Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Oppose: oppose
→‎Oppose: Strong Oppose
Line 285: Line 285:
#'''Strong oppose''' Stance on science per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Rlevse/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Rspeer this response] is unacceptable. Either candidate does not understand NPOV in science articles or has an anti-science agenda. Either way, this is bad for Wikipedia. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose''' Stance on science per [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Candidate_statements/Rlevse/Questions_for_the_candidate#Question_from_Rspeer this response] is unacceptable. Either candidate does not understand NPOV in science articles or has an anti-science agenda. Either way, this is bad for Wikipedia. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
#Per CharlotteWebb and OrangeMarlin. Either might be enough for me to put aside but the combination is too much. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
#Per CharlotteWebb and OrangeMarlin. Either might be enough for me to put aside but the combination is too much. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] ([[User talk:JoshuaZ|talk]]) 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
#'''Strong Oppose''' based on Rlevse's actions in preventing the addition of reliably sources content to the [[George Thomas Coker]] and for [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Footnoted quotes/Evidence|his role]] in the "footnoted quotes" debacle that led to the "BLP Special Enforcement" process. As Arbcom clerk, Rlevse appears to have pushed Arbcom into accepting a case on "footnoted quotes" in which it refused to deal with the subject at hand, inclusion of brief quotations in references. The end results of the case he pushed for: 1) After months of stonewalling, the content he so actively opposed was added to the Coker article, where it remains without issue. 2) [[User:RedSpruce]], the instigator of the "Footnoted Quotes" RfAr, self destructed after several blocks due to edit warring, mostly over footnoted quotes; and 3) "BLP Special Enforcement" turned into an Arbcom decision that was rejected by the community. The failure to properly deal with a clear conflict of interest in the article in question and as Arbcom clerk where he had an active conflict demonstrates qualities that ought to disqualify Rlevse from consideration. [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:20, 5 December 2008


Rlevse

Earlier this year, I had no intention whatsoever of running for ArbCom, ever. Then several people started telling me that they wished I’d run for Arbcom, so I carefully studied the situation, and here I am accepting this great challenge.

I have been an editor since November 2005, an administrator since February 2007, and have worked closely with ArbCom since becoming an arbitration clerk in November 2007. However, I am still grounded in what we are here for—building an encyclopedia: I have significantly contributed to 15 featured articles, 1 featured portal, and 1 featured list. Additional ArbCom-related areas I'm active in are sockpuppet investigations, checkuser requests, the incidents noticeboard, and arbitration enforcement.

I sympathize with the many concerns the community has voiced about the committee this year but also understand the frustrations and problems the arbitrators themselves face every day. Every new inductee promises that they will make the arbitration process faster, but they learn on day one just how hard it is to get fifteen people to do something, especially when it's dealing with contentious, emotion-laden situations. That being said, I totally agree that things do need to be handled more swiftly without sacrificing thoroughness and fairness. Taking over a month to vote on an arbitration case and allowing three months for evidence submission is simply way too long and unfair to all participants. I feel that the arbitrators are dedicated editors who have integrity and do endeavor to carry out their duties the best they can; I do not think they are the problem, rather, it's the system that needs to be fixed. The community needs to agree on how to do that. The transparency of the committee needs to be greater, while maintaining due concern for privacy. Their workflow management needs to be modified. As the English Wikipedia has grown so large, these problems have been exacerbated; the process needs to be adjusted in reaction. Arbitrators are inundated with work and we need to see how we can make that flow better.

Additionally, the long term ethnic wars concern me, as do the various cliques that try to control articles' content. We need to be very firm with those who refuse to by our policies and help foster a positive, collegial atmosphere for building the encyclopedia. We want Wikipedia to be known as a reputable reference work, not as a battlefield for vandals and POV-pushers; ArbCom needs to be firmer against these malefactors. I assure you that I will work to the best of my capacity and be as fair as possible.

Support

  1. It's time we get somebody like Rlevse on the ArbCom. Civil he is, great featured article work. I'm also impressed over his work on Scouting here on Wikipedia. Unlike most of the other people fielding candidacies, I believe that Rlevse is running solely to better the project, not for power. Rlevse has also served as an ArbCom clerk which in my view he has been pretty fine and it is good experience for an ArbCom candidate. I've also had the honour to work with Rlevse, interactions with him were quite tremendously positive. He is really helpful and abuse isn't even possible, however we all make small mistakes. The candidate has also answered their questions thoroughly and good. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Maxim(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of course!--Caspian blue 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Captain panda 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --maclean 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. DurovaCharge! 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~ priyanath talk 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support based on personal trust. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support One of the finest and most trustworthy editors around. Dreadstar † 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Tom B (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Will help fix the committee. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - filelakeshoe 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support --Banime (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Kuru talk 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. krimpet✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. kurykh 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I couldn't think of something witty. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Steven Walling (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support bahamut0013♠♣ 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. A very competent user who has demonstrated his ability to mix bureaucracy and article writing. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Very competent, very trustworthy. He will help fix the currently horrid process of arbitration. The type of person we need on arbcom. DavidWS (contribs) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 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 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Gimmetrow 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Compotent and trustworthy, more so than most.--Koji† 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support RockManQReview me 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. He definitively got mine. And screw you know who... ;) --Mixwell!Talk 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strongest Possible ever Support iMatthew 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support--Terrillja talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Graham87 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Hanging back for now, though I'm sure it doesn't particularly matter either way. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Excellent editor who puts the encyclopedia first over drama. AgneCheese/Wine 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support, though I'd be a tad worried [seriously] his contribution record would give some of his more fool-like colleagues dignity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Absolutely L'Aquatique[talk] 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. I'll miss you as a clerk, but you were always too good for us :) Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. (o_O I edit-conflicted posting this??!) Über STRONG Support (at risk of being slightly ridiculous). If I had to choose just one to support, it would be a toss-up between Rlevse and Wizardman. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support JodyB talk 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support I worked with Rlevse at a couple of his FACs, and was immediately impressed with his dedication to quality content as well as his respect for other users, even those he disagreed with. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Support. Quality and what we need. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support One of the names I hoped to find here. GJC 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. David Shankbone 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Strong candidate, hard worker, almost no drama, has a mature outlook and even temperament, unquestionably part of the community - all things ArbCom needs right now. Orderinchaos 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. CIreland (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Ethnic wars need a strong hand. Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Obviously the right pick for the job. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support BJTalk 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Strong Support. Eusebeus (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Rational, level-headed, intelligent, well-rounded, and mature. A prime example of the kind of temperament suitable for the committee. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. B (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -MBK004 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Great all-around user, effective as an admin and 'crat. What's not to like? Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Mike H. Fierce! 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Support. I have ultimate confidence that he would be fair and do an excellent job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strong support لennavecia 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. SoWhy 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support; my daily read through of WP:AN and WP:ANI has left me with the strong impression that Rlevse has all the skills (intelligence, maturity and whatnot) required for this role. Steve T • C 08:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support.-gadfium 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. - Smart, civil, level-headed, excellent bullshit detector and concomitant refusal to be taken in by the bullshit detected. Precisely what ArbCom needs. // roux   editor review09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. No real conflict between crat and arb duties I think. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. — neuro(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Absolutely no reservations. Ronnotel (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support My only regret in posting this is that we will lose a valuable clerk. - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Woody (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. --Conti|✉ 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support My workings with him in WP:SLR convinces me to do so. Taprobanus (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support easy choice, good editor, handles the heat fine, likely to remain objective. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Very fair, keeps a cool head, good skills when dealing with difficult people. First hand experience watching Rlevse untangle some real messes. 100% support here. Montanabw(talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong Support Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  99. Support Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Good on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support: yes. Sceptre (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Regretful Support I think losing him from Arbitration enforcement to become an arbitrator will be a net negative for the project. I've not seen any better arbitration enforcement admins this past year when I've been watching and participating, and doubt there are any waiting in the wings. But he would undoubtedly be an improvement to the committee, so I must support. GRBerry 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strongest Possible Support The user has been incredible in every role .He has been involved and hence if he wishes to take further responsibility .I feel I can trust him and trust totally.He is a very cool head ,good skills dealing with difficult people and further is prepared to take calls in close sitution. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. I supported Rlevse's RfB, despite believing he'd be better on ArbCom. If he performs ArbCom duties the way he's performed bureaucrat tasks (very well, in my opinion), he'll be excellent. Acalamari 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, --A NobodyMy talk 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 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]
  108. I trust him. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I do share the concerns in the oppose section: too many hats, and concentrating offices in one person has turned out poorly in the past - but I'd feel petty opposing on those grounds given the significant positives that Rlevse brings to the table - especially his strong work on WP:AE, which is the single most difficult testing ground for any admin. Best of luck. MastCell Talk 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Synergy 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Rlevse cares more about content than politics, which is important to me. I also liked the answer to my question. S.D.D.J.Jameson 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. If he was elected as a plain administrator, he would be granted many of the powers he now has. Good answers as well. spryde | talk 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support At least I know I can trust this user, this admin, you have so far that I have seen, not let this community down. In my opinion, you've shown that you're trustworthy, and that you can change your opinion on a situation given new info. Not only that, but you follow through with what you say, unlike some of the past arbcom members I've seen, who have said something, then, when the prerequisites are met, have done nothing different. I hope you can turn this boat around.— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. The Helpful One 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Strong editor, strong admin, and would be a strong member of ArbCom. --Patrick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Although I opposed Casliber who is probably still going to pass for content contribution, I think that you deal with a ton of maintenance too as a crat.—Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Philly jawn (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support As a rule, I don't like crat to be arbcom as well, but IMO Rlevse is one of the top five wikipedians out there. I am probably biased by the fact that he was one of the first people I met and helped me get my bearings here at WP. But I will go against my concern about 'crats and arbcom and give him a support.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Strong support. I can think of no-one better to take up the role. haz (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Respectful, great contributor, never abuses power. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - strong experience, good statement. Warofdreams talk 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Absolutely. R's got a great head on his shoulders, and ArbCom clerk experience is invaluable. Best of luck, buddy! GlassCobra 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. I have been following Rlevse ever since his beginning here and have watched him grow in his capacities. I have faith in him.--Rockero (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - Great guy and a great Wikipedian. Deserves to be there. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. -- Avi (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - Rlevse is one of the users I trust the most. Xclamation point 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Tend to find myself agreeing with user v often. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. An excellent clerk, admin, and all the rest. Dr. eXtreme 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support -- an excellent admin, with a clear sense of rectitude. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Only crossed paths with him once. He was diligent, willing to support an unknown user with a nasty socks problem and, eventually, helpful. Not every administrator with a similar wikiworkload out there behaves the same way. That, to me, suffices. Mountolive le déluge 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Strong Support Alexfusco5 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Strong support Of all the candidates I am most impressed with Rlevse. His answers were fair and insightful, and his experience will be invaluable at arbcom.Nrswanson (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support, great candidate. Khoikhoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Keeper ǀ 76 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong support. Irreplaceble at Commons. I hope Rlevse will be able to remain active there, time permitting, after he joins this ArbCom which he will. Somebody's got to close Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg boondoggle there. --Poeticbent talk 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. +S++ Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support a good user with common sense. I trust in your judging. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. RelHistBuff (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Outstanding Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Has consistently displayed objectiveness.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support per above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support --Aude (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I'm worried that the candidate will be too busy and something suffers. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - Biruitorul Talk 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Always been impressed with this editor's common sense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Strong support. An exemplary Wikipedian who can be relied upon to exercise sound, mature judgment. Obviously, I have worked closely with Rlevse for the past two years and, to me, he is a role model of all that we expect from an editor/sysop/crat/arbcom, etal.  JGHowes  talk 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. I got to know him through his selfless commitment to conflict resolution at WP:SLR and can vouch for him. The concerns his opponents raise seem to me to stem from occasional rash decisions, which I don't think would be a problem for ArbCom, since he will be working in a team. As a matter of fact, I am entirely confident that he will push the rest of the team far more often forward than they will have to hold him back. — Sebastian 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Weak support. A bit to boring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Effective admin and clerk, hopefully will bring positive change to the ArbCom. - Fedayee (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support. I have some reservations similar to concerns raised by other users, particularly with regards to Rlvese's stance on the role of ArbCom in relation to policy. Regardless, I believe he will add valuable experience and a needed perspective to the mix. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Gnangarra 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support faithless (speak) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support - Alison ❤ 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support One of the better candidates. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support. Quality candidate. — Satori Son 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:41, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
  176. Support. Highly experienced as an Arbcom clerk, so he knows the business already; I can't think of a better candidate for this election. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support - Renee (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Yes! ~Eliz81(C) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support vi5in[talk] 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support A steady hand is needed here. Acting in good faith, I used the account checker on the Elections page and it told me I was eligible to vote in this election. Apparently it malfunctioned, and probably not just for me, but for many whose votes have been rendered invalid. It seems fundamentally unfair to trick people into believing they are eligible to do something and then yank the rug out from under them when they do it. This is not an effective way to encourage more participation in Wikipedia. It seems to me that all persons who relied on the malfunctioning account checker who voted should have their votes count. Admittedly, my view is a bit academic, but that's where I'm coming from. It's a fundamental fairness issue, not a personal issue, although in this environment, every principle seems to get reduced to personalities pretty quickly. So on the advice of a person I respect, I will cast my votes, even if they will be summarily and unfairly invalidated, therby undermining the credibility and legitimacy of the entire election, at least in my benighted eyes. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:15, 4 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) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. R. Baley (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support. Strong that is.--Avg (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. Trust his decision making ability 100%. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Already trusted immensely by the community, we would not be overwhelming him with responsibilities as much as giving them to someone who is both already experienced and trusted with them. Kylu (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Good guy for the job. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support - jc37 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support My positive encounters with him have been very pleasant. He is a civil user that is willing to discuss edits. Leujohn (talk)
  191. Support Walkerma (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support dougweller (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Happy‑melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support hbent (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support, decent and honest. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support BigDuncTalk 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support. Unpronouncable, but very good refs.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. TS 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Wronkiew (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. II | (t - c) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Per his role in the "footnoted quotes" dog and pony show, which features Rlevse edit-warring against solid facts over a two-year period. Once again, see evidence page. — CharlotteWebb 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose Majorly talk 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. iridescent 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Atmoz (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose GTD 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. "Earlier this year, I had no intention whatsoever of running for ArbCom, ever" does not an active arbiter make. Prodego talk 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A well-respected bureaucrat, but I'm not a fan of "hat collecting". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose - he is a great worker but he already got too many hats also I find he too block-happy whan I have worked with him Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Too much power concerntration is unhealthy. Pedro :  Chat  07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Don't believe this user's temperament is quite right for arbcom, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Lar 2b, ArbCom should not be making policy, full stop, especially in less established areas like BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mailer Diablo 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Great guy, will do well, but not in my list of seven. (Can we have more seats please??) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak 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 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nothing personal, but too many hats IMO. Otherwise nothing wrong here, though. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose same reason as Pedro. RMHED (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. oppose- too much like the current arbs. Sticky Parkin 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. oppose This would be a step backwards I'm afraid. RxS (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Many concerns in answers to questions. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Biophys (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose BrianY (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. It's the "too many hats" thing again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Mr.Z-man 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. seresin ( ¡? )  06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Cardamon (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Mike R (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Busy enough as it is. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Great job as a clerk, but not comfortable as per answers to questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I'm not convinced that this candidate would bring anything unique to the Committee, and their MMORPGish stance on contributions from banned users is a blatant elevation of personalities over encyclopaedia content. Skomorokh 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Ecoleetage (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose His stance on fair use aside (which fails to understand core policy), his insulting behavior towards another user is completely unacceptable ([1] "crusade" comment). Further, if you want to join ArbCom, step down as bureaucrat. I agree with hat collecting comments above. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While "completely unacceptable" is obviously over the top, this comment is an interesting reminder that we're all on a "crusade" in some way; I mean, we're participating not for money of for personal worldly gain, but for some higher goal. We must persistently respect each other's goals and keep in mind that we need people who work towards conflict resolution as well as people who work on image copyright issues. — Sebastian 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe this is the appropriate venue to discuss the merits of his insulting behavior. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I was trying to point out the merits of your message. I have for a long time here tried to see the merits of both sides' arguments, regardless how they are worded. Please assume good faith. — Sebastian 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I've gone through his responses to questions twice now, and I just don't think they're indicative of the depth of thought you'd hope to see from an Arb Comm member. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose --Stephen 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Has no clue about the purpose of Wikipedia, escalates. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. I'm surprised to be opposing an editor I greatly respect but your use of IRC and support for checkuser fishing in some cases is sufficiently concerning for me to regretfully oppose. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Gentgeen (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Achromatic (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Too many hats. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Racepacket (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose stance on science unacceptableMccready (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Regretfully oppose 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) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. "Evidence submitted privately that is in fact private should stay with arbcom." - no it shouldn't. Cynical (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I think there are better candidates around, sorry. --Conti|✉ 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Arbcom doesn't need another civility nanny. Skinwalker (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose hats, too many. Arkon (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Eóin (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong oppose Stance on science per this response is unacceptable. Either candidate does not understand NPOV in science articles or has an anti-science agenda. Either way, this is bad for Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Per CharlotteWebb and OrangeMarlin. Either might be enough for me to put aside but the combination is too much. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong Oppose based on Rlevse's actions in preventing the addition of reliably sources content to the George Thomas Coker and for his role in the "footnoted quotes" debacle that led to the "BLP Special Enforcement" process. As Arbcom clerk, Rlevse appears to have pushed Arbcom into accepting a case on "footnoted quotes" in which it refused to deal with the subject at hand, inclusion of brief quotations in references. The end results of the case he pushed for: 1) After months of stonewalling, the content he so actively opposed was added to the Coker article, where it remains without issue. 2) User:RedSpruce, the instigator of the "Footnoted Quotes" RfAr, self destructed after several blocks due to edit warring, mostly over footnoted quotes; and 3) "BLP Special Enforcement" turned into an Arbcom decision that was rejected by the community. The failure to properly deal with a clear conflict of interest in the article in question and as Arbcom clerk where he had an active conflict demonstrates qualities that ought to disqualify Rlevse from consideration. Alansohn (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Rlevse&oldid=255999991"