Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/MastCell

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 Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk | contribs) at 01:17, 16 December 2007 (→Oppose: just to give more support for my chosen candidate). 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.

MastCell

I've been a user since August 2006 and became an admin in May 2007. I'm a fairly active admin and editor; my content contributions are mostly to medical articles, including the featured articles acute myeloid leukemia and cholangiocarcinoma. I don't use IRC or the mailing list, so what you see in my contribution history is pretty much what you get. I initially wasn't going to run, because there is already an impressive array of excellent candidates. However, having expressed mild concern about a couple of prior decisions, the ethic of {{sofixit}} suggests that I should try to be part of a solution rather than just point out problems. So here I am.
My "platform" is pretty straightforward. I think that in-the-trenches experience with the practical application of policy and dispute resolution to controversial articles is essential for an Arbitrator, as the gap between theory and practice in these areas is substantial.
Given Wikipedia's prominence, it attracts people whose primary goal is to advance an agenda rather than improve the encyclopedia within the bounds of policy. Our current system of dealing with such editors is cumbersome. The best approach is not to adopt a circle-the-wagons siege mentality, nor to endlessly bicker about and enable such editors. Instead, we should deal quickly and decisively with editors who are evidently using Wikipedia as a battleground or a soapbox rather than working to improve the encyclopedia, and just as quickly move on and get back to improving the encyclopedia. Interestingly, identifying such editors is often quite straightforward, but actually dealing with them effectively is not. I would like for this to change.
I believe in second chances, probationary periods, and temporary topic restrictions instead of outright bans where feasible. However, I also believe that there is a point where efforts to reform a disruptive editor outweigh any potential benefit and take away time and energy that could be spent actually editing the encyclopedia. I think we too often pass this point.
The Arbitration Committee can't dispense Truth and Justice. It can only adjudicate matters of user conduct in a way that defends the encyclopedia and the community as a whole. I like Wikipedia; I spend a lot of time here, and I don't want anything bad to happen to it. I'm heartened to see such an impressive field of candidates, and hope you'll consider me among them. MastCell Talk 18:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

#Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Nufy8 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I trust your ability to arbitrate. Qst 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support You have worked well as an admin. I recall your indef block of TingMing when it was found out that there was massive sockpuppetry. I think you'd be a great arbiter.Ngchen 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prodego talk 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Gurch (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Bakaman 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. SQLQuery me! 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Who cares if he doesn't now use IRC/the mailing list? He's not on arbcom now. --B 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Pocopocopocopoco 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Spebi 05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Crockspot 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't necessarily always agree with MastCell, but I certainly trust him. --Vassyana 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. - TwoOars (Rev) 12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Addhoc 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Eminently suitable for the job. PeaceNT 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --barneca 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. JoshuaZ 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. EconomicsGuy 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. R. Baley 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Gets it. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Carolmooredc Sometimes only advocates will bother to improve articles; getting them into the WIKI head so they do it neutrally - as opposed to punishing them when it takes a while to get it - is important and he seems like he would get that
  28. Filll 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. As per Secret...--Cometstyles 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - I'm a bit torn, actually. I think identifying problematic editors is not always as easy as you think, but clearly, there's many cases where obvious troublemakers were given far, far too much credit and leeway. -- Schneelocke 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Shot info 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Guettarda 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Hardyplants 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Adam Cuerden talk 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. COGDEN 03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Moreschi puts it well - he "gets it." We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in drama or to serve as a reform school for wayward editors. Note mail list and IRC are low signal / high noise venues with little utility and great potential for abuse (especially in the case of IRC). Raymond arritt (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. The Evil Spartan 05:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Xdenizen 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per Raymond arrittJQ 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support per everyone. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. RMHED 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Not using IRC is not a concern. Acalamari 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Always fair. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --Anthon01 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Anthon01 does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. - 'Support per Raymond arrit. Having seen Mast Cell in action in arbitration-like roles (largely on WP:ANI), he strikes the necessary balance between empathy and severity. Tiamut 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support: Absolutely. We need more Wikipedians like this on Arbcomm. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support We bend over backwards to accommodate editors who are incapable of reform. They should be given fewer chances. MastCell, to me, has the correct attitude to this problem. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support per Secret and IronDuke. I also like MastCell's ability to see through mountains of crap and find and clearly state the essentials of a situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support i have nothing but good experiences with MastCell, he is fair and is able to keep a calm head on even very controversial issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support I'd let MastCell be my doctor, my lawyer, my congressperson, or my arbitrator for that matter. Antelan talk 06:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Highly qualified for the job and brings a much needed perspective to what Wikipedia needs if it is ever to be considered a reliable source in any sense off-wiki and on-wiki. -- Fyslee / talk 06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. support William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Wetman (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. support Hal peridol (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support provided he agrees to join the ArbComm mailing list ➥the Epopt (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Dessources (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Don't agree with you all the time, but I do agree with the approach you use docboat (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Lisatwo (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Tony Sidaway 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Impressively levelheaded.[reply]
  67. Support I have considered Irpen's oppose below, and I don't see any comments that dissuade me (diffs?); I support the platform. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support trustworthy Wikipedian. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Wow, what great answers to the questions posed. And these were not just answers saying what we wanted to hear, but answers defining the candidate's perspective. I wasn't particularly intending to vote here, but MastCell would be an invaluable addition to the ArbCom team. Geometry guy 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support AgneCheese/Wine 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support a sensible user and would be an asset to Arbcom. particluarly agree with views on net negative to WP as a point to consider re desysopping. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Keeps calm and objective. Good mediator, always tries to seek a mutual consensus for all. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - When I turned 14 I started High School and I stopped using IRC. Brusegadi (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, per answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Has shown a clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has shown a commendable willingness to speak out in support of those policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Rockpocket 20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Is top-notch. Very level-headed and careful. MisterSheik (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Almost exactly per Raymond Arritt. It's not as if Mailing Lists are complicated technology and we can't fathom whether or not MastCell will be able to figure it out. --JayHenry (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support ×Meegs 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Doesn't make sense that people are opposing him for not using a double-secret mailing list or IRC. He didn't say he would never use a mailing list, and he seems like a perfectly good candidate otherwise. Grandmasterka 08:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. JoeSmack Talk 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - A good candidate. Not using IRC or the mailing list pre-election does not concern me in any way. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - good sysop, good user, excellent statement. No concerns at all. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Dekimasuよ! 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Based on experience with content editing. Some concerns, but overall I feel ArbCom would benefit in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Cri du canard (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. the wub "?!" 17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. SupportSaudade7 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Just based on my psychic intuitions.[reply]
  94. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. -- lucasbfr talk 09:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - Tim Vickers (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Sorry, needing to use either IRC or the mailing list is a must to become a arbcom member. This is a Secret account 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Please see here for my reasoning. IronDuke 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Secret.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. spryde | talk 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  8. No.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. You do good work, but I have to oppose per Secret and IronDuke. --Coredesat 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Alexfusco5 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cryptic 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Too new. Rebecca 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Húsönd 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose -Dureo 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — xaosflux Talk 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Isarig (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per IronDuke. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Splash - tk 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. KTC 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  Grue  14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - Too new. Mattisse 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Great guy but not ready for the role. Neil ☎ 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Edivorce 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Davewild 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Ripberger 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. OpposeMerkinsmum 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. WjBscribe 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. EconomistBR 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Neutrality and objectivity are called into serious question even by his candidacy statement. Contribution history appears clearly agenda driven. Chido6d 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret account 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --LordPathogen 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LordPathogen does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Too new I'm afraid. Atropos 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, per Secret and patchy answers to questions. John Vandenberg 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose -- POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin. --profg Talk 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Michael Snow (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Not a neutral editor. Highly invested in areas, such as skepticism, where neutral decisions are particularly necessary. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose : doesn't take WP:CIV seriously. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. I expect arbcom to be open to all communication methods and to be familiar with their use. Viriditas 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Peter morrell 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, good editor with a lot of admirable qualities. Needs time, and perhaps work a bit more towards neutrality. Dreadstar † 18:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Alarmed by candidate's positions expressed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop. --Irpen 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose: Geogre (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Terence (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. no support something is not working with this one. perhaps in the future. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose: --Russianname (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. oppose. --Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Changing the rules to make it easier to "deal with" editors that are considered "bad" is not what Wikipedia needs. Eliot (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. oppose --Mcginnly | Natter 13:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Whig (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Wasn't going to vote, but don't like attitude that "The Arbitration Committee can't dispense Truth...."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次(derumi)talk 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Per some of the Q&A. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose - appears to want to concentrate on dealing with editors who are unconstructive and can be identified straightforwardly. I'd rather focus on building consensus. Warofdreams talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. GRBerry 14:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Mike R (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. -- Vision Thing -- 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - To my surprise, concur with Irpen. Missing the point that there is no such thing as a benign block, particularly to new users. Risker (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose maybe next year wbfergus Talk 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. ¡Qué nuevo! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Maxim(talk) 00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Opppose past history of poor judgement. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Opppose not got the right attitude from evidence shown by IronDuke - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose Hell no, considering you wanted me to be banned in the Allegations of Apartheid arbcom case. Yahel Guhan 05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. Not flexible enough. Loom91 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Made ill-considered proposals in some recent ArbCom cases. Beit Or 11:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/MastCell&oldid=178201853"