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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 66: Line 66:
#[[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#[[User:WAS 4.250|WAS 4.250]] 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#--[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:52, 3 December 2007

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

Sam Blacketer

I have been thinking about running for a bit and hope I am not too late. I would very much like to be on the Arbitration Committee and help its work. I may not be the first to jump into threads on the administrators' noticeboard but I have often helped with three revert rule checking and enforcement which has taken me into some arbitration cases, and I have commented on others where I was not involved.
If appointed I would want to spend some time drawing out from the parties how they see their editing on Wikipedia, to make a calm judgment about whether they are able and willing to work with others who they do not agree with. Particularly with harassment (including off-wiki) I will try to determine whether problem editors have become disruptively obsessed with personal power struggles either with other users or with their point of view.
There are some big arbitration issues coming up, which include multiple editors edit-warring to push 'nationalist' positions. There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators. There is rarely a good reason for applying lengthy blocks to established editors where disruption is neither happening nor imminent; discussion should be preferred. In crafting arbitration decisions I think it would be helpful to write findings which do not just indicate where someone went wrong, but also indicates what procedure should have been followed. Arbitration should help guide, not just criticise.
I hope that I have shown good 'people skills' in my time on Wikipedia. I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive. I have learnt not to get fooled when dealing with disruptive editors but I have also learned to keep cool and civil with them even when they are unlikely to reciprocate. Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. This is a Secret account 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Docg 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anthøny 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cla68 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. spryde | talk 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Qst 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bakaman 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Captain panda 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. maclean 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fred Bauder 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. SQLQuery me! 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak support. --Coredesat 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Again, I regret that I must support this candidate. May God have mercy on your soul, Sam. DS 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Anarchia 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Always been impressed with your input. Yes, a bit young in wiki-years, but I've seen enough to overrule that objection. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. krimpet⟲ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Cryptic 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -Dureo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. futurebird 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Húsönd 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strongly. --JayHenry 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:35, December 3, 2007
  36. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Crockspot 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. No concerns. Neil ☎ 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Has been around long enough to have my trust in him...--Cometstyles 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. B 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Splash - tk 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. After further reading his answers and browsing his history, I support. Shem(talk) 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Chris 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. GDonato (talk) 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. KTC 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Alexfusco5 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BobTheTomato 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. WAS 4.250 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --★čabrilo★ 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Sam_Blacketer&oldid=175513706"