User:William M. Connolley/ACE2011
Appearance
![]() |
|
Criteria
[edit]- personal experience: I'll be judging people by how they behaved in cases I've been in.
- availability: Iridescent may have been a nice chap but he failed in his duty to be there; he is hardly alone in this.
- clue: arbcomm is broken, badly. Anyone who thinks all is well, or needs minor tweaks, is a No.
- limits: arbcomm is an arbitration committee suffering badly from feature creep.
- old guard: too many timeservers; sitting arbs will need to have been good.
Stuff I'd like to see in people' statements
[edit]- I'd like arbcomm to think more about content and less about conduct.
- Arbcomm is lazy. To force them to be less so, and for the good of cases, only behaviour predating the opening of a case should be considered.
Generally I tend to like NW's views (User:NuclearWarfare/ACE2011), except on BLP where he is badly wrong; read WP:BLPZEALOT instead.
User:Monty845/ACE2011 is worth a look.
My votes
[edit]User | Statement & Questions | Rights[1] | Edits[2] | Since | Preliminary notes | Opinion |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
AGK • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS | 30,521 | 2006-02-27 | Poor clerk during WP:ARBCC [1] etc. | ![]() Oppose
|
Coren • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 16,556 | 2003-05-27 | Poor in WP:ARBCC and didn't really recover in the appeal. Not worth giving another chance. | ![]() Oppose
|
Courcelles • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS | 206,036 | 2006-09-17 | Statement is vacuous, answers uninteresting, but what finally stopped me was that he has no ideas at all for improving the committee (see "broken", above). | ![]() Oppose
|
DeltaQuad • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
ex-A,OTRS | 15,984 | 2007-11-07 | Weak No. I don't know him, his answers are poor and verging on breaking several of my desires. | ![]() Oppose
|
Eluchil404 • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A | 10,768 | 2006-03-02 | Appears to have some clue, and is new. Venturing support. | ![]() Support
|
Geni • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,OTRS | 27,643 | 2004-03-30 | Was vaguely inclined to support before reading statement and answers. But anyone with no ideas for change just isn't thinking. | ![]() Oppose
|
Hersfold • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS,ex-Arb | 33,277 | 2006-12-21 | Lightweight; fails "availability" criterion. Was rubbish clerk for Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley | ![]() Oppose
|
Hot_Stop • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
None | 831 | 2011-04-11 | Joke | ![]() Strong Oppose
|
Jclemens • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb, | 32,210 | 2006-08-24 | Would have been a no, based on ARBCC and [2]. But [3] (a followup) is crap See-also Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/Jclemens/Questions#Questions from Skinwalker | ![]() Strong Oppose
|
Kirill_Lokshin • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 70,451 | 2005-06-08 | Was crap in WP:ARBCC | ![]() Oppose
|
Kww • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A | 55,932 | 2007-01-09 | Statement is the best I've seen, some of the contributions look good too. Ideas for improvement are disappointing, and I've still got this nagging feeling I remember him from somewhere. I feel obliged to give someone strong support, and he just pips ST. | ![]() Strong support
|
Panyd • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,OTRS | 9,044 | 2007-10-13 | No, with regret. User:Panyd/Mental Health is tolerable in an admin, but breaks the "availability" condition. The BD RFC isn't good [4]. No proposals for change. | ![]() Oppose
|
NWA.Rep • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
None | 4,289 | 2006-02-12 | Joke | ![]() Strong Oppose
|
SilkTork • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A | 51,864 | 2006-01-12 | New, which is good. Statement better than most, answers sane if not really what I'd like. [Update, post election. I ended up seeing [5]. The oppose is fine; the "not a serious candidate isn't". Would not have supported had I noticed before.] | ![]() Support
|
Risker • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,OTRS,CU,OS,Arb | 18,805 | 2005-12-27 | One of the authors of the risible initial PD in ARBCC [6]; need I say more? | ![]() Strong Oppose
|
Roger_Davies • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,CU,OS,Arb | 29,341 | 2005-09-17 | Poor in WP:ARBCC and didn't really recover in the appeal. Not worth giving another chance. | ![]() Oppose
|
Worm_That_Turned • talk • contribs • logs • block log • editcount • rights |
Statement Questions Discussion |
A,OTRS | 8,905 | 2008-07-13 | Much like ST: appears sane. The KW RFC is a point in his favour. | ![]() Support |
Notes
[edit]- Positions
- Arb=Current Arbitrator
- ex-Arb=Former Arbitrator
- OTRS=Have access to OTRS for purposes other than checkuser or oversight
- Admin-level-or-higher rights
- A=Administrator
- B=Bureaucrat
- CU=Checkuser (requires identification to WMF)
- OS=Oversighter (requires identification to WMF)
- S=Steward (requires identification to WMF, no other non en:wp rights will be shown)
- "None" refers to no admin-level-or-high rights