I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in
DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.
My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.
My
biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.
I notice a few voters making reference to my stated reluctance to stand, and I fear some may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. My reluctance is absolutely not to be understood as an unwillingness to serve, and I give a pledge to play an active part in ArbCom and devote to it all the time necessary. The reluctance comes only because every minute spent on ArbCom business is a minute not spent writing new articles, or improving existing ones. I hope this makes the situation clearer, at least. Perhaps it's just my good old-fashioned English modesty getting me in trouble again.
David |
Talk22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, although I have not previously interacted with this editor, his contributions and answers to the questions are impressive.
Jonathunder02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Dislike politics like approach to arbcom, but stablility and thoughtfulness of statement and answers convinces me. I also always support reluctant suitibles.--
Tznkai06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, despite Oleg's oppose (I hate it when rollback is used for non-vandalism reverting), as his qualities more than offset that one incident.
Dan100 (
Talk)
11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, sensible and level-headed. And yes, a rollback is "no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert" so I wouldn't hold that against him.
Radiant_>|<13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I think the below comments about rollback are a little too sensitive. Sensible, and being willing to cut to the chase makes him awesome like thunder.
Prototc15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. He is dedicated to Wikipedia, but his current line of work, and his initial reluctance to stand for the position, yields uncertainty. I would be more inclined to support him in a by-election for vacancies later in the year. --
KHill-LTown20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Seems very experienced, however, if you enjoy writing articles more, why not just stick to it? I decided not to nominate myself because of precisely that reason. --
NorkNork19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, very down-to-earth as politicians go, didn't realize how often I'd encountered him in discussions and assumed he was a different David. Agree also with the storm in a teacup thing. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:58, Jan. 13, 2006
Support I have withdrawn my opposition vote. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is still new and still rising, so there is no need to worry about "balances of power" quite yet. This canidate is very qualified and will be a fine ArbCom member.
Deckiller16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I thought his view on IAR was too liberal, but a very level headed and sensible clarification on his views on my talkpage showed that Dbiv is a good man for ArbCom responsibilities.
Sjakkalle(Check!)06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When asked to not use the admin rollback button against well-meaning editors, Dbiv claimed that it is "fuss over nothing", and also found "this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless"
[2]. Admittedly it was a minor matter, however, the response was not appropriate for a future arbitrator.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I feel he lacks committment to Wikipedia process and policy. His membership of controversial orgs like SEIG also make too politcal and thus too partisan. All users need to feel they can trust ArbCom.
Axon (
talk|
contribs)
10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Given the nature of the position, I will not support someone who doesn't appear to want to do the job (the risk of him dropping out mid-term is too high).
Rje13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If you state that you don't really want to do this job in your candidate statement, I am not going to support you. Pretty simple.
Dr. Cash01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose his opening statement I dont want to be here but... opposition with drawn due solely to my misunderstanding of the candidates reluctance to stand
Gnangarra16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, because he has knowingly recreated properly deleted content, even after he attempted and failed to get undeletion consensus. That's enough for me.
Postdlf22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in
DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.
My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.
My
biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.
I notice a few voters making reference to my stated reluctance to stand, and I fear some may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. My reluctance is absolutely not to be understood as an unwillingness to serve, and I give a pledge to play an active part in ArbCom and devote to it all the time necessary. The reluctance comes only because every minute spent on ArbCom business is a minute not spent writing new articles, or improving existing ones. I hope this makes the situation clearer, at least. Perhaps it's just my good old-fashioned English modesty getting me in trouble again.
David |
Talk22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, although I have not previously interacted with this editor, his contributions and answers to the questions are impressive.
Jonathunder02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Dislike politics like approach to arbcom, but stablility and thoughtfulness of statement and answers convinces me. I also always support reluctant suitibles.--
Tznkai06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, despite Oleg's oppose (I hate it when rollback is used for non-vandalism reverting), as his qualities more than offset that one incident.
Dan100 (
Talk)
11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, sensible and level-headed. And yes, a rollback is "no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert" so I wouldn't hold that against him.
Radiant_>|<13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I think the below comments about rollback are a little too sensitive. Sensible, and being willing to cut to the chase makes him awesome like thunder.
Prototc15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. He is dedicated to Wikipedia, but his current line of work, and his initial reluctance to stand for the position, yields uncertainty. I would be more inclined to support him in a by-election for vacancies later in the year. --
KHill-LTown20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Seems very experienced, however, if you enjoy writing articles more, why not just stick to it? I decided not to nominate myself because of precisely that reason. --
NorkNork19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, very down-to-earth as politicians go, didn't realize how often I'd encountered him in discussions and assumed he was a different David. Agree also with the storm in a teacup thing. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:58, Jan. 13, 2006
Support I have withdrawn my opposition vote. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is still new and still rising, so there is no need to worry about "balances of power" quite yet. This canidate is very qualified and will be a fine ArbCom member.
Deckiller16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I thought his view on IAR was too liberal, but a very level headed and sensible clarification on his views on my talkpage showed that Dbiv is a good man for ArbCom responsibilities.
Sjakkalle(Check!)06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When asked to not use the admin rollback button against well-meaning editors, Dbiv claimed that it is "fuss over nothing", and also found "this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless"
[2]. Admittedly it was a minor matter, however, the response was not appropriate for a future arbitrator.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk)
00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I feel he lacks committment to Wikipedia process and policy. His membership of controversial orgs like SEIG also make too politcal and thus too partisan. All users need to feel they can trust ArbCom.
Axon (
talk|
contribs)
10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Given the nature of the position, I will not support someone who doesn't appear to want to do the job (the risk of him dropping out mid-term is too high).
Rje13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If you state that you don't really want to do this job in your candidate statement, I am not going to support you. Pretty simple.
Dr. Cash01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose his opening statement I dont want to be here but... opposition with drawn due solely to my misunderstanding of the candidates reluctance to stand
Gnangarra16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, because he has knowingly recreated properly deleted content, even after he attempted and failed to get undeletion consensus. That's enough for me.
Postdlf22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply