Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:54, 6 December 2008

WilyD

WillyD has withdrawn from the election

Too much, it seems, an arbitration case is the goal of those seek dispute resolution. And why? Because the ArbCom is too lenient, passing out hugs and handjobs rather than real measures all too often. Real measures, real sanctions are needed, and it seems Arbitrators need to be unfettered by attachments, which I have in spades.

From here, I promise that if elected, I will support sanctions for every case that gets to ArbCom (which may include topic-bans, interaction-bans, site-bans, desysops, et cetera.) Realise this does not mean these will all come to pass, as Arbs will continue to turn blind eyes and be unwilling to commit to sanctions in many case. The balance, however, will tilt.

As an admin, I (think I) have been fairly lenient, and very willing to engage in extended discussions and grant unblocks after discussion. I do not believe this is incompatible with the vision I present for ArbCom - admins dealing with new disputes low on the dispute resolution hierarchy should be more lienent than Arbitrators at the end of it.

If it should come to pass that you share my vision for ArbCom, and I am elected, just call me Sheriff D.

• WilyD (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Discuss the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

1. Support, impressed by platform.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
7. Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
8. Support. Has shown great judgment in a number of situations I've encountered him in. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
9. Support. The "always sanction" platform looks odd at first, but I think it means he'll try to avoid accepting cases where sanctions are not needed. Previous judgment has been sound in my opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Support - I concur with the interpretation given above. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Support --A Nobody 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Strong Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

12. Support an early mentor of mine ---Taprobanus (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Have severe misgivings about your candidate statement but answers to questions look quite good. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
14. Mostly a moral support at this point. When it comes to dealing with administrators, at least, it's true that ArbCom mostly gives out "hugs and handjobs". This has unfortunately perpetuated our caste system between admins and non-admins and Wily's hatchet, though a cruder instrument than ideal, would give these cases a valuable tilt. --JayHenry (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
15. I supported your RfA 19 months ago, no reason to stop supporting you today ...--Cometstyles 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
16. Support Answers to old Arbs on Arbcom mailing list and OrangeMarlin case were specific and dead on correct. May be a too enthusiastic about punishment of arbitration cases but I'll risk it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. HiDrNick! 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
4. Voyaging 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
5. Elonka 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6. Very strong oppose. The last thing we need is more ban/block drama from Arbcom. – iridescent 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
7. PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
8. krimpet✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
9. kurykh 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
10. Oppose Candidate has made it clear that he accepts hypocritical double standards and the objectifying of users as long as it is done by one of his associates. In addition, user lacks a clear understanding of civil and uses the policy to threaten behavior that questions the judgment of his associates. This is extremely troubling and disqualifies him immediately for ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
11. Oppose Majorly 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
12. per "hugs and handjobs". Good joke, but this is (relatively speaking) serious business. No one wants a hatchet job. They want considered improvement in the way ArbCom operates and its responsiveness to the community. Steven Walling (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
13. Sanctions for every case, regardless of the background? That is like a judge saying "Every time someone is charged, at least one person is going to jail - I don't care who!" It doesn't make any sense. Avruch 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
14. I agree with Avurch, for one, and for two: We do not need even more block drama anywhere on the wiki, let alone arbcom... _{David (contribs)} 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
15. - NuclearWarfare _{My work} 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
16. iMatthew 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
17. Blocked MZMcBride for doing the right thing. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
18. --Mixwell! 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
19. RockManQ 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
20. Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
21. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
22. Oppose. GJC 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
23. In so far I agree that the current arbcom is to lenient, a hanging judge is an extreme we do not need. -- Kim van der Linde 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
24. John Vandenberg 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
25. "Because the ArbCom is too lenient" O_O! Nooooo it isn't. Prodego 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
26. Oppose per the FCC. BJ 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
27. Far too punitive. Titoxd 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
28. I was really not a huge fan of the answer he made to the anonymity question. I'd prefer that in this higher position, that the community at least has a vague idea of who the person is, yes, including their name. Mike H. Fierce! 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
29. Strong oppose, per hatchets. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
30. He keeps his finger on the trigger too often. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
31. Caspian blue 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
32. -- Avi (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
33. Oppose - moar dramahz not necessary; incivility is a concern; I am concerned (due to his interactions with me) that this user is not as capable of remaining impartial as others are. // roux   editor review08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
34. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
35. Seems like this user would generate more heat than light. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
36. — neuro 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
37. Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
38. Strong Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
39. Oppose. Is this a joke? I hope so. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

    Just remembered this quote and it made me think of WilyD: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

40. This is not a joke entry, as I have witnessed him take extreme action with this odd behavior before. It's already scary enough that he's an administrator, but the least I can do is put in my STRONG OPPOSE vote to help stop this person from being put in a position to severely damage Misplaced Pages. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
41. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
42. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
43. Synergy 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
44. I would seriously consider supporting if you ran under a platform of structured review and redevelopment. I oppose such a heavy-handed candidacy, however. Hope to see you next year sans the giant banhammer. AGK 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
45. Oppose - cases should be judged on the evidence. We cannot be sure what remedies may be most appropriate in a case until the evidence is presented. Even if we have an idea that harsh remedies may be required, we should remain open-minded until we see the evidence. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
46. GlassCobra 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
47. Alexfusco 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
48. Oppose - Seddσn 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
49. Tiptoety 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
50. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
51. Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
52. Oppose' Knife play migth have its place, ArbCom ain't one of 'em. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
53. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
54. I like your style, and you've always impressed me as sensible and clueful. I'd support you as a serious candidate, but I get the feeling this isn't a totally serious candidacy, so for now I have to oppose. Keep up the good work, though, and best of luck. MastCell  19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
55. Ditto Keep up the good work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
56. Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
57. I'm all for blood on the floor but your admin log says otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
58. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
59. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
60. Oppose. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
61. ArbCom is about what happens in the Misplaced Pages namespace. His lack of participation there is alarming.  Marlith (Talk)  04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
62. Kusma (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
63. Gentgeen (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
64. Michael Snow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
65. Wronkiew (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
66. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
67. While less leniency might be good, categorically stating that you will always impose some kind of restriction for every case at ArbCom is not flexible enough. Joe Nutter 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
68. Oppose. If evidence is too 'personal' to be given to the person it is being used against, then it can't be used. End of. Cynical (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
69. Oppose ArbCom is not the Police. --Michael X the White (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
70. Terence (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
71. Very Strong Oppose I simply cannot stand a regular Wikipedian that does not uphold WP:AGF, let alone an abriter. Leujohn
72. Oppose. I actually liked the answers to the questions and was drifting toward a support. However, when examining the candidates contributions I was disturbed by a tendency to strong opinions, and the need to keep pushing that opinion rather than considering the alternative viewpoints. I think this sums up the candidate's position quite well. The repeated assertions that the candidate is right rather than considering what other people are saying does not give me confidence that this candidate would be a useful member of a committee. Stubborn and strong opinions are not useful ArbCom qualities. SilkTork * 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
73. Oppose BigDunc 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Elections 2008