Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Physchim62

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Vote
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xaosflux (talk | contribs) at 04:41, 3 December 2007 (→Oppose: oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Physchim62

On 2005-05-01, I took advantage of a public holiday to read the Wikipedia tutorial, and started editing. At the end of October 2005, I took advantage of a week's holiday to read up on Wikipedia policies and answer the Community's questions, and I was granted admin status on 2005-11-06. Since then, Wikipedia has become much larger and much more complicated...

With more users, more admins and many more policies, it is understandable that there are more differences of opinion as to how those policies should be implemented. It is the role of the Arbitration Committee to provide concrete solutions for concrete problems which arise from these differences of opinion. It does not "legislate", or make policy itself—that role is reserved for the Community or, in some cases, the Board. It's role is to provide a forum, and the services of respected members of the Community, to decide that one interpretation gives better results than another. This role is valuable: it allows us to move on from our disputes and return to the important business of creating a free encyclopedia.

The Arbitration Committee can only operate with the confidence of the Community. It is not fifteen arbitrators (or thirty, or however many) who enforce the remedies: it is the Community as a whole. Arbitrators present or prospective should remember this in their actions.

Many criticisms of the Arbitration Committee are not the subjet of these elections. No candidate can promise faster case resolution, nor more arbitrators, nor shorter term lengths for those arbitrators: these are questions for the Community as a whole to address. Myself, I can only promise to respond to disputes which are brought before the Committee with an analysis of the evidence, and of Wikipedia policies and principles, leavened with a dose of common sense. Physchim62 (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Alexfusco5 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Moral Support. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. Too new for my taste, but his heart seems to be in the right place. Zocky | picture popups 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - Jehochman Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Coren (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Based on recent conterversy, including the WP:AN/I thread, and the Sadi Carrot case. This is a Secret account 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. futurebird 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Chaz Beckett 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Too many controversies lately spryde | talk 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Nufy8 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. – Gurch (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Woodym555 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. — TKD::Talk 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Poor conduct in arbitration cases. And, Secret, its the Sadi Carnot case, not the Sadi Carrot case! Third vote so far. Carcharoth 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. sh¤y 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. DGG (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Coredesat 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose- Dureo 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak oppose. Rebecca 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Especially concerning recent activities. KTC 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Serious misuse of administrative tools in topics in which he is involved or has a particular POV. --the Dúnadan 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Mercury 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretfully. Húsönd 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. per the ridiculous block of Hesperian --Stephen 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Ealdgyth | Talk 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. oppose Gnangarra 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. — xaosflux Talk 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Physchim62&oldid=175415037"