Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/UninvitedCompany

Neutral vote below moved from main ArbCom page by as ArbCom elections don't supplement a neutral section; keeping here to preserve transparency.

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral Candidate looks good, but did not answer one of my questions, so I will stay neutral. Anomo 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussions moved from voting page
Oppose. Though I first thought Univited was a very good candidate, leter I realized he has too extreme blind trust in admins. Justice should not be blind but fair. --Sugaar 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just had to comment here... Justice is usually depicted wearing a blindfold... Justice IS supposed to be blind.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In fairness, justice is blind only to irrelevancies (the stuff not in the scales), and not blind to evidence (the stuff in the scales)... Xoloz 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It is blind to their appearances, deciding based on their weight. —Centrx→talk &bull; 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AnonEMouse concerns
Moved from main page, per Centrx's request about moving long comments. Here's what my comment said (in smaller print, and not numbered, in an effort to conserve space).
 * Oppose, with greatest respect and reluctance, given the many supports. I see a worrying pattern in the candidate's answers to questions.
 * 1)  "Transparency for arbcom decisionmaking is a tough call...the need for transparency and public input is at odds with a fast process";
 * 2) "I don't believe that it would be wise to comment on a particular case.";
 * 3)  "I do not wish to comment on how I would vote...";
 * 4) again;
 * 5) "A great deal is made of the transparency of the arbcom decisionmaking process.... the side discussions and private discussions are not nearly as important as is generally believed.";
 * 6) "Anything that the arbcom does ... should be informed by the community's likely reaction... One of the reasons the arbcom appears opaque is its awareness of the presence of a reaction...";
 * 7) "... cumbersome safeguards ... are out of place. I don't think it's reasonable to expect that arbcom members won't talk to each other, or ... other people. Whether ... via email, telephone, IRC, or carrier pigeon is immaterial."
 * These are each well written and supportable statements individually; as a group, though, they show a worrying tendency of minimizing the importance of transparency, making the arbcom at least appear to be a star chamber where decisions are made behind the scenes and not explained. AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it to Weak Oppose after UC's addressing those concerns on my talk page, which makes me feel better. User_talk:AnonEMouse. I am still worried somewhat (that's a lot of points on one questions page!), but it is nice that he doesn't shrug off the concerns. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)