Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Rlevse

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SQL (talk | contribs) at 20:34, 14 December 2008 (→‎Support: yes). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


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]
    Support - Shot info (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Rethinking my support. Moving to neutral at the moment oppose. Shot info (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support based on personal trust. Jehochman Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support One of the finest and most trustworthy editors around. Dreadstar † 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Tom B (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Will help fix the committee. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. - filelakeshoe 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --Banime (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Kuru talk 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. krimpet✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. kurykh 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. I couldn't think of something witty. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Steven Walling (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support bahamut0013♠♣ 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. 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]
  34. 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]
  35. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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]
  37. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Gimmetrow 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Compotent and trustworthy, more so than most.--Koji† 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support RockManQReview me 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. He definitively got mine. And screw you know who... ;) --Mixwell!Talk 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Strongest Possible ever Support iMatthew 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support--Terrillja talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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]
  49. Excellent editor who puts the encyclopedia first over drama. AgneCheese/Wine 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 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]
  51. Absolutely L'Aquatique[talk] 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I'll miss you as a clerk, but you were always too good for us :) Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. (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]
  56. Support JodyB talk 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. 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]
  58. Strong Support. Quality and what we need. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support One of the names I hoped to find here. GJC 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. David Shankbone 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. 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]
  62. CIreland (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support Ethnic wars need a strong hand. Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Obviously the right pick for the job. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support BJTalk 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support. Eusebeus (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. 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]
  68. B (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support -MBK004 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. 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]
  71. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Mike H. Fierce! 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 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]
  75. Strong support لennavecia 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. SoWhy 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. 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]
  79. Support.-gadfium 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. 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]
  81. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. No real conflict between crat and arb duties I think. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. — neuro(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Absolutely no reservations. Ronnotel (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support My only regret in posting this is that we will lose a valuable clerk. - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Woody (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    --Conti|✉ 13:18, 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) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support My workings with him in WP:SLR convinces me to do so. Taprobanus (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support easy choice, good editor, handles the heat fine, likely to remain objective. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. 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]
  96. Strong Support Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  97. Support Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Good on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support: yes. Sceptre (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 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]
  101. Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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]
  103. 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]
  104. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. 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]
  106. I trust him. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 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]
  108. Synergy 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. 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]
  112. 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]
  113. Tiptoety talk 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. 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]
  115. The Helpful One 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Strong editor, strong admin, and would be a strong member of ArbCom. --Patrick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. 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]
  119. Support Philly jawn (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. 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]
  121. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Strong support. I can think of no-one better to take up the role. haz (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. Respectful, great contributor, never abuses power. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - strong experience, good statement. Warofdreams talk 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. 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]
  128. 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]
  129. Support - Great guy and a great Wikipedian. Deserves to be there. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. -- Avi (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support - Rlevse is one of the users I trust the most. Xclamation point 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Tend to find myself agreeing with user v often. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. An excellent clerk, admin, and all the rest. Dr. eXtreme 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support -- an excellent admin, with a clear sense of rectitude. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. 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]
  136. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Strong Support Alexfusco5 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. 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]
  139. Support, great candidate. Khoikhoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Keeper ǀ 76 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. 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]
  143. +S++ Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support a good user with common sense. I trust in your judging. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. RelHistBuff (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Outstanding Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Has consistently displayed objectiveness.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support per above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. 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]
  151. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - Biruitorul Talk 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Always been impressed with this editor's common sense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. 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]
  157. 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]
  158. Support  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Weak support. A bit to boring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Effective admin and clerk, hopefully will bring positive change to the ArbCom. - Fedayee (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. 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]
  163. Support. bibliomaniac15 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Gnangarra 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support faithless (speak) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support - Alison ❤ 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support One of the better candidates. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Quality candidate. — Satori Son 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:41, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
  174. 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]
  175. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - Renee (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Yes! ~Eliz81(C) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support vi5in[talk] 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support A steady, fair hand is needed here. 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]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. R. Baley (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. Strong that is.--Avg (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support. Trust his decision making ability 100%. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support I have had a consistently favorable view of Rlevse's contributions as an administrator, and I believe he has the good judgment, personal commitment, courage, and consistency that the arbitration committee requires. Additionally, his answers to questions indicate the right qualities and insights. --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. 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]
  186. Good guy for the job. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support - jc37 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support My positive encounters with him have been very pleasant. He is a civil user that is willing to discuss edits. Leujohn (talk)
  190. Support Walkerma (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support dougweller (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Happy‑melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support hbent (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support, decent and honest. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support BigDuncTalk 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support. Unpronouncable, but very good refs.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. TS 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind. Sorry. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Wronkiew (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. II | (t - c) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Strong support. Excellent record and contributions as an admin, clerk, and 'crat, along with very sound judgment. --MCB (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Terence (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Grandmaster (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support. Sharp-minded member of the community with decent past. --Hectorian (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support. A trustworthy individual, who I'm delighted to be able to support. His opinions regarding Arbcom reform and our current accomodation of problem users seem to correlate closely with mine. Leithp 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support, probably my top choice of all the candidates. Exemplary wikipedian with good ideas for the future. ~ mazca t|c 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    With his wide-ranging work and responsibilities, he is a role-model. Shiva (Visnu) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. support Randomran (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support RLevse is a balanced person, and I believe he knows how to combine his ArbCom duties from his other duties without creating any conflict of interest. — Edokter • Talk • 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support \ / (⁂) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support—Tony (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support Xenus (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support Knows how to be civil and objective even when he is dealing with those who hold a different point of view. Haiduc (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. I would not treat it as prudent for me to cast a vote in his favour, given my inter-communication links, but considering the more-than-decent knowledge of the wiki, its systems and his practical solutions to problems, I support Rlevse. Caulde 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support --Vacio (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support - Seddσn talk 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support without reservations. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support BencherliteTalk 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- Capasitor (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote as you did not have over 150 mainspace edits by November 1st. — neuro(talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support --Domer48'fenian' 16:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support yes :) --Mardetanha talk 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support - Jd2718 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support Obvious choice. MaxPont (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support —Animum (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support --VS talk 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. An experienced steady hand and just what we need fir Arbcom. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - Shyam (T/C) 09:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support Justin talk 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support --Iamawesome800 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  233. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support - good candidate. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support - Absolutely. Trusilver 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support - trustworthy candidate.VR talk 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support. Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support Willful disregard of own conflicts of interest indicates that this candidate has the arrogance and chutzpah to be nearly as bad as James Forrester in the role. Kelly Martin 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support abf /talk to me/ 13:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support as nom. Seriously though, to be blunt, I trust him, he knows what he's doing, and he'll make a great arbcom addition. Plus he was already trusted with the checkuser tool, there's a big plus. Wizardman 15:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support. Truly one of this site's great assets and more than worthy of the job. GIve 'em hell! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  245. Strong support Rlevse has shown he can be very capable and fair. -- btphelps (talk) (contribs) 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support — CactusWriter | needles 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support Very dedicated to the project, and does lots of heavy lifting. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Strong support--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support The clerking experience will serve well, and I trust Rlevse's judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Rlevse's contributions to Wikipedia are entirely beneficial, not to mention diverse. The only thing that tempers my support for him is the fact that I do have some concerns about editors wearing "too many hats," but my trust and faith in Rlevse extends to the belief that he will be able to juggle it all just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support--thunderboltz(TALK) 07:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Aynabend (talk) 08:58, 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]
  252. →Na·gy 09:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support Gazimoff 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ←Spidern→ 16:32, 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) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Strong support — I have no issue with "too many hats". I think that experience in a broad range of Wikipedia areas can be very beneficial. Rlevse is in the best position to assess his ability to fulfill a commitment to ArbCom, should he be selected. His many strong contributions in a wide variety of roles is the reason for this support vote. — ERcheck (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Strong support Rlevse has shown he can be very capable and fair.-Phips (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support. Another log on the fire. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support Knows what the issues are. Fred Talk 20:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support Rgoodermote  00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support Shenme (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support -- The Myotis (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Support, a consistently strong editor, and one with more experience working with ARB than most candidates have even being administrators. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support An excellent content contributor. Though I hope he will moderate some of his opinions if elected to ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support--Vintagekits (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support--Rjecina (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Strong Support I absolutely support Rlevse for ArbCom. Rlevse is fair, he listens to all viewpoints, does not allow his feelings to affect decisions, and he is respectful of others. He has 15 Featured Articles, one Featured Portal, and a Featured List that he's assisted with, and he continues this work despite working in multiple areas, showing his deep dedication to the continued building of the encyclopedia. While I would agree this would add another "hat", so to speak, Rlevse has shown his ability to balance his Wikipedia contributions without any problems, and arguments that people shouldn't have "too many hats" seem silly to me. We need all the help we can get here, as Wikipedia grows ever larger and has ever more editors working on it. ArbCom takes a special type of highly dedicated person; Rlevse has proven he is more than able to devote the time and energy it takes to work in multiple areas, and his experience in clerking at ArbCom make him highly qualified to join the committee. The claims of "power hunger", likewise I find silly. Being a member of ArbCom does nothing to increase an editor's "power", since ArbCom is a group, not a single person, they are resolving disputes, not wielding policy power like a dictator. I think that Wikipedia would benefit greatly from the addition of Rlevse to the Arbitration Committee. Ariel♥Gold 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support - He was one of the admins who helped resolve many issues which concerned Sri Lankan articles. Rlevse always acted civil and neutral in these conflict related areas. I believe that he will be a great addition to Arbcom members. Watchdogb (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support --danielfolsom 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  276. miranda 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support Bikasuishin (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Support. How embarassing that Wikipedia handles voting like this publicly, but I endorse this candidate anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support One of the first candidates who have said they feel there needs to be change who I've felt confident supporting. Change always sounds good, but we need to know a change to what and why? This candidate appears to understand well that it's not just the arbitrators fault for whatever problems the AC have Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support ϢereSpielChequers 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Support Great editor. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Strong Support: Too much "power" concentration is not applicable in his case -- Tinu Cherian - 03:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support. Seems to be dedicated to doing the right thing. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support Exceptional work, per SandyGeorgia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support Wiki Raja (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support. alanyst /talk/ 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support --AAA765 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Experience as a clerk and with CheckUser will serve ArbCom well. — Manticore 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support. -- Mentisock 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Absolute support - Much of the right criteria for ArbCom.Mitch32(Go Syracuse) 14:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Undying Support - Brilliant, level-headed and trustworthy member of the community. Would be an excellent addition to Arbcom. MattieTK 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  297. SQLQuery me! 20:34, 14 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]
    Mike R (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Busy enough as it is. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Great job as a clerk, but not comfortable as per answers to questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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]
  42. Oppose Ecoleetage (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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]
  44. 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]
  45. Oppose --Stephen 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Has no clue about the purpose of Wikipedia, escalates. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. 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]
  48. Gentgeen (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Kusma (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Achromatic (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Too many hats. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Racepacket (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 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]
  55. 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]
  56. I think there are better candidates around, sorry. --Conti|✉ 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Arbcom doesn't need another civility nanny. Skinwalker (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose hats, too many. Arkon (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Eóin (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. 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]
  62. 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]
  63. 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]
  64. Oppose RayAYang (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. SashaNein (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose this is at best an evasive answer, which is enough for me to vote no; it may be a dangerous answer. Articles on such scientific topics as evolution and race raise very complex issues concerning NPOV. So far Wikipedia has handled these cases nicely - but only because of special sensitivity to scientific topics. It is not enough for Rlevse simply to refer to NPOV, the whole issue is how NPOV is interpreted and applied in these kinds of cases. If Rlevse cannot provide a thoughtful answer about this, I cannot trust this candidate to mediate or arbitrate disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV simply means that every article includes all pertinent and rational views. This does not mean we include every view. I think the core of a science article should be the consensus of current scientific thinking. For something like physics, this is easy. For something like psychology, it’s not so clear cut but should reflect the mainstream scientific view. As an editor, I would look towards what sort of representative viewpoint is being taught to college students as the major representative viewpoint and what is plastered on poorly copied flyers stuck on street lights as the fringe content. As an arb though, I cannot judge content, because while the viewpoint of science is fairly clear, in other fields like ethnic disputes, there is no controlling expert opinion, even in the halls of academia, there is great divide. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NPOV does not mean /every/ POV, it means the neutral POV. Let’s use the old example that you don't really need to mention the present day flat earth society in the article on Earth since the neutral POV is so large as to exclude that fringe topic to its own article. The thrust of an article should be its core and not get too sidetracked to other things, though linking to them is sometimes okay. The core thrust of a science article should be the mainstream scientific consensus and view. On a subject like math this would not be disputed much but subjects like social science are less straightforward and then there are fringe theories that aren’t even worth mentioning in a main article. I think this issue has to be handled case by case, some alternate theories are worth mentioning, some aren’t. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I still have some qualms and do not feel comfortable changing my vote. In some ethnic disputes it may be that there is no relevant prevailing scholarly opinion, for example, but I think that social science knowledge is systematically deprecated at least in English speaking countries, and at Wikipedia - when people are the object of study, sometimes everyone thinks that simply because they are people they are experts. Or a linguist thinks that he has the qualifications to judge the work of an sociologist, or a chemist thinks he has the authority to make claims about psychology ... Wikipedia needs to accord to the social sciences the same status it accords to physics and biology, and the more conflict there is surrounding an issue, the greater the need for informed judgment. I am sure you agree with much of what I said in principle, but I am still not comfortable enough to change my vote. That said, I really appreciate the time you took to respond to my concerns, and I think your responses were very thoughtful. It appears to be certain that you will win, and whether or not I change my vote will not make a difference. I know what I am about to say will sound like a cop-out, but if the vote on your candidacy were very close I would probably strike out my "oppose" and abstain, because I do not think you are a bad candidate, I just have lingering concerns. Since the vote is not close, it doesn't matter. Moreover, I strongly believe that one of the greatest thing about Wikipedia is that it provides frameworks for people who even passionately disagree (i.e. far, far beyond any concerns I have about your candidacy) to work together. I am taking the time to write all of this because I respect you enough to provide this explanation, for what it is worth, and also to hope you know that, despite my vote, I am sincere in wishing you well. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Per SLR. That answer worries me. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pls see response to Slrubenstein — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. @pple complain 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. --Fang Aili talk 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose is too strong a word. Best of luck to Rlevse. I was a bit uncomfortable with his answers. Chergles (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose per Slrubenstein above. Tom Harrison Talk 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose SBHarris 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose for anti-science stance. Verbal chat 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Tex (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose - The "too many hats/consolidation of power" argument is very persuasive. Additionally, historical elections of editors to ArbCom who were, in effect, popular through inoffensiveness has worked out poorly. WilyD 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Huldra (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose per opening statement. Appreciate your efforts and contributions, but not convinced you are dedicated to this commitment. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Icewedge (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Hats/Science/intolerant --Buster7 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Doesn't understand what NPOV is; too much power; seems kind of wrapped up in Wikipedia drama tgies (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Mike R (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Seems like a nice guy, but too soft for Arbcom. Ameriquedialectics 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose - I'm particularly worried that the candidate supports civility restrictions while saying, in the same breath, that he sees "no workable solution" to the problem of different editors having differing definitions of incivility. Seems genuinely confused on the notion of impartiality. Confusing answer on science. Rlevse may well be a nice enough guy, but, to cop a phrase I just used elsewhere, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Badger Drink (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Science intolerant. Facts matter. DepartedUser (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose Nothing personal about Rlevse himself, I just think we need far less "power" concentration not more and I feel this is especially so for something high level like the committee. Sarah 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose The answers just don't inspire me, particularly given that this user already has a lot of responsibility. I think we should share these jobs out, there are more than enough willing candidates - and candidates who offer more progressive platforms. Rje (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Xoloz (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Too inclined to act on the side of civility and keeping peace, not enough evaluation of actual impact of editors on the encyclopedia. Per the bad blocks documented here, he has been over aggressive in blocking in the name of Arbcom, doing so without respect to simple arithmetic (blocking for two weeks because of a sanction that specified "up to one week"), and exceedingly poor judgement about interpreting the meaning of the sanction in the first place.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose - it really isn't anything personal, but I think the concentration of many roles for a single editor is not only bad for the community but bad for the editor as well, whose work is subsequently spread too thinly Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose problematic priorities . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose with no animus at all. I believe this is a pleasant person with good principles, but RFA issues and too great a desire to be amenable do not show sufficient independence for ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong oppose - I've been hesitating whether to express my view here. I see this person as relying too much on "rules" to solve some human issues that can't always be addressed by the letter of the law. More subtlety is needed for arb issues than I believe this person has. Concerned about his lack of a firm stance on the treatment of scientific issues. Additionally, I agree with Gatoclass's view below. Rlevse's interjection of support for a rigid process on DYK "rules" with seemingly no understanding of the underlying issues was extremely jarring and seemed to come out of nowhere. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose - per this edit a few minutes ago where Rlevse leapt into a discussion in support of an editor who has been disrupting DYK by wikilawyering against strong consensus for days, and for the policy-wonkish proposal made by Rlevse in that same post that every change to DYK should be put before "the community" as a whole rather than decided upon by DYK regulars (does he support the same extreme view for changes to, say, policy pages?) Given the fact that Rlevse also has exactly five edits to Template talk:Did you know in the entire history of the page, this is a disturbingly rash jump into an area of the encyclopedia he clearly has very little familiarity with. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And BTW, my explanation for why I think Rlevse's support for the proposal made by another user at the DYK discussion page is so wrongheaded can be found here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing my vote from "strong oppose" to "oppose" since I was upset when I made the initial vote, which may have coloured my perceptions. However, I am still sufficiently concerned by what Mattisse termed Rlevse's "jarring" intervention on the page in question, along with his policy proposal, to have doubts about this user's judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Absolutely not Inasmuch as I regard the "footnoted quotes" decision as the most pernicious and worrisome thing to have happened here in some time (the decision, for reasons I set forth here led me, in fact, to scale back my participation here), representing as it does the substitution by the committee of the judgment of its members as to what policy ought to be for the judgment of the community and the failure of the committee to recognize that its scope is limited and that the community remain sovereign (or, at the very least, bounded only by the dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation), such that non-Foundation issues cannot rightly be said to be beyond the bailiwick of the community, it should not surprise that, my liking the candidate qua person notwithstanding, Rlevse is amongst my three last choices in this cycle. Joe 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose for same reasons as Mattisse and Gatoclass above. No offense to this editor, but when he first jumped in to the conversation I thought from the tone and content of his remark that he was a newbie; it wasn't until later I realized he was up for ArbCom election. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose: Too many hats. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Rlevse&oldid=257969421"