Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Tony Sidaway

Tony Sidaway
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Wikipedia is growing fast, and its response has been to secrete a shell of bureaucracy as sclerotic as any state. Too many rules, too many feet to tread on. Too many new editors scared away.

Arbitration is intrinsically slow and unscaleable. Administrators are individuals working in loose cooperation, which does scale.

Too many cases are reaching arbitration. We should be careful about the cases we accept, and give administrators more technological power by working with developers to share ideas for more tools to help them. Alternatives to blocking, more flexible IP and username blocking arrangements, more watchlists for administrators, subscribable watchlists, edit throttles for edit warriors, per-page blocking. Spending time and effort on this will be worth our while as a committee because it will reduce our caseload by empowering and strengthening Wikipedia's immune system.

Abusive treatment of newcomers starves the community of new blood and unnecessarily expands the class of disaffected trolls and vandals. Edit warring and biting by administrators and other experienced editors should be taken seriously because it drives people away. I want to focus on this. The administrators should take the bulk of the load, but the Committee should act as a check on the administrators.

The Arbitration Committee has a resource of previous cases and decisions, and what ensued from those decisions, that amount to the wisdom of some of the best wikipedians. The Committee, augmented by interested former members, should from time to time make non-binding recommendations to the community for policy clarifications or changes, with the aim of stimulating Wikipedia's immune system and reducing arbitration caseload.

Questions

Withdrawal
As I have lots of votes for and against but am around 30% shy of the pack, it's time to withdraw. Thank you to all who voted in this election, --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Bjelleklang  -  talk 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --badlydrawnjeff 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Guettarda 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Shanes 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Don't agree with him on everything. But think he'll do a good job. The Land 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Antandrus  (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) – ugen64 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Haukur 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Agnte 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, as per The Land. --Trevdna 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Trevdna does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Registered at 16:58, October 5, 2005. Registration date determines suffrage, not date of first edit. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) LW izard  @ 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. &mdash;David Levy 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support SqueakBox 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support We've had our disagreements, but I think he'll do well. Soltak | Talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Carbonite | Talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Mark 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) TacoDeposit 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Policy question answers impressed me. As did use of word "sclerotic". Batmanand 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support --CBD &#x260E; &#x2709; 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with policies, but sometimes troubled by demeanor.
 * 11) Support--Duk 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support-- anyone who can recognize the behavior of a bad admin (such as Karmafist) and is willing to take a stand against it amidst complacency can't be all bad. and is likely pretty good. r b-j 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- we need more to be as decisive. --Wgfinley 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support KillerChihuahua?!? 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Crunch 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Phil Sandifer 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Bobet 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - I think he's too inclusionist, and he thinks I play with my deletion button too much. But his attitude toward policy is spot-on. FCYTravis 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Rhobite 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Protecting the powerless (as per Brian's neutral vote) is an awesome thing. Matt Yeager 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support &#8592;Hob 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) uh-huh Grutness...wha?  04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Great policy understanding. Rx StrangeLove 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) I have disagreed with Tony many times but in every case he has always been clear and fair in his discussions. He possesses an unusually strong ability for self-assessment and willingness to consider all angles. Tony is insightful and has the right attitude. I think he's nuts for wanting to be on arbcom, but I must Support him in this venture. --Gmaxwell 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) FOo 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support ObsidianOrder 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - strongly disagree with some of his actions but support the need for an independent voice on ArbCom. Impressed by candidate statement and answers. --Muchness 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Willardo 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Willardo does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 51 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. &mdash; Catherine\talk 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, seems a calm voice &mdash;Ashley Y 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - The platform I most agree with. Courageous, honest, and, err, well, bat-shit crazy. --- Charles Stewart 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support I became a better editor from my interactions with Tony. Even in the face of my previously hostile demeanor, he was the voice of reason and calm. I want an arbitrator that will do the hard work, make the tough choices and stand his ground.--MONGO 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Oppose

 * 1) Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Friday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyking 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  00:16, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 7) Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Owen&times; &#9742;  00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) brenneman (t) (c)  00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) With respect and praise for his work. Sdedeo (tips) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Nunh-huh 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. -- Миборовский U 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. -- Dragonfiend 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) WhiteNight T 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Ambi 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per, , , and  and this one, although it was funny. karmafist 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose with utmost respect for his contributions --Angelo 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose, civility.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfC. Editor admits egocentricity. Xoloz 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Pissing off bad users is one thing, but too many confrontations with good ones for me to support. Johnleemk | Talk 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose per Johnleemk. Kit 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. LOL. As if. Grace Note 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Reluctantly oppose: given amount of controversy this good editor is often involved in, this role probably is not the best fit. Jonathunder 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose - Too confrontational, involved in too many disputes. Paul August &#9742; 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His account was created at 2:26, November 24, 2005. Registration determines suffrage, not time of first edit. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as we're being pedantic anyway, you mean 12:26. (Bystanders, see my talk.) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, Giving someone who appears to think he's a law onto himself MORE influence doesn't seem like a good idea. --Calton | Talk 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Sometimes we need people who will be bold, but Arbcom should represent community consensus, and I'm not sure that's the case here. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --Viriditas 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose 172 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose.--ragesoss 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Goes in for long-winded shouting and hand waving. We have quite enough already, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose freestylefrappe 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose User:Dottoreso 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose --Heah talk 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose as per Calton, Paul August, Johnleemk. Hamster Sandwich 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Prefers unilateral action to community and consensus. Kaldari 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose – Lacks the temperment for such a vital role.  – ClockworkSoul 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose --Tabor 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose —Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. android  79  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Too polarizing. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Strong Oppose User is has to much controversy Brian | (Talk) 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. --Angr ( tɔk ) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Too much hand waving, little substance. jni 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose, Great Wikipedian, but attitude does not seem appropriate for ArbCom —LeFlyman 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Neutral

 * 1) * &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-9 02:43
 * 2) Agree with his positions sometimes but not his attitude. novacatz 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --cj | talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) The userbox dispute has put me on the sidelines. Previously I had a very good perception of him. Elle vécut heureusement  toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Userboxgate was bold misstep, but I concur with his ideas on leveraging Admins and new tools to safeguard Wikipedia and keep it from being mired down in its own good intentions. Admins should be a big deal. - RoyBoy 800 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!