Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Improv - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CDThieme (talk | contribs) at 23:54, 22 January 2006 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:54, 22 January 2006 by CDThieme (talk | contribs) (→Support)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Improv

Howdy. I'm Improv, and have been on since late 2002 (initially under the username Pgunn). I've been a mediator since Jan2005 and an administrator since Feb2005. I also have been a Usenet moderator for a number of newsgroups for over five years. I should state that if I become an arbitrator, I will retain my post on the mediation committee, and continue to mediate as well, as I see no conflict in doing both (although I will abstain on any case that made its way through my mediation unsuccessfully). I don't have a platform, and promise only to be fair as I see it and to put in the effort needed in a timely fashion to prevent delay. All I can say on policy is that I think banning has a place, but I don't think it's possible to say anything useful as to how it should be handled in general. I will also suggest improvements that I think will be productive. I plan to write and make public an opinion on every case I participate in explaining my reasoning, things I have signed on to, and areas where I dissent. --Improv 00:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Struck section above. See questions section for reasoning. --Improv 23:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Jaranda 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Cryptic (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Your idea of Supreme Court-style opinions intrigues me. Batmanand 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Haukur 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support construtive participation on debates I've seen. ≈ Ekevu contrib 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. JYolkowski // talk 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support--Duk 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support.--ragesoss 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Shanes 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Raven4x4x 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Wgfinley 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support, good mediator. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support - Done too much not to support- Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:23, Jan. 9, 2006
  17. brenneman 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Rhobite 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support 172 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Crunch 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. — Dan | talk 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, per Batmanand. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. SlimVirgin 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support freestylefrappe 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Fred Bauder 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. RadicalSubversiv E 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support Experienced and eloquent. — Catherine\ 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. -- Scott e 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support . Drdisque 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. jni 06:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support--cj | talk 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support -newkai | talk | contribs 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. siafu 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. --Daniel 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. utcursch | talk 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. —Quarl 2006-01-09 08:51Z
  40. Support. Still concerned over losing a good mediator (ArbCom will steal time from MedCom), but I have changed my mind that that is a good reason to oppose. (Voted to delete my TCS Victory article as well, but that is not a very good reason to oppose either.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. --Muchness 08:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, reasonable and fair, committed to conflict resolution as demo'd by involvement w/mediation committee. --MPerel 08:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. --Kefalonia 09:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. --Raja Hussain 03:37, 9 January 2006 (IST)
  44. Support.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Dan100 (Talk) 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support: clearheaded and open, with considerable experience. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Questions --kingboyk 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. support: Ombudsman 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Clear as crystal to me. Also, I like your Supreme Court-line opinion idea. —Nightstallion (?) 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support --Terence Ong 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support Davidpdx 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. the wub "?!" 12:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support if you follow through with publishing your opinions you have my support.  ALKIVAR™ 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - I trust Improv. He is level-headed, reasonable, and willing to re-examine his conclusions. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support excellent admin, great mediator, let's see how this translates to arbcom. Tomer 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Good answers to questions. Gflores 15:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Robert McClenon 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Proto t c 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support. --Conti|✉ 17:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. Thryduulf 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. Written opinions are a great idea... anything that enhances transparency and accountability is a good thing -- Masonpatriot 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Good answers. Awolf002 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. note: the idea is not to publish your opinion, but to cooperate with others to form it. Avriette 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Splash 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support. Wally 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. older≠wiser 01:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support Rayc 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support abakharev 05:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support –Abe Dashiell 06:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support. -Alecmconroy 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support. -Ncsaint 17:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support - It's a long list, I'm bound to miss at least one person. --Celestianpower 18:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support; a good mediator who has a great grasp of policy. Ral315 (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support, changed vote from oppose. Thank you Improv, good luck! — Ian Manka 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support The Literate Engineer 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support - Since Improv decided not to serve on both commitees at once, I'm happily changing my vote from oppose to support. Please note that he didn't have to change his mind - only 2 people objected for this reason. He changed his statement because he thought it was right, and that says a lot to me. – Quadell 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support. Isomorphic 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. maclean25 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support KTC 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support Level-headed; thoughtful, fair--just what we need in an arbitrator. Sunray 08:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. --Bhadani 09:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support Kit 18:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support Timrollpickering 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support. Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support - lot of experience, also a mediator. --NorkNork 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support - experience, healthy approach to balance between rules and mediation, like the idea of written opinions on judgements, has handled questions well: seems honest and clear --- Charles Stewart 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support. Candidate's decision to step down from mediation if elected was the right one and removes my reason for objecting. David | Talk 21:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support. --AllyUnion (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support. Neutrality 22:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. --Ancheta Wis 02:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Support. Improv is heartiez, for now anyway. --Timecop 02:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support Alphax 12:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support Andromeda321 20:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support, fairly trustworthy -- Francs2000 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 11:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support--Doc 14:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support loss of a good mediator, but he'll be in Arbcom to catch the real problems Gnangarra 13:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support now that he has decided to focus on this role if chosen. Jonathunder 18:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support. I like his answers to the questions. He's experienced, and as far as I can tell, trustworthy enough for serving on the ArbCom. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support per answers. Youngamerican 16:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support sannse (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support —Phil | Talk 10:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support - kaal 17:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support -- Astrokey44|talk 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support SqueakBox 20:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support BBird 22:10, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support — strong track record, thoughtful and balanced. I'm slightly apprehensive about his stated attitude on WP:CIVIL, but no evidence of unsuitable temperament either. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - ] 19:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support. history of work on conflict resolution --JWSchmidt 03:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. --Irpen 04:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support. I like him. Deb 10:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support Alex43223 04:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support FreplySpang (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support Andrew_pmk | Talk
  122. Support Moriori 20:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support --Spondoolicks 21:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support Alai 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support CDThieme 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Zach 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (changed vote)
  3. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Weak oppose. Ambi 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Angelo 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Weak oppose — Omegatron 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose quite strongly. Grace Note 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Xoloz 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Bobet 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. android79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, his answers to questions imply too much reliance on the letter of the rules, and a blurry line between arbitration and punishment. Radiant_>|< 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Radiant. Also, RfM and RfAr are opposed. RfM puts being nice and letting things slide way over article quality or user conduct. Blocking use explaination too vague. We need someone a bit more bold when it comes to laying down the hammer.Voice of All 18:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. --HK 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Bishonen | talk 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose --Interiot 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Improv would make a great arbiter, but not while he remains on the mediation committee. (Discussion here and here.) – Quadell 03:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Since Improv has assured us he won't serve actively on both at the same time, I'm changing my vote to Support. – Quadell 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, I just can't have you be on the mediation committee and ArbCom at the same time. Sorry. Ian Manka 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Anyone interested in my reasoning, can find it here Ian Manka 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Revised statement makes Improv a great candidate. Thanks for dealing with me... — Ian Manka 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. --Carnildo 09:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose, better suited to medcom. HGB 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Incognito 21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Candidate has a personal problem with GNAA. --Timecop 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose I disagree with the way this user has handled past situations. --dj28 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose I find his view regarding consensus here to be worrisome. -- Hinotori 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. OpposeDr. B 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. The candidate does not have a substantive stance on ArbCom. Velvetsmog 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Respectful oppose. Disagree with beliefs on consensus, adminship, and desysopping. Simetrical 07:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Disagree with your views about necessary time for ArbCom, IRC, and adminship. Superm401 | Talk 22:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. 'Oppose Chooserr 05:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. Preaky 07:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose  Grue  16:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. oppose Kingturtle 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. —Lowellian (reply) 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose - I wasn't quite impress with his description on how to handle vandals and about the banning policy. The unfortunate events that have been occuring with more and more frequent attacks on wiki content needs to be handle by someone who has a cleaner idea on how it could be treated. I need more info in order to change my initial thoughts. --LifeStar 14:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Bratsche 04:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - doesn't seem willing to give the necessary commitment to Arbcom duties Cynical 22:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Reluctant oppose due to ranking Civility so low against the other rules.... --AySz88^-^ 01:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. oppose. Sandpiper 22:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)