Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Daniel.Bryant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Neutral

Moved from main ArbCom page by Mark (talk • contribs) as ArbCom elections don't supplement a neutral section; keeping here to preserve transparency.

  1. Neutral having thought about it more and having read Daniel's reply and looked at his newer contributions, I withdraw my opposition - Reluctant oppose per [1]. I see Daniel's name all over the place and there's no question that he is an outstanding contributor, but this is obviously a concern. I would support you, though, if you were nominated for adminship again. BigDT 05:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    I've already been admonished enough times for that, and it was back when I was extremely new to Wikipedia. Although not a full excuse, that was the worst period of my life (I had extremely bad problems at home and at school), and it was a comment which was totally out-of-character. I understand if it looks bad on first sight, but trust me, I will not, nor have not, done anything similar in the six months since that. I can understand opposing per inexperience, but please, don't go digging through my past to back when I had less than ~500 edits (considering I have since contributed 11,000+ without anything even remotely similar). Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    I didn't really go digging ... or at least that wasn't my intent and I apologize if it came across that way. I was just surprised that you weren't an admin (good grief, I see you all over everywhere) and looked up to see why. As I said, I would support you for adminship and, pending a job well done there, support you next time around for Arbcom. BigDT 06:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Ah, forgot that it was on that page :) Anyways, my apologies for my poor use of words (naturally, you weren't "digging" given it's displayed in an RfA), however I figure that the elucidation I gave about the circumstances involved will still benefit those who vote. Sorry again, and cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Would be weak support (they gave some good answers to my questions but didn't seem too firmly committed in them is why the weak), but they did not answer one of my questions, so I will stay neutral. Anomo 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disqualified votes

Moved from main ArbCom page by Daniel.Bryant (talk • contribs) to prevent error in User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections table; keeping here to preserve transparency.

[edit] Support

Support per Alkivar. - --Sycron 08:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Sycron does not have suffrage; he had only 129 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

OpposeNinaEliza 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
NinaEliza does not have suffrage; she registered at 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC). - Aksi_great (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
(Oppose) TheScotch 09:16, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
TheScotch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC). - Aksi_great (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose. Having reviewed user's previous interactions in other disputes, I find his temperment a bit too abrasive, confrontational, and imperious for such a sensitive position as ArbComm. Perhaps he really is just too young. Furthermore, the desire for such authority after having been here only six months is worrisome. Clearly a committed user, and should be commended for that, but serving as an arbitrator requires a different skillset than mere ability to undertake RC patrol. Would gladly reconsider if user shows a little more savoir-faire in the future. Pop Secret 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Pop Secret does not have suffrage; 33 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). 23:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notes

Wait, there were errors in my table? Someone could have, you know, told me. I guess if it's fixed now, that's OK – Gurch 20:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it kept including the struck votes in the count. Moving them here was the only option to deleting them. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

[edit] "Militant opposition"

Lengthly comments moved from main voting page by MichaelBillington (talk • contribs)

  1. MILITANT OPPOSITION Hasty closing of deletion review (Dec 1) that was merely being done for interproject coordination was disruptive and unhelpful. Someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia interacts with sister projects should be on ArbCom? I think not! --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    What the...? I didn't even close it.[2] Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 23:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Yours were the last comments before it was closed, but equally misrepresenting what had transpired, and what could be done to remedy the problem. Would it have been 'speedily' closed without your comments? Indeed, that seemed to be the impetus for the hasty closure. And why? That course of action was only due to a lack of understanding of a technical process. So, your reaction wasn't to communicate with the sister project, or the person making the request, but instead to blindly follow an oblique precedent applicable only to Wikipedia?
    The topic here is an ArbCom nomination. Hasty actions based on false or incorrect assumptions are the exact opposite of what anyone might hope for, from the ArbCom. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 00:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see how my suggestion reflects my ability to perform a role in the ArbCom. If you want to complain about it some more, why not try DRV (again), even though everything Wikipedia can do, has been done. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 02:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Complain? No, I've already let the various Wikipedia processes work around you...now that particular issue seems resolved. My personal assessment is that you are far to hasty (perhaps reactionary is a better word?) to be entrusted with a role in ArbCom. Actually, I think what you were doing was more of a knee-jerk overzealous support of something a friend said, without checking to see if it had any merit. Any way I look at it, my (only?) previous encounter with you has been resoundingly negative, hence the oppose vote. Reviewing that particular situation leads me to believe that you would give much more weight to who said something, rather than what was said. Even if I could be convinced that my other concerns were not 100% objective, that last one would make a support vote impossible. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    I fail to see how I am at fault here - as explained, and endorsed, by DRV, I was right in my judgement. If you had have asked for me to clarify or reassess my position, whilst explaining your reasoning in a civilised way, I would have responded in kind. I had, up until this point (I need to reassess it now), held a respect for your work on Wiktionary (where I contribute on-and-off under a totally unrelated username, which I'm not going to divulge). We had a number of productive discussions in the past, and my 4000 edits to Wiktionary were some that I felt very proud of. I still plan on contributing, mainly in sports-related topics as I have for the last three months, and I hope we can continue to improve both Wiktionary, which your input into is greatly appreciated by a large number, as well as Wikipedia. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Umm ... six people participated in that DRV and all six endorsed the closure. You were not requesting undeletion - you were requesting transwiki, which anybody can do. As your request did not actually involve an overturn of an administrative action, Daniel correctly suggested a speedy close. WP:DRV isn't the complaints department - it's not a five-day pass to get people to complain about an admin. Once it was resolved that no further administrative action was needed, there was no reason for the review to remain open. Had you been asking for the article to be restored to article space, then it would have stayed open for the full five days. BigDT 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    If I suggested that he was alone in his endorsement of the closure, then I misstated my objection. Yes, I was requesting a restore to the main namespace for the purpose of transwiki-ing the article! At any rate, he wasn't the one who closed it; but to someone not intimately familiar with Wikipedia policy variants, it certainly looked like he did. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 22:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Banned" votes

Apparently, there is some uncertainty about votes from users that had suffrage before the election, but have since been banned for a period of time (not indefinite) by the ArbCom. Srikeit originally struck them citing Dmcdevit, however since some conflicting opinions have occured, and hence I believe that the status of these votes is in limbo. Because of this, I have returned them to their original state, with a bolded link to this discussion next to the votes that fall into this category. I will seek further opinion on the matter, and if they are disqualified per concensus or edict of Jimmy Wales, I will re-strike them. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 01:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia_talk%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_Daniel.Bryant_b3b6.html"