Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Samuel Blanning: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Ssbohio (talk | contribs)
5,607 edits
→‎Oppose: Oppose -- I've had generally a very high regard for Sam Blanning's work here. That said, ArbCom is meant to decide individual cases, not carve out new policy...
GK (talk | contribs)
2,004 edits
Line 125: Line 125:
#Oppose [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]] 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
#Oppose [[User:Chensiyuan|Chensiyuan]] 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's sad that it comes down to this. I've had generally a very high regard for [[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning's]] work here. That said, ArbCom is meant to decide individual cases, not carve out novel proactive policy, like regarding [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]. I don't sympathize with any of the anti-Wikipedia attack sites, but I can broadly understand the frustrations that lead people to post there. We can't be the [[USSR]] of the Internet, keeping out the signals that disparage us, and ArbCom shouldn't be building a policy [[penumbra]] by pre-deciding such questions. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' It's sad that it comes down to this. I've had generally a very high regard for [[User:Samuel Blanning|Sam Blanning's]] work here. That said, ArbCom is meant to decide individual cases, not carve out novel proactive policy, like regarding [[Encyclopedia Dramatica]]. I don't sympathize with any of the anti-Wikipedia attack sites, but I can broadly understand the frustrations that lead people to post there. We can't be the [[USSR]] of the Internet, keeping out the signals that disparage us, and ArbCom shouldn't be building a policy [[penumbra]] by pre-deciding such questions. --[[User:Ssbohio|Ssbohio]] 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
#'''Weak Oppose'''. 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) [[User:GK|gK]]

Revision as of 07:13, 7 December 2006

Statement

I've been on Wikipedia since September 2005, and an administrator since March 2006. I hope that in the year or so I've been here I've demonstrated the good judgment and calm head necessary to be on the Arbitration Committee.

My experience spans editing, vandalism prevention and dispute resolution. Closing Articles for deletion discussions is one of my preferred areas, where I try to give as much explanation as is necessary and desirable, particularly when consensus isn't obvious, and not shy away from making judgements on evidence and policy. While I'm not perfect - two of my closes have been overturned that I can remember - feedback on my talk page and the fact that most of the few that are reviewed have been endorsed have given me the impression that I take the right approach.

There are two important issues surrounding the Arbcom that influence why I'm running. The first is that we need more visible Arbitrators. The fact that of four cases in the voting stage, in three of them, Fred Bauder is behind the initial remedies, is not a bad thing, as Fred's judgment is sound; but it would be better if more arbitrators could reach this level of visibility. We know that much Arbcom discussion takes place "behind the scenes", but nonetheless, some more varied activity would be helpful and unlikely to make Arbcom judgments less effective.

The second bit is what Phil Sandifer aptly calls the inevitability of the Arbcom "getting its hands dirty". The recent decision banning Encyclopaedia Dramatica links and material was the sort of clear and unambiguous decision which will become increasingly necessary if Arbcom is to be able to resolve disputes, as Wikipedia's editors, articles and its maze of WP: pages increase like rabbits. I know that some editors were unhappy with that particular decision, but the Arbcom, like editors, must be bold to be effective. I remain convinced that Arbcom should not directly rule on what content should be included in an article, but if it restricts itself to saying when editors are edit warring or incivil, it's going to be seeing an awful lot more cases relating to the same editors and articles when probations and bans on single editors prove ineffective. We should empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes.

Thanks for reading; I look forward to answering your questions.

Questions

Support

  1. --Majorly 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - crz crztalk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BhaiSaab talk 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hello32020 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Peta 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Delirium 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. pschemp | talk 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. W.marsh 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Mira 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. KPbIC 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Warofdreams talk 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Your statement impressed me very much. Indeed, we do need more arbitrators who "get their hands dirty", and help deal with or defuse situations months before a case finally ends. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. An excellent candidate. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Bucketsofg 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Khoikhoi 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. semper fi — Moe 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Serpent's Choice 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong support BigDT 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Dylan Lake 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Nufy8 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Cyde summed it up for me -- Tawker 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Record of good and sound judgement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Someone I would trust to uphold what AC is. – Chacor 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. cj | talk 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I haven't seen a better administrator; and he will make a good arbitrator as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Shyam (T/C) 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Good admin.--§hanel 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Maybe a wee bit too aggressive sometimes, but sound judgment and consistent civility. Although I don't agree with all of his platform, I do think his is a valuable perspective to have on the committee. Xoloz 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support -- Mytwocents 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -- excellent administrator, good answers. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. JChap2007 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --Zleitzen 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. ITAQALLAH 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --Whispering 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Personally, I found it difficult to avoid punching the sky and screaming "YES! YES! YES!" upon seeing that you had decided to run and reading your statement. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support - Contrary to some of the Opposers, I think ArbCom does need to get its feet wet in some of the more contentious issues. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support always struck me as having a good head on his shoulders -- Samir धर्म 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:12Z
  58. Support In my observations of Samuel Blanning's interactions with others I have noticed time and time again good application of common sense and a "well balancedness" :-) (→Netscott) 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support His answers to my questions clarified what he meant in his second paragraph. I think some of the oppose votes could benefit by reading that. JoshuaZ 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support IrishGuy talk 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Glen 05:31, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support--ragesoss 09:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support clearly makes the case for strengthening the arbcom against problem users, while making it more accessible to well-intentioned editors 172 | Talk 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support - he has sound judgment. Metamagician3000 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. —Nightstallion (?) 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support Some of your answers were refreshingly good. Dweller 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. The view that ArbCom should take content into account while avoiding direct rulings is the right line to draw. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Support Because I liked the statement. --Aminz 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support boldness can be good! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. I think he knows what he's doing. Andre (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support -- EdJohnston 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support "Arbcom, like editors, must be bold to be effective . . . . We should empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes." Amen. -- WGee 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--Red Deathy 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Fred Bauder 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Yes, the arbcom must not be afraid to get to the core of the disputes brought before it. On the other hand, it's also important that the arbcom interprets policies set by the community, rather than creating policies itself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - Sam is the candidate I would most like to see on Arb Comm. He is thoughtful, civil, and has extraordinarily good judgment. His answers are great, and I think his view of the Arb Comm is correct. TheronJ 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Sarah Ewart 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support.Montco 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sam Blanning is an exemplarary administrator, but I disagree with his philosophy of a more aggressive ArbCom trying to get to the "root" of problems through policy changes. Consensus-building is slow and frustrating, but should not be superceded by small committees. --Hyperbole 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't think that the role of ArbCom is to be more aggressive. --Riley 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as per the second half of his statement. — CharlotteWebb 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Hyperbole... arbcom is not here to legislate more policy... but to enforce what we already have in place.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Everyking 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Terence Ong 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rather oppose: too imprecise. --Sugaar 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). Seems hivemindy for one. Second, he answered one of my questions what I believe was sarcastically. Anomo 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose based on statement Dragomiloff 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fundamentally disagree with "bold" ArbCom decision making. --- RockMFR 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Silensor 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose because of his aggressive proposal. GizzaChat © 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per DaGizza. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose. Sam's patient, even-tempered, and respectful-- but I guess I have to oppose due to philosophical differences about what Arbcom should be, per Hyperbole and others. --Alecmconroy 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose ArbCom power should be limited and used sparingly - worrying philosophy. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I really can't see how people can say "he's thoughtful and civil". Here's all the evidence he provided:[1] — Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Bahn Mi 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Be bold, be bold, be not too bold. Septentrionalis 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Chensiyuan 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose It's sad that it comes down to this. I've had generally a very high regard for Sam Blanning's work here. That said, ArbCom is meant to decide individual cases, not carve out novel proactive policy, like regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't sympathize with any of the anti-Wikipedia attack sites, but I can broadly understand the frustrations that lead people to post there. We can't be the USSR of the Internet, keeping out the signals that disparage us, and ArbCom shouldn't be building a policy penumbra by pre-deciding such questions. --Ssbohio 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Oppose. 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Samuel_Blanning&oldid=92651112"