Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Chooserr (talk | contribs)
3,619 edits
Line 98: Line 98:
#'''Oppose''' - nothing against the user, I would just like to see more familiarity with English Wikipedia -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - nothing against the user, I would just like to see more familiarity with English Wikipedia -- [[User:Francs2000|Francs]][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Francs2000&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new 2000] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|<nowiki></nowiki>]] 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - [[User:Chooserr|Chooserr]] 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' - [[User:Chooserr|Chooserr]] 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] | [[User talk:Boothy443| trácht ar]] 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:00, 15 January 2006

Ronline

Hi! I'm candidating for the ArbCom because I believe in justice in Wikipedia and think I can bring about positive change as to the fairness of arbitration procedures. I have worked in mediation in the past (in real life), and also in various cases at both the English and Romanian Wikipedias. If I become an arbitrator, my most important consideration will be to look at both sides impartially and to guarantee that the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way. I am a firm believed in dialogue, and I always aim to make sure that both sides understand very well what the dispute is about, since I believe that alienation and misunderstanding is the most significant and most dangerous root of conflict. It is only through true justice and transparency that we can bring about a better, more stable and more trustworthy Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask any questions on the questions page below. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Support according to me, he would be a good arbiter --Angelo 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. New blood good and has good principles. --Dogbreathcanada 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. How could the account be created December 28? Edits go back before then.. (Confusion on my part:voter's account, not candidate's). Strong edit history, good statement.--ragesoss 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support can't find anything wrong with this user.  Grue  06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support A user that I highly respect. --Mihai -talk 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support warpozio 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Danny Yee 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Dan100 (Talk) 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --AdiJapan 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Good experiences with this user on Wikinews. I trust him on a Wikimedia level, and that's enough for me to trust him on a Wikipedia level.--Eloquence* 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Very Strong Support - I trust Ronline to be one of the best and good member of ArbCom. He is one of the most dedicated contributor to mediation conflicts. He is by far the best of them with a very warm, friendly attitude towards people. We trust him to be one of the best and fit for this position. Bonaparte talk 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.He has what it takes. Dunemaire 18:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. --kingboyk 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Has real-life mediation experience and is committed to transparency. - Xed 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. --HK 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Wally 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Corax 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. nett experience across various projects sufficient, a successful mediator from what I've seen.--cjllw | TALK 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support due to supposedly high support for users' rights. −−It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Good editor. Good admin. Able to forget about his oppinions when arbitrating.Dpotop 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support--JK the unwise 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, user's statement has overcome any doubts I may have had about their experience. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Chris S. 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Demonstrated Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and inexhaustible amount of good faith. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - experienced with mediation. --NorkNork 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Dr. B 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Dahn 19:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit was on October 27, 2005, so s/he may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I'm concerned about Ronline's casting things in judicial terms, but like the mediation experience and the evenhanded tone in what discussions of his I've seen. --William Pietri 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Ambi 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. --Interiot 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Great behavior in disputes, but I believe more experience may be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Potential to be an excellent dispute-resolver, but needs a bit more experience. Batmanand 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:36, Jan. 9, 2006
  17. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Bobet 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose 172 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose --Crunch 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. android79 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose--cj | talk 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. --Daniel 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. I like ronline, but he's basically new to the English wiki. From my experience with him 2 months ago, he didn't know how DR even worked. So. No. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Would really like to support, but I'm afraid the lack of XP keeps me from doing so. Weakly, very weakly oppose. —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, not experienced enough. Radiant_>|< 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Lack of experience; policy.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:26Z
  31. Oppose - Sorry, needs more experience in 'en'. Awolf002 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong oppose. This wannabe arbiter doesn't even know a difference between blocking and banning. His first admin action was to block an editor with 50,000+ edits, without consulting more experienced admins, thus demonstrating complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Controversial blocks and provoking ongoing disruption of Wikipedia. --Ghirla | talk 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Splashtalk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. --Hottentot (now Khoikhoi) 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. older≠wiser 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. OPPOSE. IT'S NOT ABOUT JUSTICE DAMMIT. It's about arbitration. You're not a crusader, you're not a policeman, or a vigilante. You help. Avriette 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. oppose Kingturtle 06:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Quite simple, the candidate says: "the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way". But I say "Arbitration is not a judicial system." Fifelfoo 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Inexperience doesn't bother me as much as the character, language, and escalation I see here. --Ds13 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. siafu 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose - superficial. --Anittas 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  48. Oppose - superficial and contradictory candidiate's statement. mikka (t) 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak oppose William M. Connolley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  50. Oppose, although weakly. Real-life conflict resolution is a plus, but the generic feel of the statement turns me off. Velvetsmog 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Jared 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Needs more seasoning. -- Davidpdx 13:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Krash 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. maclean25 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - nothing against the user, I would just like to see more familiarity with English Wikipedia -- Francs2000 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Chooserr 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ronline&oldid=35240607"