Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Carcharoth: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Support: Support
Line 79: Line 79:
# <small>~&nbsp;</small>[[User:Priyanath|priyanath]]&nbsp;<small><i><sup>[[User talk:Priyanath|talk]]</sup></i></small> 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# <small>~&nbsp;</small>[[User:Priyanath|priyanath]]&nbsp;<small><i><sup>[[User talk:Priyanath|talk]]</sup></i></small> 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#I trust Carcharoth's judgment. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#I trust Carcharoth's judgment. [[User:Acalamari|Acalamari]] 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Not without reservations, but overall his thoughtfulness and maturity outweigh the fact that he almost never agrees with me. :) '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]'''&nbsp;<sup>[[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]]</sup> 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


==Oppose==
==Oppose==

Revision as of 18:00, 1 December 2008

Carcharoth

I'm User:Carcharoth, and I first edited in January 2005, began editing regularly in January 2006, and became an administrator in October 2007. My editing interests are mostly in the areas of science, history, and history of science - mainly gnomelike work but also bringing several articles to higher standards. I also have a long history of contributions in the project and other namespaces. I am standing for election to the Arbitration Committee to serve all members of the diverse community that build this encyclopedia. The attributes I think I would bring to the role, helping to resolve or end otherwise intractable disputes, are:

  • Flexibility to adapt to the needs of different cases
  • The time and inclination to carry out careful analysis of cases
  • Over two years sustained editing of Wikipedia with wide-ranging experience of different areas
  • Specific experience at administrators' noticeboards (especially AN and ANI)
  • Participation at Arbitration requests, evidence and workshop pages
  • Knowledge of the major Wikipedia policies and guidelines
  • Remaining objective and fair and being able to see both sides of a dispute
  • Being able to argue effectively and articulately for a particular position
  • Attention to detail, research skills and summarizing a debate to move it forward
  • The imagination to propose something different where it might help resolve a dispute

Over the next two weeks, I intend to expand on these and other thoughts in a longer statement in my userspace. I have been reviewing my editing over the last two years, and will be linking to examples of debates and discussions that I have participated in, to demonstrate what I might bring to the role. Concerning the specific major issues that have arisen this year in the English Wikipedia, I will be happy to answer questions on those topics, as well as areas not covered in this statement.

While considering whether to run in this election, I said to several other editors that I thought it would be particularly hard-fought. There are lots of able candidates that are standing in this election, many of whom care deeply about Wikipedia, even if there are differences in philosophy. Regardless of the outcome of the election, I pledge to support those who are elected. If I am elected, I pledge to work closely with the current and new arbitrators to resolve disputes in a timely manner and address the concerns of the community. Carcharoth (talk) 03:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Privatemusings (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Captain panda 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DurovaCharge! 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Must support the wolfman! Yes, I must, because his never-ending caution, explicatoriness, and readiness to work things through would be great assets to the committee. So I must... even though I have a nasty feeling I may be doing Carch a disservice, insofar as those are also qualities that may set him up for being the first new arb with burnout. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  9. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong support. I think he will add a very unique perspective to the committee.John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Expanded: John Vandenberg (chat) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tom B (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. iridescent 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. per Bish. Giggy (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Through involvement at every level of Wikipedia, and particularly prolific content generation, I've seen enough to trust Carcharoth's judgment to something so important as ArbCom, although it would be unfortunate to see other areas of contribution suffer for the sake of the worst of Wikipedia.--ragesoss (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - filelakeshoe 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Calmer and more thoughtful than most. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support From what i hear, a good contributor. Sam Blab 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Majorly talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Clear support - jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom, you this candidate was one of them. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Graham87 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. i <3 him --Mixwell!Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. We do not always agree, but seems reasonable. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. His willingness to allow editors a chance to work constructively is a net postive, IMO, and he has always shown clear judgement at ArbCom encounters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I think Carcharoth would make a good arb, but I also think Carcharoth's most beneficial contributions to a situation happen long before the situation gets to arbitration. Gimmetrow 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. SBHarris 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Kingturtle (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support.May cool heads prevail. GJC 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support John254 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. GRBerry 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support. Calm, knowledgeable, hard working. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Pcap ping 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Beyond a single ounce of doubt. Carcharoth is one of Wikipedia's most level-headed administrators, and a voice of reason in many difficult discussions. More than qualified for the ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. No negative interactions with him that stand out --B (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support. I am consistently impressed by his thoughtful approach to problems and I believe he has the qualities necessary to be an excellent arbitrator. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support every time I have collided with him I did agree with his judgement Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. I don't always agree with him or his actions, but I think he has been generally fair and would do a good job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Carcharoth has always struck me as fair and level-headed. I don't always agree with him, but I do agree with his approach. Enigma message 06:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Wronkiew (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Synchronism (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Fair and level-headed, as others have mentioned above. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, levelheaded, doesn't want to let BLP further out of control, and when Carcharoth gets involved in a tough situation, it usually improves. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Strong support. Clear and level-headed, good at defusing situations. Total asset to ArbCom. I don't think that not blocking users is a negative. // roux   editor review09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Rebecca (talk) 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Hmm... looks like nothing's wrong with this user... I support! --Mark Chung (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - Whenever I come across Carcharoth he at least tries to grapple with the evidence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --Conti|✉ 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support as part of a ticket. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support ATren (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support As solid judgement as we're likely to see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. ~ priyanath talk 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I trust Carcharoth's judgment. Acalamari 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Not without reservations, but overall his thoughtfulness and maturity outweigh the fact that he almost never agrees with me. :) MastCell Talk 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (see comments on talk)[reply]
  3. 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) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Whilst not his intention, I believe Carcharoth too often prolongs drama and defends disruptive users. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Voyaging(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Steven Walling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, will add reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sadly, he sometimes prolongs drama/disputes more than needed. krimpet✽ 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Smart guy, dedicated, thoughtful. I think he's been aiming at this since last year, so I've been watching, and I think that while Carcharoth would not make a bad arbitrator his contribution to the dynamic of the committee would take it in a direction I don't think is positive. Avruch T 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Weak oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - not everyone gets it, and not everyone should get second chances at disruptive editing. Sometimes, enough is enough and Carcharoth has failed to get that in the past. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Weak oppose. A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. AgneCheese/Wine 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. RockManQReview me 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mr.Z-man 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Prodego talk 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose - Too nice. CIreland (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose with regret. At ArbCom we need people who reduce drama, not incite it, and we need to move away from the sort of rigid/inflexible interpretation of policy this user favours. That being said, user does work in good faith and tries hard to do the right thing. Orderinchaos 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Orderinchaos said it nicely. Candidate needlessly gravitates toward an awful lot of disputes, sometimes offering sound reasoning, but often offering little more than his/her presence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Eusebeus (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Mike H. Fierce! 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak oppose. Excellent editor; agree with Avruch's comment. –Outriggr § 05:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Orderinchaos, Krimpet, Elonka and SandyGeorgia. Like Avruch, I've long felt that Carcharoth was positioning himself for the committee and while I'm sure that he acts in good faith and with good intentions, I find his tendency to prolong drama and to defend and excuse disruption exasperating in the extreme and I really don't want to see that transferred to an ArbCom which often already needs help in being prompt and decisive. I don't want ArbCom to be block or ban happy, but I do want them to be willing and able to act decisively and I find Carcharoth's reluctance to block/ban or otherwise take action, particularly when dealing with disruptive users, a big concern in a potential arbitrator. Also I must note that I'm really not comfortable with the whole AN:mainspace ratio, though it has nothing to do with my vote here. Sarah 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Regretfully - I think Carcharoth is one of our most fairminded admins but what is an asset as an admin is not necessarily so as an arb. Carcharoth has never blocked a single user, yet he is standing for a position that will at times require him to consider applying the harshest of sanctions. While his commitment to discussion and conflict resolution are commendable, an arbitrator's role is to make judgements rather than mediate. Carcharoth's strengths are IMO more in the latter category. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Has been positioning himself for this for a long time, but is not very decisive, which is what arbcom needs right now. Woody (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Seraphim♥ 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - for me, it isn't anything like a lack of blocks or other punitive measures. It's simply that, when confronted with evidence you take so long to come to any decision, and when you do it seems to always be a "perfect" compromise. This smacks of an inability to be decisive, which is not what Arbcom needs at the moment. Sorry. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. — neuro(talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Though he means well, Carcharoth has defended too many banned users for my taste. Skinwalker (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. oppose lacks the level of gravitas to his words which we need, at least to an extent, in an arb. Sticky Parkin 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. God, this is a hard one. I like the guy, but ultimately ArbCom's major job at the moment is to kick disruptive users who come their way off the project (along with desysopping rogue admins). I have confidence in Carcharoth to do the latter well, but not the former. Moreschi (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Carcharoth&oldid=255240663"