Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Roger Davies: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Oppose: Comment for Prodego
Line 62: Line 62:
# [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Dlabtot|Dlabtot]] ([[User talk:Dlabtot|talk]]) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read [[WP:ARBPOL]] I don't see that on there. <span>[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup></span> 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read [[WP:ARBPOL]] I don't see that on there. <span>[[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup></span> 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#:It's implicit in [[WP:ARBCOM|Rules 1 & 2]] and explicit in the policy those rules refer to. (See examples [[Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Roger Davies#ArbCom's duty|'''here''']].) --[[User:Roger Davies|<font color="maroon">'''R<small>OGER</small>&nbsp;D<small>AVIES'''</small></font>]]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Roger Davies|'''talk''']]</sup> 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. ([[User:Rspeer/ACE2008|rationale]]) [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. ([[User:Rspeer/ACE2008|rationale]]) [[User:Rspeer|'''<span style="color: #63f;">r</span><span style="color: #555;">speer</span>''']] / [[User talk:Rspeer|<span style="color: #555;">ɹəəds</span><span style="color: #63f;">ɹ </span>]] 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 08:28, 1 December 2008

Update (5 December 2008) - links to discussion of key issues: Secret evidenceBiographies of living peoplePOV-warringIncivilityUndoing admin actionsFormer arbitrators on the mailing listArbitrator recallVacating arbitrationsReforming checkuser/oversight rightsSpeeding up decisionsTendentious editing and civil POV pushers.

With ArbCom perhaps at its lowest ebb, and attracting high levels of dissatisfaction, this incoming tranche of arbitrators will not only have to handle cases but also face reforming the way the committee works. Perhaps the most urgent priority is tackling perceptions of growing irrelevance, lack of transparency through excessive use of private space, and delay. I believe I am well-equipped for the job as I have considerable parallel experience.

Introducing me ... in a nutshell: active editor since April 2007; a Milhist coordinator since August 2007; administrator since February 2008; Milhist lead coordinator since March 2008; significant contributor to five featured articles; copy-editor for six more; dispute resolver; and intermittent wiki-gnome. See my user page for more wiki-biography stuff, article lists, languages and so on.

Otherwise, I'm calm and analytical, with no axes to grind. I try to combine civility with brevity and good humour. (Strangely, I also enjoy drafting text for simplicity and clarity, and have done a far amount of this with Milhist guidelines.) I rarely get irritated and never show it. I am used to negotiating consensus in difficult and/or innovative areas. So although I have had much to do with Wikipedian organisation in general, I have had little to do with ArbCom and thus come to this with a fresh mind.

If elected, I am likely to

  • spend the first month or so easing myself into arbitration, while I learn the ropes thoroughly and familiarise myself with what has gone before;
  • use my position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency, a minimum of secrecy, and faster decision-making;
  • prioritise winning back the support of the community;
  • seek consensus (probably through open workshops) for developing fast-track and summary procedures.

Support

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Captain panda 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tom B (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Banime (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Majorly talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support bahamut0013 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Steven Walling (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Avruch T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Great user, intelligent, not crooked, doesn't mess other people around. Hard worker. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Reasonable approaches to most positions. Gimmetrow 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Graham87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. A sound, level headed voice for the community. AgneCheese/Wine 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Shot info (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Epbr123 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Pcap ping 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. From what I've seen of him, he seems to be a good editor. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -MBK004 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. We need some fresh voices in ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support - excellent grasp of policy, phenomenal at both discussion and conflict resolution, level-headed. In short, exactly what ArbCom needs. Cam (Chat) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --MPerel 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support. Among his many excellent qualities, Roger understands that the role of Arbitrator is much more than what's written down at WP:ARBPOL. There is no doubt he'd be an excellent arbitrator. --JayHenry (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support.Athaenara 06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Intelligent, experienced, and keeps a cool head - all useful attributes for this job! Walkerma (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Roger has been the Lead Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject for some time; he has wlays been kind, courteous and helpful, excellent wualities for an Arbcom candidate. Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - From what I can tell, he understands policy and understands the need for reform in ArbCom. He gets my support. -- Nomader (Talk) 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Roger has an outstanding ability to work with other editors to resolve disputes and excellent leadership skills. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Has lots of clue, stays calm in disagreements with the most vociferous of opponents. Woody (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support لennavecia 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. OpposeSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nothing personal, but I picked a group that I want to win. RockManQReview me 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlabtot (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read WP:ARBPOL I don't see that on there. Prodego talk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's implicit in Rules 1 & 2 and explicit in the policy those rules refer to. (See examples here.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Caspian blue 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]