Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Gwen Gale


 * The following voting is preserved as an archive of when the candidate withdrew. Please do not modify it. No further votes should be added to this page.

Support

 * 1) — CharlotteWebb 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Antandrus  (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Switzpaw (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  iride scent  00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * 5) Oren0 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  krimpet  ✽  01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) RockManQ Review me 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Atmoz (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. The AC doesn't know how to kick ass when it's needed, and therefore needs an ass kicker. rootology  ( C )( T ) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  kur  ykh   03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Reluctantly support In nearly every instance I've seen her on ANI, Gwen seems to have no hesitation in cutting through crap and issuing blocks while others dither. I'd hate to see her devote less time to Admin tasks in favor of ArbCom work, but if that's where she thinks her talents are most helpful, then more power to her. Chris  (complaints) • (contribs) 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Synchronism (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) Oppose due to some interaction that makes me doubt her abilities as on arb comm. While I think Gwen is a good editor, I don't think she has the best skil set to listen and discuss, which is needed as an arb. Note: I'm not watchlisting this and do not want to show diffs as it links to my old username, which I'd prefer not to do. Will provide them if neeeded.  StarM 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I don't think this user is ready for arbcom yet.—  Ѕandahl  ♥  00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) -- 'Kanonkas' :  Talk  00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  Voyaging (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) You seem like a good editor, but having an editing restriction in the past makes me queezy. ~ the editorofthewiki ( talk / contribs / editor review ) ~ 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose - While I respect you as an admin, I think that the Arbcom needs editors who will take action after carefully considered thought, rather than vice-versa. – Toon (talk)  01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Per: details  MBisanz  talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Steven Walling (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose  Majorly  talk  01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Caspian blue 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Good admin, arbitrator requires other talents. Avruch  T 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Gwen Gale wasn't even on my radar, positively or negatively, until this week, and then I was involved in an incident with her and her judgment gave me such pause. So for that, I oppose, and suggest she looks into how she deals with disputes. Like it or not, this is the highest community "court" or what have you that we have here, and after what I saw, I don't want her on it, probably ever. Mike H. Fierce! 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20)  iMa tth ew  01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Sorry :)҉ --  Mix well ! Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) I'm sorry, but you really sunk it for me on Talk:Rush Limbaugh.  I found your arguments and sources on there to be a disgrace, frankly.  Or, User:Avruch said, "I think some of your arguments have been disingenuous, and beneath what I believe your intelligence and perceptive ability to be." David  Shankbone  02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) "As for transparency worries, I haven't even been on the admin IRC channel" ? IRC is not evil, as with all things it can be misused. (and per answers to questions) Prodego  talk 03:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) GRBerry 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose BJ Talk 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. (rationale)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Too soon after some quite significant concerns. --JayHenry (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) My overall impression of Gwen is positive, but I can't say I thoroughly trust her judgement for this position.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) John Vandenberg (chat) 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Weak oppose. While I agree that ArbCom decisions are many times made slowly, most seem to be made in a reasonable amount of time. ArbCom does require a more gently touch when making decisions, though, and while swift action is often necessary for an admin, it's not usually a good thing (or required) with ArbCom issues. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above voting is preserved as an archive of when the candidate withdrew. Please do not modify it. No further votes should be added to this page.