Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Rebecca: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
rv self
Line 131: Line 131:
#Seems to be a rebranding of [[User:Ambi]], so definitely '''oppose'''. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#Seems to be a rebranding of [[User:Ambi]], so definitely '''oppose'''. [[User:Grue|<font style="background: black" face="Courier" color="#FFFFFF">'''&nbsp;Grue&nbsp;'''</font>]] 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.--<sub><span style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">[[User:Piotrus| Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ]]|[[User_talk:Piotrus|<font style="color:#7CFC00;background:#006400;"> talk </font>]]</span></sub> 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#--[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:51, 3 December 2007

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Rebecca

I realise that it's a late stage in the nominations, but I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. So, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Rebecca. I've been around Wikipedia since 2003, and I've been involved in most areas of the project, including serving a previous stint on the arbitration committee in 2005. I've changed quite a bit over these last three years - I'm older, wiser, albeit surlier, and though I once swore that I'd never go near the place again after I stepped down, I've been convinced to nominate once more.

I'm running again because I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. I believe the committee should be here to facilitate the work of writing an encyclopedia, and at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help that goal. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with the community, especially with those of us who primarily work on writing articles. My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus), as I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. Most of all, though, I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job. I ran on a similar platform three years ago, and for a time, we managed to get the committee running smoothly and effectively. Three years later, I'd like the chance to help do that again - although hopefully with a more lasting effect this time around.

As a final point, I also want to note that I've recently been appointed as one of the English Wikipedia's ombudspersons to handle complaints over abuses of the privacy policy and CheckUser. I don't think this poses a conflict of interest if I were to be elected, as UninvitedCompany previously held both positions simultaneously. However, if necessary, I would be prepared to resign from that position in order to avoid any perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Later update: I've noticed a number of opposes based on claims of a conflict of interest with my position as a checkuser ombudsperson. Can I just reinforce what I said in my original candidate statement - that I am quite prepared to resign from the former if elected to the arbitration committee? I'm also a bit bemused as to why a couple of people have opposed based on supposedly not answering all the questions, because I've answered every single question put to me so far. Rebecca 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later update #2: I've noticed a number of people opposing based on the fact that I chose to vote in the election. I've voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and as I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I am not, I don't feel that there is any reason not to this year. I've currently supported all but one of the candidates who are currently in contention for positions on the committee - and I initially supported him too. I'm just concerned that some people seem to be assuming that because I voted I did so as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support Tim Q. Wells 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One of the most qualified. This is a Secret account 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Full Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --W.marsh 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Gurch (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support two years ago Rebecca made a tough decision to help me despite universal opposition from powerful editors and opposition from her own friends. Someone like this, who can make tough unpopular decisions is what the arbcom needs. Travb (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. IronDuke 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Animum § 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Stephen 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, sorely needed. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support---Sandahl 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Duk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Daniel 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Captain panda 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support -- Avi 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. -MBK004 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. sh¤y 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. RxS 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. SQLQuery me! 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Coredesat 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. -- Manning 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. — TKD::Talk 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34.  — master sonT - C 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Risker 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. DGG (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support- Dureo 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Thatcher131 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Told you so. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Unquestionably qualified. -- ArglebargleIV 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. krimpet⟲ 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. --InkSplotch 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Húsönd 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Johnbod 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. See no reason not to support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support Gnangarra 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. —Mira 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. utcursch | talk 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I'm sold.--Kubigula (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. BanyanTree 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support with pleasure. --Irpen 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support — Jack Merridew 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Jd2718 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Please try to be more civil in your language. Support, in spite of incivility. WAS 4.250 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Crockspot 08:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Davewild 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. ~ priyanath talk 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. AniMate 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Absolutely. henrik•talk 09:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. John Vandenberg 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Unqualified support for anyone who supports editors. edward (buckner) 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Easy! --★čabrilo★ 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Of course. Shem(talk) 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support An obvious choice. Geogre 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Experienced arbitrator and very trustworthy. Angela. 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Great editor and very experienced...--Cometstyles 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Worthy goals, and the experience to hopefully succeed in them --Stormie 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Conditional on resigning as CU ombudsman to avoid COI. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. if you resign from the ombudsman commission. My opinion is that ombudsmen (?) should stay as far as possible from the people having the CU tools. -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Modernist 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Yes, please. I was so pleased to log on today and discover that Bec had decided to nominate; an excellent candidate. Sarah 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support, though I would appreciate it if you would note in your candidate statement your previous username (unless you do not for privacy reasons). Splash - tk 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Certainly, excellent candidate. PeaceNT 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Addhoc 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support per Angela. ElinorD (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support JoshuaZ 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. KnightLago 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Jeffpw 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support is not conditional on resigning ombudship, but I think you should to avoid any appearance of COI. --barneca 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Enthusiastic support Very solid candidate with past experience in this role and on Wikipedia more generally. Good answers and goals too. Orderinchaos 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Yes, absolutely. We need Rebecca's perspective. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. With no condition on ombudsman attached. KTC 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Mattisse 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Docg 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prolog 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alexfusco5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologetically. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BobTheTomato 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unapologetically. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:34, December 3, 2007
    I would have supported, but you're a checkuser ombudsman and this may lead to a conflict of interest. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) vote withdrawn. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. A good contributor, but makes a lot of comments in bad faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. No. Failure to disclose previous account (User:Ambi) and last-minute registration are problematic, as is general attitude. Neil ☎ 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Chaz Beckett 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose In my experience, candidate lacks civility far too often. Xoloz 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Seems to be a rebranding of User:Ambi, so definitely oppose.  Grue  14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Rebecca&oldid=175513494"