Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Crazytales56297

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

[edit] Statement

I've been around since May 2005. In that timespan, I've made around 3100 edits, and I believe I've upheld civility and NPA. I try to look at both sides of a dispute. I feel I was pretty civil, for example, in the Esperanza MfD, where I saw civility lacking. I try also to be polite in my discussions. I feel that it would be a great privilege to give back to Wikipedia in this capacity and server in the best interest of the community. ~ crazytales-talk- 04:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. ~Crazytales56297 | t+c 12:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. Moral Support Because I know if he actually got the position, he would uphold it the best that he could. semper fi — Moe 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral Support - don't be discouraged and keep on editing. BigDT 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support as per Moe. Ourai т с 06:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Moral Support - enjoy being young and vibrant, why become old and synicle before your time Gnangarra 07:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Strong Support I personally have no problem with this user due to age, he's been here for over a year, that shows commitment to the project. ST47Talk 11:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Moral Support Age is not a concern, we all remember being 14 and you can think very well at that age. But yes, I think a little more time is needed and editing experience to make it clear that this is not just a passing interest. If the term were short, say a year, I might offer real support. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wehwalt (talk • contribs) 17:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Fred Bauder 14:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. íslenskur fellibylur #12 (samtal) 22:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    Support He should get a chance, he wants to contribute and has the energy. Alektzin 16:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Alektzin does not have suffrage; he had only 100 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Moral Support Just give it time... Lost Kiwi(talk)22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Moral Support Be not discouraged. \/\/slack (talk) 23:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Weak oppose out of concern about age. A lot can change from 14 to 17, including school, commitment, level of interest. Crazytales should keep contributing in other ways for now. Jd2718 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Sorry, too young. Nothing personal though ... you cannot "fix" the year in which you were born. --Cyde Weys 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Age is not a factor; I however do oppose. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. - crz crztalk 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Weak oppose because of experience not necessarily age. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. As per comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Titoxd(?!?) 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose, but feel free to try again when you have more experience. --Coredesat 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Avi 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Age is not a factor here either. However, the candidate's answer leaves me wondering exactly how much he values verifiability, which, in my opinion, is fundamental to an encyclopedia. theProject 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. SuperMachine 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Awolf002 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Delta Tango • Talk 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. —Mira 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Lack of experience with content disputes. Understanding of Wikipedia policy. —Centrx→talk • 02:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Rebecca 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Age makes me wary not answering questions sealed it --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Insufficient record of policy experience. Xoloz 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Reluctantly oppose because of quantity of experience. Notify me when you go again in a year and I'll support. -THB 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Dylan Lake (t·c) 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Nufy8 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Mailer Diablo 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. I reluctantly oppose with this vote, not because of age - I myself am only a small bit older than Tales. However, I'm worried over the fact that he hasn't answered about half of the questions, and he has stated that he will recuse himself from a case involving Esperanzans. This would cause him to recuse himself from far too many cases, as Esperanza has over 700 members - a bit much. --NomaderTalk 05:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Based on breadth of experience, and without prejudice for future ArbCom elections. Serpent's Choice 05:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Without respect to age and per Xoloz and Centrx, who well note that there is an insufficent record here on which to draw fairly any firm conclusions apropos of judgment and policy conversance. Joe 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Sorry too young, I hate to take IRC into account, but his behavior there makes me shake my head alot... I just feel this user just doesnt seem like arbcom material.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Mediation takes perspective that requires more years to develop. Sorry, too young. —Doug Bell talk 08:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Too young Catchpole 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. cj | talk 09:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. – Chacor 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Hasn't answered all questions, including some that were asked before his last answer. Only contributed roughly 50% of days in November. Answered Mailer Diablo's question about establishing a policy by fiat by saying he would make something that is already policy a policy. In my eyes, insufficient activity for a highly demanding role and insufficient grasp on current policy. GRBerry 12:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Crazytales, maybe you should try WP:MedCab first to gain experience on dispute resolutions. --Neigel von Teighen 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Sorry. Dweller 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Shyam (T/C) 13:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. TewfikTalk 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose per Centrx. This has nothing to do with age. 1ne 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. --Pjacobi 19:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose per answers to questions (too short and often, IMO, wrong). Eluchil404 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Gurch 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Michael Snow 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. —Viriditas | Talk 00:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. Sorry, this might be too much responsabilities for you. Lincher 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose Answers to questions didn't sit well with me, I suggest you try MedCab as well. This may be far too much pressure on you. riana_dzasta 03:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose per answers to the questions. As mentioned earlier, they were short, and I disagree with a few of them. WODUP talk/contribs 04:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. Silensor 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose - Per the Esperanza dilemma. Age shouldn't be, and isn't a concern. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Age is certainly not a factor, but behavior leaves a little to be desired. tgies 09:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Inexperience Giano 13:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose Inexperience -Drdisque 15:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose. Insufficient experience as of now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose Inexperienced. --kingboyk 19:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Experience in life and Wikipedia are necessary to arbitrate disputes. --StuffOfInterest 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose Inexperienced user. Nishkid64 20:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose not because of age but due to inexperience. Andre (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose - Inexperience. --Andy Blak 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose - not yet ready for this responsibility. Metamagician3000 23:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose based on user page. Gazpacho 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose - sorry, but I think you're a tad too young. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. A bit too young for now. --Danaman5 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose, while I have no doubt of the candidatess ability, I do have doubts that older wikipedians would respect his opinion. Mallanox 01:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose per inexperience.--Aldux 12:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose for now; I try not to be too judgmental regarding age of admins and the like, but the arbcom is a bigger responsibility than that. My interests changed frequently and rapidly in high school even though I was pretty mature for my age (most of my friends were at least 2 years older than I was); we probably should not have an arbitrator this young unless he's proven that he's not subject to those kinds of whims - new admins grow on trees, but new arbitrators can only be named about once a year. Also, I don't like the answer to the question about Fred Bauder. While I think Fred is a diligent arbitrator, the ArbCom does not have a chair; and having him write all of the decisions essentially elevates his power above the other arbitrators'. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose : Age is NOT a concern for me, because I am myself 15 years old, but still.. candidate slightly concerns me. I have to oppose for now, but I could eventually support one day if I see evidence that he will make a great job here. --Deenoe 02:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  72. oppose lack sufficient on-wiki experience Pete.Hurd 02:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose not for being to young but being inexperianced here on wikipedia. — Seadog 04:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  74. Weak oppose due to age and inexperience. I'm afraid that in a position like Arbitrator, the ability to command respect from a wide swath of Wikipedians is essential, and a user this young won't be able to acquire that, no matter how talented and dedicated he is. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 09:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  75. Age and unsettling answers to questionsShagmaestro 11:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 12:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose, Although I don't feel adminship should be an Arbcom pre req, this editor appears to be ultimately inexperienced. James E. Zavaleta T C E 16:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose due to age and experience level. Michael 21:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose per age and level of experience. Please consider withdrawing you nomination.--Jersey Devil 07:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose. Never mind the (alleged) inexperience, I just don't have a sense of what this editor brings to the table. Arbcom's a tough, elite job, and someone who has nothing more to say about himself than "I believe I've upheld civility" and "I try ... to be polite" is well under an acceptable standard. RGTraynor 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose Due to experience level. Also I'm not sure how confident this user is in operating Arbcom. But this user has potiental. And personally, age is nothing but a number. Anom8trw8 20:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose per others. The age really isn't a problem in my opinion, but more out of experience. bibliomaniac15 01:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose -- I wouldn't/haven't stood for Admin in the same time frame with more than twice the edits. Try some mediation too. Sorry // FrankB 21:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  86. Sarah Ewart 23:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose - Ditto. Royalbroil T : C 02:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose. Candidate statement is too light and I don't think he has grasped the complexity of the task. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose. Age not an issue, but lack of wiki experience is. the wub "?!" 11:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  90. Oppose candidate expresses a naive misunderstanding of the controversies surrounding scientific subjects and I am concerned about the candidate's ideas regarding the scientific commentary on religious subjects. --ScienceApologist 16:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose Inexperience, not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  92. Oppose, but please try again. Age isn't an issue, but lack of experience is. Voretustalk 21:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_Crazytales56297_47b9.html"