Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Silverback - 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 Boothy443 (talk | contribs) at 06:01, 15 January 2006 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 06:01, 15 January 2006 by Boothy443 (talk | contribs) (→Oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Silverback

Misplaced Pages does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.

Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.

Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: . My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case .

An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it. I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.

Questions

Support

  1. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. It's a lost cause, but support. Misplaced Pages could have used you in great ways. Oh well. Matt Yeager 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support an exceptionally intelligent individual whose reasoning is unclouded by mysticism. RJII 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support ObsidianOrder 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support Meekohi 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support.  Grue  14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support DTC 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Amazing how many people vote against a candidate that want to enforce rulls eqaully. Zeq 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support TestPilot 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Bill_Levinson 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but your account did not exist on 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150, so your vote cannot count. --TML1988 20:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support--MichaelSirks 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Daniel11 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Appears to be a gutsy reformer. A few of those could save Misplaced Pages. --HK 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support per HK, Brendanfox 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Krash 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support Rohirok 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Lawyer2b 05:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Heh, no. Ambi 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Doc 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Voice of All 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. --a.n.o.n.y.m 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. —Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Jtkiefer ---- 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. – Quadell 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, due to his previous Arbcom case. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. --Jaranda 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Previous ArbCom case did not fill me with confidence about ability as an arbitrator. Batmanand 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose--Duk 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose --Angelo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per Talrias. Kit 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. No way. Grace Note 02:46, 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
  24. Oppose. --csloat 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. --Ryan Delaney 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Guettarda 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose"' --Crunch 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Per Ambi. 172 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose.--ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose: nothing personal, just not the best fit for this role. Jonathunder 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Calton | Talk 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. android79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose--cj | talk 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Absolutely not! Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. — Rama 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose not on your life! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Wizzy…☎ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose too much of a wikilawyer, I dont think I could trust silverback to remain neutral.  ALKIVAR™ 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose, too much revert warring and personal attacks (per ArbCom case) aren't a good sign of levelheadedness. Radiant_>|< 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. Why would we want an Arbcom member who mocks and insults other users merely because of political disagreements as soon he believes he can (and should) get away with it? / Peter 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Peter Isotalo likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    He does. He edited formerly as User:Karmosin (contributions). Bishonen | talk 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  46. Oppose. Agree with above by Isotalo. Cberlet 16:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. — Dunc|☺ 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose --kingboyk 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 21:29Z
  50. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose: Too confrontational, seems to delight in the fight, and ArbCom is about achieving peace. Geogre 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Splash 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose: Rather than appoint to ArbCom, this is one admin I'd recommend de-adminning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    FYI Silverback has never been an admin. 172 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Thanks - I misspoke. Consider my vote a simple 'oppose'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Just got out of an unsuccessful ArbCom case. Wally 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. older≠wiser 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. oppose --Irpen 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. Continue to "take and respond". Good attitude, a little to fascist for my taste right now. Quaaludes. Avriette 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, don't agree with general attitude -- Gurch 14:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose, can't support an arbcom candidate currently on personal attack parole . HGB 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose Misplaced Pages may need ideologues, but ArbCom doesn't. (This includes ideologues I agree with, in whole or in part, as here.) Septentrionalis 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Controversial. JFW | T@lk 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. Arbitration is not a judicial process, the candidate seems to believe otherwise, "application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis". Fifelfoo 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. siafu 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. Sunray 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose.--Primalchaos 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Opposed. Not quite right for this job.--JK the unwise 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  73. Oppose, per HGB — Ian Manka 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose. Seems too excitable for arbitration. --JWSchmidt 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose - I don't like your policy. --NorkNork 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. --Viriditas 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Davidpdx 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose Dr. B 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose, too controversial -- Francs2000 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose. Too controversial. Velvetsmog 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose, POV pusher, makes lots of personal attacks and engages in edit wars. Not suitable for ArbCom. - ulayiti (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose no, no, a thousand times no! Derex 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose Nay! dispruptive evangelist-campaigner -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose. Seems very contentious, and recent RfC and RfA are substantial baggage for ArbCom. --William Pietri 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)