Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kingturtle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

Kingturtle

My name is Oliver Brown. I have been a Wikipedian since February 2003, serving as a contributor, copyeditor, policeman, administrator and bureaucrat. I am fair, empathetic, articulate, firm and forgiving. An arbiter should be tactful and considerate. One must remember that there is a face behind each user name.

In regards to what experience I have that would help the Arbitration Committee, I’ve created a WikiCity to chronicle underground music in my local community. I teach history in a public high school. I’ve served as the PTA parliamentarian, and currently serve on the Equity Team. I’ve written rulebooks and by-laws for various projects - including (when in my teens) arbitration by-laws for a homemade baseball little league we had on my street. My BA is in Political Science.

In regards to how the committee should handle disputes, this is how I would lay it out: the arbiters should not know the usernames or identities of those involved in a dispute. Each side of the dispute would submit a report making their case; the report would refer to PERSON A and PERSON B, keeping the arbiters in the dark. There’s more to the process, but that’s the gist.

In regards to the banning question, I wouldn’t rule out a ban as a last resort. It’s like expelling a kid from school. There’s a process - a long process, even for serious offenses. The number one task at hand is to create a wikipedia - an encyclopedia formed and shaped by the minds of thousands - but can it be done fairly and without hurt to contributors? This is a great social experiment. As a committee member, I will take great care in understanding the various points-of-view at hand, and I will try to find solutions that will bring dignity to all. I will also work to create procedures that are efficient and fair. I feel wikipedia is important and vital to mankind. I am devoted to it. Kingturtle 07:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Weak support. JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Seems like a very reasonable Wikipedian, even if policy opinions clash with majority.--ragesoss 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support fair, reasonable, and dedicated Wikipedian.--Jiang 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support freestylefrappe 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Kefalonia 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support candidate seems honest and perfect for the job. I don't see any problems with him. TrafficBenBoy 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support based entirely upon his response to Snowspinners question  ALKIVAR™ 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I am a high school teacher.
  12. Strong support  Grue  13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Strong support: he is down to earth, but also prudent, daring, and shows initiative. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Seems an excellent choice. I'm not convinced at all that the PERSON A / PERSON B thing would work (too many technical problems), but have not hesistancy in recommending them for the committee. Turnstep 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. --HK 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. <KF> 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Avalon 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Wally 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. We chessplayers, from Rochester, who are related to Ralph Waldo Emerson, should stick together.--RattBoy 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. DenisMoskowitz 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. HGB 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support per Turnstep --EMS | Talk 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support, mildly. Real-life background is relevant. Stated policy is very idealistic. No obvious displays of dishonesty or inability to be objective. --Ds13 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. Real life gives merit, very experienced. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support - understands the importance of common sense. Thryduulf 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - I disagree with his policy; but, he seems well preprared to be on the ArbCom and to do a good job. -- Rmrfstar 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
    Support. // paroxysm (n) 22:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. Rangek 01:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support —the preceding unsigned comment is by Babajobu (talk • contribs) 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support - i like the person A - person B suggestion, otherwise very good views, seems experienced. --NorkNork 20:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. Comes to the table with ideas, even if touched with a bit of idealism. Velvetsmog 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. Corax 22:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support. en:wiki needs more idealists as arbitrators. It's an open project and open has several meanings. aegis maelstrom δ 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support (somewhat weakly). Some of the comments in the candidate statement (most notably WP as "social experiment") give me pause, but in my long observation of and interaction with Kingturtle, I feel confident I've seen the kind of user who would excel in this role. Jwrosenzweig 06:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support Jared 12:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Smerdis of Tlön 15:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. maclean25 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support high school teachers. Xoloz 20:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support. AC needs some rocknroll ukulele influence. (SEWilco 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  40. Support. Neutralitytalk 15:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. Daniel Quinlan 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support I don't support the BoR, but I see no problem with people with varying opinions on the arb process on ArbCom... in fact I believe it's preferable Masonpatriot 04:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support mav 06:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support Tiles 09:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. —Lowellian (reply) 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support — SasaStefanovic • 22:16 16-01-2006
    Support Goldfinger820 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Earliest edit was November 8, so user most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support Truely. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. He is a high school teacher :) muriel@pt 10:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support - llywrch 17:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. 24.218.203.76 08:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Only registered users have suffrage. —Cryptic (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. support -- Astrokey44|talk 04:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 05:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Weak support. Some policy suggestions seem poorly thought out, but temperament and idealism outweigh. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support. Deb 10:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support' - As a school teacher, has much experience dealing with individuals who behave like children. - JustinWick 17:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support - it's a gut thing Carptrash 05:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support - MusiCitizen 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support. +sj + 22:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. —Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Issues with your interpretations of policy. Batmanand 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose --Angelo 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Really Strong Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Ideas are not practical Fred Bauder 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Policy seems difficult to implement --Crunch 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Bobet 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. android79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. — Catherine\talk 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose--cj | talk 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - disagree with platform. --- Charles Stewart 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose on issues of policy. -- Michalis Famelis 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. --Viriditas 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per policies. —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose, idealistic users are a boon to the project, but the ArbCom must be practical. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose per Radiant! the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - Broad disagreement with the candidate's views on how best to arrive at a fair judgement. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. siafu 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:10Z
  33. Oppose. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Splashtalk 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical impossible. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Arbitrating is not Policing!!! Avriette 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. I like the idealism, but arbcom requires a pretty hard nose. older≠wiser 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose at this time. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Radiant! has already put it perfectly. Rje 17:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per Radiant! Ral315 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. Believes half-hour blocks with no warning are acceptable, and generally disagrees with existing admin policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. Arm 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. -- i am sure he is probably a nice guy but he is acting so dictatorial in preventing accurate summaries of information on the usc football website...to have him as an abitrator seems silly -- he acts on his own in this dispute without an abitrator
    Vote by anon user 69.231.217.0 (talk • contribs). First edit on January 11, and anons don't have suffrage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose, Unpractical policy. KTC 19:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. OpposeDr. B 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose Robdurbar 12:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Platform is not feasiable Davidpdx 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Reluctant oppose - a committed user, just not convinced by the statement -- Francs2000 00:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose - Seems like a nice guy and an asset to Wikipedia. I don't think this is the best place to use his talents. Tom Harrison Talk 18:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Reluctant Opposition - Tom Harrison summed up my thoughts as well on this matter. → Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 19:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, with regret. why? ++Lar: t/c 00:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Preaky 07:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Anonymous arbitration is unreasonable when everything is logged. Superm401 | Talk 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose per answers. Youngamerican 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose strongly for want of civility and working cooperatively with fellow Wikipedians. PedanticallySpeaking 17:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. oppose: UBOR William M. Connolley 22:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    what is UBOR? Kingturtle 23:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose per PedanticallySpeaking --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose You need a clean record to be an arbiter imo. Secretlondon 16:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose I would think user history would be a factor in arbitration wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose Not getting enough from questions --AySz88^-^ 03:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose FreplySpang (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose --Angr (tɔk) 17:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose - inadequate answers to questions. Andrew_pmk | Talk 19:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral . Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). However, I'm not convinced that Kingturtle would examine enough of an issue to reach an fair judgement. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_Kingturtle_8e42.html"