Coren

Hello!
I've been a Wikipedian since 2003. While my contribution to the encyclopedia contents have always been modest, I've done everything I can to help protect and support the work of our invaluable contributors by fighting vandals, checking copyvios, and gnomish work. As an administrator, I've gained a reputation of being a "hardliner", who has little patience for gamers, those who destroy the hard work of others, or corrupt our encyclopedia to make a point or a political statement. Accordingly, I am one who tends to act decisively to protect and defend, mindful of the legal traps that lie around biographies, editor privacy, and copyright compliance.
I've been a clerk since January, able to observe ArbCom's successes and failings up close, and I feel the current Committee is too soft collectively to be effective as it must: an injection of fresh "hardline" blood may be just what it needs to tackle the increasingly difficult issues that face it. Being willing to sit on ArbCom may require a little idealistic insanity, but Wikipedia is worth the pain.
I am seeking the mandate to bring a some energy and "down-to-earth-ness" to the Committee, and to help tackle what I feel should be its priorities:
  • More awareness of a growing issue that is poisoning the very essence of collaborative editing that makes Wikipedia possible: real-world factions that vie for control over articles, turning them into polemical battlegrounds where surface civility is used to cover bias, tendentiousness and even harassment. ArbCom needs to take a strong stance against that sort of "polite disruption" and those who use our rules of civility as weapons, recognize that long-term warriors are toxic, not vested, and investigate beyond surface behavior issues.
  • Less timidity in addressing issues related to contents (POV warring, tag teams, academic dishonesty). While it is appropriate that the Committee never rules on contents, it should be more active at curtailing content disputes. Academic integrity should become a priority; unlike "simple" incivility, the damage caused by editors misquoting, plagiarizing and editorializing destroys the credibility of our encyclopedia.
  • Increased transparency in the arbitration process, the Arbitrators must explain their decisions in better detail beyond a simple "aye/nay" and expose their reasoning and justification. It is important that the community understands why the Committee rules as it does, not just receive seemingly arbitrary edicts from "on high".
Thank you for your consideration.

Support

  1. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Avruch T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. kurykh 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Editor switched to Oppose, below. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Pcap ping 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. RockManQReview me 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ҉ I support him. --Mixwell!Talk 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Koji† 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support John254 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak support (only in that I more strongly support other candidates) - Would be a net positive if elected, low drama factor and cool head and mature outlook in conflict situations. Orderinchaos 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, never had any problem with him as a collaborator and I have always been impressed by his admin work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A good candidate to ascend to the post. Mike H. Fierce! 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Synchronism (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. While I don't always agree with him, I think he will do a good job. I have not seen anything which makes me doubt this. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. Rockpocket 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. - Has large doses of WP:CLUE. //roux   editor review09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Not necessarily familiar with him, but impressed by his ideas here. Rebecca (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — neuro(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support as part of a ticket. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Sure --B (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support: not a big fan of the Kmweber unblock, but after talking to him, I'm impressed by his sense of ethics. Good show. Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, strongly. Completely the right attitude. AGK 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Seen good things from Coren. Acalamari 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Synergy 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support--Taprobanus (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support ϢereSpielChequers 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. No pressing concerns, and would rather have this user than some others. GlassCobra 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - lots of relevant experience, seems very competent. Warofdreams talk 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support This guy's actually got some clue... ST47 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I like that word. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Cardamon (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support - Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support - partly on reuptation, partly on statement/question.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Sultec (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Joe Nutter 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Knows exactly what ails Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Good administration. --Raayen (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. LegoKontribsTalkM 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Solid thoughtful guy that I suspect would make a solid thoughtful arb.--Kubigula (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Enforcement is needed. CIVIL is over-powering real policies & gaming has multiplied. PRtalk 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Kusma (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Hiberniantears (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support - User seems to know the tough intricacies of this type of work.--Zereshk (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Very competent admin. will make a great arbitrator. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support A steady hand is needed here. And fairness. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible. — neuro(talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Node (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --Wayiran (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. --NikoSilver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support'' Happy‑melon 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. I can't easily put my reasoning into words other than to say that I believe Coren has Clue, and Wikipedia should be a Cluocracy. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support: I may not be a hardliner myself, but I know a good one when I see one. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --VS talk 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Terence (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WP:100 - Has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Agree with increasing transparency into the reasoning of the ArbCom's decisions. - Fedayee (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Yes! - @pple complain 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Wronkiew (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Seddσn talk 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support yay --Mardetanha talk 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Jd2718 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. —Animum (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. support JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. support G4 poor but the rest seems OK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Thoughtful (and thought provoking) answers to the questions (*grumble* something needs to be done to reduce the number of questions *grumble*) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Since you are a clerk, you already know the ropes of ArbCom, its strengths, and its weaknesses, and should have an idea what you want it to improve. Leujohn (talk)
  117. Support NanohaA'sYuriTalk, My master 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support tgies (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Parishan (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Clear appropriate priorities. Fred Talk 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support --maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support --Wayiran (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Shenme (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I tend to agree with Fatso's points below, but Coren has good philosophies, a great campaign statement, good answers to the questions, and have been impressed by his responsiveness. And as far as content-oriented editors and ArbCom, while I wish Coren had a bit more experience in Main Space, I think these elections are already doing a sufficient job rebalancing toward WP:ENC. --JayHenry (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support His dedication speaks for itself. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Supporthe has identified the "biased civility" problem which interacts with the weakness of arbcom in making content decisions. Sooner or later someone has to make a content decision and it should be on a scientific basis. I don't undertand the opposers' objections to his BLP stance. Email me if you wish. Mccready (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support I totally disagree with his view that sharply restricting our coverage of BLP would be beneficial, but I tend to agree with almost everything else he said.DGG (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - purely a balance vote for something that may well be in my head only. --Illythr (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support -- agree with DGG's hesistation above, but strongly support overall. --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support -- Has shown reasonable grasp of policy, and sensible priorities.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - feel from his/her statement that he/she has some good ideas particular on the need to take a hard line in some instances and viewson academic integrity and need to be careful on quoting people etc. Also decent views on BLP and on need for discretion by arbcom and on the OM case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support ~SunDragon34 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Giants2008 (17-14) 03:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support — xaosflux Talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Switzpaw (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support — ((Nihiltres|talk|log)) 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Grandmasterka 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support - Xasha (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. Gregg (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Experience as a clerk will serve ArbCom well. — Manticore 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Willking1979 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support. Sfrandzi (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support BrianY (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, I have found this candidate to not have the objectiveness to properly arbitrate important matters. Candidate is not interested in expanding encyclopedic knowledge--Pensil (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Talks tough, which is fine, but record suggest the user aspires to be the consummate insider, overly involved in wikipolitics/drama for its own sake; does not relate to content creators; far too many similarities to the busybody-admin model that has served so many users so poorly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Voyaging(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per His Fatness Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. krimpet✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose this was a tough one. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - too much of a enforcer mentality. I did a CU Sfacets once, which came back on opposite sides of the world, but Coren said it was him anyway. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Sfacets said that he frequently traveled between Australia and Europe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not within 3-4 hours. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. That checkuser was appalling. --Mixwell!Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Because I feel that his wikignome work, while an asset to the project, is no substitute for article work in terms of how to hand disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    L'Aquatique[talk] 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I AM AN IDIOT! Forgot that when you EC it shows the whole page.... L'Aquatique[talk][reply]
  12. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Supports 'strengthening' (read: making more complex) BLP, which is an overly bureaucratic mess of 'special authority'. Prodego talk 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. A tad too prone for drama for my tastes. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Prodego, BLP needs simplification and reining in, not let further out of control. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Brilliantine (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Ronnotel (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. 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]
  23. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — CharlotteWebb 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Moreschi (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Verbal chat 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ~ priyanath talk 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath talk 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Davewild (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. --A NobodyMy talk 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Among other minor issues, not having his own archives properly linked until recently is a signal of insufficient attention to detail and caring about others that is required of an arbitrator. Franamax (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose--Caspian blue 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Alexfusco5 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Has an us-vs-them mentality completely at odds with the goal of building an informational resource. Skomorokh 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Lack of intensive article-building experience is a concern. Also, from his answers to questions I get the impression that he will lean more towards using a cudgel than a scalpel. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose as per User:SashaNein. Anyone proud of being closed-minded (ie "hardliner") lacks the change we need in arbcom.--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Mike R (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Not the right temperament for the job. There's a difference between hard and firm. We need firm, not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. - filelakeshoe 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. More mainspace activity is needed, especially if you are going to handle disputes with BLP/3RR/and edit warring. miranda 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I would have preferred more definite statements that IRC should not be used, and that using checkuser to investigate an editor on your own hunch is a breach of privacy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Gentgeen (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. GRBerry 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose RMHED (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Per Coren's views on BLP - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose (judging from the candidate's statement) Needs diplomacy, patience and openness to all sides Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Eóin (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose dougweller (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose due to answer to confidentiality question. Secret trials destroy the credibility of Arbcom and the project. Cynical (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Not interested in building an encyclopedia. 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) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Bad answers to almost every question. And Secret star chambers? Like I'm going to support that! OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - Almost zero interest in actually contributing to content. Wisdom89 (T / C) 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Content work doesn't have much to do with ArbCom, given the number of cases which deal with user's who aren't regular contributors - for this reason, I agree with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Caulde 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose--Iamawesome800 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. There is much to like, respect and admire in this candidate who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I cannot support however as there seems too much of a desire to solve tricky problems by being firm rather than imaginative. I am also slightly concerned by answers to questions which indicate a willingness to block users who are critical and problematic but who haven't broken the community's own guidelines. SilkTork *YES! 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose It happens that I'm firmly with Silk on Coren's having much to offer—I have, in fact, never had a truly unhappy or disappointing experience with Coren)—and there are certain answers (most significantly, those with respect to why policy and process are important [or at least not always unimportant]) that please me, reflecting precisely the sentiments that I'd like a prospective arbitrator to hold. It is BLP (which has, after all, become, at least to those of us who recognize the primacy of the community, one of the two or three most important issues of this election), though, that gives me pause, and even as I think Coren well to understand that his personal views about what policy ought to be must be irrelevant to his construction of policy in his official capacity, I just don't know, finding as I do equally viable candidates with whom I am more comfortable, that I can take the chance, a conclusion I reach, I suppose I must say, with at least a little regret. Joe 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Tex (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong Oppose. ArbCom being creative or 'innovating' is the last thing we need. They need to be reigned in, not let loose. Celarnor Talk to me 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose--Buster7 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Some good points though. Húsönd 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose prefer people with more content creation experience. Crum375 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose..Modernist (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Weak oppose - I'm not generally a stickler for mainspace work as a prerequisite for admin-ish positions, but there's just too little here, even for me. I think Miranda said it well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance on our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and 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 Coren'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. It's hard to envision this vote changing, but I am open to discussion. --SSBohio 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. SQLQuery me! 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Two reasons: first, Coren turned up at an article in 2006 offering out of the blue to mediate a dispute for the mediation cabal. He had only 33 article edits at the time. When advised this wasn't enough for a mediator, he replied that those were his edits, "With this user yes," [1] which implied that the Coren account was a sockpuppet (and when challenged directly on that point, he didn't deny it). But during this election, he said he had never edited with another account. When I asked about the discrepancy, he said he hadn't really meant that he had another user when he implied he did in 2006. [2] Second reason: Coren has defended the use of IRC, denying that the medium lends itself well to misuse, and arguing that people should be allowed to speak candidly there, and that anyone who steps out of line (meaning, presumably, anyone on IRC) should be "bitch slapped." [3] I'm hoping the IRC "bitch slapping" mentality is one we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin talk|edits 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose, "bitch slap"?! --MPerel 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose EJF (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category