Home • Search • Translate
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Roger Davies

Update (5 December 2008) - links to discussion of key issues: Secret evidence • Biographies of living people • POV-warring • Incivility • Undoing admin actions • Former arbitrators on the mailing list • Arbitrator recall • Vacating arbitrations • Reforming checkuser/oversight rights • Speeding up decisions • Tendentious editing and civil POV pushers.

With ArbCom perhaps at its lowest ebb, and attracting high levels of dissatisfaction, this incoming tranche of arbitrators will not only have to handle cases but also face reforming the way the committee works. Perhaps the most urgent priority is tackling perceptions of growing irrelevance, lack of transparency through excessive use of private space, and delay. I believe I am well-equipped for the job as I have considerable parallel experience.

Introducing me ... in a nutshell: active editor since April 2007; a Milhist coordinator since August 2007; administrator since February 2008; Milhist lead coordinator since March 2008; significant contributor to five featured articles; copy-editor for six more; dispute resolver; and intermittent wiki-gnome. See my user page for more wiki-biography stuff, article lists, languages and so on.

Otherwise, I'm calm and analytical, with no axes to grind. I try to combine civility with brevity and good humour. (Strangely, I also enjoy drafting text for simplicity and clarity, and have done a far amount of this with Milhist guidelines.) I rarely get irritated and never show it. I am used to negotiating consensus in difficult and/or innovative areas. So although I have had much to do with Wikipedian organisation in general, I have had little to do with ArbCom and thus come to this with a fresh mind.

If elected, I am likely to

  • spend the first month or so easing myself into arbitration, while I learn the ropes thoroughly and familiarise myself with what has gone before;
  • use my position on the Arbitration Committee to work for greater transparency, a minimum of secrecy, and faster decision-making;
  • prioritise winning back the support of the community;
  • seek consensus (probably through open workshops) for developing fast-track and summary procedures.

Support

  1. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Cla68 ( talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Support Captain panda 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Rationale. Giggy ( talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Tom B ( talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Strong support SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. ~the editorofthewiki ( talk/ contribs/ editor review)~ 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Support -- Banime ( talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. krimpet ✽ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Support Majorly talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. Support bahamut0013 ♠ ♣ 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Steven Walling (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Avruch T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Strong support Great user, intelligent, not crooked, doesn't mess other people around. Hard worker. YellowMonkey ( click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. -- ragesoss ( talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. 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 me My work 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. Reasonable approaches to most positions. Gimmetrow 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Euryalus ( talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. Graham 87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. A sound, level headed voice for the community. Agne Cheese/ Wine 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Support. rootology ( C)( T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Support - Shot info ( talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Epbr123 ( talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Pcap ping 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. From what I've seen of him, he seems to be a good editor. Master&Expert ( Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Support - MBK 004 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. We need some fresh voices in ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. Strong Support - excellent grasp of policy, phenomenal at both discussion and conflict resolution, level-headed. In short, exactly what ArbCom needs. Cam ( Chat) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. -- MPerel 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Support Kingturtle ( talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Strong support. Among his many excellent qualities, Roger understands that the role of Arbitrator is much more than what's written down at WP:ARBPOL. There is no doubt he'd be an excellent arbitrator. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Support. Everyking ( talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Support: Intelligent, experienced, and keeps a cool head - all useful attributes for this job! Walkerma ( talk) 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Support - Roger has been the Lead Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject for some time; he has wlays been kind, courteous and helpful, excellent wualities for an Arbcom candidate. Skinny87 ( talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Support - From what I can tell, he understands policy and understands the need for reform in ArbCom. He gets my support. -- Nomader ( Talk) 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. Support Roger has an outstanding ability to work with other editors to resolve disputes and excellent leadership skills. Nick-D ( talk) 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Support Has lots of clue, stays calm in disagreements with the most vociferous of opponents. Woody ( talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Support لenna vecia 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. — Dark talk 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Hell yes. Rebecca ( talk) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. Black Kite 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I was only going to support seven candidates, but I'm impressed enough to make an exception. reply
  51. Stifle ( talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Strong support. - much clue, devoted to transparency. Yes please. // roux    editor review 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. — neuro (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. John Vandenberg ( chat) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Support G.A.S talk 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. Support — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Support — Bellhalla ( talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. Support You have always acted with gallantry and with the best of intentions. -- Narson ~ Talk • 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. 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 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Support -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Support. Cirt ( talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. Support per SandyGeorgia. Jehochman Talk 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Strong support PseudoOne ( talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. Patton 123 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. I tossed a coin to decide whether to vote for you or Jay, for my seventh (and final) support vote. I trust you both and would like to see you on the committee, but making eight or more would be counterintuitive. So, congratulations on winning my coin toss, although I doubt either of you two actually need the support :P Sceptre ( talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. — Gavia immer ( talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Support. I have been very impressed with Roger in all of my dealings with him. He is level-headed and infailingly polite. I trust his judgement. Karanacs ( talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Support Parsecboy ( talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support ChildofMidnight ( talk) 19:07, 1 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) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. Support on the basis of overall cluefulness and experience as a content contributor. I like the insight evidenced by requesting a one-year slot. I'll admit I found your answers to the questions a bit vague, and the one on NPOV/scientific consensus mildly concerning, but the overall package looks deserving of support. Best of luck. MastCell  Talk 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Yep, few concerns. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Strong support JonCatalán (Talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Support. Yeah. Ceoil ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. AGK 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. Support. NVO ( talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    On balance, some concerns in questions but not quite enough to prevent me from supporting. Davewild ( talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Support Mathsci ( talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Support-- Taprobanus ( talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Strong Support He is always very professional, calm, and a good person to work with on MILHIST stuff. Joe Nu tter 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Strong Support per his excellent work within WP:MILHIST. — Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. Syn ergy 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Support Good experience, good understandign of policy. -- Patar knight - chat/ contributions 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. Support United Statesman ( talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. Incredibly hard worker. Deserves it. — Ceran ♦ ♦ ( speak) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Support Kernel Saunters ( talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  88. Support - has good track record and relevant experience for ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I voted more than 7, but I am glad user will be elected hopefully. He is more than qualified. -- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  89. Support Apparently I can vote for more than 7 and I am glad I am voting for the right candidate.-- Nepaheshgar ( talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  90. Support... Modernist ( talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Would prefer this user over others running. Glass Cobra 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  92. Support hard working and sans drama. definitely a wikiperson. -- Regents Park ( bail out your boat) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  93. With apologies to Prodrego, Arbcom's first and last job is the protection of the encyclopedia. Everything else is an optional extra. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  94. Support --- Larno ( talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  95. Alex fusco 5 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  96. Strong Support - very cool, carm, collected and experienced editor who always goes "above and beyond the call of duty" to assist in any way possible. Abraham, B.S. ( talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  97. Support per above. Khoi khoi 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  98. Support Aramgar ( talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  99. Support, although nearly swayed by Durova below. Your article work and MILHIST experience are skillsets that will serve you well. Keeper ǀ 76 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  100. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  101. Tiptoety talk 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  102. +S++ Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  103. – Moondyne 08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  104. RelHistBuff ( talk) 11:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  105. Strong support. I absolutely trust Roger; in the time I've known him he's demonstrated great personal integrity and sound judgement, and would be a valuable asset to ArbCom. EyeSerene talk 13:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  106. Support -- Aude ( talk) 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  107. Support Looks like a sound Wikipedian. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  108. support.-- Babakexorramdin ( talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  109. Support - Biruitorul Talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  110. support -- dab (𒁳) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  111. Level-headed, well-respected but not a cabalist, co-ordinator of one of the project's finest projects, understanding of high-end content and how arbitration can best serve content rather than contributors. Skomorokh 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  112. qp10qp ( talk) 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. LLDMart ( talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. Denverjeffrey ( talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  115. Support. Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  116. -- Moni3 ( talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  117. Support -- CreazySuit ( talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  118. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  119. Support See the problems beyond the rules (the spirit of the law) -- Raayen ( talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  120. Though I think you may later regret being appointed. DrKiernan ( talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  121. TimidGuy ( talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  122. Support - Tājik ( talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  123. User:Krator ( t c) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  124. Strong Support Outstanding track after close review and the user is diplomatic and truly with no axe to grind. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  125. Support vi5in [talk] 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  126. Support. I believe he would serve dutifully and with dedication during his term. He would be an asset to Arbcom. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ( (⊕)) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  127. You strike me as very similar to the current Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. If you are cut from the same mold, then you will definitely be an asset to arbcom, and I will gladly support you as a fellow candidate. Wizardman 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  128. Support -- Ivan Štambuk ( talk) 07:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  129. Support -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  130. Support -- Apoc2400 ( talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  131. Support Someone with the ability to deal with all users fairly and calmly is what we need at Arbcomm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut ( talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  132. Support I believe he will do good for wikipedia and is more than capable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk | Sign 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  133. Support. Baku87 ( talk) 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  134. Support Happy‑ melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  135. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  136. Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. Budding Journalist 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  137. Support. Good head on his shoulders, and a great--and succinct (which I like very much)--answer to my question. S.D.D.J. Jameson 19:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support Per the rest. 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) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.-- Tznkai ( talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  138. support William M. Connolley ( talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  139. Regretful support as I fear election will harm the MilHist project, but I have my fingers crossed. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  140. Support. Novickas ( talk) 01:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  141. Wronkiew ( talk) 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  142. Support Dineshkannambadi ( talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  143. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  144. Terence ( talk) 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  145. Support. -- Hectorian ( talk) 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  146. Support. Kablammo ( talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  147. Support. If he doesn't get in this time, I hope he stands again next year. Pointillist ( talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  148. Support. Intelligent, supportive, responsive, well organized. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  149. Support. In my interactions, I have found the user as quite dedicated and thoughtful. Bless sins ( talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  150. Strong Support. But I warn you as I warned, Casliber earlier- Don't allow the ArbComm's corrupt political culture to change you, instead change it, for the better! R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  151. Support Randomran ( talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  152. Support. — m acy 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  153. Support JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  154. Emphatic Support. Candidate has expanded his position on confidentiality to such an extent that I now wholeheartedly agree with him Cynical ( talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  155. Support— Tony (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  156. Support. There are those whom I see opposing because they don't believe Roger has the "stones" to make the difficult decisions, to make waves by stepping on the wrong editors' toes. For me, ArbCom should be a good mix of types, so I see no problem with Roger's apparent preference for calm and considered dispute resolution. That he has only made eleven blocks since his becoming an administrator is to my mind a good thing. While often a block is inevitable, we are sometimes too quick to do so instead of making at least a couple of attempts to engage with a difficult user. Oh, and also due to a good answer to the "BLP question"; too often I think we forget that this is just a (well-read) website that doesn't a God-given right to do what it wants. Steve T • C 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  157. An independent thinker who has dealt with cases extraordinarily in the past. Caulde 12:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  158. Has gained my trust, a good candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  159. Support Jd2718 ( talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  160. Support -- Eurocopter ( talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  161. Support -- VS talk 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  162. Support -- EdJohnston ( talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  163. Support, - Shyam ( T/ C) 09:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  164. Support To offset "The Uninvited"'s garbage oppose reason. Very telling of how reliable and competent the current arbcom is. Really sucks that we have to put up with that one past this election, as he has proven time and time again that he's completely unfit to serve. SashaNein ( talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  165. Support Appears likely to be ineffectual, a positive characteristic. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  166. Suppport Maxim (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  167. Support - In addition to being a fine editor, his platform of more tranparency and quicker decisions will be greatly beneficial for ArbCom. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  168. Support Awadewit ( talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  169. Support Canglesea ( talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  170. Sure. Tex ( talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  171. One more. MattJohnson22 ( talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Great goals in ArbCom. Leujohn ( talk)
  173. Support Per my reasons. MBisanz talk 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  174. Johnbod ( talk) 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support and wish my best! -- Aynabend ( talk) 08:56, 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
  175. Support — Read enough, has clue and made the list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  176. Support - BusterD ( talk) 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  177. Support Gazi moff 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  178. Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman ( talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  179. Support Fred Talk 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  180. Support Hús ö nd 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  181. Support Xoloz ( talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  182. Support Rivertorch ( talk) 09:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  183. Support Seems to be a good candidate for ArbCom. Ruslik ( talk) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  184. Support OhanaUnited Talk page 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  185. Support ---- The Myotis ( talk) 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  186. I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, very good answers to my questions (although they fell short in the last parts of Question 4), and timeliness is ok. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 6. Support. Ncmvocalist ( talk) 11:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  187. Support -- Banjeboi 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  188. Support ( Quentin X ( talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
  189. Support Grand master 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  190. SUPPORT Jim Sweeney ( talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  191. Support Kyriakos ( talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  192. Support - Ryan4314 ( talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  193. Support -- Samir 05:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  194. Support. I'v no doubt he'd be an excellent Arb. -- Kaaveh ( talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  195. Support. I've changed my vote to support after Roger convinced me that he's an excellent candidate. SlimVirgin talk| edits 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  196. Support, changed after discussing matters with the candidate. If there's one thing I'd love to see on ArbCom, it's the ability to engage in calm and well-reasoned dialogue. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  197. Support Switzpaw ( talk) 16:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  198. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  199. Support. ( rationale) rspεεr ( talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  200. Yes Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  201. Support-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  202. Support - Xasha ( talk) 02:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  203. Support Ariel ♥ Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  204. Support. — xaosflux Talk 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  205. Support, per the answers to Lar's questions (although I'm iffy about the very last one...) Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  206. Support -- Peter Andersen ( talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  207. Support. Although this candidate wasn't one of the seven I originally decided to vote for based on candidate statements and Q&As, I've looked at his wider contributions to the project as a whole, and been so impressed that I want to support him as well. - Gregg ( talk) 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  208. Support -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  209. No major issues. Acalamari 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  210. Support Alexius Horatius 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  211. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  212. Support   PseudoOne ( talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  213. Support. Sarah 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  214. Very concerned this editor doesn't have the experience with our "rougher" areas but willing to take the chance. ++ Lar: t/ c 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  215. Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  216. I've been impressed with what I've seen of this candidate, and I feel he would be a valuable addition to ArbCom. - Bilby ( talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  217. Support ( rationale). the wub "?!" 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  218. Support RMHED ( talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Voyaging (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.-- Maxim (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) One of the candidates I initially supported withdrew. Switch to support. Maxim (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Mr. Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Sumoeagle179 ( talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Nothing personal, but I picked a group that I want to win. RockManQ Review me 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Dlabtot ( talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read WP:ARBPOL I don't see that on there. Prodego talk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    It's implicit in Rules 1 & 2 and explicit in the policy those rules refer to. (See examples here.) -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Caspian blue 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. ( rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Switched to support. rspεεr ( talk) 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. Dragons flight ( talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Answers to questions say nothing - either he doesn't know what he thinks, or he's not saying. Naive on BLP.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose - not impressed with the conflict around Mrg3105. I don't want such things from an Arb. Colchicum ( talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Hugely Strong Oppose. Franamax ( talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Changed from simple oppose to strongest possible oppose based on the candidate's incredibly arrogant pursuit of Durova's oppose on the talk page. Two qualities I look for in any person are good-nature and humility. I see neither here. Simply unacceptable, here goes another disastrous year for ArbCom. Franamax ( talk) 07:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Comment-- ROGER DAVIES  talk 08:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Resolved to my satisfaction, striking oppose vote. Franamax ( talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. The bane of our election process is that it favors people who work hard and don't step on any toes. These people may be great Wikipedians, but are they really equipped to handle the site's toughest disputes? The 2008 ArbCom has been plagued with too many milquetoast pass-the-buck remedies. Remedies that address serious administrative misconduct by asking people to play nicely together; remedies that delegate authority to WP:AE in the form of general sanctions. And as we've seen many times including very recently, those discretionary sanctions can cause more trouble than they solve. It's time to elect arbitrators who have a track record of solving conflict, not sidestepping it. Roger Davies has blocked only 11 people during his tenure as an administrator--which has only been since February of this year. Those blocks were easy calls. You're a wonderful Wikipedian, Roger. But you're too green for the position you're seeking. Come back in 2009. Durova Charge! 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. Durova pretty much sums it up. I think you do a fantastic job on Wikipedia, but while your "when to listen, and when to tell people to shut up" balance is right for Wikipedia as a whole, I don't think it's the right mix for Arbcom. –  iridescent 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose. While I think of you highly as an editor I too have concerns about your current level of experience for an arbcom post. I definitely think you could make an excellent arbitrator in future. I suggest you build up some more experience in conflict resolution this year and reapply in 2009. Nrswanson ( talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. -- Joopercoopers ( talk) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose. I find the candidate's answers to my questions evasive and am concerned about the effects of a spirit of reform with an absence of specific proposals. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    It's unfair to call flatly refusing to reveal personal information "evasive". I am surprised you asked them when you yourself "have discontinued active daily participation in Wikipedia" [because of] ... "growing risk of personal and professional harassment". Also, I outlined priorities for reform in my candidate statement. -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    If anyone is interested, I've expanded Questions 1, 2, 3 and 6.-- ROGER DAVIES  talk 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Pertinent questions asked in good faith have been dismissed, as unimportant. That does not bode well... I would expect ArbCom members to be more transparent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    While the questions may have been asked in good faith, they should not have been put in the first place. Revealing that much personal information would enable a proficient googler to identify me and my home/professional address in no time. A few years ago, an internet nutter whom I had crossed did get my home address (by collating snippets), posted it on forums (where it probably still is), and threatened to fire bomb my house and kill my dogs. -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    <Sarcasm>oh that's not disturbing at all....</Sarcasm> Cam ( Chat) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I told the dogs all about it immediately, of course. They went and wrote last letters, looked wistfully at bars of chocolate, sharpened their teeth etc :)) -- ROGER DAVIES  talk 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Doesn't have the stones.-- Koji † 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. kur ykh 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. Weak oppose - I liked a fair bit of what I read, but I'm chiefly concerned by i. vague answers to many questions, ii. lack of grasp of the BLP problem, and iii. never having heard of Wikipedia Review, which I can't help but to think is sympomatic of a lack of awareness of critique of Wikipedia. My recommendation would be that if he really wants to be an arbitrator, he should spend the next year involving himself in Wikipolitics in all of their unseemiliness and then, if he still thought Arb Comm was a worthwhile use of his time, run next year. Of course, current vote counts suggest that my advice is likely to be moot. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 10:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    At the candidate's request, I have reviewed his recent additions to his answers. I'm considerably more impressed now with his understanding of the BLP problem, but I remain concerned that he's too much a novice to Wikipedia "political" issues (and there is emphatically no shame in not being immersed in Wikipolitics) to be ready for Arb Comm at this state. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. Kusma ( talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical ( talk)22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote. Cynical ( talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose -- Dezidor ( talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose per Sarcasticidealist Arkon ( talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. oppose per Durova. Also concerns about answer to Rspeer's question. JoshuaZ ( talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose Per this terrible answer to a critical question. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose per Durova, and because I felt that some of the answers were a bit evasive. (To avoid misunderstandings: I am not talking about personal details, and I can't really point the finger on it.) -- Hans Adler ( talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) — Now strongly oppose based on completely unacceptable reactions to oppose votes. Another Arbcom member with a huge ego problem? No thanks. This kind of attitude usually leads to candidates failing even RFA. There is no way I can trust this user to be impartial. -- Hans Adler ( talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose -- Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose I have nothing whatsoever against the candidate but don't know them well enough to support and would prefer to see others in the top 7. If Roger gets in I would wish him luck and have no real problems supporting his judgement based on what I've seen, but I'm not sure that a support would be a vote for the kind of change we need to see up there. I'm also sympathetic to Durova's viewpoint as expressed above. Orderinchaos 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. OpposePer all concerns above.-- Iamawesome 800 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose Per Durova above. Reading through the answers to the candidate's questions reminds me of the American political philosophy of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Every answer is tailor made to offend nobody and keep as neutral a position as possible. Sorry, but I want Arbcom members who are actually willing to make a stand on issues and get bloodied up a little bit, rather than political weasels who are going to create an Arbcom that is going to be every bit as useless as the current incarnation. Trusilver 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose per Durova and (especially) Trusilver, I would want answers that actually take a position, not that have a lot of words but still say nothing at all. Also seems to want to expand BLP, when we need to do the exact opposite. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to support. reply
  35. Oppose per Durova -- Xp54321 ( Hello! • Contribs) 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose per Trusilver and the general impression I have about the high volume of replies the candidate has for oppose votes, which frankly read as obstinence. I think the candidate would be inflexible as an arb, and resistant to listen first/ decide later mentality that I think is needed on ARB. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose Switched from support, more recent comments give me a deep fear of what you will support on ARBCOM. Davewild ( talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose tgies ( talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 16:00, 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) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. "Oversighting should be limited to removing identifying data (street address, school name, date of birth etc) rather than real names" ← Well no, a real name is often identifying data by itself. Not everyone's name is common to the point of being stereotypically British . Also your responses on BLP seem to endorse the use of double standards and overemphasize the role of "notability", and I'm not seeing much if any prior involvement with the arbitration process. More bluntly I'll admit having never heard of you until a month ago. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Roger has clarified his comment [1] but I still disagree. Some people will accidentally or cluelessly out themselves, but that's no excuse to disregard an otherwise legitimate privacy concern. If you're not willing remove a user's real name from the view of remarkably unwelcome stalkers, what point would there be to remove other information (especially that which any Joe Six-Pack can figure out once they have the name)? Vote stands. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. I came here intending to support, because Roger's obviously a good editor, and I want to see active content contributors on ArbCom. But having read through everything, two things concern me. First, people should be allowed to oppose without being challenged; I feel some of the responses above were too aggressive. Secondly, the answers to most of the candidate questions lack substance and detail. I'd worry that Roger would become too much like some of the ArbCom members we have already. Sorry, Roger, but we need change. SlimVirgin talk| edits 06:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Roger has convinced me that he's got what it takes. Switching to support. SlimVirgin talk| edits 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose as concerns about understanding of due weight on science issues, and about inexperience. . dave souza, talk 13:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose this time around. Undoubtedly a good QP editor. Perhaps would be a more suitable arbcomm member upon gaining a better understanding of how WP:UNDUE squares with WP:NPOV. Answers to questions also a bit of a concern, as they were somewhat lacking in explanation of his reasoning. .. Kenosis ( talk) 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Strong Oppose due to the unfortunate intersection of his BLP views and his views on the role of ArbCom in creating policy -- Philosopher  Let us reason together. 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose Good views on BLP and decent enough in other ways but unfortunately I feel his views on privacy and discretion by arbcom are a bridge too far into the everything must be public camp for me. For reasons of privacy and others, discretion is sometimes necessari and although it should be used with extreme care but for better or worse and due to the nature of the arbcom sometimes things including trials can and should be kept private. One of the more difficult decisions of those I really looked in to (the current top 10 or so) Nil Einne ( talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. S B H arris 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose -- B ( talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose Philosopher says it beautifully. Joe 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg ( talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn: I mis-read his Q&A. - Gregg ( talk) 10:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose Sunray ( talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. SQL Query me! 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate because of their strong argument in favor of transparent processes, given the stonewalling I've encountered in trying to get information out of ArbCom regarding the summary expulsions of editors without any public process. However, that was until I read their stance giving unqualified support to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy and even supporting more Draconian measures. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy's grasp would only serve to make things worse, and their support of abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with this editor's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. That said, I am open to discussion about withdrawing or changing this vote, if the evidence warrants. -- SSB ohio 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. -- lucasbfr talk 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Roger_Davies&oldid=1221636726"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE