Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Sam Blacketer

I have been thinking about running for a bit and hope I am not too late. I would very much like to be on the Arbitration Committee and help its work. I may not be the first to jump into threads on the administrators' noticeboard but I have often helped with three revert rule checking and enforcement which has taken me into some arbitration cases, and I have commented on others where I was not involved.
If appointed I would want to spend some time drawing out from the parties how they see their editing on Wikipedia, to make a calm judgment about whether they are able and willing to work with others who they do not agree with. Particularly with harassment (including off-wiki) I will try to determine whether problem editors have become disruptively obsessed with personal power struggles either with other users or with their point of view.
There are some big arbitration issues coming up, which include multiple editors edit-warring to push 'nationalist' positions. There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators. There is rarely a good reason for applying lengthy blocks to established editors where disruption is neither happening nor imminent; discussion should be preferred. In crafting arbitration decisions I think it would be helpful to write findings which do not just indicate where someone went wrong, but also indicates what procedure should have been followed. Arbitration should help guide, not just criticise.
I hope that I have shown good 'people skills' in my time on Wikipedia. I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive. I have learnt not to get fooled when dealing with disruptive editors but I have also learned to keep cool and civil with them even when they are unlikely to reciprocate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. This is a Secret account 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Docg 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Anthøny 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Cla68 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. -- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. spryde | talk 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. Qst 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Baka man 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Captain panda 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. maclean 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Fred Bauder 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. SQL Query me! 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Weak support. -- Core desat 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Again, I regret that I must support this candidate. May God have mercy on your soul, Sam. DS 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Anarchia 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Always been impressed with your input. Yes, a bit young in wiki-years, but I've seen enough to overrule that objection. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. krimpet ⟲ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. Cryptic 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - Dureo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. futurebird 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Hús ö nd 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Support. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Strongly. -- JayHenry 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:35,  December 3, 2007
  36. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Crockspot 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. No concerns. Neil  ☎ 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Has been around long enough to have my trust in him...-- Comet styles 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Don't see why not. Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. B 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Splash - tk 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. After further reading his answers and browsing his history, I support. Shem (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Chris 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. GDonato ([[User talk:#GDonato|talk]]) 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. KTC 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. From my interactions?, Of course. — Rudget contributions 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. A good choice. Acalamari 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Justforasecond 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Carolmooredc fact he is willing to admit there is a problem with people trolling around pushing a variety of "nationalist" positions good; just hope he's a'gin people doing that!
  56. JoshuaZ 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Smokizzy ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. W.marsh 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. 6SJ7 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Lawrence Cohen 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. Good answers to the questions. Eluchil404 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. EconomistBR 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Jd2718 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Support - Good answers, good statement, seems level-headed. FCYTravis 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Everyking 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. DarkFalls talk 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  72. 'Support -- Euryalus 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Support -- Versa geek 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Support -- Fram 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. -- Y  not? 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Support - Galloglass 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Support as a strategic vote, since he's preferable to some of the other candidates. Walton One 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. Support -- SECisek 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. RMHED 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support. Opposes precipitate action, and supports discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. Support - Good answers to the questions. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Support, sensible and not overly quick to judge. Guy ( Help!) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Merzbow ( talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Support-- Aldux ( talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support Good answers to questions. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support. Viriditas 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. -- MPerel 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. - Jeeny (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  95. Support FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Johnbod ( talk) 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Support Skinwalker ( talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Support Modernist ( talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. A basically sensible person who is interested but not obsessed with the noticeboards and arbitration cases. Seems like a good thing to have on board. Thatcher131 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Support, good answers, level headed, fair. Dreadstar † 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. Kusma ( talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Ravenhurst ( talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Support The cat on your userpage has the right idea though... :) Homestarmy ( talk) 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. Terence ( talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Support -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support. Good answers to questions, and the opposition arguments are weak. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Support Wimstead ( talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Support. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Support.-- BozMo talk 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Support - dave souza, talk 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. -- Fang Aili talk 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Dekimasu よ! 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Sandstein ( talk) 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. semper fictilis 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. RxS ( talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Hiding T 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Mattisse 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Wizardman 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. NF24( radio me!) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Support -- EdJohnston ( talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Support. Sam has been a very thoughtful editor and admin, and although he hasn't been an editor long, his judgment has been good and his calm temperament impressive; I have no doubt he will make a great arbitrator. I was tempted to oppose this candidacy because I fear that the workload of arbcom will reduce the quantity of Sam's excellent article-writing, but I regretfully concluded that I should respect Sam's choice to pursue other priorities. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Support -- PTR ( talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. Support. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. Support Taprobanus ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. Support - excellent track record, good at consensus building. But please keep contributing to articles! Warofdreams talk 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. Support, why not? Bearian ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Support. Was concerned that this candidacy has attracted a relatively low number of votes, but reading the answers to the questions, I can support per Thatcher. This candidate will provide something different for ArbCom. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. Support -- A. B. (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. the wub "?!" 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. This guy has a very compelling statement, and no significant issues have been raised in the opposition. Grand master ka 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  136. I'm in. Ling.Nut ( talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. feydey ( talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support-- Alf melmac 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Support Saudade7 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. I must join other editors in expressing concern that so sensible a fellow has volunteered for the meat-grinder. Best of luck if you make it in. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Support wbfergus Talk 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Support Yahel Guhan 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support. Loom91 ( talk) 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. PeaceNT ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  147. Support NoSeptember 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  148. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  149. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. Support. -- Muchness ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support, probably consistent, at least in part, with Walton's reasoning. Joe 07:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support, has many viewpoints which I find disagreeable, but has clearly come to those views through thoughful and intelligent observation about the way things are on the English language wikipedia, and thus I feel bound to respect even those views, while myself tending the other way. We need more thoughtful people than we need people with the right views on the arbitration committee. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Support Tewfik Talk 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  157. Support Consistant worker, keep it up Sam! -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Support deeceevoice ( talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  159. Support Sarah 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Alex fus co5 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. BobTheTomato 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. WAS 4.250 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --★ čabrilo★ 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose Edivorce 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Ripberger 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Crum375 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Weakly oppose. Don't know well enough to trust, and there are other candidates I'd rather see elected. GRBerry 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Too soon I think but maybe next time. WjB scribe 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Addhoc 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Atropos 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. This is a case of "not this time" rather than "no", per reasons given by GRBerry, WJB and Dcabrilo. Orderinchaos 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. There are other, more qualified candidates this time around. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. Tim Q. Wells ( talk) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Wily D 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. There are more appropriate candidates. John Vandenberg ( talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose for now. I'm not sure why Sam hasn't answered my question, which was just a request to expand on a part of his statement that wasn't clear to me. Chick Bowen 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Struck. Chick Bowen 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. I dislike aspects of his statement. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose -- Editor is too accommodating of fringe minorities to be a satisfying arbitrator. He would probably give them too much leeway in allowing them free reign over this opensource encyclopedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. Alæxis ¿question? 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Added many trivial links on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. None of the links provides any evidence for Sam's claim of diplomacy skills. Arbitrators should back up their claims. — Sebastian 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Chaz Beckett 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose Vote changed per very recent development. SashaNein ( talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次( derumi) talk 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose, sorry. Maybe next time. Zagalejo ^^^ 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose -- Lucretius ( talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjB scribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose. Would not trust his judgement in my limited experience of his doings here. Grace Note ( talk) 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, Per Nuffy8-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose needs more time/ experience. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose per Zocky.-- cj | talk 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Weakly oppose, for the only reason that other candidates are better poised for this role. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) cant decide reply
  50. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose: I have to agree with the "too new" line, here. Geogre ( talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose (weakly), in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose. Moved from support. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Sam_Blacketer&oldid=1147978990"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Sam Blacketer

I have been thinking about running for a bit and hope I am not too late. I would very much like to be on the Arbitration Committee and help its work. I may not be the first to jump into threads on the administrators' noticeboard but I have often helped with three revert rule checking and enforcement which has taken me into some arbitration cases, and I have commented on others where I was not involved.
If appointed I would want to spend some time drawing out from the parties how they see their editing on Wikipedia, to make a calm judgment about whether they are able and willing to work with others who they do not agree with. Particularly with harassment (including off-wiki) I will try to determine whether problem editors have become disruptively obsessed with personal power struggles either with other users or with their point of view.
There are some big arbitration issues coming up, which include multiple editors edit-warring to push 'nationalist' positions. There are areas where policy is vague or non-existent, where editors try to push boundaries, and I would look to test whether this is 'trolling' or good faith belief. I am also concerned with precipitate action by administrators. There is rarely a good reason for applying lengthy blocks to established editors where disruption is neither happening nor imminent; discussion should be preferred. In crafting arbitration decisions I think it would be helpful to write findings which do not just indicate where someone went wrong, but also indicates what procedure should have been followed. Arbitration should help guide, not just criticise.
I hope that I have shown good 'people skills' in my time on Wikipedia. I have tried approaching all difficulties with diplomacy and tact but this may be deceptive. I have learnt not to get fooled when dealing with disruptive editors but I have also learned to keep cool and civil with them even when they are unlikely to reciprocate. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 00:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. This is a Secret account 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Docg 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Anthøny 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Cla68 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. -- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. spryde | talk 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. Qst 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Baka man 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Captain panda 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. maclean 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Fred Bauder 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. SQL Query me! 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Weak support. -- Core desat 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Again, I regret that I must support this candidate. May God have mercy on your soul, Sam. DS 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Anarchia 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Always been impressed with your input. Yes, a bit young in wiki-years, but I've seen enough to overrule that objection. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. krimpet ⟲ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. Cryptic 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - Dureo 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. futurebird 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Mercury 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Hús ö nd 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Support. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Strongly. -- JayHenry 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:35,  December 3, 2007
  36. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Spebi 06:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Crockspot 08:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. No concerns. Neil  ☎ 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Has been around long enough to have my trust in him...-- Comet styles 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Don't see why not. Stifle ( talk) 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Kittybrewster ☎ 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. B 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Splash - tk 13:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. -- lucasbfr talk 13:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. After further reading his answers and browsing his history, I support. Shem (talk) 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Chris 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. GDonato ([[User talk:#GDonato|talk]]) 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. KTC 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. From my interactions?, Of course. — Rudget contributions 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. A good choice. Acalamari 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Justforasecond 18:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Spartaz Humbug! 19:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Carolmooredc fact he is willing to admit there is a problem with people trolling around pushing a variety of "nationalist" positions good; just hope he's a'gin people doing that!
  56. JoshuaZ 19:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 20:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Smokizzy ( talk) 20:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. W.marsh 22:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. 6SJ7 22:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Lawrence Cohen 22:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. Good answers to the questions. Eluchil404 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. EconomistBR 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Support Bastun BaStun not BaTsun 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Jd2718 04:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Support - Good answers, good statement, seems level-headed. FCYTravis 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Everyking 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. DarkFalls talk 07:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  72. 'Support -- Euryalus 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Support -- Versa geek 15:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Support -- Fram 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. -- Y  not? 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Support - Galloglass 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Support as a strategic vote, since he's preferable to some of the other candidates. Walton One 18:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. Support -- SECisek 20:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. RMHED 20:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support. Opposes precipitate action, and supports discussion. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. Support - Good answers to the questions. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Support, sensible and not overly quick to judge. Guy ( Help!) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Merzbow ( talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Support-- Aldux ( talk) 23:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support Good answers to questions. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 02:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support. Viriditas 03:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. -- MPerel 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. - Jeeny (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  95. Support FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Johnbod ( talk) 11:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Support Skinwalker ( talk) 18:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Support Modernist ( talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. A basically sensible person who is interested but not obsessed with the noticeboards and arbitration cases. Seems like a good thing to have on board. Thatcher131 02:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Support, good answers, level headed, fair. Dreadstar † 04:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. Kusma ( talk) 08:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Ravenhurst ( talk) 13:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Support The cat on your userpage has the right idea though... :) Homestarmy ( talk) 18:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. Terence ( talk) 18:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Support -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 04:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support. Good answers to questions, and the opposition arguments are weak. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 04:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Support Wimstead ( talk) 08:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Support. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Support.-- BozMo talk 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Support - dave souza, talk 14:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. -- Fang Aili talk 18:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Dekimasu よ! 04:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Sandstein ( talk) 07:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. semper fictilis 14:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. RxS ( talk) 17:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Hiding T 17:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Physchim62 (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Mattisse 00:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Wizardman 00:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. NF24( radio me!) 02:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Support -- EdJohnston ( talk) 03:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Support. Sam has been a very thoughtful editor and admin, and although he hasn't been an editor long, his judgment has been good and his calm temperament impressive; I have no doubt he will make a great arbitrator. I was tempted to oppose this candidacy because I fear that the workload of arbcom will reduce the quantity of Sam's excellent article-writing, but I regretfully concluded that I should respect Sam's choice to pursue other priorities. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Support -- PTR ( talk) 14:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. Support. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. Support Taprobanus ( talk) 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. Support - excellent track record, good at consensus building. But please keep contributing to articles! Warofdreams talk 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. Support, why not? Bearian ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Support. Was concerned that this candidacy has attracted a relatively low number of votes, but reading the answers to the questions, I can support per Thatcher. This candidate will provide something different for ArbCom. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. Support -- A. B. (talk) 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 16:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. the wub "?!" 19:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. This guy has a very compelling statement, and no significant issues have been raised in the opposition. Grand master ka 08:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  136. I'm in. Ling.Nut ( talk) 12:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. feydey ( talk) 21:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support-- Alf melmac 21:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Support Saudade7 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. I must join other editors in expressing concern that so sensible a fellow has volunteered for the meat-grinder. Best of luck if you make it in. Mackensen (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Support wbfergus Talk 21:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Support Yahel Guhan 05:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support. Loom91 ( talk) 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. PeaceNT ( talk) 18:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  147. Support NoSeptember 20:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  148. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  149. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. Support. -- Muchness ( talk) 00:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Cool Hand Luke 00:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support, probably consistent, at least in part, with Walton's reasoning. Joe 07:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support, has many viewpoints which I find disagreeable, but has clearly come to those views through thoughful and intelligent observation about the way things are on the English language wikipedia, and thus I feel bound to respect even those views, while myself tending the other way. We need more thoughtful people than we need people with the right views on the arbitration committee. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 10:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Support Tewfik Talk 18:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  157. Support Consistant worker, keep it up Sam! -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Support deeceevoice ( talk) 23:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  159. Support Sarah 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Alex fus co5 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. BobTheTomato 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. WAS 4.250 09:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. The candidate has to be around for longer. Although he can perhaps already get a grip on our dynamics, building community trust takes longer. --★ čabrilo★ 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose Edivorce 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose Ripberger 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Crum375 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Weakly oppose. Don't know well enough to trust, and there are other candidates I'd rather see elected. GRBerry 21:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Too soon I think but maybe next time. WjB scribe 23:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Addhoc 00:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Atropos 05:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. This is a case of "not this time" rather than "no", per reasons given by GRBerry, WJB and Dcabrilo. Orderinchaos 01:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. There are other, more qualified candidates this time around. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. Tim Q. Wells ( talk) 04:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 18:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Davewild ( talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Wily D 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. There are more appropriate candidates. John Vandenberg ( talk) 04:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose for now. I'm not sure why Sam hasn't answered my question, which was just a request to expand on a part of his statement that wasn't clear to me. Chick Bowen 06:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Struck. Chick Bowen 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. I dislike aspects of his statement. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose -- Editor is too accommodating of fringe minorities to be a satisfying arbitrator. He would probably give them too much leeway in allowing them free reign over this opensource encyclopedia. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. Alæxis ¿question? 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Added many trivial links on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. None of the links provides any evidence for Sam's claim of diplomacy skills. Arbitrators should back up their claims. — Sebastian 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Chaz Beckett 10:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose Vote changed per very recent development. SashaNein ( talk) 00:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次( derumi) talk 02:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose, sorry. Maybe next time. Zagalejo ^^^ 20:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose -- Lucretius ( talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjB scribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose. Would not trust his judgement in my limited experience of his doings here. Grace Note ( talk) 04:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 09:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 09:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 15:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, Per Nuffy8-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose needs more time/ experience. JERRY talk contribs 01:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose per Zocky.-- cj | talk 09:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Weakly oppose, for the only reason that other candidates are better poised for this role. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) cant decide reply
  50. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose: I have to agree with the "too new" line, here. Geogre ( talk) 12:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose (weakly), in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose. Moved from support. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 23:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Sam_Blacketer&oldid=1147978990"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE