Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WilyD


 * The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

 * 1) Support, impressed by platform.-- Maxim (talk)  00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. rootology  ( C )( T ) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.  Has shown great judgment in a number of situations I've encountered him in. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. The "always sanction" platform looks odd at first, but I think it means he'll try to avoid accepting cases where sanctions are not needed. Previous judgment has been sound in my opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support - I concur with the interpretation given above. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --A NobodyMy talk 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Support an early mentor of mine ---Taprobanus (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Have severe misgivings about your candidate statement but answers to questions look quite good. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Mostly a moral support at this point.  When it comes to dealing with administrators, at least, it's true that ArbCom mostly gives out "hugs and handjobs".  This has unfortunately perpetuated our caste system between admins and non-admins and Wily's hatchet, though a cruder instrument than ideal, would give these cases a valuable tilt. --JayHenry (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I supported your RfA 19 months ago, no reason to stop supporting you today ...-- Cometstyles 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Answers to old Arbs on Arbcom mailing list and OrangeMarlin case were specific and dead on correct.  May be a too enthusiastic about punishment of arbitration cases but I'll risk it. Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Hi DrNick ! 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  Voyaging (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Elonka 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Very strong oppose. The last thing we need is more ban/block drama from Arbcom. –  iride scent  01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * 7) PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  krimpet  ✽  01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  kur  ykh   01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Candidate has made it clear that he accepts hypocritical double standards and the objectifying of users as long as it is done by one of his associates. In addition, user lacks a clear  understanding of civil and uses the policy to threaten behavior that questions the judgment of his associates. This is extremely troubling and disqualifies him immediately for ArbCom.  Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose  Majorly  talk  01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) per "hugs and handjobs". Good joke, but this is (relatively speaking) serious business. No one wants a hatchet job. They want considered improvement in the way ArbCom operates and its responsiveness to the community. Steven Walling (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Sanctions for every case, regardless of the background? That is like a judge saying "Every time someone is charged, at least one person is going to jail - I don't care who!" It doesn't make any sense. Avruch  T 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) I agree with Avurch, for one, and for two: We do not need even more block drama anywhere on the wiki, let alone arbcom... David WS  (contribs)  01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16)  iMa tth ew  02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Blocked MZMcBride for doing the right thing. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) --  Mix well ! Talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) RockManQ Review me 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. GJC 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) In so far I agree that the current arbcom is to lenient, a hanging judge is an extreme we do not need. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) "Because the ArbCom is too lenient" O_O! Nooooo it isn't.  Prodego  talk 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose per the FCC. BJ Talk 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Far too punitive. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) I was really not a huge fan of the answer he made to the anonymity question. I'd prefer that in this higher position, that the community at least has a vague idea of who the person is, yes, including their name. Mike H. Fierce! 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Strong oppose, per hatchets. (full rationale)  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) He keeps his finger on the trigger too often.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Caspian blue 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) -- Avi (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose - moar dramahz not necessary; incivility is a concern; I am concerned (due to his interactions with me) that this user is not as capable of remaining impartial as others are. // roux    editor review 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) <font face="Arial"> Peter <font color="#02b">Symonds  ( talk ) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Seems like this user would generate more heat than light. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) <font face="Trebuchet MS">&mdash; neuro(talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Strong 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 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose.  Is this a joke?  I hope so. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Just remembered this quote and it made me think of WilyD: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail." Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) This is not a joke entry, as I have witnessed him take extreme action with this odd behavior before. It's already scary enough that he's an administrator, but the least I can do is put in my STRONG OPPOSE vote to help stop this person from being put in a position to severely damage Wikipedia. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">Syn <font color="#222222" face="Times New Roman">ergy 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) I would seriously consider supporting if you ran under a platform of structured review and redevelopment. I oppose such a heavy-handed candidacy, however. Hope to see you next year sans the giant banhammer. AGK 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - cases should be judged on the evidence. We cannot be sure what remedies may be most appropriate in a case until the evidence is presented.  Even if we have an idea that harsh remedies may be required, we should remain open-minded until we see the evidence. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Glass  Cobra  00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8)  Alex ' fusco '<font color="Green">5  02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - Sedd&sigma;n talk 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10)  Tiptoety  talk 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  ѕwirlвoy   ₪  05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose' Knife play migth have its place, ArbCom ain't one of 'em. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I like your style, and you've always impressed me as sensible and clueful. I'd support you as a serious candidate, but I get the feeling this isn't a totally serious candidacy, so for now I have to oppose. Keep up the good work, though, and best of luck. MastCell Talk 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Ditto Keep up the good work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) I'm all for blood on the floor but your admin log says otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Миша 13  22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. <font face="century gothic" color="#eeff00">Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) ArbCom is about what happens in the Wikipedia namespace. His lack of participation there is alarming.   Marlith  (Talk)   04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Kusma (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Gentgeen (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Michael Snow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Wronkiew (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) While less leniency might be good, categorically stating that you will always impose some kind of restriction for every case at ArbCom is not flexible enough. Joe Nu  tter  21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. If evidence is too 'personal' to be given to the person it is being used against, then it can't be used. End of. Cynical (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose ArbCom is not the Police. --Michael X the White (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Terence (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Very Strong Oppose I simply cannot stand a regular Wikipedian that does not uphold WP:AGF, let alone an abriter. Leujohn  ( talk )
 * 33) Oppose. I actually liked the answers to the questions and was drifting toward a support. However, when examining the candidates contributions I was disturbed by a tendency to strong opinions, and the need to keep pushing that opinion rather than considering the alternative viewpoints. I think this sums up the candidate's position quite well. The repeated assertions that the candidate is right rather than considering what other people are saying does not give me confidence that this candidate would be a useful member of a committee. Stubborn and strong opinions are not useful ArbCom qualities. <font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork  *YES! 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose BigDunc  Talk 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.