Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Roger Davies

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Davies

Update (5 December 2008) - links to discussion of key issues: Secret evidence • Biographies of living people • POV-warring • Incivility • Undoing admin actions • Former arbitrators on the mailing list • Arbitrator recall • Vacating arbitrations • Reforming checkuser/oversight rights • Speeding up decisions • Tendentious editing and civil POV pushers.

With ArbCom perhaps at its lowest ebb, and attracting high levels of dissatisfaction, this incoming tranche of arbitrators will not only have to handle cases but also face reforming the way the committee works. Perhaps the most urgent priority is tackling perceptions of growing irrelevance, lack of transparency through excessive use of private space, and delay. I believe I am well-equipped for the job as I have considerable parallel experience.

Introducing me ... in a nutshell: active editor since April 2007; a Milhist coordinator since August 2007; administrator since February 2008; Milhist lead coordinator since March 2008; significant contributor to five featured articles; copy-editor for six more; dispute resolver; and intermittent wiki-gnome. See my user page for more wiki-biography stuff, article lists, languages and so on.

Otherwise, I'm calm and analytical, with no axes to grind. I try to combine civility with brevity and good humour. (Strangely, I also enjoy drafting text for simplicity and clarity, and have done a far amount of this with Milhist guidelines.) I rarely get irritated and never show it. I am used to negotiating consensus in difficult and/or innovative areas. So although I have had much to do with Wikipedian organisation in general, I have had little to do with ArbCom and thus come to this with a fresh mind.

If elected, I am likely to

  • spend the first month or so easing myself into arbitration, while I learn the ropes thoroughly and familiarise myself with what has gone before;
  • use my position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency, a minimum of secrecy, and faster decision-making;
  • prioritise winning back the support of the community;
  • seek consensus (probably through open workshops) for developing fast-track and summary procedures.

Support

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Captain panda 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tom B (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Banime (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Majorly talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support bahamut0013♠♣ 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Steven Walling (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Avruch T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support Great user, intelligent, not crooked, doesn't mess other people around. Hard worker. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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 meMy work 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Reasonable approaches to most positions. Gimmetrow 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Graham87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. A sound, level headed voice for the community. AgneCheese/Wine 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support - Shot info (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Epbr123 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Pcap ping 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. From what I've seen of him, he seems to be a good editor. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -MBK004 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. We need some fresh voices in ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Strong Support - excellent grasp of policy, phenomenal at both discussion and conflict resolution, level-headed. In short, exactly what ArbCom needs. Cam (Chat) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --MPerel 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong support. Among his many excellent qualities, Roger understands that the role of Arbitrator is much more than what's written down at WP:ARBPOL. There is no doubt he'd be an excellent arbitrator. --JayHenry (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support: Intelligent, experienced, and keeps a cool head - all useful attributes for this job! Walkerma (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - Roger has been the Lead Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject for some time; he has wlays been kind, courteous and helpful, excellent wualities for an Arbcom candidate. Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - From what I can tell, he understands policy and understands the need for reform in ArbCom. He gets my support. -- Nomader (Talk) 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Roger has an outstanding ability to work with other editors to resolve disputes and excellent leadership skills. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Has lots of clue, stays calm in disagreements with the most vociferous of opponents. Woody (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support لennavecia 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. —Dark talk 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Hell yes. Rebecca (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Black Kite 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I was only going to support seven candidates, but I'm impressed enough to make an exception.[reply]
  51. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strong support. - much clue, devoted to transparency. Yes please. //roux   editor review10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. — neuro(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support G.A.Stalk 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support You have always acted with gallantry and with the best of intentions. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support 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 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support per SandyGeorgia. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong support PseudoOne (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Patton123 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. I tossed a coin to decide whether to vote for you or Jay, for my seventh (and final) support vote. I trust you both and would like to see you on the committee, but making eight or more would be counterintuitive. So, congratulations on winning my coin toss, although I doubt either of you two actually need the support :P Sceptre (talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. I have been very impressed with Roger in all of my dealings with him. He is level-headed and infailingly polite. I trust his judgement. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support on the basis of overall cluefulness and experience as a content contributor. I like the insight evidenced by requesting a one-year slot. I'll admit I found your answers to the questions a bit vague, and the one on NPOV/scientific consensus mildly concerning, but the overall package looks deserving of support. Best of luck. MastCell Talk 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Yep, few concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support JonCatalán(Talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Yeah. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. AGK 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. NVO (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On balance, some concerns in questions but not quite enough to prevent me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support--Taprobanus (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Strong Support He is always very professional, calm, and a good person to work with on MILHIST stuff.Joe Nutter 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support per his excellent work within WP:MILHIST. —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Synergy 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Good experience, good understandign of policy. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support United Statesman (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Incredibly hard worker. Deserves it. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - has good track record and relevant experience for ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I voted more than 7, but I am glad user will be elected hopefully. He is more than qualified. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Apparently I can vote for more than 7 and I am glad I am voting for the right candidate.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support...Modernist (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Would prefer this user over others running. GlassCobra 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support hard working and sans drama. definitely a wikiperson. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. With apologies to Prodrego, Arbcom's first and last job is the protection of the encyclopedia. Everything else is an optional extra. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Alexfusco5 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Strong Support - very cool, carm, collected and experienced editor who always goes "above and beyond the call of duty" to assist in any way possible. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per above. Khoikhoi 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Aramgar (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support, although nearly swayed by Durova below. Your article work and MILHIST experience are skillsets that will serve you well. Keeper ǀ 76 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Tiptoety talk 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. +S++ Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. –Moondyne 08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. RelHistBuff (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Strong support. I absolutely trust Roger; in the time I've known him he's demonstrated great personal integrity and sound judgement, and would be a valuable asset to ArbCom. EyeSerenetalk 13:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support --Aude (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support Looks like a sound Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support - Biruitorul Talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. support --dab (𒁳) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Level-headed, well-respected but not a cabalist, co-ordinator of one of the project's finest projects, understanding of high-end content and how arbitration can best serve content rather than contributors. Skomorokh 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. qp10qp (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support.Denverjeffrey (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --Moni3 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support See the problems beyond the rules (the spirit of the law) --Raayen (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Though I think you may later regret being appointed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. TimidGuy (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong Support Outstanding track after close review and the user is diplomatic and truly with no axe to grind.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support vi5in[talk] 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. I believe he would serve dutifully and with dedication during his term. He would be an asset to Arbcom.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. You strike me as very similar to the current Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. If you are cut from the same mold, then you will definitely be an asset to arbcom, and I will gladly support you as a fellow candidate. Wizardman 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Someone with the ability to deal with all users fairly and calmly is what we need at Arbcomm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support I believe he will do good for wikipedia and is more than capable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Happy‑melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. BuddingJournalist 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. Good head on his shoulders, and a great--and succinct (which I like very much)--answer to my question. S.D.D.J.Jameson 19:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Per the rest. 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) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Regretful support as I fear election will harm the MilHist project, but I have my fingers crossed. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. Novickas (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Wronkiew (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Terence (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. --Hectorian (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. If he doesn't get in this time, I hope he stands again next year. Pointillist (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Intelligent, supportive, responsive, well organized. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. In my interactions, I have found the user as quite dedicated and thoughtful.Bless sins (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strong Support. But I warn you as I warned, Casliber earlier- Don't allow the ArbComm's corrupt political culture to change you, instead change it, for the better! R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Randomran (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. —macy 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Emphatic Support. Candidate has expanded his position on confidentiality to such an extent that I now wholeheartedly agree with him Cynical (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support—Tony (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. There are those whom I see opposing because they don't believe Roger has the "stones" to make the difficult decisions, to make waves by stepping on the wrong editors' toes. For me, ArbCom should be a good mix of types, so I see no problem with Roger's apparent preference for calm and considered dispute resolution. That he has only made eleven blocks since his becoming an administrator is to my mind a good thing. While often a block is inevitable, we are sometimes too quick to do so instead of making at least a couple of attempts to engage with a difficult user. Oh, and also due to a good answer to the "BLP question"; too often I think we forget that this is just a (well-read) website that doesn't a God-given right to do what it wants. Steve T • C 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. An independent thinker who has dealt with cases extraordinarily in the past. Caulde 12:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Has gained my trust, a good candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Jd2718 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support --Eurocopter (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support --VS talk 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support -- EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support, - Shyam (T/C) 09:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support To offset "The Uninvited"'s garbage oppose reason. Very telling of how reliable and competent the current arbcom is. Really sucks that we have to put up with that one past this election, as he has proven time and time again that he's completely unfit to serve. SashaNein (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Appears likely to be ineffectual, a positive characteristic. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Suppport Maxim(talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - In addition to being a fine editor, his platform of more tranparency and quicker decisions will be greatly beneficial for ArbCom. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Awadewit (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Canglesea (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Sure. Tex (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. One more. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Great goals in ArbCom. Leujohn (talk)
  173. Support Per my reasons. MBisanz talk 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support and wish my best! --Aynabend (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support — Read enough, has clue and made the list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Gazimoff 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Fred Talk 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support Húsönd 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Xoloz (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Seems to be a good candidate for ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, very good answers to my questions (although they fell short in the last parts of Question 4), and timeliness is ok. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 6. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support -- Banjeboi 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  189. Support Grandmaster 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. SUPPORT Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Kyriakos (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support -- Samir 05:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. I'v no doubt he'd be an excellent Arb. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support. I've changed my vote to support after Roger convinced me that he's an excellent candidate. SlimVirgin talk|edits 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support, changed after discussing matters with the candidate. If there's one thing I'd love to see on ArbCom, it's the ability to engage in calm and well-reasoned dialogue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Switzpaw (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. (rationale) rspεεr (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support - Xasha (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. — xaosflux Talk 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support, per the answers to Lar's questions (although I'm iffy about the very last one...) Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support. Although this candidate wasn't one of the seven I originally decided to vote for based on candidate statements and Q&As, I've looked at his wider contributions to the project as a whole, and been so impressed that I want to support him as well. - Gregg (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. No major issues. Acalamari 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support AlexiusHoratius 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support   PseudoOne (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support. Sarah 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Very concerned this editor doesn't have the experience with our "rougher" areas but willing to take the chance. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. I've been impressed with what I've seen of this candidate, and I feel he would be a valuable addition to ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support RMHED (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) One of the candidates I initially supported withdrew. Switch to support. Maxim(talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nothing personal, but I picked a group that I want to win. RockManQReview me 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read WP:ARBPOL I don't see that on there. Prodego talk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's implicit in Rules 1 & 2 and explicit in the policy those rules refer to. (See examples here.) --ROGER DAVIES talk 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Caspian blue 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Switched to support. rspεεr (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Answers to questions say nothing - either he doesn't know what he thinks, or he's not saying. Naive on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - not impressed with the conflict around Mrg3105. I don't want such things from an Arb. Colchicum (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hugely Strong Oppose. Franamax (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed from simple oppose to strongest possible oppose based on the candidate's incredibly arrogant pursuit of Durova's oppose on the talk page. Two qualities I look for in any person are good-nature and humility. I see neither here. Simply unacceptable, here goes another disastrous year for ArbCom. Franamax (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment--ROGER DAVIES talk 08:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved to my satisfaction, striking oppose vote. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. The bane of our election process is that it favors people who work hard and don't step on any toes. These people may be great Wikipedians, but are they really equipped to handle the site's toughest disputes? The 2008 ArbCom has been plagued with too many milquetoast pass-the-buck remedies. Remedies that address serious administrative misconduct by asking people to play nicely together; remedies that delegate authority to WP:AE in the form of general sanctions. And as we've seen many times including very recently, those discretionary sanctions can cause more trouble than they solve. It's time to elect arbitrators who have a track record of solving conflict, not sidestepping it. Roger Davies has blocked only 11 people during his tenure as an administrator--which has only been since February of this year. Those blocks were easy calls. You're a wonderful Wikipedian, Roger. But you're too green for the position you're seeking. Come back in 2009. DurovaCharge! 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Durova pretty much sums it up. I think you do a fantastic job on Wikipedia, but while your "when to listen, and when to tell people to shut up" balance is right for Wikipedia as a whole, I don't think it's the right mix for Arbcom. – iridescent 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. While I think of you highly as an editor I too have concerns about your current level of experience for an arbcom post. I definitely think you could make an excellent arbitrator in future. I suggest you build up some more experience in conflict resolution this year and reapply in 2009.Nrswanson (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. I find the candidate's answers to my questions evasive and am concerned about the effects of a spirit of reform with an absence of specific proposals. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's unfair to call flatly refusing to reveal personal information "evasive". I am surprised you asked them when you yourself "have discontinued active daily participation in Wikipedia" [because of] ... "growing risk of personal and professional harassment". Also, I outlined priorities for reform in my candidate statement. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If anyone is interested, I've expanded Questions 1, 2, 3 and 6.--ROGER DAVIES talk 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Pertinent questions asked in good faith have been dismissed, as unimportant. That does not bode well... I would expect ArbCom members to be more transparent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While the questions may have been asked in good faith, they should not have been put in the first place. Revealing that much personal information would enable a proficient googler to identify me and my home/professional address in no time. A few years ago, an internet nutter whom I had crossed did get my home address (by collating snippets), posted it on forums (where it probably still is), and threatened to fire bomb my house and kill my dogs. --ROGER DAVIES talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    <Sarcasm>oh that's not disturbing at all....</Sarcasm> Cam (Chat) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I told the dogs all about it immediately, of course. They went and wrote last letters, looked wistfully at bars of chocolate, sharpened their teeth etc :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Gentgeen (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Doesn't have the stones.--Koji† 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. kurykh 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose - I liked a fair bit of what I read, but I'm chiefly concerned by i. vague answers to many questions, ii. lack of grasp of the BLP problem, and iii. never having heard of Wikipedia Review, which I can't help but to think is sympomatic of a lack of awareness of critique of Wikipedia. My recommendation would be that if he really wants to be an arbitrator, he should spend the next year involving himself in Wikipolitics in all of their unseemiliness and then, if he still thought Arb Comm was a worthwhile use of his time, run next year. Of course, current vote counts suggest that my advice is likely to be moot. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At the candidate's request, I have reviewed his recent additions to his answers. I'm considerably more impressed now with his understanding of the BLP problem, but I remain concerned that he's too much a novice to Wikipedia "political" issues (and there is emphatically no shame in not being immersed in Wikipolitics) to be ready for Arb Comm at this state. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Kusma (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk)22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote. Cynical (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Sarcasticidealist Arkon (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose per Durova. Also concerns about answer to Rspeer's question. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Per this terrible answer to a critical question. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per Durova, and because I felt that some of the answers were a bit evasive. (To avoid misunderstandings: I am not talking about personal details, and I can't really point the finger on it.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) — Now strongly oppose based on completely unacceptable reactions to oppose votes. Another Arbcom member with a huge ego problem? No thanks. This kind of attitude usually leads to candidates failing even RFA. There is no way I can trust this user to be impartial. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose I have nothing whatsoever against the candidate but don't know them well enough to support and would prefer to see others in the top 7. If Roger gets in I would wish him luck and have no real problems supporting his judgement based on what I've seen, but I'm not sure that a support would be a vote for the kind of change we need to see up there. I'm also sympathetic to Durova's viewpoint as expressed above. Orderinchaos 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. OpposePer all concerns above.--Iamawesome800 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Per Durova above. Reading through the answers to the candidate's questions reminds me of the American political philosophy of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Every answer is tailor made to offend nobody and keep as neutral a position as possible. Sorry, but I want Arbcom members who are actually willing to make a stand on issues and get bloodied up a little bit, rather than political weasels who are going to create an Arbcom that is going to be every bit as useless as the current incarnation. Trusilver 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Durova and (especially) Trusilver, I would want answers that actually take a position, not that have a lot of words but still say nothing at all. Also seems to want to expand BLP, when we need to do the exact opposite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to support.[reply]
  35. Oppose per Durova --Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per Trusilver and the general impression I have about the high volume of replies the candidate has for oppose votes, which frankly read as obstinence. I think the candidate would be inflexible as an arb, and resistant to listen first/ decide later mentality that I think is needed on ARB. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Switched from support, more recent comments give me a deep fear of what you will support on ARBCOM. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose tgies (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. "Oversighting should be limited to removing identifying data (street address, school name, date of birth etc) rather than real names" ← Well no, a real name is often identifying data by itself. Not everyone's name is common to the point of being stereotypically British . Also your responses on BLP seem to endorse the use of double standards and overemphasize the role of "notability", and I'm not seeing much if any prior involvement with the arbitration process. More bluntly I'll admit having never heard of you until a month ago. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger has clarified his comment [1] but I still disagree. Some people will accidentally or cluelessly out themselves, but that's no excuse to disregard an otherwise legitimate privacy concern. If you're not willing remove a user's real name from the view of remarkably unwelcome stalkers, what point would there be to remove other information (especially that which any Joe Six-Pack can figure out once they have the name)? Vote stands. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. I came here intending to support, because Roger's obviously a good editor, and I want to see active content contributors on ArbCom. But having read through everything, two things concern me. First, people should be allowed to oppose without being challenged; I feel some of the responses above were too aggressive. Secondly, the answers to most of the candidate questions lack substance and detail. I'd worry that Roger would become too much like some of the ArbCom members we have already. Sorry, Roger, but we need change. SlimVirgin talk|edits 06:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Roger has convinced me that he's got what it takes. Switching to support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose as concerns about understanding of due weight on science issues, and about inexperience. . dave souza, talk 13:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose this time around. Undoubtedly a good QP editor. Perhaps would be a more suitable arbcomm member upon gaining a better understanding of how WP:UNDUE squares with WP:NPOV. Answers to questions also a bit of a concern, as they were somewhat lacking in explanation of his reasoning. .. Kenosis (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Oppose due to the unfortunate intersection of his BLP views and his views on the role of ArbCom in creating policy --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Good views on BLP and decent enough in other ways but unfortunately I feel his views on privacy and discretion by arbcom are a bridge too far into the everything must be public camp for me. For reasons of privacy and others, discretion is sometimes necessari and although it should be used with extreme care but for better or worse and due to the nature of the arbcom sometimes things including trials can and should be kept private. One of the more difficult decisions of those I really looked in to (the current top 10 or so) Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. SBHarris 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose --B (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Philosopher says it beautifully. Joe 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn: I mis-read his Q&A. - Gregg (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Sunray (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. SQLQuery me! 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate because of their strong argument in favor of transparent processes, given the stonewalling I've encountered in trying to get information out of ArbCom regarding the summary expulsions of editors without any public process. However, that was until I read their stance giving unqualified support to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy and even supporting more Draconian measures. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy's grasp would only serve to make things worse, and their support of 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 this editor'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. That said, I am open to discussion about withdrawing or changing this vote, if the evidence warrants. --SSBohio 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. -- lucasbfr talk 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Roger_Davies&oldid=1221636726"