Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Risker

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Risker

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It’s created by people from all over the world, drawn to the opportunity to share their knowledge, skills and talent, without material benefit. From brilliant writers to wikignomes, with many in between, there is one common thread: we all have hopeful hearts. We see value and potential in freely sharing knowledge with the world, in a single, widely encompassing source.

The same thing that makes Wikipedia special is also its Achilles heel. Bringing together such a large group of people from different cultures, social skills and educational levels means there is plenty of room for normal human disagreements. Disputes are magnified and can quickly escalate as a result of the imperfection of written communication combined with strong feelings and divergent interpretations of policy, English usage, and intention. When behaviour violates our policies, we employ dispute resolution. These processes seem to have more good intention than good effect, because they often fail to change the behaviours or resolve the dispute.

Arbitration is intended to address editorial behavioural issues with the goal of removing roadblocks to the continued improvement of the encyclopedia, yet it tends to do this in a remarkably superficial way. Instead of drilling down to identify the root cause(s) of the problems, it is largely dependent on the commentary of interested parties and context-free “diffs” that give only snapshots of often complex situations. Transparency is not a priority. Well-considered commentary is drowned out by acrimonious hyperbole and self-serving rhetoric. Arbitrators frequently fail to identify the heart of the problem, and their decisions give the appearance of taking the path of least resistance rather than the path to resolution. All who are involved come away disillusioned and disheartened, regardless of the final decision. The process itself exacerbates the harm it seeks to halt.

My contribution, should I be appointed to the Arbitration Committee, will be to ask questions and expect—and give—straightforward responses; to prevent arbitration pages from becoming just another battleground; and to encourage editors uninvolved in the conflict to develop evidence that dispassionately illustrates the core issues instead of the peripheral distractions. We need to re-establish the Arbitration Committee as a place to resolve disputes in a collaborative and positive way without inflicting further harm on ourselves, our hopeful hearts. Because, at the end of the day, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.


Support

  1. Strong support. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support--Maxim(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Only (Considered) Support Again, I shall be supporting only one candidate and, despite some other very worthy candidates, this is the one I feel is the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Black Kite 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Captain panda 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DurovaCharge! 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    upgrade to Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ priyanath talk 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, and personal trust. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - smart, ethical candidate with good tracing records of dispute resolutions Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support but only if you promise to keep up the amazing effort. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Most definitely. :) krimpet✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. iridescent 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong support Experienced, trustworthy and chock-full of good old common sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Steven Walling (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Not always in agreement with Risker on various things, but agreeing with me on everything is only one characteristic of a great arbitrator. There are others, and Risker has them. Avruch T 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Wise, fair, does not play people against each other, etc etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. -- Avi (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Koji† 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. iMatthew 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Consistently impressive. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong strong support, great candidate and no fool. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Graham87 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Atmoz (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Good content editor with the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. AgneCheese/Wine 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support Yes, definitely. J.delanoygabsadds 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. --MPerel 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Strong Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Will make an excellent Arb. GJC 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Per content contributions and answers to User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Risker. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. David Shankbone 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Smart, calming, incisive, really cares. All-around super.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Have had a strong positive opinion of this editor since before they became an admin, and nothing I have seen from them has shaken my impression that they are intelligent, mature and capable, good people skills, and will manage well in the sort of difficult multi-faceted situations ArbCom has to deal with. Orderinchaos 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. The fact that she was essentially drafted into running for ArbCom gives me confidence. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Risker has a lot of experience at ArbCom. She is level-headed and sensible and I believe she would make a great arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. –Outriggr § 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Eusebeus (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Synchronism (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. –Moondyne 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Although I disagree with Risker on a lot of issues, I trust this user to be fair - and you can't ask for more than that in an arb. Brilliantine (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support لennavecia 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support: good brain, good editor and a safe pair of hands. Giano (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Avenue (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. - Clueful, insightful, intelligent. Yes please. //roux   editor review10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support, seems levelheaded and likely to come up with useful ideas, and doesn't seem likely to exceed ArbCom's scope or try to create policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. — neuro(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Nancy talk 10:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Woody (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Verbal chat 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support 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 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Very solid candidate. Moreschi (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support ATren (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. RxS (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Scorpion0422 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Tex (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong Support -I have significant points of disagreement with her at present but I am confident that after she is elected, she'll come around just fine. But more importantly, Risker knows where her towel is. And then some. Thank goodness ArbCom in its infinite wisdom recently passed over making her a CU so the workload didn't scare her off. why my vote? blast me for it! ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. I trust Risker's judgement. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. Sceptre (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. From her honesty and high-class contributions over time, Risker is the perfect candidate, even though the Utopian rhetoric of her election statement makes me feel old and cynical. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  97. Support. She gets it. That's all. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Alæxis¿question? 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. --Kbdank71 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Thank you for answering my questions: good answers. Acalamari 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Pcap ping 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Strong support I opposed her RfA, don't know what I was thinking. She'll be the token hockey loving representative to the ArbCom. Enough for me. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong support- Allegedly is female. We need more female arbs, so women can approach about problems with sexual predators on wiki etc. One is not enough as there would be cases where anyone is friends with someone and should recuse (speaking generally, not about any specific case.) Sticky Parkin 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. --A NobodyMy talk 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. support - Yay, Risker! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I have the sense we frequently don't agree about various issues, but I have to respect and support the mature and thoughtful attitude on display here. MastCell Talk 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Close decision. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Synergy 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. If I could support only one candidate, Risker is who it would be. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support on the balance, she will, I think, be a reasonable arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Clearly a net benefit to the project. spryde | talk 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support MikeHobday (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support as I suckered her into her RfA, how could I not subject her to more torture...---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support --Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support One of the soundest, calmest, most sensible contributors I've seen, and a real asset to the project. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Tiptoety talk 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Forgive me, I think you're a suitable candidate. Support, and may God have mercy on your soul. DS (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. He handled wonderfully a BLP where I was implied. Very good judgement. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support ...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Best of luck. GlassCobra 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - seems level-headed, with good answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User is very qualified, but I might have chosen more than 7. I am glad he will get in without this vote. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Apparently I can vote for more than 7 and I am glad I am voting for the right candidate.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Dr. eXtreme 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support AniMate 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Alexfusco5 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. --Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. Khoikhoi 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Keeper ǀ 76 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support I was impressed with Risker's responses to the questions.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Seems to have clue, and Arbcom needs more women. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Too smart to pass up. I wince at "education levels", "social skills" and "English usage" in the candidate statement because I get tired of seeing cultural "explanations" used as a mendacious cloak for blatant, counterproductive attacks and time-wasting. On the whole, though, Risker clearly has the purpose of the project in mind in her thinking. --JayHenry (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support as I think Risker would do well on ArbCom. I agree with many of the comments above as well. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Bucketsofg 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Jayen466 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Mike R (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support --Aude (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Novickas (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. qp10qp (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support for her stated commitment to ask questions and gather information, rather than relying on the flawed evidence system. I hope she follows through with this idea. Chick Bowen 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Yes! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support --maclean 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support MOOOOOPS (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. —macy 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support knowledgeable, clever. --Raayen (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support - of course! She's a super admin - I've seen her at work many, many time. Does a tough job with minimum drama - Alison ❤ 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. LegoKontribsTalkM 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support: Careful, considerate, diplomatic, and committed to the principles and policies of Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support: Natcong (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Strongest Possible Support Outstanding track,civil,impartial ,diplomatic and yet firm after careful consideration of track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support. Clueful, level-headed and highly experienced - exactly what we need on the ArbCom. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Yes! ~Eliz81(C) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support vi5in[talk] 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. jo, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Strong Support per comments by PMAnderson below. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support The ability to remain neutral in disputes while remaining warm and courteous is quite important. Risker manages to embody this, in my view. Kylu (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support:Law shoot! 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. I certainly don't see why not. Grandmasterka 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support --Versageek 07:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support --Chapultepec (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Guettarda (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support - answers to the questions look generally very good, and I'd be lying if I claimed not to be influenced by the number of names above mine on this list belonging to users I highly respect. Mild reservations, that I hope will be taken under advisement: i. I would much prefer that all arbitrators divulge their identities to the community; ii. I'm not sure Risker demonstrates a full appreciation of the dysfunction of Wikipedia's current governance model (though she hits some of the points); and iii. I'd encourage Risker to do some reading into the BLP problem (Wikipedia Review and User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem are both excellent resources in this regard), as her answers in this regard are somewhat lacking. I've fully reviewed the opposers' rationales and do not find them persuasive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support dougweller (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. A man in space (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Tony (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Happy‑melon 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support-- Tinu Cherian - 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. BuddingJournalist 18:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. I have been unable to support any candidate so far, due to either not knowing who they are (neutral, no vote), or knowing exactly who they are (oppose!) from their actions and constant entanglements in drama over the past year. I've seen your name quite a few times over the past year in several messy 'warzones', but I am putting my faith on you not becoming a drama queen like several of the other candidates and sitting arbs. Please don't make me regret this. SashaNein (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. A voice of sanity. Support. Kosebamse (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support A very decent candidate. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Solid, long-term, stable and decent Wikipedian. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support A first-class Wikipedian. Poltair (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Supporting both a good candidate, and to counteract the ridiculous opposes. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. TS 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Wronkiew (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support--MONGO 02:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support for someone who sees more than "science" in their world view. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support -- Samir 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Terence (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support. One of the best candidate options. --Hectorian (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support N p holmes (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  220. support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  221. I wasn't too familiar with you in regards to arbcom matters, and as a result I actually read your answers to some of the questions, as well as looked through some of your DR participation. What I found is a user who makes a lot of sense and knows what they are bringing to the table. The second place standing almsot surprised me at first, but after reading up on you I find you deserving of it and my support. Wizardman 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support --Cactus.man ✍ 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Strong support: looks like a very thoughtful candidate. We need someone who is ready to take responsibility, but also give every issue a thoughtful analysis. Randomran (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support. Was intrigued by Sandy Georgia's comments, but it was really something that touched me in the statement above that did it for me. Tiamuttalk 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Has the right attitude to me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support - AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Looks like a good person though at this point I'm not sure that an ArbCom is even a useful thing to have. Haukur (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support - Jd2718 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support - The very first candidate I've voted for. Nandesuka (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support - Pointillist (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support - Fainites barleyscribs 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support - Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  236. Support --VS talk 01:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support - Shyam (T/C) 09:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support--Michael X the White (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support--Iamawesome800 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support - Highly qualified candidate, no concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support - Great, trustworthy editor. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support Most definitely.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  245. —Dark talk 06:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support talks to the little guy ;-) cojoco (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support Knows clearly who ArbCom is, what it does, and what he will do should he be in it. Leujohn (talk)
  248. Support Seems to know when to drop the hammer, and when to let the little things pass.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support - Strong Candidate. Risker did once imply she'd help me out with a copyedit that she never delivered - but that's hardly sufficient to sink an otherwise outstanding candidate. WilyD 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support Gives every evidence of both being able to keep track of a towel and point others towards the linens closet. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Strong Support; I am very impressed by candidate's opening statement and my review of candidate's contributions. I belive that this candidate's big picture view is a guiding light that can assist in performance of arb duties, and can help provide needed leadership on the committee. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support — CactusWriter | needles 10:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support Per excellent answers. I believe she'll bring good things to the table. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support One of the better candidates tgies (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support — clue detected. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Aynabend (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Alun (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Support Gazimoff 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support Thought I already had. Clearly not. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support Although I am reluctant to put Risker on the receiving end of my vitriol when the Arbcom makes bad decisions, I expect these occasions will become less likely with her on board. Ameriquedialectics 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Support Húsönd 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support per Fred Bauder and Elonka. Skinwalker (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support Just what we need on the committee - a strong, intelligent, assertive woman. :) Sarah 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support A reasonable and level-headed candidate. Certainly wouldn't hurt to get another woman on the committee either. Rje (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support--Dacy69 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Support--Vintagekits (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support, not only on basis of good statement, but the fact that some folks I respect also favor the candidate. Having had no interactions myself w/ the editor, that seems like a fair metric. --Jim Butler (t) 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support --- The Myotis (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support Bikasuishin (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  275. I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: no concerns on timeliness, keen willingness to learn, and outstanding answers to my questions (although they fell a little short in Questions 1a and 2). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 3. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Support as overall very impressive, good analysis on civility, slight caution that a neutrally-worded description of pseudoscience is liable to be unacceptable to its adherents unless it's weaselly enough to give credence to their claims. Answers to "what is it?" should really be verified from third party expert views rather than from proponents. dave souza, talk 13:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support -- Banjeboi 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  279. miranda 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support -Dureo (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support For various reasons, in particular the opposes don't convince me and I liked your answer to my questions - you've clearly done your homework before standing. ϢereSpielChequers 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Eóin (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support. Arbcom needs more clueful women. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support she seems a decent candidate with a good view on BLP and okay views on need for privacy and discretion Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support Switzpaw (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  289. support E104421 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support. alanyst /talk/ 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support JavaTenor (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support. — xaosflux Talk 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support Sarcasticidealist puts it as would I, only more concisely and persuasively. Bonus points, by the way, for objecting to the breadth of the the "footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision, which, for the reasons I set forth, amongst other places, here, reflects all that is wrong with the committee. Joe 06:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Support, per Kelly Martin. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Support Wkdewey (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  299. Support AlexiusHoratius 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Support --Stux (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  301. Support. --Alf melmac 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. RockManQReview me 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Have witnessed her inflaming conflict rather than resolving it. Epbr123 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Not a reflection of your judgment nor activity; but you've only been an admin since May. I'd prefer the candidates be more experienced in this area before becoming arbitrators. Good luck, anyhow. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Not ready at all. Prodego talk 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't really see anything groundbreaking or anything that shows how ArbCom needs to change from its current state. I can't support a candidate who even gives off the impression that they'll bring more of the same. Mike H. Fierce! 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Caspian blue 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry, I believe her judgement is clouded on too many issues - mostly involving civility and vested contributors. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Has no clue about the purpose of Wikipedia, escalates conflicts. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose — Sorry, but this candidate;s support and enabling of vested editors at the expense of those who have only been here a few years encourages conflict; also this candidate's refused to answer questions regarding a very recent instance of this. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not really a fan of people who achieve so much in so little time, you became an admin just in May this year and though I'm opposing now, and if this doesn't pass, and you apply next year, I will certainly support..--Cometstyles 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Gentgeen (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Am uneasy about this candidate. At RfA that would probably earn a neutral. For this position, it's an oppose. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Michael Snow (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Vocally supported by some of our worst editors, the sort ArbCom should restrain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kusma (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - wikipedia needs an unabashedly scientific viewpoint. you failed to support this when given the opportunity. Mccready (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose - either evidence is shown to the person it is being used against, or it is ignored. That should be non-negotiable in any project based on fairness. Cynical (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose A decent person, however one who has a tendency to be dogmatic. As a result this individual fails to sufficiently investigate the issues and seems prone to arbitrary and arrogant actions. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Too likely to be reasonable. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Per Ryan and Matisse. Sorry. —kurykh 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Does not support enforcement of Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 20:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Oppose, has shown the kind of partisan politicking that I hate to see in any administrator, muchless an ARBCom member. suggesting the images that show "bodies of [American soldiers" should be deleted from the project] without explaining how it's any different than the countless images of dead Germans, Bosnians and Jews that we host. Arguing that "any" image taken by Afghan militants should be deleted as "propaganda", removing a short .ogg video clip of a watch being taken off a body from [[w:Looting article because it showed an American soldier, when coming across a content dispute, simply deleting the freely-licensed image of three dead American soldiers and suggesting that the user who removed the image, breaking WP:3RR, should not be punished, after his/her attempt to simply remove it from the article was reverted. Not a good sign for an admin, even worse sign for ARBCom to have someone clearly "voice their opinion through the autonomous use of admin tools to silence opposition", deleting files they don't want listed on certain articles instead of using talk pages or user talk pages. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. My single interaction with that user, where he criticized an admin who warned an uncivil user, didn't leave the best impression on me.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. SBHarris 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Caulde 14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. SQLQuery me! 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -- lucasbfr talk 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Risker&oldid=1221636597"