Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/PZFUN

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PZFUN

Arbitration is one of Wikipedia's most difficult and intense jobs. To be a good arbitrator requires the ability to look at the ideas behind two or more groups whose opinions differ sufficiently to be beyond less serious forms of reconciliation. Part of this requires being able to look at the key ideas behind vitriolic arguments, and seeing how they can be made to work together. Some of the most violent arguments, both on Wikipedia and in the real world, begin with small misunderstandings.

My personal background gives me unique insight into how to resolve arguments and avoid the pitfalls of communication. My childhood was spent between parents who argued non-stop, and I often had to find ways to help them come to peace and understand one another. I have also lived in many different countries, so I am not only fluent or highly skilled in many different languages, but I understand the different cultural sensibilities that can further provoke arguments. Along with other users, I founded the Scandinavian Mediators Club, which seeks to help people on Wikipedia who speak a Scandinavian language and need assistance.

In terms of my theories regarding the Arbitration Committee and its place on the Wikipedia project, I feel that more should be done to make sure that conflict is resolved before it arrives at the ArbCom. This would involve greater integration between the members of the Arbitration Committee and the various mediation groups on Wikipedia, as we can only work efficiently when we are working together. There are just too many editors, articles, and areas on Wikipedia in which arguments can develop. On the flipside, I feel that the cases that do reach the ArbCom are currently processed too slowly, spanning across weeks of arguments and evidence gathering. This needs to stop, as such long periods of uncertainly can dampen the growth of the project by failing to provide precedence or a good solution to problems.

I have been looking forward to working on the Arbitration Committee since I found out about it. I have been active on Wikipedia since May 2004 and an admin since December of the same year. If elected, I intend to make sure that the Arbitration Committee becomes more culturally sensitive, is better able to interact with members whose first language is not English, is more active in promoting mediation before arbitration, and acts more promptly. Thank you!

A post-script, I did not intend not to answer any questions. I'm on holiday in the middle of the desert (specifically southern Namibia) and am having difficulties getting Internet access until next week when i return home. Did not intend to be difficult! Thanks. Páll (Die pienk olifant) 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Excellent chap, would make a first class arbitrator. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. - Mark 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support --Vsion 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. A proven dispute-resolver, and some good ideas about ArbCom effectiveness. Batmanand 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support good contributor, excellent ideas to solve disputes between users --Angelo 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Bjelleklang - talk 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support--ragesoss 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Fred Bauder 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Crunch 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Daniel 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. android79 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. --Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. Impressive, I'd like to see him doing the job. -- Michalis Famelis 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Raven4x4x 11:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. —Nightstallion (?) 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. support very worthy candidate.  ALKIVAR™ 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Trifon Triantafillidis 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Multilingual support Tomertalk 14:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Gryffindor 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. Great statement.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support Seems OK to me. --kingboyk 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support . Drdisque 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support: --It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support--Confuzion 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Wally 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Chick Bowen 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Rayc 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support ArbCom needs more mægleresklub-style attitude - Xed 04:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. enochlau (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support--Gozar 17:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, independent-minded and fair. Bishonen | talk 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support - good policy, especially speakers of other languages, statement a bit too personal, but fitting. --NorkNork 21:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support. Willing to give this candidate a chance. Velvetsmog 01:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. ～J.K. 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support -- Davidpdx 13:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. Looks solid. --Elkman 19:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support based on statement (I don't know this user) -- Francs2000 00:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Rohirok 02:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support. Like the multicultural experience and the answers to questions. -- William Pietri 01:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Never explicitly said he likes LEGO, which is concerning, what Dane doesn't? But Support anyway, good candidate Why? ++Lar: t/c 01:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support - I know little of this candidate, but admire him for his linguistic skills :-) Chooserr 05:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. (SEWilco 06:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  50. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Level headed, calm, and interested in dissolving disputes. Geogre 22:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Looks like a good choice. --Broux 01:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support I like his ideas --Randolph 03:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support Interesting experience; nice ideas. Septentrionalis 04:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:07, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support //Big Adamsky 07:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support. Believes in common sense and less beaurocracy. Thryduulf 17:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support — appears intelligent and even-tempered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:14, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support --Pastricide 17:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support KTC 12:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. 'Support#. --Angr (tɔk) 17:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support. Credentials sound good. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. +sj + 22:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support Sounds great. --AySz88^-^ 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support CDThieme 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose per David. Ambi 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. JYolkowski // talk 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. — Dan | talk 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Bobet 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Questions. Still a good user. 172 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose never heard of this guy.  Grue  14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, I don't really like his statement and he has declined to answer many questions asked. Radiant_>|< 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. --Conti|✉ 17:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:14Z
  20. Splashtalk 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Also never heard of, no clear statement on policy. Avriette 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Questions. Saravask 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. older≠wiser 02:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. siafu 04:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, lack of community involvement. HGB 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose, while the candidate may be emminently suitable as a personality to be a mediator, they only discuss the social, not the procedural function of arbitration, so I cannot support them to be an arbitrator. Fifelfoo 22:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  30. Oppose Not convinced that he follows procedures. Came across him while reading some South Africa based articles. He seemed to be producing a lot of useful input, but sometimes in a disturbing way (e.g. cut-and-paste moves/copyvios). --Audiovideo 01:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Rangek 02:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Xoloz 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. oppose William M. Connolley 22:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Dr. B 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. maclean25 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. oppose Kingturtle 21:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. I agree that there should be mediation before disputes get to ArbCom. However, he has not sufficiently explained what should happen then. Superm401 | Talk 00:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Preaky 00:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Weak Oppose. crazyeddie 04:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Can't discern a policy from responses -- Masonpatriot 05:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose per answers. Youngamerican 18:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. --Doc ask? 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. He should be credited for the opening of several low standard Hong Kong railway station articles without much supervision over them. Patrickov 14:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose Tuohirulla 22:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. see User:Audiovideo (above) --JWSchmidt 03:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Pschemp | Talk 07:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. Sunray 11:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)