Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/SimonP

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

SimonP

I'm quite interested in helping with Arbcom, but I have hesitated to put my name forward as I am reluctant to hand myself over to a selection process that doesn't yet seem to exist.

I've been a Wikipedians since December 2001 and have been an admin since December 2003 (which by extrapolation means that something good has to happen in December 2005). I currently have the distinction of being number one on the List of Wikipedians by number of edits. Sheer number of edits is a pretty meaningless statistic, but it does show that I have a fair amount of time to dedicate to the project.

I follow Arbcom fairly closely, but have only participated directly in only a couple of cases. I feel that in almost all cases the committee does its job admirably, though its speed is, as has often been noted, is sometimes far slower than ideal.

Questions

Support

  1. Support --Doc ask? 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Owen× ☎ 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. Ambi 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support without reservations. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. – ugen64 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. —Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Without question.--Sean|Black 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. Carbonite | Talk 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support.--Bookandcoffee 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. JYolkowski // talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. --nixie 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. TacoDeposit 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support. An outstanding editor, admin and (hopefully soon to be) arbitrator. Batmanand 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support--Duk 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support definitely experienced --Angelo 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support —Ruud 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support, the biggest surprise is that there are opposers. Croat Canuck 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. Likely to be more moderate than some. Grace Note 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Shanes 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. King of All the Franks 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Guettarda 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support Jord 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support - BanyanTree 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Fred Bauder 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support 172 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Congrats, you spend way too much time on Wikipedia.--ragesoss 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Bobet 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support freestylefrappe 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support Dottore So 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support --Daniel 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support. --Aaron 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. gren グレン 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support--cj | talk 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support. android79 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Chick Bowen 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support --Wetman 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support. -newkai | talk | contribs 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support. — Catherine\talk 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support--Jiang 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support - Fabricationary 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support--Alhutch 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support. Can't believe this - somebody has opposed this user! utcursch | talk 07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support, hoping that his superb work in the article namespace wouldn't suffer from being an arbitrator. — mark ✎ 08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support - Akamad 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support - Cmouse 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support experience, questions --- Charles Stewart 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support mister wikipedia. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support --Terence Ong Talk 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support, a no-nonsense user. Dan100 (Talk) 11:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support --Roisterer 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Meekohi 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support I really like this guy, he shows clear judgement and logical thinking.  ALKIVAR™ 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Support mdmanser 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support per opposition, although I worry that ArbCom duties might interfere with productivity on the rest of the project... Tomertalk 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support I've seen this user doing some bad VfD decisions, but otherwise he's quite solid candidate.  Grue  14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support, sound of judgment. Radiant_>|< 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral, see below. Radiant_>|< 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support Proto t c 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. --Habap 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support moderate, reasonable, and has loads of experience. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. — Dunc|☺ 16:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support - dedicated to wikipedia. Skeezix1000 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support. Rhion 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support --kingboyk 18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support. --OntarioQuizzer 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support --CDN99 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Support May you do all you can for wikipedia --metta, The Sunborn 19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support Level headed with right priorities - Xed 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Support TestPilot 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support Donar Reiskoffer 20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support TerraGreen 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Support great user - solid editor, balanced. --Loopy e 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support No objection whatsoever ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support Aldux 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Support. One of the first Wikipedians, I'm certain he'll arbitrate with experience and wiki-wisdom. --KHill-LTown 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Haukur 21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 22:23Z
  97. Support - Though I'd agree w/ Novacatz about your absence in the admin pages. I trust you. Cheers Szvest 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  98. If this is really what you want to do I guess you can count on my support - although as I mentioned I think this is going to take up a lot more of your time then you think it will. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Splashtalk 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support: RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support--Confuzion 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support easiest vote in the lot of 'em. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support per Wetman and others. --Ghirla | talk 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. --Stbalbach 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support Maltmomma (chat) 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. older≠wiser 02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support Dlyons493 Talk 03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support Rossami (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support. Trusted.--cjllw | TALK 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support. --Interiot 07:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support. --DanielNuyu 07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • the admin Willmcw is also operating as an admin Will Beback, though he has repeatedly stated he would retire the Willmcw account in 2006.216.244.7.208 09:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support Delirium 10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. —It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support - An excellent editor --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support--The Brain 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. Support. --Raistlin 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Support. Thue | talk 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support. --G Rutter 20:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Big support, with bells on Oskar 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support -- Solipsist 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Support. Seems to have the time to commit. No character or behaviour flaws contrary to ArbCom seem to have been exposed. --Ds13 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support as per 172. Phil Sandifer 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  131. Strongly support. SimonP is a good editor who seeks consensus, assumes good faith and is overall a great credit to wikipedia. He would be an excellent AbCom member. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support The man has experience--Berndd11222 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  133. Support. HollyAm 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support. siafu 04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support -- Karl Meier 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  137. --Bhadani 09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  138. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support -- Punkmorten 12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support--JK the unwise 12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support--Syrthiss 13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  142. Support--Gozar 17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support--A Y Arktos 20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support User brings long-term Wikipedia experience --Rye1967 21:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  145. Support - Strong belief that this user is a distinguished neutral. BD2412 T 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support has the experience V8rik 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  147. Support, very experienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  148. Support Fad (ix) 20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  149. Support - I have worked with this user before, he would be a good choice. --NorkNork 21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  150. Support -- Ze miguel 09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support, and allow for organic growth. ;-) Bahn Mi 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support Fred-Chess 19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  153. Support. Would do well on the Committee. Good luck. Agent Blightsoot 23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  154. Support, has knowledge of process, a good and trustworthy editor all round -- Francs2000 00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  155. Support. maclean25 00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support Rohirok 02:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  157. Support Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 17:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  158. Support Marskell 17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  159. Support. Mushroom 01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  160. Support. Evidence --JWSchmidt 01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  161. Support. *drew 03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  162. Support. (SEWilco 05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  163. Support. --Mysidia (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  164. support Kingturtle 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  165. Support -- Masonpatriot 06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  166. Support Lumos3 10:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  167. Support. Upholds npov to the T. Youngamerican 18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support, Duran 03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Duran does not have suffrage; he had only 143 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  168. Support --Randolph 04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  169. Support - llywrch 17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  170. Support John Cross 19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate has the best statement I have seen so far.
  171. support William M. Connolley 22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  172. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  173. Support. Homey 03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  174. Support. An extremely strong choice. CJCurrie 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  175. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  176. Support. --Hurricane111 20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  177. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  178. Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  179. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  180. Support. Eminently qualified. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  181. Support – Smyth\talk 12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  182. Support -- DS1953 talk 19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  183. Support, calm and knows policy. Kappa 22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  184. Support. +sj + 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  185. Support Alai 23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  186. Support Seems good. --AySz88^-^ 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  187. Support. Monicasdude 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose: Does not go renegade, but has circumvented process, in my experience, and ArbCom needs the most legal and careful people. Nothing against the person, just against this position. Geogre 11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. --HK 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, I have seen worryingly tendentious AFD closures by this user. Bishonen | talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  6. Oppose, with wooden stakes, garlic, silver bullets, etc. Position on fancruct intolerable. Avriette 06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Weak Oppose, though a prolific editor, have not seen evidence of much previous involvement with community, a must for an arbitrator. HGB 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Have seen be too doctrinaire and unreasonable to be suited for ArbCom; conduct on Republic and its relatives particularly troublesome. Septentrionalis 19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Candidate statement inadequate for appointment as arbitrator, as does not address nature of arbitration. Fifelfoo 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per above. Saravask 23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Astrotrain 21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose jni 08:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose-- Davidpdx 12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose Dr. B 18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I'm not usually a single issue guy, but I was disappointed in your mocking lack of regard for the consensus question. Velvetsmog 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Regretfully Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Strong oppose. Despite having many edits to his name, most are minor. SimonP has entered a campaign of flooding wikipedia and hence its mirrors and caches with Bible cruft, the entire text of parts of the bible itself, and other behaviour demonstrating activity that the IVCF/IFES/UCCF would be proud of. SimonP has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to respect community consensus on these matters and others, such as template locations. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose, but not because your contributions are insignificant. Rather, I have and will continue to respect them. However, you've given little reason to make you an arbitrator. Superm401 | Talk 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. Preaky 01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose, per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis above --Francis Schonken 13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose concerns about neutrality and open mind wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose edit spamming does not make you worthy of the Arbcom Cynical 22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, being a good editor does not mean someone is a good mediator. Also, his messages on talk are often somewhat hostile, without much provocation, which is inappropriate for a mediator. If he could learn to be friendly, even when extremely frustrated and/or annoyed, I would support. -- Kjkolb 02:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose The times I've encountered him it's been stuff like deleting a legitimate article just because that article had been vandalized (Chris Carpenter) and he didn't bother checking the edit history, simply adding {{wikify}} tags to obvious copyright violations, hoaxes, etc. in huge quantities with no edit summaries ever. Again, might be a great editor, but my contact with him hasn't been great... and the above comments make me worried. --W.marsh 02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose CDThieme 23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral Editing record is excellent and I like your responses -- however, I have not heard of you at all on admin pages. Just can't say without more info. novacatz 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Strong Neutral - I've never heard of him. Which is kinda surprising if he has more edits that anyone else. Otherwise, sounds like a great candidate. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Neutral --Crunch 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  5. Neutral Good editing record, but statement doesn't say much about why he's running or what he'd do. --William Pietri 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. I've withdrawn my support, because of [1] this usage of the rollback button to remove a {{mergeto}} tag placed in good faith. Radiant_>|< 10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Neutral Dannycas 00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Weak Neutral, almost teetering into opposition. Nice long record, but you don't provide information about what you'd do while ain ArbCom. Merely having the most number of edits doesn't say much to me about your ability of arbitration. Author782 08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Neutral, statement haven't told me anything. KTC 12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_SimonP_8dd1.html"