Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Wehwalt

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Wehwalt or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * Example: I am supporting this candidate because I feel they have the necessary qualifications for the position. Examplevoter, 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am opposing this candidate, per my comments on the talk page. Gatoclass (talk) 08:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * This candidate thinks everything is hunky-dory with BLPs and no changes are needed, strong oppose.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Primarily a content creator, therefore oppose: ArbCom takes up time that could be spent on content creation; also, ArbCom is about behaviour issues, not content issues; prefer to see more conflict resolution experience (such as Xavexgoem has). SilkTork  *YES! 16:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Every interaction I've had with Wehwalt in his role as an admin has show him to be thoughtful, conservative in his use of tools, and keen to reach consensus.  Arbcom, and wikipedia as a whole, would benefit greatly by his election.  Can't voice my support strongly enough. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I initially voted for Wehwalt. However his inability to distinguish between a good faith editor like administrator and the highly problematic editor  disqualifies him as a potential arbitrator and made me change my vote.  Mathsci (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually did the same thing. The unilateral unblocking of User:Die4Dixie makes me doubt his judgment, and I can no longer support. Sorry. AniMate  23:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support. I admire three things about this editor, not counting his prodigious article contributions: (1) even in the heated environment of a contentious article, he keeps his cool, (2) he conscientiously separates his editing opinions from his administrative actions (note: I do not mean to disparage other admins in this regard), (3) he has the courage of his convictions. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - see a lot to agree with, and no serious grounds to disagree - exercises good judgment and will likely handle the pressure-cooker of ArbCom well. Solid contribution history, which is something most candidates in this race can't offer. Orderinchaos 04:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per concerns on talk page. MastCell Talk 19:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Wehwalt's commentary in the run-up to Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying (mostly at the talkpage of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Statement re Wikilobby campaign) was, in my opinion, dangerously naive: I do not want arbitrators who cannot see through the biases of nationalist POV-pushers. Moreschi (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Wehwalt is a bit of a stickler for fair process and is a good voice of reason when people are going apeshit in discussions pertaining to taboo areas. I'm not sure I'd want an ArbCom solely of people with his approach, but as one voice of 18, he will be a good addition. Martinp (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Policy wonk who allows his slavish devotion to prescriptive canon eclipse whatever common sense he has, as illustrated in the Die4Dixie incident. Badger Drink (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose I share the concerns raised by Gatoclass and Moreschi. I find it particularly disappointing that Wehwalt pledged not to make administrative decisions in the Israel-Palestine domain during the election for his adminship and has now flip-flopped saying that he sees no reason why he should recuse in such cases when they are before Arbcomm. T i a m u t talk 09:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Moreschi's concern, and related concerns over possible partisanship in the Israel-Palestine conflict area – which would also make the unilateral unblock of Die4Dixie highly problematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the Die4Dixie incident, and his views on BLP. Secret account 19:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral - I'm not quite convinced he is ready to be part of ArbCom yet, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 21:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)