Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Dream Focus

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Dream Focus

I don't believe any one person should be able to decide if an article is deleted, or even a significant portion of itself deleted. Nor should this be decided by just whatever three random strangers are around at the time a third party moderator is called for. If dozens of people have contributed to an article over the years, and none of them had a problem with its size, then why should the opinion of a handful of people who don't care about the subject at all, be able to decide this? Most users will never bother to post their opinions unfortunately, and most people don't return to reread an article they liked, or mark it to watch, to keep track of what's going on.

  • If there is ever a arbitration called for, to settle a dispute between editors, I'll make certain the "its too long, and I prefer short articles" excuse for editing is never considered valid. An article is judged by its context, not its length.
  • The size of an article is never an excuse to erase information from it. If the information is valid to the article, it should remain. If it can be put on a side page, so be it. If not, leave it alone. I doubt most people mind scrolling down to read through a lengthy article, if they are interested in the subject.

I might not always make the right choices straight away, but I do patiently discuss things, try to figure everything out, and then make a rational decision. I will listen to all sides of any argument, and work to settling things in a fair and logical way. Dream Focus (talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per be kind to the newbies - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Actually strong support as his arguments that I have seen in discussions and even the rationale above are all reasonable. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BrianY (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tactical support.
    talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Support RMHED (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support. Wants the arbcom to respect community consensus rather than dictate it, realises that
    WP:NOT paper. What more do you want? Cynical (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. support for moral and tactical reasons   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support same as Promethean - Tactical and moral.
    ScarianCall me Pat! 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. per ST47 Enigma message 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Despite some reservations, I do not believe that the candidate deserves to finish so near the bottom as there is some evidence that this is an intelligent and principled editor. The same cannot be said about all candidates. --JayHenry (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr talk 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't think Dream Focus understands what ArbCom is intended to do.--chaser - t 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong oppose Communication issues; if you choose not to answer the majority of questions then you have no basis to stand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Voyaging(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --Elonka 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Majorly talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. iridescent 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Steven Walling (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  14. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Not ready for this role.
    chat) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. T 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Caspian blue 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Candidate should understand the difference between content and conduct before running for ArbCom. —kurykh 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Statements and answers to questions are generally unrelated to dispute resolution.
    cool stuff) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  24. Tsk no no no. Not ready. --
    Talk 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. --Koji† 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - nothing personal, just too little experience. J.delanoygabsadds 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose.
    T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Statement shows a lack of understanding of what ArbCom does.
    masterka 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  30. Incompetence. Prodego talk 03:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. ArbComm is not AFD.
    GRBerry 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  32. Oppose
    Talk 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Inexperience. MER-C 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Nothing personal against this editor, but he lacks the experience needed for ArbCom.
    Talk) 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  36. I'm all for change, but this isn't it. Mike H. Fierce! 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Reforms to deletion policy are not what ArbCom is about. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per lack of understanding. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - I'm not sure if you completely understand the purpose of ArbCom. --
    Sign) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose Enigma message 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. -- Avi (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and
    WP:DR areas, and run again. //roux   editor review09:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  43. Oppose This candidate's platform is of tangential relevance to arbcom at best. Brilliantine (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership.
    talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits and blocks. Sorry. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:55, 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) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. —
    neuro(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  46. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  47. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Synergy 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose 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 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose I don't mind that you aren't yet an admin, but I do want ARBcomm members to be more involved in Wikipedia and your 671 edits aren't enough to win my support this year. Get more involved especially in controversial areas and I'll happily reconsider in future years. ϢereSpielChequers 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose per Grandmasterka and other general "you are not ready" statements. Dengero (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. David Shankbone 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Nothing personal; keep up the good work, but I don't think you're quite ready for this particular role. MastCell Talk 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Not experienced enough yet, keep contributing though! Full rationale:
    (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  58. Oppose Not enough experience, sorry. The Helpful One 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Davewild (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point.
    talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  61. Per Sarcasticidealist. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Not enough general experience, seems to be a little too content-oriented; ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. GlassCobra 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - doesn't seem to fully understand the role of ArbCom, could more usefully contribute in areas of interest elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with MastCell above. If interested in Arbitration, it would probably be good to follow some cases this next year. If you're more interested in deletion policy, there are better places to get more involved, as ArbCom has fairly limited authority over the deletion process. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Alexfusco5 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. --Wetman (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose No way, no how, no you. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Oppose per User:Chaser.--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience.
     RGTraynor  20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  75. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Too many questions unanswered, sorry. Badger Drink (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Statement and responses seem to make little sense. Joe Nutter 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Kusma (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Gentgeen (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Sultec (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. I don't have confidence in the candidate's understanding of what is happening here. SilkTork *YES! 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Parts of his statement are not relevant to being an arbitrator. GizzaDiscuss © 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose per
    WP:NOTYET. Great user with a sincere attituse toward this position. (at least you answered some of the questions) Maybe become an Admin before trying for ArbCom. Leujohn (talk
    )
  88. Oppose: Seems totally unsuitable based on experience, and lacks depth in judgment (or was that a provocative joke?). Walkerma (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose --VS talk 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Terence (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. I don't think article-length guidelines should be ignored entirely, for one thing. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose - Not enough experience, hasn't answered most questions, and doesn't seem to have full understanding of ArbCom. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose
    talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  98. Oppose. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Tex (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Doesn't seem to understand how this works tgies (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Limited experience within the project. — Manticore 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose Gazimoff 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Does not understand the job. Fred Talk 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. Not ready yet. Keep on contributing, the threshold is very high for roles such as this - the result of this nomination is not personal. Rje (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. less of 700 edits--Rjecina (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Supportive Oppose per SarcasticIdealist --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose per statement Switzpaw (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose. Not currently accountable as an administrator, thus unlikely to be able to deal with potential issues that will crop up at ArbCom. Caulde 14:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. SQLQuery me! 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Dream_Focus&oldid=1222940687"