Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Skyscrap27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Skyscrap27 2 Support 3 Oppose 4 Neutral

Skyscrap27

Why am I, as a total newbie, nominating myself for this honorable place? The answer is not quite clear even for me. I would like to help Wikipedia as it's a great project. I see this honorable place as a chance to continue with my work reverting vandalism. I see that I will most likely not get a single vote, but I must give it a try. Just to say, I was there, I tried to make a difference. Thank you. If you give me a vote, thank you very much. :) Skyscrap27 20:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)<\strike>

I've been contributing on Wikipedia for a few months, but I've only just (a day ago) joined (created a username). Why should I be on an Arbitration Committee? I live in a real world (just like all of us) where fights do happen. When you're arguing with somebody, you don't need anybody to tell you what to do, what to say. Both sides need someone to say they're right. That's compromise. If you're a noob (and a lot of arguing happens between new members), you won't listen to somebody old and experienced (just like parents), first you'll listen to other newbies. If the Arbitration Commitee has a new member, it will gain more influence towards other newbies. You're most likely to listen to a person your "age" than to a old member. Of course, I realize that it's a long shot, but that's what I think. Thank you. Skyscrap27 12:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Major opinions:

• I agree with the proposed Bill of Rights (with minor objections to rule no. 3).
• I agree with the Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct (exception is recusion in case arbitrators feel strongly about some case (not someone), and I don't agree with it).
• Main job of ArbCom should be to insure growth and evolution of Wikipedia.
• ArbCom must be the highest body of Wikipedia and it must decide independently (it must not be under any pressure).
• Even more time must be spared to protect Wikipedia from advertising and vandalism.
• Vanity should be allowed (very limited, though), as long as in consists of pure facts only, not speculations or bragging.

Skyscrap27 12:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

1. Sure, why not? Different perspectives can help. Matt Yeager 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Support—Bjones 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. --HK 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. As my one maveric choice.--JK the unwise 12:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Support Dr. B 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
2. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
6. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
7. Cryptic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
8. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
10. —Kirill Lokshin 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
11. Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
12. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
13. Oppose — Omegatron 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
14. Oppose. Some interesting ideas in your candidate statement, but just too little experience. Batmanand 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Staffelde 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
16. Oppose not enough experience --Angelo 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
17. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
18. Oppose, experience. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:40, Jan. 9, 2006

19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
20. Oppose --Crunch 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
21. Oppose.--ragesoss 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
22. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
23. Bobet 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
24. Oppose Too new. 172 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
25. Oppose Way too new. novacatz 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
26. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
27. Oppose. android79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
28. Oppose--cj | talk 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
30. Oppose. — Catherine\^talk 07:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
31. Oppose. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
32. Oppose too new. feydey 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
33. Oppose. Disagree with some issues. -- Michalis Famelis 10:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
34. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
35. —Nightstallion (?) 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
36. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
37. Oppose. ` Grue  14:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
38. Oppose, xp. Vanity and advertisement are not arbcom matters. Radiant_>|< 14:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
39. Oppose per his statement that "vanity should be allowed" (!!!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
40. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
41. Oppose. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
42. Oppose. Uses too many parentheses, eh... I mean he lacks experience :)—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
43. Oppose --kingboyk 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
44. Oppose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 21:31Z
45. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Oppose Policies, inexperience. --EMS | Talk 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
47. Splash^talk 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 23:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
49. Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
50. older≠wiser 02:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
51. Oppose Arbitration is not a judicial system.Fifelfoo 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Let's start with editing for a year. Avriette 06:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
53. Raven4x4x 08:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
54. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
55. Oppose: lack of experience, and also the arbcom must be under some pressure: it has to be accountable to everyone here, rather than above and beyond. ——It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
56. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
57. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
58. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
59. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
60. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
61. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
62. Oppose. new user account --JWSchmidt 03:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose – ABCD^e✉ 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
64. Oppose, inexperienced. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
65. Oppose - inexperienced, rambling. --NorkNork 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
66. Oppose - Schaefer 10:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
67. Oppose. siafu 16:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
68. Krash 18:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
69. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
70. Oppose. Too new. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
71. Oppose. Too much inexperience. --Optichan 19:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
72. Oppose. Inexperienced. --William Pietri 23:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
73. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
74. Oppose. I do not agree with his philosophy on vanity and the purpose of the commitee.--Max ( ✒ | ☏ ) 06:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
75. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
76. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election and supports vanity. Superm401 | Talk 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
77. Oppose. Preaky 02:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
78. Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 06:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
79. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
80. Inexperience. Ingoolemo ^talk 07:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
81. Oppose --Loopy ^e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
82. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    Oppose Far too new on the registered name, and use of slang ("noob") repels me. Author782 08:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

83. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
84. Oppose the arbcom should not be a law unto itself Cynical 22:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
85. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
86. Oppose, the usual reasons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
87. Oppose, experience. KTC 12:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
88. Oppose CDThieme 23:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral. I'm not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)