Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Deskana

Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. -- Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC) reply
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.


Support

  1. Daniel 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Mitch 32 contribs 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Kurykh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. BLACKKITE 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Mr. Z-man 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. Snowolf How can I help? 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. —  Coren  (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Support-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Kei lana 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Icestorm815 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. spryde | talk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. ragesoss 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Chaz Beckett 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Rjd0060 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)# reply
  19. – Gurch ( talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. AniMate 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  24. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. ( Extended comments moved to talk page per guidelines). Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Support trusts their judgement in time-management Mbisanz 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27.  — master son T - C 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Gracenotes T § 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Support BobTheTomato 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. futurebird 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. -- Docg 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. - MBK 004 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. - Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. - Scarian Talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Unless his account gets hacked into. :) Prodego talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. sh ¤ y 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Captain panda 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Support -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. CIreland 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. JavaTenor 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Strong support. -- Core desat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Star dust 8212 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. krimpet ⟲ 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Support. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Carnildo 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. SQL Query me! 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. DGG ( talk) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Full Support Alex fus co5 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54.   M2Ys4U ( talk) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. - Royalguard11( T· R!) 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Step hen 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    -- Charitwo talk 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Charitwo does not have suffrage. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Rebecca 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Hús ö nd 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. · AndonicO Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. John254 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Trustworthy, hard-working, knowledgeable, and polite. Has my full support. AmiDaniel ( talk) 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support -- InkSplotch 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Hell, yes. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. ♠ TomasBat 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Strong Support -- Cobi( t| c| b| cn) 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. <shrugs> -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Support. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. -- Meno25 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:20,  December 3, 2007
  80. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Avinesh Jose 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. Yes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Support' — Jack Merridew 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Keegan talk 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Lara ❤ Love 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Jmlk 1 7 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Neil  ☎ 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. It might make sense for Dan to drop some of his other commitments to address the concerns below, but either way I think he would make a good arbitrator. Angela . 10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. I agree with Angela, he has a lot to offer and Arbcom job should be taken really seriously..-- Comet styles 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. -- Vassyana 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. If you find the time to that TOO! -- lucasbfr talk 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Support but only because you will leave MedCom if elected. Stifle ( talk) 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Support I share the concerns of Splash; but, on balance, I trust the candidate with this duty. Xoloz 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Support  Grue  13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. the wub "?!" 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Addhoc 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. KnightLago 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. -- barneca 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. JoshuaZ 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. VivioFateFan ( Talk, Sandbox) 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. ElinorD (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Jeffpw 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. KTC 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Per Xoloz. Dekimasu よ! 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Mango juice talk 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Really no questions at all over this user's ability to do the job. Having dealt with him over a detailed matter some time ago, I would emphasise his ability to maintain confidentiality of all parties while allowing those who have a job to do to do it as being a critical quality. Orderinchaos 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Of course. — Rudget contributions 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Mattisse 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Support. Concerns about concentration of power in few hands are valid enough. On the other hand, if a person already has n jobs and has shown that he can do them very well, then I guess we can trust him with the n+1st too. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Deskana has shown he can be trusted many, many times. Also, I have no concerns regarding judgement whatsoever. GDonato ( talk) 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. No problems here - Alison ❤ 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. Support - JodyB talk 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Support, I support this candidate.-- Isotope23 talk 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Support. R. Baley 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. I strongly support this nomination: Deskana has had an excellent track record with his responsibilities, and he'll make a great arbitrator. Acalamari 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Avruch Talk 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Avruch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. support -- Rocksanddirt 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. 'Support, though my preference would be that he resign at least one other role (in addition to the MedComm). I worry about the ability to adequately handle all those duties. - Philippe | Talk 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Support Sensible user. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. Thumbs up OhanaUnited Talk page 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. -- Tawker 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. Gets the Quadell Seal of Approval. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. NHRHS2010 talk 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Kbdank71 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. Excellent Judgement, will be a great arb-- Phoenix-wiki ( talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133.  Folic_Acid |  talk  20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. Davewild 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  136. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Fabulous, fabulous user. Fabulous. (trippling for effect :P). Regards, — Celestianpower háblame 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. — Ruud 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Support FlowerpotmaN·( t) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. Strong support Cheers, Je t Lover ( Report a mistake) 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. NF24( radio me!) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Toffile 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Strongly, WjB scribe 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  147. βcommand 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    -- arkalochori |talk| 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  148. EconomistBR 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  149. Support -- Brewcrewer 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. Adam Cuerden talk 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Support Greg Jones II 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support. Horologium (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Enuja (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. COGDEN 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  157. J-ſtan Talk Contribs 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. - Go od sh op ed 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  159. Yes. -- DarkFalls talk 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  160. I'm torn. I completely agree with the opposers about having any one person wearing too many hats... but at the same time, I feel Deskana's good at all those jobs, and would do his usual excellent job at being an arbitrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  161. Yes. Xdenizen 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  162. Support - Sensible, shown trustworthy and level-headed under fire. All important attributes for an arbitrator. FCYTravis 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  163. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  164. Support -- Cirt 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  165. Support -- Euryalus 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  166. Support Level headed and excellent judgement. Martintg 11:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  167. Support Arbcom members can get checkuser access anyway, OTRS is like reading junk mail with the occassional bill...crat vs admin, nope no concentration of power. Gnan garra 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  168. I only hope that Deskana does not become stretched too thin and as a result an inactive arbitrator. James086 Talk | Email 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  169. Support While I have concerns about concentration of power, I trust this user's judgment to exercise these powers in a responsible manner -- Versa geek 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  170. Support, absolutely. Deskana is an excellent admin, helpful, fair, and knowledgeable; a great asset for Wikipedia. I think he'll make a great arbitrator. Dreadstar † 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  171. -- Y  not? 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Okay -- Marcsin | Talk 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  173. Users trusted enough for OTRS access are, to my mind, sane enough to be arbitrators as well. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  174. support Pete.Hurd 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  175. Support. - Cumulus Clouds 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  176. Conditional support - take what the opposers say into account; try not to take on too much. Wizardman 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  177. Support Ioeth ( talk contribs friendly) 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  178. Support Noor Aalam 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  179. Support Excellent admin. -- SECisek 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  180. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  181. Hardyplants 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  182. Ariel ♥ Gold 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  183. - Zeibura ( Talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  184. Support. Had nothing but good experiences with this user and clearly has a solid track record (just don't overstretch yourself, Deskana ;) ) - Mgm| (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  185. Support - Merzbow ( talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  186. Support. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  187. Support - Spawn Man ( talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  188. Support - ScienceApologist's vote below got me thinking, but I actually like the answer given. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  189. Support. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  190. Support - Wondering if some opposers may come around if you were to take a time management course : ) jc37 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  191. Support Chardish ( talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  192. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  193. Support especially per your exemplary work as a bureaucrat. VanTucky talk 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  194. Support -- Quiddity ( talk) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  195. Support Professor marginalia ( talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  196. Support W/mint -Talk- 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  197. Support. Wetman ( talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  198. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  199. Dweller ( talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  200. Support. Why, yes. Ronnotel ( talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  201. Support Share concerns about "stretching" too thin, but otherwise OK docboat ( talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  202. Support. Calm and fair. Hopefully it won't be too many jobs, though. -- Sander Säde 14:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  203. Support -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  204. flip-flopping. I was concerned about Deskana having too much power, but looking at it again, Deskana's a good guy and I'm sure it won't affect him. I trust his judgement. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  205. Support semper fictilis 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  206. Support. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  207. Support Keeper | 76 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  208. Support, on the whole of my experience, Deskana is good, and editcountitis (including wherearetheeditsmadecountitis) is very bad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  209. Support — DerHexer  (Talk) 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  210. Support Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  211. Support. Loads of experience. Don't see any problem with "too many hats". Deskana must have time management skills by now. -- Fang Aili talk 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  212. Support Andrwsc ( talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  213. Support nat.u toronto 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  214. Support --   L A X  23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  215. Support. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  216. Support -- El on ka 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  217. Support -- θnce θn this island Speak! 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  218. Support — BillC talk 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  219. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  220. Support Peter morrell 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Kiyae ( talk) 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Kiyae does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  221. Support -- JuntungWu ( talk) 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  222. Support Grandmaster ( talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  223. Ravenhurst ( talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  224. Support Kelpin ( talk) 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  225. Tony Sidaway 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Amply qualified for the job. reply
  226. Support Good answer on the SPOV question in particular. Homestarmy ( talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  227. Support - KNM Talk 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  228. Support I've been particularly impressed with how this user has handled OTRS issues. Agne Cheese/ Wine 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  229. Support - Branson03 ( talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  230. Support Raymond Arritt ( talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Redstarsldr ( talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    User does not have suffrage Nick ( talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  231. Support. `' Míkka >t 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  232. Support -- Kleinzach ( talk) 07:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  233. Support, as the resignation from the Mediation Committee would remove the only problem, IMO. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 07:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  234. Support NQA. Brusegadi ( talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  235. Support Wimstead ( talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  236. Support — An gr If you've written a quality article... 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support -- Menti fisto 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Mentifisto does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  237. Support -- Springnuts ( talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  238. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  239. Support -- TimidGuy ( talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  240. Hiding T 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  241. Support -- Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  242. Support - I have no problem with Deskana having multiple positions at the same time as from what I see, he is managing fine so far. Greeves ( talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  243. Support   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  244. Support -- EdJohnston ( talk) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  245. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  246. Support Tonywalton  Talk 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  247. Tyrenius ( talk) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  248. 'support William M. Connolley ( talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  249. Wearing a lot of hats is not a problem, in my view ( I have more hats than Deskana does, after all, and seek another one). The issue would be if discharge of responsibilities became difficult. I don't see that as very likely in this case. Support. ++ Lar: t/ c 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. There shouldn't be worry about Deskana having too much power as the current privileges aren't really that uncommon among arbcommers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paiev ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2007
    User does not have suffrage, < 150 mainspace edits on 1st November. NF24( radio me!) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  250. -- Mark (Mschel) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  251. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Abd ( talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Abd does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  252. Chrislintott ( talk) 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  253. Support-- Aminz ( talk) 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  254. Support - wide-ranging experience, strong track record, would be a great person to have on the committee. Warofdreams talk 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  255. Support - John Carter ( talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  256. Support - An excellent candidate who has the right judgement and experience. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  257. Strong support. An excellent Bureaucrat. Bearian ( talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  258. I know him not here, only through checkuser-l and perhaps we haven't interacted directly, so I have no interaction with him at all but observed his manner to deal with confidential data, its analysis and attitude to other participants - from those, and also in my past interactions with other enwiki arbitrators, I think he'll be a good asset. -- Aphaia ( talk) 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  259. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  260. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  261. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  262. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  263. Support MookieZ ( talk) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  264. JJ Williams ( talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  265. Support per Angela. This is not the right place & time to worry about the number of hats. K issL 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  266. Support wbfergus Talk 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  267. Support I concur. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  268. Support Excellent candidate. The Bethling (Talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  269. Support Now that we have some more 'crats, I think Deskana will have time for this. If not, we can promote more 'crats :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦ ♫ 07:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  270. Support Suva Чего? 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  271. Merovingian ( T, C, E) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  272. Support, strongly. JERRY talk contribs 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  273. Support Chris.B ( talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  274. Support Has done well in all roles. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  275. Support Deb ( talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  276. Support -- Hirohisat 紅葉 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  277. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  278. Iamunknown 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) While I am concerned by the situation W.marsh describes below, I believe from my observations and Deskana's statement that Deskana is more tactful now than then; I would appreciate his input on ArbCom reply
  279. opiumjones 23 ( talk) 00:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  280. Support Has shown willingness to drop his commitments, so "not enough free time" isn't a concern for me. ArbCom is about dispute resolution, and he's shown he's more than up to that task. szyslak 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  281. Support Esrever ( klaT) 07:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  282. As it happens, my thinking tracks quite closely with that of Iamunknown just above me. Joe 08:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  283. Миша 13 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  284. Support - per above - Modernist ( talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  285. Support after long thought. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  286. Support Midorihana (talk) (contribs) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  287. Support Glass Cobra 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  288. Support. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  289. You poor doomed fool. I support this candidate. DS ( talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  290. Support Yilloslime (t) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  291. -- Son ( talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  292. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  293. Support - Prepared to discuss things, which is a definite bonus. Carcharoth ( talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  294. Strong Support Well deserving. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. No. See my rationale here. Nishkid64 ( talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Tim Q. Wells 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose An arbitrator should be patient, not brusque. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. I'm worried about if you could handle both Arbcom and being a bcrat at the same time, sorry This is a Secret account 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. No.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. -- W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    I have responded to W.marsh's concerns there, for all those interested. -- Deskana (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --( Review Me) R Parlate Contribs @ 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. MagneticFlux 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. Too unilateral, impatient and bureaucratic. RxS 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Slightly too new for my taste. Maybe next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. -- JayHenry 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose - Dureo 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Per W.marsh. — Cryptic 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Everyking 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose regretfully. [1] Eluchil404 ( talk) 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. - Jeeny (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. ~ UBeR 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. - Crockspot 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik• talk 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Too much influence for one user to have. Shem (talk) 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Mcginnly | Natter 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Worried about another E... Miranda 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. Awadewit | talk 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Dan Beale-Cocks 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Indented vote. Sorry, but 150 article edits were required by November 1 in order to vote in this year's elections. —  TKD:: Talk 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose, though I'm thinking about this still. Over-concentration of influence in one pair of hands is worth being concerned about up-front, not post-facto. Splash - tk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose PeaceNT 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Sorry but concentration of power and influence has proven to be a disastrous idea. Like Raul654 Deskana should be plenty busy as it is. EconomicsGuy 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Baka man 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. Honestly not quite sure why. Possibly being an arbitrator would distract from other, extremely necessary, duties. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Weak Oppose. Extended comment moved to talk page Walton One 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose Ripberger 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. -- Cactus.man ✍ 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. GRBerry 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Too many roles. Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Concentration of power, + w.marsh. Viridae Talk 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose Shot info 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. With regret. Keep up the bureaucrat work; we need the help. — Dan | talk 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Weak oppose. Very weak. Don't like the idea of a checkuser/arbiter/admin/crat...that much power shouldn't be concentrated. If not for Deskana's other responsibilities, I would support. Sorry. ♠ P M C♠ 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong oppose Extended comment moved to talk page @pple complain 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose per above comments.-- D-Boy 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Per above. Atropos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose per Nishkid, the balance between "Active Editors" and "Process people" is already shifted to much from the editors Alex Bakharev 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. >Radiant< 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose' Excessive involvement with OTRS; opposed desysopping one of our worst admins; supported by many of our worst editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Which administrator was that? -- Deskana (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Not Zscout (I have no idea what his admin work is like). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. No Support - Per the above. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. As @pple. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal a bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story. ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose. -- RG 2 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose With great regret, as I have lots of respect for Deskana, but The Earth isn't round by consensus, but by fact. As such, I must agree with SciAp, above. I am open to a different vote next go 'round, should you run again. ThuranX ( talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    In my answer to that question, I did state that we should state that the Earth is round in our articles. -- Deskana (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose. Viriditas 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose per ScienceApologist, and to avoid too many hats on the same heads. John Vandenberg ( talk) 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. -- MPerel 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose with regrets. Ante lan talk 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. No I really do apologise for this, but I feel there is, perhaps, a type of limit in regards to the kind of power one should be able to "wield". There are also other reasons that are quite minor relating to Deskana's past actions, comments and the like that leave me slightly concerned, but, overall, I think that Deskana is performing exceptionally well with the accesses that he already holds. -- Anonymous Dissident Talk 07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose Paul Beardsell ( talk) 10:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Too many tasks to juggle. - Mailer Diablo ( talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose per SA's concerns, as well as issues of separation of power. Skinwalker ( talk) 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose per the concerns regarding the wearing of too many hats above. Arbcomm members should also be relatively active editors so as to stay in touch with the problems in the trenches. Tiamut 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose - Bharatveer ( talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose Terence ( talk) 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose Closet creationist? Samsara ( talk •  contribs) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Too much power. Law Lord ( talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Strong Oppose Seems like way too much of an insider. Sukiari ( talk) 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Per SA ˉˉ anetode ╦╩ 01:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose Capable in his current jobs, but not the best fit for ArbCom. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 06:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose per Riana.-- cj | talk 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose-- Russianname ( talk) 09:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose. ArbCom needs fresh blood, not another of the "usual suspects". Nothing personal! Lankiveil ( talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  78. Oppose, M.K. ( talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose. Deskana seems to be a fine editor, but I am not convinced by his answer to the question w/r/t concentration of power, and if you are too busy with your current tasks to much contribute to mainspace, how are you not too busy for Arbcom? -- Gwern (contribs) 21:58 7 December 2007 (GMT)
  81. Oppose. Not satisfied with the answer to the NPOV vs SPOV question. Grahame ( talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose. Alæxis ¿question? 09:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Maxim (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. per Nishkid, I think you have enough on your plate. Arbcom is a serious time commitment. We have enough inactive arbcom members. -- Aude ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose - Perhaps when you have more time? --健次( derumi) talk 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose × Meegs 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. reasons on talk page. daveh4h 09:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Oppose - Ealdgyth | Talk 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo ^^^ 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose I think you have enough on your plate. Showers ( talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose -- Lucretius ( talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjB scribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Oppose per ScienceApologist. A Train talk 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Oppose Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. Oppose per Jd2718 Mindraker ( talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Mike R ( talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. I agree with Nishkid64. Saravask ( talk) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Oppose. Too much meta-work, not enough mainspace contribs. Bacchiad ( talk) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. too many hats Catchpole ( talk) 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Oppose - Per multiple other users - too many irons in the fire will result in prioritization issues. Risker ( talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Strong Oppose. Per separation of powers. Too much of a 'crat and a Jimbot and not enough of an article writer.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Wily D 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Oppose per above. Yahel Guhan 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. A look at your contribs tells me you've either forgotten why we're here or are already weighed down with all the extra hats you wear. Either way, you're not the right person to be on arbcom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    I have answered both of your concerns on my questions page. Have you read my answers? -- Deskana (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    You certainly did reply and I did read those answers, but they didn't convince everyone as can be seen from the similar opposes above. Like several candidates in these elections, I think you're deceiving yourself as to what will happen if, or in your case more probably when, you're elected. Even if you give up other things, medcab and/or part of the bureaucrat stuff, arbcom appears to be extremely demanding of time and energy. If you can't find the time to build the encyclopedia now, you certainly won't if you are elected. Either you'll be increasingly detached from the work of this project and life in the trenches or you'll be a part-time arbitrator. Neither of these outcomes is ideal, not for you and not for the community. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. oppose.-- nids (♂) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but not as good for the job as Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. I (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Oppose. A good editor and seemingly a nice person, but I oppose on the principle of too many hats, too much concentration of power COUPLED with the fact that I see nothing compelling about why this person should be on ARBCOM and in some cases I disagree with this person's positions. With all of these combined I oppose.-- Blue Tie ( talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Oppose. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Oppose An arbitrator should not be an admin. Alex Pankratov ( talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Deskana&oldid=1145854388"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE