Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Will Beback

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 Teamantime (talk | contribs) at 00:04, 10 December 2007 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Will Beback

I've been an editor at Wikipedia since 2004, and an admin since 2005. I participate in a wide range of topics, including many that have editors with strong POVs. I've never been blocked or accused of wheel-warring. Off Wiki, I've chaired or served on several real life committees, including juries. I'm patient, work well with others, am good at analyzing situations, and am willing to compromise to achieve consensus.

The ArbCom is an important tool in keeping the project moving along. Its job is to resolve the disputes that haven't been resolved using other procedures. It interprets but does not make policy. ArbCom decisions should always put the good of the project first.

The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque. I think that clearer deadlines and schedules for action on cases would help both ArbCom members and RfAr participants. Editors expecting resolution of requests for arbitration should not be left hanging, and ArbCom members should make handling cases their top priority. Some of the greatest delays have come after the evidence is completed and some ArbCom members have voted. I think that members should seek consensus before voting is started, and should promptly resolve internal disagreements regarding cases rather than letting them linger for weeks or longer.

ArbCom members have additional official responsibilities, including handling checkuser and oversight requests. There are also unofficial responsibilities, including setting examples for good behavior. I believe that I can fulfill all of the responsibilities involved in serving on the ArbCom. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. --W.marsh 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. IronDuke 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Duk 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Fred Bauder 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DGG (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Cirt 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  11. --MPerel 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Húsönd 03:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. AniMate 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Guettarda (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Brimba 07:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --MONGO 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support StaticElectric 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. - Crockspot 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support based on statement. Punctured Bicycle 08:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Addhoc 14:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ElinorD (talk) 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Jeffpw 15:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. · jersyko talk 15:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Guy (Help!) 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, I do not always agree with Will, but I would trust him as an ArbCom member. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. (thought about it and changed from oppose. like Jossie says: don't always agree with Will, but he's up to the task) I dorftrottel I talk I  I dorftrottel I talk I 17:45, December 3, 2007
  31. — Rudget contributions 17:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. As per the lady above me....--Cometstyles 20:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Crum375 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Kaldari 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Zantastik talk 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. EconomistBR 00:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I agree with SlimVirgin and MONGO. Acalamari 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support ---Brewcrewer 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Horologium (talk) 02:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support: I have heard him speak as a voice of reason in disputes large and small over quite some time, on many pages we have edited together. Jonathunder 02:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Merzbow (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Scattered amongst his opposers are some of the most drama-prone and destructive editors on the project; if for no reason other than that, he merits support. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Noroton (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Wetman (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. - Galloglass 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, Its a shame that Will hasn't gotten ten times as much support.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support nothing but good interactions with this editor. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support. I have seen nothing but good things from Will, and it is indeed a bit of a shame that he will probably not make it. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support per above, especially Raymond and Slim.Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Tony Sidaway 18:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Impressive track record. One of our best.[reply]
  59. Herostratus (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 19:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Very reasonable, even in disagreement. He would be an asset on Arbcom. AgneCheese/Wine 19:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Moral Support. His statement on the Dpeterson matter seems quite reasonable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Homestarmy (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support I was impressed with his intervention at WP:NPA. Ameriquedialectics 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Beit Or 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support JQ (talk) 22:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support `'Míkka>t 04:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Brusegadi (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - dave souza, talk 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 19:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support --Jack Merridew 11:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. This is a Secret account 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nope.--Docg 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BLACKKITE 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Precipitated one of the many BADSITES wars. *Dan T.* 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Declined to answer all of the candidate questions. Cla68 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Qualified, but better candidates out there. spryde | talk 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  10. Nufy8 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, echo Spryde. BobTheTomato 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nick 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. • Lawrence Cohen 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I think he has a tendency to see a broad consensus that matches his personal views, on complex matters where the community is split. A fine user, and of course nobody's perfect, but this tendency makes it difficult to trust him to interpret policy correctly. —Random832 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ~ Riana ⁂ 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Bakaman 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Prolog 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. krimpet⟲ 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. SQLQuery me! 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Strongest oppose. A personal feud led Will to purge references from twenty-two different pages. --Alecmconroy 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Coredesat 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Alexfusco5 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Will Beback? No, Youwont. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Thatcher131 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. No. -- ArglebargleIV 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Missing the forest right now, too many trees. --InkSplotch 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose -Dureo 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Bob Mellish 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Everyking 04:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. JayHenry 05:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose -- tends to enforce policy selectively, persecuting some, coddling others. Lets POV cloud his judgment. --Marvin Diode 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Spebi 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. some POV issues Justforasecond 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. SchmuckyTheCat
  41. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Ignored some candidate questions. Shem(talk) 10:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. futurebird 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Splash - tk 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. KTC 14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Xoloz 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. OpposeMerkinsmum 15:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Absolutely not. WilyD 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. EconomicsGuy 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. R. Baley 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Bryan Derksen 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Edivorce 18:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose due to continuing failure to recognize what was wrong with his actions regarding the Making Light issue. Phil Sandifer 19:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Davewild 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Ripberger 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose due to continuing failure to recognize what was wrong with his actions regarding the Making Light issue as per Phil Sandifer. --Pleasantville 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - sorry. -- Schneelocke 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. per Phil. ViridaeTalk 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose due to continuing failure to recognize what was wrong with his actions regarding the Making Light issue as per Phil Sandifer. —CComMack (t–c) 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. WjBscribe 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Cool Hand Luke 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - Mattisse 00:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Jerry 01:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. BCST2001 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. --LordPathogen 02:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LordPathogen does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Have to oppose this time, pending better explanation of the Making Light issue. COGDEN 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose --健次(derumi)talk 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Atropos 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. John Vandenberg 10:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. His (characteristically defensive) postings to the mailing list do not encourage me to trust his motives or his judgment. — CharlotteWebb 16:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Asked to explain one unjustified, inaccurate and unpleasant slur to 'support' a co-editor at an RfC he responded with more.[1] Fainites barley 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose -- SECisek 20:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Keeper | 76 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose. A man in space (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A man in space does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Michael Snow (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Viriditas 23:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose VanTucky talk 06:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose a good editor in his way, but lacks the impartiality or diplomacy needed to be on arbcom, as seen on the Making Light issue amongst others. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Delirium (talk) 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose, regretfully. Skinwalker (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I'm not as strong in my opposition as some, but I do find there to be too many disquieting issues here. Joe 21:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Non-answer of Durova question. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Failure to answer key questions and absolutely unacceptable behavior regarding the "Making Light" situation. Completely untrustworthy. SashaNein (talk) 05:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose, sorry; no. Huldra (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose SPOV response was stock and vague not evincing any sort of confidence in candidate's ability to adjudicate disputes regarding scientific controversies. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose sorry! pruthvi (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Terence (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Catchpole (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bubba ditto (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 UTC)
    Bubba ditto does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Will says: "The ArbCom needs to be more responsive and less opaque," yet his actions with regard to the Justin Berry article have been not merely opaque but absolutely Byzantine and misleading. Similarly poor candidates {1,2} have withdrawn. --Ssbohio (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose sorry MisterSheik (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose reluctantly, per stance on WP:BADSITES. --Hyperbole (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose - Edits have shown questionable COI and POV motives, purported history of harassment, Wikistalking reported by multiple editors. Many better more neutrally-stanced editors out there. Sfacets 06:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100. Well, not quite I guess. Wizardman 18:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose A Wikistalker who provokes ordinary editors into using multiple IDs, and then 'exposes' them. Sahajhist 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose one word - "issues". Teamantime 22:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)Teamantime (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Will_Beback&oldid=176883906"