Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Risker

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 Larno Man (talk | contribs) at 02:14, 2 December 2008 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Risker

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It’s created by people from all over the world, drawn to the opportunity to share their knowledge, skills and talent, without material benefit. From brilliant writers to wikignomes, with many in between, there is one common thread: we all have hopeful hearts. We see value and potential in freely sharing knowledge with the world, in a single, widely encompassing source.

The same thing that makes Wikipedia special is also its Achilles heel. Bringing together such a large group of people from different cultures, social skills and educational levels means there is plenty of room for normal human disagreements. Disputes are magnified and can quickly escalate as a result of the imperfection of written communication combined with strong feelings and divergent interpretations of policy, English usage, and intention. When behaviour violates our policies, we employ dispute resolution. These processes seem to have more good intention than good effect, because they often fail to change the behaviours or resolve the dispute.

Arbitration is intended to address editorial behavioural issues with the goal of removing roadblocks to the continued improvement of the encyclopedia, yet it tends to do this in a remarkably superficial way. Instead of drilling down to identify the root cause(s) of the problems, it is largely dependent on the commentary of interested parties and context-free “diffs” that give only snapshots of often complex situations. Transparency is not a priority. Well-considered commentary is drowned out by acrimonious hyperbole and self-serving rhetoric. Arbitrators frequently fail to identify the heart of the problem, and their decisions give the appearance of taking the path of least resistance rather than the path to resolution. All who are involved come away disillusioned and disheartened, regardless of the final decision. The process itself exacerbates the harm it seeks to halt.

My contribution, should I be appointed to the Arbitration Committee, will be to ask questions and expect—and give—straightforward responses; to prevent arbitration pages from becoming just another battleground; and to encourage editors uninvolved in the conflict to develop evidence that dispassionately illustrates the core issues instead of the peripheral distractions. We need to re-establish the Arbitration Committee as a place to resolve disputes in a collaborative and positive way without inflicting further harm on ourselves, our hopeful hearts. Because, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.


Support

  1. Strong support. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support--Maxim(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Only Support Again, I shall be supporting only one candidate and, despite some other very worthy candidates, this is the one I feel is the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Black Kite 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Captain panda 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DurovaCharge! 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ priyanath talk 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, and personal trust. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - smart, ethical candidate with good tracing records of dispute resolutions Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support but only if you promise to keep up the amazing effort. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Most definitely. :) krimpet✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. iridescent 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support Experienced, trustworthy and chock-full of good old common sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Steven Walling (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not always in agreement with Risker on various things, but agreeing with me on everything is only one characteristic of a great arbitrator. There are others, and Risker has them. Avruch T 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Wise, fair, does not play people against each other, etc etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Koji† 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. iMatthew 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Consistently impressive. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong strong support, great candidate and no fool. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Graham87 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Atmoz (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Good content editor with the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. AgneCheese/Wine 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support Yes, definitely. J.delanoygabsadds 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --MPerel 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Will make an excellent Arb. GJC 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Per content contributions and answers to User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Risker. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. David Shankbone 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Smart, calming, incisive, really cares. All-around super.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Have had a strong positive opinion of this editor since before they became an admin, and nothing I have seen from them has shaken my impression that they are intelligent, mature and capable, good people skills, and will manage well in the sort of difficult multi-faceted situations ArbCom has to deal with. Orderinchaos 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. The fact that she was essentially drafted into running for ArbCom gives me confidence. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Risker has a lot of experience at ArbCom. She is level-headed and sensible and I believe she would make a great arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. –Outriggr § 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Eusebeus (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Synchronism (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. –Moondyne 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Although I disagree with Risker on a lot of issues, I trust this user to be fair - and you can't ask for more than that in an arb. Brilliantine (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support لennavecia 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support: good brain, good editor and a safe pair of hands. Giano (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Avenue (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. - Clueful, insightful, intelligent. Yes please. // roux   editor review10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, seems levelheaded and likely to come up with useful ideas, and doesn't seem likely to exceed ArbCom's scope or try to create policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. — neuro(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Nancy talk 10:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Woody (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Verbal chat 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Very solid candidate. Moreschi (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support ATren (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. RxS (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Scorpion0422 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Tex (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Strong Support -I have significant points of disagreement with her at present but I am confident that after she is elected, she'll come around just fine. But more importantly, Risker knows where her towel is. And then some. Thank goodness ArbCom in its infinite wisdom recently passed over making her a CU so the workload didn't scare her off. why my vote? blast me for it! ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. I trust Risker's judgement. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Sceptre (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. From her honesty and high-class contributions over time, Risker is the perfect candidate, even though the Utopian rhetoric of her election statement makes me feel old and cynical. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  96. Support. She gets it. That's all. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Alæxis¿question? 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. --Kbdank71 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Thank you for answering my questions: good answers. Acalamari 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Pcap ping 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Strong support I opposed her RfA, don't know what I was thinking. She'll be the token hockey loving representative to the ArbCom. Enough for me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong support- Allegedly is female. We need more female arbs, so women can approach about problems with sexual predators on wiki etc. One is not enough as there would be cases where anyone is friends with someone and should recuse (speaking generally, not about any specific case.) Sticky Parkin 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. --A NobodyMy talk 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. support - Yay, Risker! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. I have the sense we frequently don't agree about various issues, but I have to respect and support the mature and thoughtful attitude on display here. MastCell Talk 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Close decision. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Synergy 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. If I could support only one candidate, Risker is who it would be. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support on the balance, she will, I think, be a reasonable arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Clearly a net benefit to the project. spryde | talk 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support MikeHobday (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support as I suckered her into her RfA, how could I not subject her to more torture...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support One of the soundest, calmest, most sensible contributors I've seen, and a real asset to the project. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Tiptoety talk 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Forgive me, I think you're a suitable candidate. Support, and may God have mercy on your soul. DS (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. He handled wonderfully a BLP where I was implied. Very good judgement. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support ...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Best of luck. GlassCobra 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - seems level-headed, with good answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Dr. eXtreme 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support AniMate 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RockManQReview me 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Have witnessed her inflaming conflict rather than resolving it. Epbr123 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not a reflection of your judgment nor activity; but you've only been an admin since May. I'd prefer the candidates be more experienced in this area before becoming arbitrators. Good luck, anyhow. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not ready at all. Prodego talk 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't really see anything groundbreaking or anything that shows how ArbCom needs to change from its current state. I can't support a candidate who even gives off the impression that they'll bring more of the same. Mike H. Fierce! 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Caspian blue 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry, I believe her judgement is clouded on too many issues - mostly involving civility and vested contributors. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Risker&oldid=255336109"