From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ronline

Hi! I'm candidating for the ArbCom because I believe in justice in Wikipedia and think I can bring about positive change as to the fairness of arbitration procedures. I have worked in mediation in the past (in real life), and also in various cases at both the English and Romanian Wikipedias. If I become an arbitrator, my most important consideration will be to look at both sides impartially and to guarantee that the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way. I am a firm believed in dialogue, and I always aim to make sure that both sides understand very well what the dispute is about, since I believe that alienation and misunderstanding is the most significant and most dangerous root of conflict. It is only through true justice and transparency that we can bring about a better, more stable and more trustworthy Wikipedia community. Feel free to ask any questions on the questions page below. Thanks, Ronline ✉ 09:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions

Support

  1. Support according to me, he would be a good arbiter -- Angelo 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. New blood good and has good principles. -- Dogbreathcanada 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Dogbreathcanada does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. How could the account be created December 28? Edits go back before then.. (Confusion on my part:voter's account, not candidate's). Strong edit history, good statement.-- ragesoss 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support can't find anything wrong with this user.  Grue  06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Support A user that I highly respect. -- Mihai - talk 08:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Support warpozio 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Danny Yee 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Support. -- AdiJapan 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. Good experiences with this user on Wikinews. I trust him on a Wikimedia level, and that's enough for me to trust him on a Wikipedia level.-- Eloquence * 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Very Strong Support - I trust Ronline to be one of the best and good member of ArbCom. He is one of the most dedicated contributor to mediation conflicts. He is by far the best of them with a very warm, friendly attitude towards people. We trust him to be one of the best and fit for this position. Bonaparte talk 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Bonaparte likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support.He has what it takes. Dunemaire 18:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support. -- kingboyk 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Support. Has real-life mediation experience and is committed to transparency. - Xed 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. -- HK 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Support. Wally 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Support. Corax 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. nett experience across various projects sufficient, a successful mediator from what I've seen.-- cjllw | TALK 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Support due to supposedly high support for users' rights. −− It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Support Good editor. Good admin. Able to forget about his oppinions when arbitrating. Dpotop 11:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Support-- JK the unwise 12:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Support, user's statement has overcome any doubts I may have had about their experience. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Support -- Chris S. 07:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Support. Demonstrated Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot and inexhaustible amount of good faith. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 08:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support - experienced with mediation. -- NorkNork 21:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Support Dr. B 17:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Dahn 19:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User's first edit was on October 27, 2005, so s/he may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 21:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Support I'm concerned about Ronline's casting things in judicial terms, but like the mediation experience and the evenhanded tone in what discussions of his I've seen. -- William Pietri 00:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Support. He seems to assume good faith, to have good judgement, and to educate subjects of disputes a friendly manner (e.g. this edit). The Rod 04:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support I just seem to agree with too many of the things that he does to NOT vote for him. Carptrash 06:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support -- Angr ( tɔk) 16:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Oppose. Ambi 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose. -- Interiot 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose Great behavior in disputes, but I believe more experience may be necessary. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. Potential to be an excellent dispute-resolver, but needs a bit more experience. Batmanand 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 03:36, Jan. 9, 2006
  17. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Bobet 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose 172 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose -- Crunch 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose. android 79 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. -- Daniel 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose. I like ronline, but he's basically new to the English wiki. From my experience with him 2 months ago, he didn't know how DR even worked. So. No. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Would really like to support, but I'm afraid the lack of XP keeps me from doing so. Weakly, very weakly oppose. — Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose, not experienced enough. R adiant _>|< 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose. Lack of experience; policy.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 21:26 Z
  31. Oppose - Sorry, needs more experience in 'en'. Awolf002 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Strong oppose. This wannabe arbiter doesn't even know a difference between blocking and banning. His first admin action was to block an editor with 50,000+ edits, without consulting more experienced admins, thus demonstrating complete ignorance of Wikipedia:Controversial blocks and provoking ongoing disruption of Wikipedia. -- Ghirla | talk 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Splash talk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. -- Hottentot (now Khoikhoi) 01:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. older≠ wiser 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. OPPOSE. IT'S NOT ABOUT JUSTICE DAMMIT. It's about arbitration. You're not a crusader, you're not a policeman, or a vigilante. You help. Avriette 06:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. oppose Kingturtle 06:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose Quite simple, the candidate says: "the rights of the accused are always upheld in the fairest way". But I say "Arbitration is not a judicial system." Fifelfoo 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose. Inexperience doesn't bother me as much as the character, language, and escalation I see here. -- Ds13 22:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose. siafu 04:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose - superficial. -- Anittas 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  48. Oppose - superficial and contradictory candidiate's statement. mikka (t) 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Weak oppose William M. Connolley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  50. Oppose, although weakly. Real-life conflict resolution is a plus, but the generic feel of the statement turns me off. Velvetsmog 01:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose Jared 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose Needs more seasoning. -- Davidpdx 13:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Krash 18:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose. maclean25 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose - nothing against the user, I would just like to see more familiarity with English Wikipedia -- Francs 2000 00:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose - Chooserr 05:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose. A bit too inexperienced and views on justice and dispute resolution a too legalistic. Superm401 | Talk 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. Preaky 01:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose. Though I hope this user runs in the future -- Masonpatriot 05:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose per legalistic view of arbcom. Youngamerican 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose. morphing proposed ombudsman from a "purely consultative structure" into a way to remove ArbCom members -- JWSchmidt 00:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Weak oppose. I like candidate's ideas (esp. support of ombudsman idea), but needs more experience with English Wikipedia. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 02:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose, questions. KTC 12:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ronline&oldid=1087298217"