Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Doc glasgow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Statement

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Aged 30-40, I joined Wikipedia in April 2005, Admin since September 2005, my number of edits……seriously folks? Who cares about this crap?

I’m offering you only my time and my (fallible) common sense. If you think arbcom needs it, vote for me. If you think ‘hell no,’ then vote for the other guy.

I believe arbcom’s task is to create an environment where users can productively write, edit, sort illustrate, and take out the trash – and our encyclopaedia can improve. To allow productive users to do this, we need to be willing to show timewasters the door quickly, and to patiently and fairly deal with occasional disputes between valued participants. We need just enough due process to give good people confidence of fair treatment, but not enough to allow fools to waste our time screaming about their ‘rights’.

My experience? I’ve written a few articles. And since my chosen field is/was religion, I’ve battled with POV pushers, trolls and nutters of all creeds and none. I’ve experienced the exasperation that drives good people off the wiki. More recently, I’ve been serving on the OTRS team, specialising in WP:LIVING issues. This again gives me experience of the underside of the wiki – libels, copyvios, agenda pushers – and problem users. It is also a place where you see innocent people getting crushed when we do wiki badly. Despite all that, I believe in Wikipedia – and in the general good faith of our community.

FWIW, I’ve a rusty legal training, and a modest record of writing wikipolicies. Whilst arbcom isn’t a judiciary, nor a place to create policy, I’m confident that I’d be of use writing proposed decisions.

Questions

:I hereby withdraw this nomination. I will comment further after reflection.--Docg 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. --Majorly 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. --Ideogram 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Gurch 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Thatcher131 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. KPbIC 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Snoutwood (talk) 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. The focus on WP:BLP is extremely important. This is one of the WP areas most in need of help. Good candidate. --Rtrev 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Weakly. I should observe that I don't join in Rtrev's appreciation of the focus on BLP, but I imagine that the candidate's personal views apropos of BLP should not color any relevant ArbCom work. In any case, our having another ArbCommer familiar with the principles of logical thinking that underlie a typical legal education would surely be propitious. Joe 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support The focus on WP:BLP is extremely important, agreed. Sm1969 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Weak support. — CharlotteWebb 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. Because: "Remedies should never be punitive, only preventative". --Sugaar 10:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Kusma (討論) 11:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Knows what he's doing.--§hanel 14:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Level headed and, he made {{bv}}! Glen 14:42, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn at this point--Docg 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. After what happened with Giano case (and also before that), no way. -- Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. -- AuburnPilottalk 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. TacoDeposit 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. - crz crztalk 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Jaranda wat's sup 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Doc in his statement calls his role in the recent Giano RFAR case "silly". I'm sorry, but it just looked a whole lot worse than silly to me. Per Grafikm, no way. Bishonen | talk 02:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
  11. —Mira 02:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Jd2718 02:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. No. Rebecca 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Trying to hold a uniform standard opposing recent ArbCom dispute participants from ArbCom positions. Perhaps next time. Serpent's Choice 03:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. I like Doc personally, but all those things he now "regrets" are serious negative indicator. Not consistently even-tempered, by his own admission. Xoloz 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. THB 04:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Terence Ong 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. ATren 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Nufy8 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Weak Oppose Because he can be uncivil at times, but I would support a future nom if he ran again. semper fi — Moe 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose --Riley 06:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Strong Oppose - vandalism [1], [2]. That his sysop powers were restored after his return without an RFA is disturbing. BigDT 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Strpongly oppose the user who think that policies should never interfere with his own decisions. --Irpen 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Strong Oppose Not civil at times. GizzaChat © 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose- Civility is just too important. --Alecmconroy 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Too many controversial actions the past year. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Sorry Doc, I like you alot and you've done some great work on wiki... but I just dont feel you are non-controversial enough to be a good arbcom candidate. Keep up the good work... believe me I doubt you want the headache that arbcom becomes.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. —Viriditas | Talk 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Everyking 08:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Giano 08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. cj | talk 09:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. – Chacor 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose --Van helsing 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Shyam (T/C) 13:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Came in too late to get much Q&A done. Also I've seen them do WP:BITE. Anomo 13:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn at this point--Docg 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_Doc_glasgow_2f73.html"