Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Coren

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Coren or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

• Yes, solid proven track record. Good answers on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 10:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have voted to Oppose this candidate and many other candidates due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Whether or not I agree with the candidate's stances in such conflicts is negligible. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members, or, in this particular case, a contract renewal. Vodello (talk) 22:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have voted to Support. Though I don't agree with all of his opinions, I value the expertise he brings in the position, and find his answers to the questions thoughtful and well articulated. Martinp (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
• Last year I opposed with this comment:

  There is much to like, respect and admire in this candidate who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I cannot support however as there seems too much of a desire to solve tricky problems by being firm rather than imaginative. I am also slightly concerned by answers to questions which indicate a willingness to block users who are critical and problematic but who haven't broken the community's own guidelines.

  I note that the candidate in his answers to questions admits that he hasn't been an impressive committee member, and the work that has been mainly his has not been of a standard that even he admires; yet he has been at times inappropriately strong, and has blocked at least one user who hadn't broken the community's own guidelines. I don't think that we need to be as "firm" as the candidate wishes, I feel we need to be be "appropriate". Resolution, for me, involves discussion rather than blocking. I am supporting those candidates who display the ability to negotiate a resolution rather than force one. SilkTork *^YES! 10:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, unfortunately. It, too, has been my experience with this candidate that force is relied upon too quickly. BigK HeX (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Good record as a whole and deserves re-election, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)