Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Physchim62

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Vote

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 12:58, 4 March 2024 (fix u tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Physchim62

On 2005-05-01, I took advantage of a public holiday to read the Wikipedia tutorial, and started editing. At the end of October 2005, I took advantage of a week's holiday to read up on Wikipedia policies and answer the Community's questions, and I was granted admin status on 2005-11-06. Since then, Wikipedia has become much larger and much more complicated...

With more users, more admins and many more policies, it is understandable that there are more differences of opinion as to how those policies should be implemented. It is the role of the Arbitration Committee to provide concrete solutions for concrete problems which arise from these differences of opinion. It does not "legislate", or make policy itself—that role is reserved for the Community or, in some cases, the Board. It's role is to provide a forum, and the services of respected members of the Community, to decide that one interpretation gives better results than another. This role is valuable: it allows us to move on from our disputes and return to the important business of creating a free encyclopedia.

The Arbitration Committee can only operate with the confidence of the Community. It is not fifteen arbitrators (or thirty, or however many) who enforce the remedies: it is the Community as a whole. Arbitrators present or prospective should remember this in their actions.

Many criticisms of the Arbitration Committee are not the subjet of these elections. No candidate can promise faster case resolution, nor more arbitrators, nor shorter term lengths for those arbitrators: these are questions for the Community as a whole to address. Myself, I can only promise to respond to disputes which are brought before the Committee with an analysis of the evidence, and of Wikipedia policies and principles, leavened with a dose of common sense. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Alexfusco5 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. Too new for my taste, but his heart seems to be in the right place. Zocky | picture popups 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - Jehochman Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing support based on recent allegations at WP:RFAR, but at this point it doesn't matter anyway. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Itub 09:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support - needs a lot of guidance..sadly :( ..--Cometstyles 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. EconomistBR 00:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Docg 11:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Based on recent conterversy, including the WP:AN/I thread, and the Sadi Carrot case. This is a Secret account 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. futurebird 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chaz Beckett 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Too many controversies lately spryde | talk 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nufy8 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Gurch (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Woodym555 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. — TKD::Talk 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Poor conduct in arbitration cases. And, Secret, its the Sadi Carnot case, not the Sadi Carrot case! Third vote so far. Carcharoth 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. sh¤y 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. DGG (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Coredesat 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose- Dureo 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose. Rebecca 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Especially concerning recent activities. KTC 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Serious misuse of administrative tools in topics in which he is involved or has a particular POV. --the Dúnadan 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mercury 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretfully. Húsönd 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. per the ridiculous block of Hesperian --Stephen 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Ealdgyth | Talk 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. oppose Gnangarra 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. — xaosflux Talk 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. MER-C 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Spebi 05:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. JayHenry 06:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. MastCell Talk 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. --MONGO 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Crockspot 08:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. PmmolletTalk 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Shem(talk) 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Regretfully, -- lucasbfr talk 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. The impassioned opposition to the block of Sadi Carnot in that arbitration case is very ironic, considering the subsequent block of Hesperian which closely fits the description of a bad block given by Physchim62 in the arbitration case. Grandmasterka 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Per above. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Splash - tk 13:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. During the whole Sadi Carnot fiasco, I got the distinct impression this candidate was profoundly out-of-touch with the community and Physchim's behaviour since then, including yesterday's bizarre and out of policy block of Hesperian, has only reconfirmed that impression. Sarah 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Addhoc 14:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. An ArbCom candidate must have the full trust and respect of the community and be able to put aside one's own personal feelings on a case - serious questions exist as to this user's judgment. Orderinchaos 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Hell, the poor kid cant even handle his own disputes [1], let alone someone elses. Get the trust of the community back first, and then lets talk. Cheers. Twenty Years 15:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - AvruchTalk 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Davewild 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Spartaz Humbug! 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose ANI thread mainly Johnbod 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57.  Folic_Acid | talk  20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Ripberger 20:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Joe 20:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - too controversial, sorry. -- Schneelocke 21:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 22:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. —CComMack (t–c) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. WjBscribe 23:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Not suited to the job. Horologium (talk) 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose I do not trust this user's judgement. —Moondyne 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose based largely on block of Hesperian GRBerry 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Lacks the maturity and discretion we expect of an admin, much less an arbitrator. Raymond Arritt 04:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. oppose --DHeyward 06:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose per recent incident on block of Hesperian Alex Bakharev 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. 'Oppose: Quite intemperate so far. Geogre 12:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Block of Hesperian was excessive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose -- SECisek 20:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Guettarda (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Michael Snow (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Viriditas 03:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Looking for arbitrators here. Antelan talk 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. The Hesperian incident is a demonstration of poor judgment. JPD (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Multiple instances of poor judgement. Skinwalker (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Regretfully, Asteriontalk 19:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose. Candidate has not shown the deportment and discernment I would expect from an ArbCom member. — Satori Son 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose distrust. SashaNein (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose -- User doesn't understand science, apparently. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Terence (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Physchim62&oldid=1211784202"