Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Matt Yeager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Statement

One of the annoying things about the Arbcom Committee (there aren't many, I think they tend to do a very, very good job) is how they're all "insiders" (e.g. they favor their "friends", or at least they often give that impression... they don't recuse NEARLY as much as they should... administrators are basically never punished with more than a slap on the wrist, etc). I'd provide an outsider's point of view in deliberations.

I don't expect to win this nomination, or to even come close; however, I'm at the point, blissfully, where I don't care all that much about how the higher-ups in the Wikipedia community think of me. I think that'd actually be a pretty good trait for an arbcom member to have, come to think of it. I haven't edited WP much in the past couple months (marching band sucks up one's life, tragically), but it's ended, so I would be able to serve if I happened to win.

Enjoy life.

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. moral support Ashibaka tock 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. —Mira 03:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. semper fi — Moe 05:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. As per Ashibaka. Ourai т с 05:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Seems to have common sense. --Sugaar 11:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Support (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support definitely Dragomiloff 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. I do emphasise with your motives for running. Wikiwoohoo 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Moral Support Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 03:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Moral support. —Nightstallion (?) 13:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support ArbCom needs more people like this, not more bureaucrats. -Drdisque 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Moral support Justforasecond 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. To the point, common sense. Too bad. Andre (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support --Lukobe 07:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Chensiyuan 09:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. I think it would be beneficial to Wikipedia to have more points of view. --Merlinme 12:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support After reading some of the opposing comments, as well as Matt's statements, I have to support him. It appears that admins & others below (most notably Cyde Weys, but also Seadog ♪, Fairsing & Ral315) may mistake a lack of veneration for administrators with a bias against them. I sympathize with Matt for becoming so fed up with some of the inherent inadequacies of the current system that he was willing to take on the mantel of a protest candidate. It is precisely because Matt stands in opposition to ArbCom's current pro-admin bias (a natural bias given its composition & place in the project) that heavy-handed admins like Cyde Weys could feel drawn to defend a system that largely insulates them from consequence. It is also precisely because these particular knives are out in opposition to Matt's candidacy that I've felt compelled to translate my agreement with him into a vote of support for him. Will he win? Likely not; In this case, the journey is more important than the destination. In my view, ArbCom could stand to do more policing of admin behavior, and it might take someone like Matt to bring about that change. --Ssbohio 06:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. Some of the opposition comments are pretty hilarious. ugen64 08:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support As at this vote - approx. 40% agree with your comments. Your view is part of the journey many wikipedians (unfortunately for the project as a whole) quickly come to understand. image:VirtualSteve.pngVirtualSteve 20:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support as per SSbohio Lost Kiwi(talk)21:47, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Wetman 23:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I don't think distrust of ArbCom bodes well for sitting on ArbCom; also, I think that if the candidate gets onto ArbCom to give an outsider's perspective, he will soon have an insider's perspective. :-) theProject 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. - crz crztalk 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Titoxd(?!?) 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Hello32020 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Awolf002 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Peta 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Avi 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. I found his statement came across as flaky. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. KPbIC 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Rebecca 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy, egregiously so with regard to the function of ArbCom and the purpose of blocking. —Centrx→talk • 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Jd2718 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Very serious concerns regarding experience, grasp of policy. Xoloz 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. He doesn't even expect to win ... why bother? --Cyde Weys 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. oppose Per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Unfortunately, I believe his statement contains personal attacks and/or unsubstantiated accusations. Scobell302 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. ArbCom has an abiding need for unity not provided here. Serpent's Choice 05:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Nufy8 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Dylan Lake 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. sorry but no.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. — CharlotteWebb 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Sorry, but I can't support. Terence Ong 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. – Chacor 09:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose - Interesting statement though. --Van helsing 09:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. cj | talk 10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Shyam (T/C) 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Sorry. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Michael Snow 23:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Per cyde ways.--Seadog ♪ 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Follow your bliss. —Viriditas | Talk 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Everyking 07:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. Metamagician3000 08:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. —Ruud 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose ×Meegs 11:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Great guy, just not right for Arbcom. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Not now. Nishkid64 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Steel 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Cardamon 05:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. oppose Pete.Hurd 06:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Nope Spartaz 18:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. Statement appears to indicate potential bias against admins. Fairsing 02:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Not a good idea. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 10:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose per Fairsing.--Aldux 15:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Opppose. Not a constructive platform. Also, from my experience (as an outsider looking at various arbcom cases), the arbitrators take cases of abuse of admin power very seriously, and give appropriate remedies (which ranged from desysopping, to note of caution, to simply nothing if the case was bogus). Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. I believe that his claims about arbcom are unsubstantiated. If he were on arbcom, I fear that he would destabilize it. --Danaman5 19:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose--Jersey Devil 08:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose - I don't know Matt, but his reasons for wanting to be on ArbCom sound like WP:POINT FiggyBee 17:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, he is a good guy and I feel we can safely assume good faith about his intentions. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. riana_dzasta 09:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. It's great that he thinks he'll be able to spare the time from his other activities if he wins, but there are dedicated and fanatic editors and admins running who already are putting in that time. RGTraynor 17:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, per Xoloz and RGTraynor. In general, he's a good editor. However, the changes he wants to make to RfA are troubling (30 voters determining a candidate's success or failure could really open itself up to cabal accusations). I'm also concerned about possible leaves of absence, since arbitrators are fewer in number and appointed a lot less often than admins. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Sorry. Dweller 10:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. Maybe you should get adminship first. Conscious 13:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Sarah Ewart 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose, not the kind of person arbcom needs. Gazpacho 19:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_Matt_Yeager_be33.html"