Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Freakofnurture

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This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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'm about as apolitical a Wikipedian as most of you will ever meet. I'm not an expert on any topic, nor am I affiliated with any person or organization that is the subject of a Wikipedia article.

In terms of potential conflicts of interest, I'm going to put things quite simply: I don't have any.

In case you're about to ask, I've never written a featured article, nor do I currently have any aspirations of doing so.

Despite these factors, and despite having never successfully getting AWB to run on my machine, I've somehow managed to accrue over 33,000 edits. I'm also older than I give myself credit for, having been an administrator since December 2005. I've tallied about 11,500 blocks (2nd to the legendary User:Curps), 7000 deletions, and several hundred page protections.

If elected, I pledge to thoroughly familiarize myself all sides of every issue. If time does not permit me to fully understand the dynamics of all open cases, I may limit the number of cases I participate in, rather than spreading myself thinly, taking shots in the dark, or risking an eeny, meeny, miny, moe charade.

Our contributors deserve better. If they weren't acting in good faith at least part of the time, the dispute would never have come to arbcom's attention, right?

I will seek the decisions that I feel, based on the available evidence, will most benefit (or least harm) the project as a whole, without regard to precedent, reputation, popular opinion, or article content.

It's not a complex strategy. It's not a complex process either. It doesn't involve making rules, or enforcing them, just determining whether or not existing ones have been broken, and whether the project has suffered as a result of said infractions. If both of these conditions aren't met, there's probably no case to be heard.

Use common sense. Weigh the pros and cons and do what's best overall. There's no manual to read, and maybe that's why it doesn't come easy to some people.

But then, I'm a pretty simple guy. —freak(talk) 06:27, Nov. 8, 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Per discussion on IRC, freakofnurture has chosen to withdraw. Ral315 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support

  1. Gurch 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    --Majorly 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Changing to oppose. --Majorly 00:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. SqueakBox 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. - crz crztalk 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Hello32020 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Khoikhoi 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. First canditate to get my support without question  Glen  01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Dakota 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. No hesitation.--SB | T 02:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. cohesion 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Lots of common sense, reasonable, decent, cares about the project. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Ars Scriptor 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. weak Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. I really do think that the candidate's tendency toward sound and logical argumentation outweighs a temperament that, as Xoloz observes, is perhaps a bit mercurial. Joe 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support per Joe and the SlimVirgin.--John Lake 07:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. A rough and tumble candidate but gets the job done and judgement is sound in general. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 07:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. — CharlotteWebb 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Misza13 12:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. yes. -- Drini 16:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. --Myles Long 19:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Introducing me to the article on "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" is enough to get my support. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. -- Polaris999 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Unfortunately, it's not surprising that you're getting swamped. You're still just about my favorite editor of all time and it would've been a great thing for you to have been elected. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Stompin' Tom 00:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    Not eligible to vote. --JJay 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. One of the few users who seems to really understand the project. --- RockMFR 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support The concerns raised by the opposition are not at all convincing. Freakofnurture's behavior regarding the route naming conventions was well within reasonable behavior given the circumstances. Furthermore, I find the opposition based on having previously having a user page with profanity and R-rated images to be very hard to understand. I don't see how that alters his ability to function on the ArbCom. JoshuaZ 00:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support - per the questions. Not only do I like this editor's attitude, I have to agree with SlimVirgin as well. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support per SlimVirgin. 172 | Talk 09:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Despite the civility issues. Factual qualification overrules niceties in manners. —Nightstallion (?) 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Bobet 14:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Competence and decisiveness trumps any percieved "civility" issues in my book -Drdisque 16:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Petition accepted. Not seen a judgement I disagreed with. - Francis Tyers · 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Ramsquire (throw me a line) 19:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support In a sane world, this would be automatic. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Unequivocally. Andre (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support Deizio talk 01:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Yamaguchi先生 01:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. ~ PseudoSudo 01:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Meets the Air Force Amy threshhold. ·maclean 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support. This guy's really got his shit together. Good job. Great answers to the questions and great contributions as an admin as well. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 06:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support DemosDemon 12:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Absolutely not. First, my interactions with this user leave me unable to support. Second, telling me to get "a job with the Broward County Canvassing Board" (whatever that is, I don't even live in Florida) is hardly civil and worthy of an editor, let alone an admin OR an arbitrator. --210physicq (c) 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. No. Mailer Diablo 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Ligulem 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Second Physicq210. [1] --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. TacoDeposit 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose per that link below Sorry Jaranda wat's sup 01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Per Physicq210. Sorry. --Coredesat 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. SuperMachine 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Strong oppose. See refusal to answer a reasonable question asked by me, and his snotty replies to the rest of them. As Physicq said, absolutely not! Samsara (talk • contribs) 01:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. KPbIC 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. pschemp | talk 02:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. —Mira 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. ^demon[omg plz] 02:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Blocks and edit counts do not maketh a good arbitrator - good dispute resolution skills do. Not the right person for the job. Rebecca 03:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Snoutwood (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Delta Tango • Talk 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Jd2718 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Sadly, insufficient evidence of dispute resolution skills. Warofdreams talk 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose See bizarre MfD nomination for WP:SPIDER. Inconsistent temperment; volatile demeanor. Xoloz 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Terence Ong 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Did anyone see his previous user page, which contained penis images and F-words? Others have cited examples of incivility by this user. Admins and arbitrators should set a good example for the community. With great power comes great responsibility, and I'm concerned that he may abuse his powers as an arbitrator. (To claim that one is "as apolitical a Wikipedian as most of you will ever meet" is quite presumptous.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Peta 04:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. THB 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Nufy8 05:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Dylan Lake (t·c) 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. semper fi — Moe 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Serpent's Choice 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Strong Oppose BigDT 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Aminz 06:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. CJCurrie 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Sorry Freak... your a great editor/admin but your just not arbcom material. Keep up the good work though.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Everyking 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. cj | talk 09:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. He doesn't seem to understand how policy also limits administrators. --Sugaar 10:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. —Viriditas | Talk 12:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Shyam (T/C) 13:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 13:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Immoderate. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose -- MightyWarrior 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. TewfikTalk 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. Fairly shocked to see his name here. -- NORTH talk 17:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose nope Dragomiloff 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Tim! 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose does not have the temperment to be an arbitrator. Eluchil404 20:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. OpposeBrian Boru is awesome 20:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose: Civility is important. Jonathunder 21:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Don't think you're adequately prepared. Sorry. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Serious civility problems. --JJay 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Tallying blocks > notches on a pistol? Think not. •Jim62sch• 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Michael Snow 23:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose I am sorry -- Samir धर्म 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. 'Mercurial' temperament and tendency toward incivility is inappropriate for ArbCom. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose for reasons mentioned above. JYolkowski // talk 00:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose civility issues.  Funky Monkey  (talk)  01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. riana_dzasta 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. Not at all. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Reluctant Oppose - Good guy, but civility is a concern. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose--BostonMA talk 12:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  65. BruceHallman 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose - Doesn't look like the right material to me... --Andy Blak 22:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose per [2]. Shocking. --Majorly 00:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  68. Strong Oppose per [3]. Frankly that's disturbing and just plain stupid. Nishkid64 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. IIRC most of my interactions with him have been positive, but just doesn't seem like an arbcom kind of guy. -- Ned Scott 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose Addhoc 10:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  71. Mexcellent 10:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  72. I would have weakly supported, but that link given above is just bizarre and leads me to oppose. – Chacor 12:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. I found his statement rather arrogant, and I'm concerned at lack of judgement shown sometimes. I'd be worried about how he would use his power. --Merlinme 13:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose per Majorly and Nishkid64. (Also, while I appreciate that you wouldn't participate in cases when you don't have the time to fully familiarise yourself with all sides, it would be better to elect arbitrators who've actually got enough time to participate in all cases *and* fully familiarise themselves with them; but this is less important the stunts like the above.) -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose Fred Bauder 14:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Per discussion on IRC, freakofnurture has chosen to withdraw. Ral315 (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006_Vote_Freakofnurture_69ac.html"