Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Proto

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement

Hello. I registered as a Wikipedia user on 31 March 2005 and received administrator status in 5 April 2006 (my RFA)

What have I done on Wikipedia? I’ve just short of 10,000 edits, and about another 4000 admin actions - I get involved. I've dabbled in just about everything one can in Wikipedia, from translations to mediation to AFD to wikifying, and everything in between, so I have a broad knowledge. I am not a specialist in any one area. I've contributed around 300 new articles (a selected list is on my user page). I have been involved in deletion policy, as well as working on policies such as WP:NOT – this has lent me a solid grip of Wikipedia policy, and firmly believe that policy, applied sensibly and with a dash of common sense, is what is required for Wikipedia to proceed.

What do I believe? I dislike 'backchannel' politics, and believe everything in Wikipedia should be done out in the open, hence I don’t use IRC, nor do I take part in the mailing list. These are conscious decisions. I’d strive to ensure that were I to become an arbitration committee member, all my decisions (and discussions) will made in the open.

So am I qualified to make these kinds of decisions? I believe I am; I am reasonable, bright, succinct, clear, and think carefully. I care. I don’t like overcomplicating simple issues. I take responsibility for my mistakes. I’m never quick to block, preferring warnings (especially if none have previously been received), but I don’t shy away from it when it’s necessary to prevent further abuse.

People feel strongly about Wikipedia, and about what happens to their contributions. They should – if you put effort in to something, it’s disheartening to see others take that work away. Often, this is due to a lack of understanding, or a failure on the part of the more experienced user to explain to the newbie, in a civil manner, ‘’why’’ their work was removed. Frayed tempers and brusqueness are, regrettably (but, often, understandably) common. It’s the role of the Arbitration Committee to be detached. To be calm. To not get involved. Content resolution isn’t, and must never be, the role of the Arbitration Committee – correctly applying current policy to contentious cases of conduct is.

I strongly believe I would be a worthy member of this group, and I would not let you down.

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. --Majorly 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Titoxd(?!?) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. - crz crztalk 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    BhaiSaab talk 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Hello32020 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Riley 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. – Chacor 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. Great guy; has my trust. —Celestianpower háblame 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Go ahead! Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 22:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Honestly, I can't see you being a bad arbitrator. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. You must be zis tall to get my Support. —Angr 10:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support, has no fear of tackling tough issues and does it well. Seraphimblade 15:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Weak support, because of the emphasis on openness. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. As Xoloz, I came here to support, but I didn't find anything so significant as to convince me to act otherwise; although certain opposes raise valid points, I think Matt Yeager's conclusion to be correct and properly to control. Joe 05:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Candidate supports transparency and keeping ArbCom out of content and policy issues. Alan Pascoe 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
    Picaroon9288 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
    I'm going to have to switch to neutral. Picaroon9288 22:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Looks good. Conscious 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support I have witnessed first hand how Proto has dealt with conflict and I was impressed. LittleOldMe 18:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support per questions. I don't always agree, but I can generally trust his good faith in his judgement. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. the wub "?!" 20:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. -- Renesis (talk) 05:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support --t ALL IN c 21:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Krich (talk) 03:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support (Liked Proto's reply. I had planned to do some more research but got held up by other things, including a state of emergency in our area.) 04:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SebastianHelm (talk • contribs).
  25. Support good policy and philosophy. Kiwidude 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. TacoDeposit 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. I'm a big fan of Proto, but I'm not sure about Arb-com Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. KPbIC 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. An arbitrator who doesn't use the mailing list is going to be a rather useless one. Rebecca 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. --- RockMFR 04:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Terence Ong 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Opppose -THB 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. semper fi — Moe 05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Reasons: Lets personal POV affect judgement. Not professional in decision making. And especially incivility against other editors. --snowolfD4( talk / @ ) 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Nufy8 06:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Dylan Lake 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Anyone who considers Hitler to be humorous does not have the appropriate judgement to be on arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Dr Debug (Talk) 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. cj | talk 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Shyam (T/C) 14:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Strong Oppose (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose I came here to support, but Alkivar's point sways me that the candidate has mild judgment issues -- respect him as an admin, but not the best for ArbCom in this great field of candidates. Xoloz 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose --Howrealisreal 20:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Michael Snow 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. —Viriditas | Talk 02:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. No. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Sorry, I don't intend to be supporting many candidates, and I've already supported enough candidates that seem more qualified than you. --Cyde Weys 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Not convinced this user can act impartially. --JJay 22:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Sorry, lost my vote. -- Kendrick7talk 00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Not sure about ArbCom for Proto. Nishkid64 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Yamaguchi先生 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Opppose Conn, Kit 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Conn, Kit does not have suffrage; he had only 147 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 09:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Silensor 08:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose "mediation is not something I have either the patience nor the aptitude for" (in response to maclean's questions), indicates that the user is not suited for ArbComm. Although there are differences, this incapacity is reason to keep off of ArbComm. GRBerry 12:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose as per GRBerry. Mediation is a necessary skill for ArbCom members. --Merlinme 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose, feels way too strong about a specific group of content on Wikipedia [1]. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Chris 14:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Weak Oppose. Some good ideas, but not enough to stand out in this competitive field. --Danaman5 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Glen 14:23, December 9, 2006 (UTC)
  40. oppose Pete.Hurd 22:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose per GRBerry. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Why do you have a picture of Hitler on your userpage? I thought I clicked the wrong link and couldn't believe that you were an ArbCom candidate when I saw that on your userpage -- Samir धर्म 08:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, dig a lot of your work but can't support you for da Arb. Deizio talk 15:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose --BostonMA talk 18:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose --rogerd 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose —Doug Bell talk 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Sarah Ewart 01:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose User:Zoe|(talk) 03:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose They seem like they would just put their personal point of view in without impartiality. Ansell 22:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose -- lack of familiarity with active conflicts (such as controversies around science) means candidate would not make a good arbitrator. --ScienceApologist 17:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Lack of experience. —Xyrael / 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Whaaaaa? Hitler's pic?! No, thanks. Neither funny nor constructive. MaxSem 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose  : "You must be zis tall to ride ze Hitler Mobile!" : Unacceptable.. Really. --Deenoe 18:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. I can understand not using IRC, but the mailing list, as Jimbo has discussed, is the place for discussion on the nature of Wikipedia itself, and not using it is not an attribute I would want in an ArbCom candidate. theProject 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)