Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coren

Hello!
I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work. As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement. Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.
I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it. Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.
I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:
  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
  • Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".
Thank you for your consideration.

Support

  1. Support. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Durova Charge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. -- El on ka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Avruch T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. kur ykh 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Protonk ( talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Support Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    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 me My work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Editor switched to Oppose, below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Pcap ping 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. RockManQ Review me 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Atmoz ( talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. L'Aquatique talk 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. ҉ I support him. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. -- Koji † 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. Daniel ( talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Support. rootology ( C)( T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Support John254 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Weak support (only in that I more strongly support other candidates) - Would be a net positive if elected, low drama factor and cool head and mature outlook in conflict situations. Orderinchaos 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Support. ( rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Support, never had any problem with him as a collaborator and I have always been impressed by his admin work. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. A good candidate to ascend to the post. Mike H. Fierce! 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Synchronism ( talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. While I don't always agree with him, I think he will do a good job. I have not seen anything which makes me doubt this. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Support. Cirt ( talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. Rockpocke t 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Support. - Has large doses of WP:CLUE. // roux    editor review09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. Not necessarily familiar with him, but impressed by his ideas here. Rebecca ( talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Yes, why not. Stifle ( talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. — neuro (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Support — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Support as part of a ticket. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Sure -- B ( talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. Support. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Support PseudoOne ( talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. Leatherstocking ( talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Support: not a big fan of the Kmweber unblock, but after talking to him, I'm impressed by his sense of ethics. Good show. Sceptre ( talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Support. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Support, Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. Support, strongly. Completely the right attitude. AGK 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Seen good things from Coren. Acalamari 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Syn ergy 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. Support-- Taprobanus ( talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. No pressing concerns, and would rather have this user than some others. Glass Cobra 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Support - lots of relevant experience, seems very competent. Warofdreams talk 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Support -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Support This guy's actually got some clue... ST47 ( talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Support --- Larno ( talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. Support I like that word. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Support Cardamon ( talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. PeterSymonds ( talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Support - Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Support. LLDMart ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Support - partly on reuptation, partly on statement/question.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. -- Sultec ( talk) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Joe Nu tter 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Support Knows exactly what ails Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Support -- CreazySuit ( talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Support Good administration. -- Raayen ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Lego Kontribs TalkM 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Support. Solid thoughtful guy that I suspect would make a solid thoughtful arb.-- Kubigula ( talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Support. Enforcement is needed. CIVIL is over-powering real policies & gaming has multiplied. PR talk 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Kusma ( talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. Support -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Support — αἰτίας • discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. Support Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. Support - Tājik ( talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Support - User seems to know the tough intricacies of this type of work.-- Zereshk ( talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  88. Support - Very competent admin. will make a great arbitrator. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  89. Support A steady hand is needed here. And fairness. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible. — neuro (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  90. Support -- Node ( talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  91. Support -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support. -- Wayiran ( talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  92. Support. -- Niko Silver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  93. Support. Baku87 ( talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  94. Support'' Happy‑ melon 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  95. Support. I can't easily put my reasoning into words other than to say that I believe Coren has Clue, and Wikipedia should be a Cluocracy. Guy ( Help!) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  96. Support: I may not be a hardliner myself, but I know a good one when I see one. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  97. Support -- VS talk 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  98. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  99. Terence ( talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  100. WP:100 - Has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  101. Agree with increasing transparency into the reasoning of the ArbCom's decisions. - Fedayee ( talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  102. Yes! - @pple complain 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Diderot's dreams ( talk) 04:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  104. Support -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  105. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  106. Seddσn talk 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  107. Support yay -- Mardetanha talk 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  108. Support Jd2718 ( talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  109. Support. Jonathanmills ( talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  110. — Animum ( talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  111. support JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  112. support G4 poor but the rest seems OK William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  113. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. Vancouver dreaming ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  115. Support Thoughtful (and thought provoking) answers to the questions (*grumble* something needs to be done to reduce the number of questions *grumble*) -- Regents Park ( bail out your boat) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  116. Support Since you are a clerk, you already know the ropes of ArbCom, its strengths, and its weaknesses, and should have an idea what you want it to improve. Leujohn ( talk)
  117. Support NanohaA'sYuri Talk, My master 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  118. Support tgies ( talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  119. Support. Parishan ( talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Clear appropriate priorities. Fred Talk 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  121. Support -- maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  122. Support -- Wayiran ( talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  123. Support Shenme ( talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  124. Support I tend to agree with Fatso's points below, but Coren has good philosophies, a great campaign statement, good answers to the questions, and have been impressed by his responsiveness. And as far as content-oriented editors and ArbCom, while I wish Coren had a bit more experience in Main Space, I think these elections are already doing a sufficient job rebalancing toward WP:ENC. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  125. Support Farmanesh ( talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  126. Support His dedication speaks for itself. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  127. Supporthe has identified the "biased civility" problem which interacts with the weakness of arbcom in making content decisions. Sooner or later someone has to make a content decision and it should be on a scientific basis. I don't undertand the opposers' objections to his BLP stance. Email me if you wish. Mccready ( talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  128. Support I totally disagree with his view that sharply restricting our coverage of BLP would be beneficial, but I tend to agree with almost everything else he said. DGG ( talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  129. Support Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  130. Support - purely a balance vote for something that may well be in my head only. -- Illythr ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  131. Support ---- The Myotis ( talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  132. Support -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  133. Support -- agree with DGG's hesistation above, but strongly support overall. -- Bfigura's puppy ( talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  134. Support -- Has shown reasonable grasp of policy, and sensible priorities.— Kww( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  135. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  136. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  137. Support - feel from his/her statement that he/she has some good ideas particular on the need to take a hard line in some instances and viewson academic integrity and need to be careful on quoting people etc. Also decent views on BLP and on need for discretion by arbcom and on the OM case. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  138. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  139. Support ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  140. Support Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  141. Support — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  142. Support Switzpaw ( talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  143. Support — {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  144. Support-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  145. Grand master ka 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  146. Support - Xasha ( talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  147. Support. Gregg ( talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  148. Experience as a clerk will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  149. Support Epbr123 ( talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  150. Support. Willking1979 ( talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  151. Support. Sfrandzi ( talk) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  152. Support BrianY ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  153. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  154. Maybe next year? ++ Lar: t/ c 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I have found this candidate to not have the objectiveness to properly arbitrate important matters. Candidate is not interested in expanding encyclopedic knowledge-- Pensil ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.-- Maxim (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose. Talks tough, which is fine, but record suggest the user aspires to be the consummate insider, overly involved in wikipolitics/drama for its own sake; does not relate to content creators; far too many similarities to the busybody-admin model that has served so many users so poorly.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Voyaging (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. per His Fatness Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. krimpet ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose this was a tough one. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose - too much of a enforcer mentality. I did a CU Sfacets once, which came back on opposite sides of the world, but Coren said it was him anyway. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Note: Sfacets said that he frequently traveled between Australia and Europe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Not within 3-4 hours. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry. That checkuser was appalling. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 ( talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Because I feel that his wikignome work, while an asset to the project, is no substitute for article work in terms of how to hand disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    L'Aquatique talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I AM AN IDIOT! Forgot that when you EC it shows the whole page.... L'Aquatique talk reply
  12. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. Supports 'strengthening' (read: making more complex) BLP, which is an overly bureaucratic mess of 'special authority'. Prodego talk 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. A tad too prone for drama for my tastes. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose per Prodego, BLP needs simplification and reining in, not let further out of control. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Brilliantine ( talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. Ronnotel ( talk) 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose 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 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein ( talk) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. — CharlotteWebb 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Moreschi ( talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose Verbal chat 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    ~  priyanath  talk 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath  talk 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Davewild ( talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. -- A Nobody My talk 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. Biophys ( talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. Among other minor issues, not having his own archives properly linked until recently is a signal of insufficient attention to detail and caring about others that is required of an arbitrator. Franamax ( talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose-- Caspian blue 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Alex fusco 5 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Has an us-vs-them mentality completely at odds with the goal of building an informational resource. Skomorokh 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Lack of intensive article-building experience is a concern. Also, from his answers to questions I get the impression that he will lean more towards using a cudgel than a scalpel. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose as per User:SashaNein. Anyone proud of being closed-minded (ie "hardliner") lacks the change we need in arbcom.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Mike R ( talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose -- Aude ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose Not the right temperament for the job. There's a difference between hard and firm. We need firm, not hard. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. - filelake shoe 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose -- Cactus.man ✍ 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. More mainspace activity is needed, especially if you are going to handle disputes with BLP/3RR/and edit warring. miranda 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. I would have preferred more definite statements that IRC should not be used, and that using checkuser to investigate an editor on your own hunch is a breach of privacy. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. GRBerry 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose RMHED ( talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Per Coren's views on BLP - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose (judging from the candidate's statement) Needs diplomacy, patience and openness to all sides Nicolas1981 ( talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. Eóin ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose due to answer to confidentiality question. Secret trials destroy the credibility of Arbcom and the project. Cynical ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Not interested in building an encyclopedia. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one ( User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II ( talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose. Kablammo ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose Bad answers to almost every question. And Secret star chambers? Like I'm going to support that! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose - Almost zero interest in actually contributing to content. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Content work doesn't have much to do with ArbCom, given the number of cases which deal with user's who aren't regular contributors - for this reason, I agree with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Caulde 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose - Shyam ( T/ C) 09:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose-- Iamawesome 800 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. There is much to like, respect and admire in this candidate who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I cannot support however as there seems too much of a desire to solve tricky problems by being firm rather than imaginative. I am also slightly concerned by answers to questions which indicate a willingness to block users who are critical and problematic but who haven't broken the community's own guidelines. SilkTork * YES! 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose It happens that I'm firmly with Silk on Coren's having much to offer—I have, in fact, never had a truly unhappy or disappointing experience with Coren)—and there are certain answers (most significantly, those with respect to why policy and process are important [or at least not always unimportant]) that please me, reflecting precisely the sentiments that I'd like a prospective arbitrator to hold. It is BLP (which has, after all, become, at least to those of us who recognize the primacy of the community, one of the two or three most important issues of this election), though, that gives me pause, and even as I think Coren well to understand that his personal views about what policy ought to be must be irrelevant to his construction of policy in his official capacity, I just don't know, finding as I do equally viable candidates with whom I am more comfortable, that I can take the chance, a conclusion I reach, I suppose I must say, with at least a little regret. Joe 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Tex ( talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. Strong Oppose. ArbCom being creative or 'innovating' is the last thing we need. They need to be reigned in, not let loose. Celarnor Talk to me 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose-- Buster7 ( talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose Some good points though. Hús ö nd 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Ceoil ( talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose prefer people with more content creation experience. Crum375 ( talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose.. Modernist ( talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Weak oppose - I'm not generally a stickler for mainspace work as a prerequisite for admin-ish positions, but there's just too little here, even for me. I think Miranda said it well above. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance on our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with Coren's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. It's hard to envision this vote changing, but I am open to discussion. -- SSB ohio 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. SQL Query me! 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose. Two reasons: first, Coren turned up at an article in 2006 offering out of the blue to mediate a dispute for the mediation cabal. He had only 33 article edits at the time. When advised this wasn't enough for a mediator, he replied that those were his edits, "With this user yes," [1] which implied that the Coren account was a sockpuppet (and when challenged directly on that point, he didn't deny it). But during this election, he said he had never edited with another account. When I asked about the discrepancy, he said he hadn't really meant that he had another user when he implied he did in 2006. [2] Second reason: Coren has defended the use of IRC, denying that the medium lends itself well to misuse, and arguing that people should be allowed to speak candidly there, and that anyone who steps out of line (meaning, presumably, anyone on IRC) should be "bitch slapped." [3] I'm hoping the IRC "bitch slapping" mentality is one we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin talk| edits 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. Oppose -- Stux ( talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. Oppose Alexius Horatius 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose, "bitch slap"?! -- MPerel 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose EJF ( talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Coren&oldid=1222938841"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Coren

Hello!
I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work. As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement. Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.
I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it. Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.
I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:
  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
  • Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".
Thank you for your consideration.

Support

  1. Support. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Durova Charge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. -- Scott MacDonald ( talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. -- El on ka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. -- PeaceNT ( talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Avruch T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. kur ykh 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Protonk ( talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Support Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    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 me My work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Editor switched to Oppose, below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Pcap ping 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. RockManQ Review me 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Atmoz ( talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. L'Aquatique talk 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. ҉ I support him. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. -- Koji † 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. Daniel ( talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Support. rootology ( C)( T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Support John254 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Rjd0060 ( talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Weak support (only in that I more strongly support other candidates) - Would be a net positive if elected, low drama factor and cool head and mature outlook in conflict situations. Orderinchaos 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Support. ( rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Support, never had any problem with him as a collaborator and I have always been impressed by his admin work. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. A good candidate to ascend to the post. Mike H. Fierce! 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Synchronism ( talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Support. While I don't always agree with him, I think he will do a good job. I have not seen anything which makes me doubt this. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Support. Cirt ( talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. Rockpocke t 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Support. - Has large doses of WP:CLUE. // roux    editor review09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. Not necessarily familiar with him, but impressed by his ideas here. Rebecca ( talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Yes, why not. Stifle ( talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. — neuro (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Support — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Support as part of a ticket. -- Tikiwont ( talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Sure -- B ( talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. Support. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Support PseudoOne ( talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. Leatherstocking ( talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Support: not a big fan of the Kmweber unblock, but after talking to him, I'm impressed by his sense of ethics. Good show. Sceptre ( talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Support. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Support, Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. Support, strongly. Completely the right attitude. AGK 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Seen good things from Coren. Acalamari 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Syn ergy 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. Support-- Taprobanus ( talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. No pressing concerns, and would rather have this user than some others. Glass Cobra 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Support - lots of relevant experience, seems very competent. Warofdreams talk 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Support -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Support This guy's actually got some clue... ST47 ( talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Support --- Larno ( talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. Support I like that word. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Support Cardamon ( talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. PeterSymonds ( talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Support - Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. -- Tenmei ( talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Support. LLDMart ( talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Support - partly on reuptation, partly on statement/question.  —  Mike. lifeguard |  @en.wb 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. -- Sultec ( talk) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Joe Nu tter 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Support Knows exactly what ails Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder ( talk, visit) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Support -- CreazySuit ( talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Support Good administration. -- Raayen ( talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. — Anonymous Dissident Talk 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Lego Kontribs TalkM 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Support. Solid thoughtful guy that I suspect would make a solid thoughtful arb.-- Kubigula ( talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Support. Enforcement is needed. CIVIL is over-powering real policies & gaming has multiplied. PR talk 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Kusma ( talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. Support -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Support — αἰτίας • discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. Support Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. Support - Tājik ( talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Support - User seems to know the tough intricacies of this type of work.-- Zereshk ( talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  88. Support - Very competent admin. will make a great arbitrator. Pocopocopocopoco ( talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  89. Support A steady hand is needed here. And fairness. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible. — neuro (talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.-- Tznkai ( talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  90. Support -- Node ( talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  91. Support -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support. -- Wayiran ( talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  92. Support. -- Niko Silver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  93. Support. Baku87 ( talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  94. Support'' Happy‑ melon 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  95. Support. I can't easily put my reasoning into words other than to say that I believe Coren has Clue, and Wikipedia should be a Cluocracy. Guy ( Help!) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  96. Support: I may not be a hardliner myself, but I know a good one when I see one. ☺ Coppertwig( talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  97. Support -- VS talk 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  98. Lucian Sunday ( talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  99. Terence ( talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  100. WP:100 - Has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  101. Agree with increasing transparency into the reasoning of the ArbCom's decisions. - Fedayee ( talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  102. Yes! - @pple complain 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Diderot's dreams ( talk) 04:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  104. Support -- 157.228.x.x ( talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  105. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  106. Seddσn talk 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  107. Support yay -- Mardetanha talk 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  108. Support Jd2718 ( talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  109. Support. Jonathanmills ( talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  110. — Animum ( talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  111. support JoshuaZ ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  112. support G4 poor but the rest seems OK William M. Connolley ( talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  113. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. Vancouver dreaming ( talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  115. Support Thoughtful (and thought provoking) answers to the questions (*grumble* something needs to be done to reduce the number of questions *grumble*) -- Regents Park ( bail out your boat) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  116. Support Since you are a clerk, you already know the ropes of ArbCom, its strengths, and its weaknesses, and should have an idea what you want it to improve. Leujohn ( talk)
  117. Support NanohaA'sYuri Talk, My master 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  118. Support tgies ( talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  119. Support. Parishan ( talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Clear appropriate priorities. Fred Talk 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  121. Support -- maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  122. Support -- Wayiran ( talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  123. Support Shenme ( talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  124. Support I tend to agree with Fatso's points below, but Coren has good philosophies, a great campaign statement, good answers to the questions, and have been impressed by his responsiveness. And as far as content-oriented editors and ArbCom, while I wish Coren had a bit more experience in Main Space, I think these elections are already doing a sufficient job rebalancing toward WP:ENC. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  125. Support Farmanesh ( talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  126. Support His dedication speaks for itself. - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  127. Supporthe has identified the "biased civility" problem which interacts with the weakness of arbcom in making content decisions. Sooner or later someone has to make a content decision and it should be on a scientific basis. I don't undertand the opposers' objections to his BLP stance. Email me if you wish. Mccready ( talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  128. Support I totally disagree with his view that sharply restricting our coverage of BLP would be beneficial, but I tend to agree with almost everything else he said. DGG ( talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  129. Support Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  130. Support - purely a balance vote for something that may well be in my head only. -- Illythr ( talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  131. Support ---- The Myotis ( talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  132. Support -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  133. Support -- agree with DGG's hesistation above, but strongly support overall. -- Bfigura's puppy ( talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  134. Support -- Has shown reasonable grasp of policy, and sensible priorities.— Kww( talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  135. Support -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  136. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  137. Support - feel from his/her statement that he/she has some good ideas particular on the need to take a hard line in some instances and viewson academic integrity and need to be careful on quoting people etc. Also decent views on BLP and on need for discretion by arbcom and on the OM case. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  138. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  139. Support ~ SunDragon34 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  140. Support Giants2008 ( 17-14) 03:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  141. Support — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  142. Support Switzpaw ( talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  143. Support — {{ Nihiltres| talk| log}} 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  144. Support-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  145. Grand master ka 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  146. Support - Xasha ( talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  147. Support. Gregg ( talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  148. Experience as a clerk will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  149. Support Epbr123 ( talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  150. Support. Willking1979 ( talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  151. Support. Sfrandzi ( talk) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  152. Support BrianY ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  153. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  154. Maybe next year? ++ Lar: t/ c 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I have found this candidate to not have the objectiveness to properly arbitrate important matters. Candidate is not interested in expanding encyclopedic knowledge-- Pensil ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.-- Maxim (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose. Talks tough, which is fine, but record suggest the user aspires to be the consummate insider, overly involved in wikipolitics/drama for its own sake; does not relate to content creators; far too many similarities to the busybody-admin model that has served so many users so poorly.-- The Fat Man Who Never Came Back ( talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Voyaging (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. per His Fatness Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. krimpet ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose this was a tough one. Ottava Rima ( talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose - too much of a enforcer mentality. I did a CU Sfacets once, which came back on opposite sides of the world, but Coren said it was him anyway. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Note: Sfacets said that he frequently traveled between Australia and Europe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Not within 3-4 hours. YellowMonkey ( bananabucket) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry. That checkuser was appalling. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 ( talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Because I feel that his wikignome work, while an asset to the project, is no substitute for article work in terms of how to hand disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    L'Aquatique talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I AM AN IDIOT! Forgot that when you EC it shows the whole page.... L'Aquatique talk reply
  12. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. Supports 'strengthening' (read: making more complex) BLP, which is an overly bureaucratic mess of 'special authority'. Prodego talk 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. A tad too prone for drama for my tastes. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. John Vandenberg ( chat) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. — Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose per Prodego, BLP needs simplification and reining in, not let further out of control. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Brilliantine ( talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. Ronnotel ( talk) 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose 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 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein ( talk) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. — CharlotteWebb 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Moreschi ( talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose Verbal chat 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    ~  priyanath  talk 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath  talk 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose ╟─ Treasury Tag► contribs─╢ 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Davewild ( talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. -- A Nobody My talk 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. Biophys ( talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. Among other minor issues, not having his own archives properly linked until recently is a signal of insufficient attention to detail and caring about others that is required of an arbitrator. Franamax ( talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose-- Caspian blue 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Alex fusco 5 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Has an us-vs-them mentality completely at odds with the goal of building an informational resource. Skomorokh 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Lack of intensive article-building experience is a concern. Also, from his answers to questions I get the impression that he will lean more towards using a cudgel than a scalpel. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose as per User:SashaNein. Anyone proud of being closed-minded (ie "hardliner") lacks the change we need in arbcom.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Mike R ( talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose -- Aude ( talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose Not the right temperament for the job. There's a difference between hard and firm. We need firm, not hard. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. - filelake shoe 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose -- Cactus.man ✍ 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. More mainspace activity is needed, especially if you are going to handle disputes with BLP/3RR/and edit warring. miranda 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. I would have preferred more definite statements that IRC should not be used, and that using checkuser to investigate an editor on your own hunch is a breach of privacy. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. GRBerry 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose RMHED ( talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Per Coren's views on BLP - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose (judging from the candidate's statement) Needs diplomacy, patience and openness to all sides Nicolas1981 ( talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. Eóin ( talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. -- DeLarge ( talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose dougweller ( talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose due to answer to confidentiality question. Secret trials destroy the credibility of Arbcom and the project. Cynical ( talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Not interested in building an encyclopedia. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one ( User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II ( talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose. Kablammo ( talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose Bad answers to almost every question. And Secret star chambers? Like I'm going to support that! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose - Almost zero interest in actually contributing to content. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Content work doesn't have much to do with ArbCom, given the number of cases which deal with user's who aren't regular contributors - for this reason, I agree with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Caulde 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. Aunt Entropy ( talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose - Shyam ( T/ C) 09:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose-- Iamawesome 800 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. There is much to like, respect and admire in this candidate who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I cannot support however as there seems too much of a desire to solve tricky problems by being firm rather than imaginative. I am also slightly concerned by answers to questions which indicate a willingness to block users who are critical and problematic but who haven't broken the community's own guidelines. SilkTork * YES! 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose It happens that I'm firmly with Silk on Coren's having much to offer—I have, in fact, never had a truly unhappy or disappointing experience with Coren)—and there are certain answers (most significantly, those with respect to why policy and process are important [or at least not always unimportant]) that please me, reflecting precisely the sentiments that I'd like a prospective arbitrator to hold. It is BLP (which has, after all, become, at least to those of us who recognize the primacy of the community, one of the two or three most important issues of this election), though, that gives me pause, and even as I think Coren well to understand that his personal views about what policy ought to be must be irrelevant to his construction of policy in his official capacity, I just don't know, finding as I do equally viable candidates with whom I am more comfortable, that I can take the chance, a conclusion I reach, I suppose I must say, with at least a little regret. Joe 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Tex ( talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. Strong Oppose. ArbCom being creative or 'innovating' is the last thing we need. They need to be reigned in, not let loose. Celarnor Talk to me 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose-- Buster7 ( talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose Some good points though. Hús ö nd 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Ceoil ( talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose prefer people with more content creation experience. Crum375 ( talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose.. Modernist ( talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Weak oppose - I'm not generally a stickler for mainspace work as a prerequisite for admin-ish positions, but there's just too little here, even for me. I think Miranda said it well above. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance on our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with Coren's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. It's hard to envision this vote changing, but I am open to discussion. -- SSB ohio 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. SQL Query me! 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose. Two reasons: first, Coren turned up at an article in 2006 offering out of the blue to mediate a dispute for the mediation cabal. He had only 33 article edits at the time. When advised this wasn't enough for a mediator, he replied that those were his edits, "With this user yes," [1] which implied that the Coren account was a sockpuppet (and when challenged directly on that point, he didn't deny it). But during this election, he said he had never edited with another account. When I asked about the discrepancy, he said he hadn't really meant that he had another user when he implied he did in 2006. [2] Second reason: Coren has defended the use of IRC, denying that the medium lends itself well to misuse, and arguing that people should be allowed to speak candidly there, and that anyone who steps out of line (meaning, presumably, anyone on IRC) should be "bitch slapped." [3] I'm hoping the IRC "bitch slapping" mentality is one we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin talk| edits 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. Oppose -- Stux ( talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. Oppose Alexius Horatius 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose, "bitch slap"?! -- MPerel 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose EJF ( talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Coren&oldid=1222938841"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE