Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 203: Line 203:
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:Ignignot|Ignignot]] 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' --[[User:Ignignot|Ignignot]] 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] | [[User talk:Boothy443| trácht ar]] 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


==Neutral==
==Neutral==

Revision as of 05:53, 15 January 2006

Dmcdevit

The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, (or should not,) legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.

The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspillage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support good and fair editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Doc ask? 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. '--Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Guettarda 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Zora 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Really positive statement, really thorough and well thought-out replies to questions. Would be a valuable voice on any future ArbCom. Batmanand 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. First choice. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sdedeo (tips) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. brenneman(t)(c) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support.--ragesoss 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support --Angelo 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Raven4x4x 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. -- Simesa 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--Duk 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Shanes 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Sounds good. --AySz88^-^ 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Kit 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support--Kf4bdy 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: good contributions and thoughtful answers. Jonathunder 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - right direction - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:11, Jan. 9, 2006
  33. Support - BanyanTree 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Fred Bauder 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Bobet 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support for obvious reasons. --Mysekurity 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support older≠wiser 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - per answers to posed questions and contributions history. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, per Batmanand. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per questions. Dave 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. FCYTravis 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --Crunch 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Spangineeres (háblame) 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Daniel 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. uh-huh' Grutness...wha? 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Good user. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support 172 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support — Catherine\talk 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support This editor will be a great addition and real boon to the Arbitration committee. Thoughtful and intelligent. Veritas et utilitas. Hamster Sandwich 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. -- Scott eiπ 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. android79 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Yowza, wish I were as thoughtful and mature at 18. —LeFlyman 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --Angr (tɔk) 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support good attitude, reasonable answers, looks like ArbCom material. feydey 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Charles Stewart 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Understands arbitration. Fifelfoo 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. /blahedo (t) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. utcursch | talk 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Sensisble, and the answer to Xoloz's IAR question was great. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:06Z
  68. Support Dalf | Talk 08:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support due to those opposing, and general sensibleness. But I am concerned about Ambi's vote... JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support, very level-headed and suitable for the job. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Trustworthy. — mark ✎ 09:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support - Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Lupo 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Reasonable answers --kingboyk 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - Szvest 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  76. Support. Dmc is the most level headed and fair user I've run into on here. He deserves this and he'll use his position well. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support -- excellent judgement Jbetak 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Sarah Ewart 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. support: Ombudsman 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Clear as crystal. —Nightstallion (?) 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Dan100 (Talk) 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Wizzy…☎ 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support mostly based on users comprehension of what WP:IAR really means.  ALKIVAR™ 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Dmcdevit is trustworthy and believes in common sense. Thryduulf 12:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Good experiences with DMC, and good judgment shown in answering the Arb questions. Radiant_>|< 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Tomertalk 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Dmcdevit has shown an alarming amount of common sense and reasonableness. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Meekohi 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Kafziel 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support The Literate Engineer 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Weak Support Age and maturity level are concerns, but he is well endorsed and has a good sense of what this job is about. This makes him a better candidate than many older and (theoretically) more mature candidates. --EMS | Talk 17:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Mildly Support, I have some reservations, but let's see what the kid's got - Masonpatriot 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Hermione1980 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Seems to have sufficient clue. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. I think he knows what he's doing and will do it right to the benefit of users. His platform sounds good and deals with things immediate and long-term. --EuropracBHIT 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  101. Support --Pjacobi 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Splashtalk 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Interesting answer to the IAR question. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Wally 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. --Stbalbach 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support BL kiss the lizard 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Maltmomma (chat) 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Helpful and good contributor. — Sebastian (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. My concerns were mainly centred on one issue, and Dmcdevit has allayed those fears most reasonably. Ambi 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. What Ambi said. My interaction with this user has been very positive, and I can think of nothing against him. Go, you frickin' Mindspillage clone! Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. --Carnildo 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Robdurbar 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Good statement. enochlau (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Septentrionalis 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support; dealings with Dmcdevit have been positive and seems like the right person for the job. Ral315 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Seems good. --G Rutter 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Answers to questions about "problem users" removed any doubts.[reply]
  125. Support. maclean25 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support novacatz 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Kerowyn 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support KTC 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support One of the first editors to come over and help me out. Knows what he's doing. Kushboy 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. --Interiot 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support--AndriyK 06:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. --Bhadani 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. Palmiro | Talk 12:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. --Syrthiss 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Andre (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support: Like his appeal, plus he's running on the suggestion of someone else, rather than just wanting to become an arbitrator (I give him big bonus points there)Dr. B 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Well written appeal, have noticed work, seems like a good candidate. --IRelayer 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support --Rye1967 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support-Reasonable statement. Sufficient experience. Superm401 | Talk 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Over the top emotive language but good candidate Bjrobinson 11:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. --Viriditas 11:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Easy to talk to. Shivraj Singh 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. JoaoRicardotalk 20:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Terrific answers, comes highly recommended. --Gmaxwell 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Late to the party here but have looked into it and found an impressive body of work and excellent answers. --Wgfinley 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Alphax 12:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Tony the Marine 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support -- Francs2000 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Deckiller 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Rohirok 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support --Mysidia (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. – ugen64 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Guanaco 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Not another arbiter who thinks that he's in the job to deal with "problem users", rather than arbitrate disputes! Deciding the case before hearing it should not be supported. Grace Note 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Oppose bans users when he feels like it, ignores and distorts facts, and then tries to intimidate users. freestylefrappe 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. per Ambi. ObsidianOrder 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Confrontational and exponentially biased. zen master T 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per questions.  Grue  06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Focuses on the problem loses sight of the goal. Unpersuasive arguments - appears to be grandstanding. Benjamin Gatti 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. siafu 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose on the above grounds. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose same as stated above Davidpdx 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per statement and questions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - you're not here to deal with problem users. Problem users can be blocked. The ArbCom is to deal with borderline cases. The fact that Dmcdevit views people whose cases are submitted to the ArbCom as 'problem users' makes me question the user's judgement and sight of the goal of the Arbitration Committee - it's not the Punishment Committee. Proto t c 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Attitude. - Xed 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. --HK 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Disagree strongly. Avriette 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I'm not at all pleased with the broad classification of users as either "problem users" or "productive editors". Problem users frequently are productive editors who happen to have a problem. Unfocused 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Earlier, I mistook this user for another and withdraw my opposition, however, I stand behind the comment attached. Unfocused 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Rob Church Talk 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. uriah923(talk) 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, concerned about attitude. HGB 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opposequestions--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I don't feel like the candidate understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Timrollpickering 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose did not like resaponse to anarchism question. Harrypotter 18:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose --Ignignot 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Sunray 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Neutralitytalk 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral/leaning to oppose --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Can't really tell what he has to offer. Alex43223 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Dmcdevit&oldid=35240022"