This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!
I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as
WP:AMA. As can be seen from my work at
the medcom, I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close
AfD's where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events
here thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my
talk page.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, with some reservations due to the incidents referred to in the opposition table. I strongly approve of his diligence & his anti-exclusionist stance on Arbcom. —
It's-is-not-a-genitive13:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Seems to think that Wikipedia should include only facts that people don't find offensive, while it omits facts that some people might find offensive. How can anybody with such a perspective have a claim to such a high position?
Corax06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very good at organising MedCom, but I've never seen him in action on any mediation, and it seems a little like it was just an addition to his WikiResume. A also worry a little about his age, sorry. —
Asbestos |
Talk (RFC)16:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for reasons already expressed by others above. This was a tough decision as he is doing a great job at MedCom.
Rje19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Oppose. Candidate thinks "I believe in criminal rights" is relevent to arbitration. Arbitration is not a judicial or a penal system.
Fifelfoo22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above I like Redwolf24. But the distinction between a judicial system and Wikipedia arbitration is an important one for an arbitrator to understand, e.g., trolls could argue that they are allowed to waste more of our time because they weren't afforded "due process."
17223:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!
I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as
WP:AMA. As can be seen from my work at
the medcom, I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close
AfD's where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events
here thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my
talk page.
Redwolf24 (
talk)
19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Support, with some reservations due to the incidents referred to in the opposition table. I strongly approve of his diligence & his anti-exclusionist stance on Arbcom. —
It's-is-not-a-genitive13:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Seems to think that Wikipedia should include only facts that people don't find offensive, while it omits facts that some people might find offensive. How can anybody with such a perspective have a claim to such a high position?
Corax06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Very good at organising MedCom, but I've never seen him in action on any mediation, and it seems a little like it was just an addition to his WikiResume. A also worry a little about his age, sorry. —
Asbestos |
Talk (RFC)16:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, for reasons already expressed by others above. This was a tough decision as he is doing a great job at MedCom.
Rje19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Very Strong Oppose. Candidate thinks "I believe in criminal rights" is relevent to arbitration. Arbitration is not a judicial or a penal system.
Fifelfoo22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per above I like Redwolf24. But the distinction between a judicial system and Wikipedia arbitration is an important one for an arbitrator to understand, e.g., trolls could argue that they are allowed to waste more of our time because they weren't afforded "due process."
17223:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply