Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Jtkiefer: 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 00:24, 9 January 2006 editFys (talk | contribs)14,706 edits →Oppose← Previous edit Revision as of 00:24, 9 January 2006 edit undoRenamedUser jaskldjslak904 (talk | contribs)24,239 edits →Oppose: -OpposeNext edit →
Line 24: Line 24:
# '''Oppose''', questions. See my ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) # '''Oppose''', questions. See my ]. ] (] | ] | ]) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' questions. ] | ] | ] 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) # '''Oppose''' questions. ] | ] | ] 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#--] ] 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:24, 9 January 2006

Jtkiefer

Hello, I'm Jtkiefer, a registered user since June 2005, and an anonymous editor for a long time before that. I've been an administrator since late August 2005, and I'm now active in the Welcoming Committee and the Stub Sorting WikiProject.


The arbitration process needs to be streamlined; this is widely agreed upon by the Misplaced Pages community. The arbitration case duration has been reduced without compromising diligence, but I feel that this can be improved even more. Good members who become involved as arbitrators are often alienated by the process; their experience is lost when they resign or leave the project, and I feel that this problem too must be given serious attention.


I believe that bans must be treated as a last resort when dealing with problem users. Either all other possible solutions must have been tried and have demonstrably failed, or there must be good evidence that all other solutions would have absolutely no chance of succeeding. Probation, selective bans on certain articles, and mentorship are ways of dealing with problematic behaviour which I consider should be integrated into the process, because they keep the user on the path to improvement. I also feel that the Arbitration Committee should be flexible, and should focus more on the spirit of the existing rules rather than the enforcing the exact letter of them. Jtkiefer ----- 02:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Zach 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Sean|Black 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Ancheta Wis 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Jaranda 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)