Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ElinorD (talk | contribs) at 10:42, 1 December 2008 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Cool Hand Luke

Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.
Thank you. Cool Hand Luke

Support

  1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Captain panda 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caspian blue 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ priyanath talk 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Tom B (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Steven Walling (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes. krimpet✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I was impressed with his analytical ability in the Mantanmoreland case, if not entirely impressed with his temperament. I'm hoping the temperament issue was transient and a result of his involvement in the case, and the strong analytical skill will bear out on the committee. Avruch T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Tenacious, analytical yet humane. Generally does what he says he's going to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Majorly talk 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. kurykh 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. – Toon(talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support, but it would be nice to add in more content to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Pretty much ditto Giggy and Ottava. Gimmetrow 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Pcap ping 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong Support. Luke's campaign promises are extremely impressive. Worthy of our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Giggity! Great user! --Mixwell!Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Atmoz (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I have faith that his head and temperament are in the right place to actually deliver on those campaign promises. AgneCheese/Wine 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I wrote a little endorsement on my blog. Good luck! David Shankbone 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support SBHarris 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --MPerel 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Gets it. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support John254 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support although Arbitrator recall will be even less viable than admin recall. Let's find a functional system for admin recall first before we worry about Arbitrator recall. GRBerry 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Bold candidacy, no doubletalk. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. A good old-fashioned Wikipedian with the project's best interests in mind. A straight-shooter who'll bring a unique perspective to ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Someone old bringing something new. This is the definition of someone who gets it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Fair enough. MER-C 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Very straightforward and willing to get in and work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Enigma message 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Many of the clearest-thinking answers and boldest, yet feasible, ideas in his statement and campaign pledges. If only half of this translates into action, I think we'll have an excellent Arb. --JayHenry (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support. Great admin. Will make a great Arb. bd2412 T 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Highly sensible, excellent candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Another candidate who I often disagree with but trust to do nothing egregious. Should bring some fresh ideas by the looks of things. Brilliantine (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support لennavecia 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, generally clueful. Not concerned at all about the WR account. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elonka 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose per views on anonymity (see lar's questions). Protecting someone's privacy should always be done regardless of their actions. Prodego talk 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Agree with Prodego. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has clarified his position respecting your objection here. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per Prodego. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose - Luke is "One" on WR - he outed Coredesat (whatever his intentions were, that's what the effect was) over on the site leading to Coredesat leaving (See his post, much of it is now removed [1]). I don't want any editors doing things like that, let alone an arbitrator. 1051 posts on WR in the last year? You should have come over to WP to solve any problems you had rather than playing out the Wikipedian on WR. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too pretentious and active WR poster. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per combination of WR account, loose views on protection of pseudonymity, and support for too much BLP and BLPSE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WR users seen to generate too much drama. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — neuro(talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Prodego and Ryan Postlethwaite. ElinorD (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Cool_Hand_Luke&oldid=255181294"