Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Netoholic

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Netoholic

Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.

  • I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors must end and the spirit of true arbitration must return.
  • I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.
  • I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally dealing with problems, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.

I'll expand on the last item. More problem users should be handled by community/administrator consensus alone. If they feel unfairly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process; but both (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. On the other hand, if that user is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while making it easier to review the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (revised 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak support, I would have opposed if I didn't find the statement and questions interesting. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support.  Grue  13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support on basis of strong platform alone. Tomertalk 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support good ideas, atypical arbitrator who I feel can do the job and add good perspective -Drdisque 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Very fairminded on the ocassions when I've encountered him and his work. Will be approachable to many users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuropracBHIT (talk • contribs) .
  10. Support. Dislike the need to "give more power" to anyone. It's "no big deal." Everything else seems correct. Avriette 23:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support OnceBitten 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support BenBurch 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Keith D. Tyler 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All in 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Seems a solid candidate and good integrity. -- Jbamb 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Rohirok 02:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support ··gracefool |☺ 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support ~leif ☺ (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. No. Ambi 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, per second issue. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. —David Levy 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. No way. — Omegatron 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Sorry, but you are just too new. Batmanand 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose --Christopher Thomas 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose inexperience, policy, whatever. --Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Nah. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose I seriously question editor's judgment; see his post in my talk archive. Xoloz 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Tony the Marine 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:37, Jan. 9, 2006
  29. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose--Jiang 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Too abrasive and confrontational to be tempermentally suited to Arbcom. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose 172 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Bobet 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose —Optikos 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose --Tabor 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. android79 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose--cj | talk 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Skillful, intelligent, and motivated, but the job requires better people skills than I have encountered with him. — Catherine\talk 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, on the basis of judgment and interpersonal relations. --MCB 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, excellent contributor, but not the right one for this job. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. People skills. utcursch | talk 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose I think his platform will make wikipedia worse. --- Charles Stewart 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. OpposeMy experience of this editor is that he is intransigent in his views and over forceful in asserting his will. Giano | talk 08:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose violates rules to advance his own agenda, extremely unsuited for any position of power. DreamGuy 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Dan100 (Talk) 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Geogre 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Raven4x4x 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. Despite the possibly misleading name, participation in arbritration is not and should not be voluntary. If problem editors are allowed a veto on whether they have any sanction on them, I suspect this would reduce the arbcom workload to close to 0. The number of wheel wars between people i'd characterise as 'good admins' we've seen lately belies any hope with the latter points. Morwen - Talk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Xtra 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. —Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - By his own word, too "unilateral" in action. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose, lack of skills in dispute resolution. Radiant_>|< 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Mark1 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. BlankVerse 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Does not seem to have sufficient interpersonal skills. DES (talk) 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Candidate lacks patience and tolerance an arbitrator needs.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose dab (ᛏ) 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --kingboyk 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose --Gareth Hughes 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Too nitpicky. IZAK 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Too nitpicky...doesn't bother to communicate with other people when offering to destroy their hard work. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:45Z
  76. Oppose. Shocked he even put his name forward - SoM 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose as Ëzhiki --It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Not arbcom temperament. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Splashtalk 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose per pretty much everyone above. Hermione1980 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. siafu 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. older≠wiser 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. oppose. --Irpen 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Strange platform, inadequate answers. --EMS | Talk 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Too doctrinarian. — Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose, too much personal agenda. silsor 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose. That job requires patience, common sense, and neutrality. Kosebamse 13:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose undiplomatic no empathy for others Gnangarra 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose, temperament issues. HGB 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose I do not believe he has the communication skills necessary for this position. Rje 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Oskar 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. Point 1 is great. Point 2 is sucky, as there is no other compelling form of action, and the candidate either shells the action down to mediation (which is entirely voluntary, and any action raised to arbitration must of necessity be irreconcilable, and thus beyond voluntary binding) or up to Fiat. Wikipedia is not an enlightened despotism. One of the very few informed oppose votes I have cast this election: the candidate lays out a genuine platform. Fifelfoo 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose Sunray 08:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose. Jared 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  104. Oppose, policy. KTC 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose --Rye1967 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose - axegrinding; second point rather odd William M. Connolley 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  107. Oppose - Strong oppose btw - axegrinder of the first water. Sjc 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. Policy. Carbonite | Talk 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose for intemperance and WP:POINT. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose - i don't like your policy. --NorkNork 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose. Your second point in your platform seems strange to me. Velvetsmog 23:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Not for lack of experience (on the wrong side). Kevin baas 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose Davidpdx 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Turcottem 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Dr. B 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose. maclean25 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose - from what I have seen of your editing I don't think you have the right temperament for this -- Francs2000 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. Why? ++Lar: t/c 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose. *drew 03:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. Far too abrupt and presumptive. Additionally, fails to read questions properly (see the questions link in the statement section), suggesting that Netoholic will read evidence erroneously as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ril- (talk • contribs)
  122. Oppose. Preaky 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose. People should not be able to choose to ignore arbitration. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose. Wants less legalistic system, yet proposals are quite legalistic themselves -- Masonpatriot 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose per Charles Stewart. Youngamerican 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose //Big Adamsky 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Ingoolemo talk 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose —Phil | Talk 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. No. Neutralitytalk 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose Secretlondon 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose. First proposal would give veto power to unrepentant troublemaker, a truly bad idea. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose. My experiences of him have not been good. Deb 10:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, respectfully. Not very open to the thoughts of others.--Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk|@ 08:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose Alex43223 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose Internet: Serious business. Ashibaka tock 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. I would support, but I am disquieted by the second plank; should problem users who attempt to ignore ArbCom be subject to its jurisdiction or not? Septentrionalis 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Relluctantly neutral. Experienced and has right views, but also has problems with temper. Zocky 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral - Samboy 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Netoholic&oldid=1087298588"