeMy experience of this editor is that he is intransigent in his views and over forceful in asserting his will. Giano | talk 08:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose violates rules to advance his own agenda, extremely unsuited for any position of power. DreamGuy 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose Dan100 (Talk) 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose Geogre 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Raven4x4x 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Despite the possibly misleading name, participation in arbritration is not and should not be voluntary. If problem editors are allowed a veto on whether they have any sanction on them, I suspect this would reduce the arbcom workload to close to 0. The number of wheel wars between people i'd characterise as 'good admins' we've seen lately belies any hope with the latter points. Morwen - Talk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose Xtra 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose - By his own word, too "unilateral" in action. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose, lack of skills in dispute resolution. Radiant_>|< 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose Mark 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. Does not seem to have sufficient interpersonal skills. DES 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Candidate lacks patience and tolerance an arbitrator needs.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

$oppose. --Irpen 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)