Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Will Beback

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GK (talk | contribs) at 06:48, 7 December 2006 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statement

The Arbcom should provide predictable and prompt decisions that further the mission of writing a free encylopedia. Along with the AN/I, mediation committees, community forums, etc, the ArbCom exists to keep disputes and other problems from impeding the project. The ArbCom needs members who are fair, trusted, active, and solution-oriented.

To the ArbCom I'd bring the dedication that I've demonstrated over the past two years. I've edited more than 8,000 unique pages across a broad range of topics, including some of the least popular, and am among the 50 most active editors. Through it all I've maintained good humor and focus. I'm offering to devote all of that time and energy to ArbCom matters.

Other candidates are more qualified to be ArbCom members than me and I'm honored to run with them. It's great that there are so many good applicants for this job and that's a credit to the project. I'm running only because I may possibly be the fifth-most qualified editor.

ArbCom agenda:

  • Transparency, integrity, and accountability.
  • Prompt responses
  • Shared decision drafting
  • Effective, enforceable remedies

ArbCom decisions should be:

  • Rare - a last resort.
  • Carefully decided - ArbCom decisions have major short- and long-term consequences.
  • Timely - some cases have dragged on so long that they seemed to prolong their disputes rather than settle them.
  • Modest - focused on individual behavioral problems as mch as possible.

Experience:

  • Active editing beginning: October 2004
  • Admin: June 2005
  • Mediator: January 2006 (inactive)
  • Times blocked: 0
  • Substantiated admin abuse claims: 0
  • Sanctions: admonished once by the ArbCom
  • Total edits: 43,961 (combined Will Beback + Willmcw/User2004 as of November 4 2006 [1])

Relevant qualities:

  • Analytic
  • Broad-minded
  • Concise
  • Dedicated
  • Experienced
  • Fair
  • Good-humored
  • Humble
  • Intelligent
  • Jovial
  • Kind
  • Literate

Notable problem users with whom I've engaged significantly:

Some areas of involvement:

  • Places
  • Schools
  • New religious movements/cults
  • Immigration
  • Eugenics
  • Neo-nazism
  • Pedophilia/Child sex abuse

Questions

Support

  1. Mike Dillon 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. support Jd2718 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Great user. Helpful and calm. Excellent record of working with problem users. AnnH ♫ 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Despite our differences and disputes in the past, I have learned to appreciate Will's good judgment and commitment to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Jaranda wat's sup 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong. --Coredesat 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BhaiSaab talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak - crz crztalk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Thatcher131 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Hello32020 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Duk 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. SuperMachine 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Khoikhoi 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  17. --Michael Johnson 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support AniMate 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. Excellent editor and admin; very fair; will make a great arbitrator. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —Mira 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Crum375 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support: displays patience and good judgment. - Che Nuevara 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. KPbIC 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support involved, pro-active, consistent; if Wikipedia had a Top Gun school Will Beback would be an instructor.--Hokeman 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Terence Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Warofdreams talk 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Merzbow 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support Xoloz 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. semper fi — Moe 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --BenBurch 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Aminz 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Dylan Lake 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Mytwocents 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Another candidate I think is quite tough, but also fair. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Tough choice, but I'm leaning towards weak support.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Candidates who have been through the arbitration process themselves are valuable. ArbCom needs people who have 'been there'. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak Support A good candidate overall, but I don't like your list of "problem users" as THB said. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support Charles Matthews 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support.--Muchness 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak Support Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak Support based on answers to my questions. There's a lot to ponder over with this guy and I know some people don't like him and I think some of the stuff he used to do that people didn't like of him he doesn't do anymore (like the following of people's contribs, but now that's so common even mentioing your name on IRC and somebody digs through and says "why were you blah blah? or made this edit?" and I think Will doesn't go through contribs like crazy anymore and is a good guy whereas now most wikipedia is doing that instead), although I didn't dig through his contribs to see what he does but mainly went from what I asked him and from them he seems diplomatic enough. Weak because he seemed not fully commital to a number of them. Anomo 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. Will Beback contributes consistently high quality work as a content editor, often on contentious subjects, giving him an especially strong ability to stays focused on the goals of the project when acting as an administrator. Unfortuantely, many members of the governing bodies of Wikipedia and the administration lack his experience and expertise as a writer of articles. Will Beback will be an effective proponent on the arbcom. 172 | Talk 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Fair; good at resolving disagreements. Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --CBD 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support-- danntm T C 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. TewfikTalk 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Avi 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. gidonb 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Excellent candidate![reply]
  61. Support IronDuke 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Gzuckier 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Elizmr 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Beit Or 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. 6SJ7 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Willing to get his hands dirty dealing with problem users (ArbCom's main function) and behaves with admirable restraint, all things considered. JChap2007 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support IZAK 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Proactive, balanced, fair. Perfect candidate. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Seems to be an ideal candidate. --Hyperbole 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. ITAQALLAH 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Jonathunder 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Evolver of Borg 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support Guettarda 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Onefortyone 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support. Has lots of common sense. Stompin' Tom 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Conn, Kit 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --tickle me 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:13Z
  80. Support -- Verkhovensky 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Amoruso 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Support per 172. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --ragesoss 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. —Angr 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Weak support, despite evidence presented by TheProject, below. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. With alternatives like Nandesuka and Jpgordon, Will gets my vote. Justforasecond 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support FeloniousMonk 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Andre (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Nishkid64 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. NatusRoma | Talk 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Has been civil and rational in our encounters, and has not imposed his point of view. Haiduc 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support -- I've seen some of your contributions to and statements about some of the controversial articles that I've worked on, and they've convinced me that you know how to deal effectively with problem editors. -- WGee 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Agne 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Strong Support. BlankVerse 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Fred Bauder 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Good experience. --Merlinme 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - While Will has shown some strong opinions in the past, I have been impressed by his ability to withdraw from situations where there is a Conflict of Interest or personal involvement. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. support Andries 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strong Support — we need more veteran Wikipedians in the ArbCom. — Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong Support Good contributor Markco1 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support JoshuaZ 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Montco 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support `'mikkanarxi 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. --Elonka 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. He has been involved with controversial editors and articles and is just the sort of experience that the ArbComm needs. 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK

Oppose

  1. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose has not come across as an arbitrator should. KazakhPol 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Very weak oppose. Rebecca 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The statement sounds way too much like someone running for a political office. Political arbitrators are bad. -Amarkov blahedits 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Weak oppose nomination statement reads like his wikipedia resume; it's a little off-putting. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Strongly dislike llist of "notable problem users". -THB 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. As THB. Naming names as detailed responses to candidacy questions might be one thing, offering a "roll call" of people he's been involved in DR with -- in the candidacy statement -- is entirely another. Serpent's Choice 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Appears to have a substantial history of controversy. Scobell302 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose I agree with Opabinia regalis and Amarkov. --Riley 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per THB.--John Lake 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nufy8 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I dislike this reaction by the candidate to the above-mentioned admonishment by the Committee, which seems insincere. If I am missing something else and evidence can be given to suggest that the incident was in fact resolved, I may reconsider. theProject 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. – Chacor 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose strongly. Everyking 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. cj | talk 12:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Per this string he started on the admin noticeboard — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Shyam (T/C) 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Weak oppose diplomatic but too opinionated on some topics and too slow to admit wrongdoing Dragomiloff 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong oppose Although he's civil, when I was responding to an OTRS complaint, I found him more concerned with his POV in the article than giving due consideration to WP:LIVING. See [2] and [3]. --Docg 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. —Celestianpower háblame 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose CComMack (t–c) 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Michael Snow 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Mild Oppose WikieZach| talk 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. per Doc. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose see above. Kiwidude 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Mexcellent 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Yanksox 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Peta 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - Francis Tyers · 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose has very strong views about his list of interests that could lead to bias. Addhoc 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Weak oppose as per THB. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose --Runcorn 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose, abuses admin powers to push POV. ArbCom would be worse. --NathanDW 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Am I missing something but the amount of involement with 'problem' users seems disproportionate to routine admin activity? Spartaz 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose per above comments on problem users list and response to admonishment. Sam 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Will_Beback&oldid=92648304"