Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcginnly (talk | contribs) at 09:58, 3 December 2007 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Deskana

Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. --Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

  1. Avinesh Jose 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Daniel 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mitch32contribs 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kurykh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. BLACKKITE 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Snowolf How can I help? 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Coren (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Keilana 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Icestorm815 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. spryde | talk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ragesoss 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Chaz Beckett 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Rjd0060 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Gurch (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. AniMate 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  25. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. (Extended comments moved to talk page per guidelines). Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support trusts their judgement in time-management Mbisanz 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  — master sonT - C 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. GracenotesT § 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support BobTheTomato 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. futurebird 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Docg 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. -MBK004 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. - Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. - ScarianTalk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Unless his account gets hacked into. :) Prodego talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. sh¤y 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Captain panda 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. CIreland 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. JavaTenor 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong support. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Stardust8212 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. krimpet⟲ 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Carnildo 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. SQLQuery me! 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. DGG (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Full Support Alexfusco5 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55.  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Stephen 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Charitwo talk 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Rebecca 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Húsönd 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. · AndonicO Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. John254 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Trustworthy, hard-working, knowledgeable, and polite. Has my full support. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support --InkSplotch 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Hell, yes. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. ♠TomasBat 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. <shrugs> --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Meno25 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:20, December 3, 2007
  83. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Yes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support' — Jack Merridew 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Keegantalk 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Lara❤Love 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Jmlk17 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. No. See my rationale here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tim Q. Wells 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose An arbitrator should be patient, not brusque. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm worried about if you could handle both Arbcom and being a bcrat at the same time, sorry This is a Secret account 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. --W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MagneticFlux 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too unilateral, impatient and bureaucratic. RxS 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Slightly too new for my taste. Maybe next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. --JayHenry 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose -Dureo 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per W.marsh. —Cryptic 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Everyking 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose regretfully.[1] Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - Jeeny (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ UBeR 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. - Crockspot 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik•talk 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Too much influence for one user to have. Shem(talk) 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Deskana&oldid=175450873"