Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Wildthing61476

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Statement

In my time here at Wikipedia, I have discovered that a lot of the heated discussions, arguments, and personal attacks are handled, and resolved through the work of the Arbitration Committee. I feel that I would be a good addition to this committee, as I have dealt with issues I have seen with even-handedness, keeping my cool when accusations are thrown my way, and my ability to listen to all sides before passing judgment. I welcome any and all questions, and I will do my best to answer them in a timely fashion. I also respect the opinion of my fellow Wikipedians as to my worth in an ArbCom position, be it good or bad.

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. Moral support semper fi — Moe 05:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Moral support - you mean well. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support. Nishkid64 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    Strong Support - Users are one of the main pillars that keep wikipedia running, growing and surviving; by managing a lot users wikipedia sure can grow; sometimes users can auctually be more important than articles. By looking at both sides of an argument and argumenting wisely, wikipedia sure will improve. --TomasBat 01:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
    As much as I hate to remove one of your supports, this user did not sign up before October 1, so they are ineligible to participate. -Amarkov blahedits 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support, inexperience isn't much of an argument in my view. If one has never been to the Moon before, should one not go? Mallanox 00:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support <leap of faith> Fantailfan 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --t ALL IN c 21:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose --ElKevbo 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Not enough experience yet. --Coredesat 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. I applaud the boldness, though. If I were in your position, I would never even think of running. -Amarkov blahedits 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, as per Coredesat, above. Jd2718 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. - crz crztalk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. While your role as editor is laudable, I'm not sure that you'll make a good ArbCom member. I interpret your candidate statement as a major reliance on ArbCom to resolve disputes, when many disputes are actually resolved through other, less formal channels. --210physicq (c) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Titoxd(?!?) 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. If I wasn't personally opposed to moral support, I'd give the candidate one. The candidate, however, didn't answer a lot of questions. theProject 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Hello32020 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Avi 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Awolf002 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. SuperMachine 01:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Too new. —Centrx→talk • 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Rebecca 03:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. —Mira 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. KPbIC 03:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Per not enough experience - try mediation, Esperanza, or such for a year first, if I may suggest. I am looking forward to supporting you next time if this happens...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Terence Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Inexperience. Xoloz 04:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Dylan Lake 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. Nufy8 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. – Chacor 09:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. Strong oppose. Didn't even reply to the questions posted. --Sugaar 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. cj | talk 11:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. Shyam (T/C) 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. TewfikTalk 16:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. Like the guts shown running at this stage... but way too inexperienced for arbcom duties.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. --Pjacobi 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Brian Boru is awesome 20:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. Not much in the way of a statement or answers to questions... --Hyperbole 21:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Not representing WP, really. Lincher 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. —Viriditas | Talk 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Moral support is one thing, but voting support when you really mean oppose is a terrible thing to do. --Cyde Weys 18:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. I would have a hard time supporting someone who has only been here half a month, and the lack of answers to a lot of questions seems to reinforce the perception that Wildthing is too new and inexperienced to function on the arbcomm. So, oppose. Guettarda 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. I don't think the candidate is wholly unqualified, but the absence of the answers to many questions further complicates one's not having very much on which to base support here; as Cyde, et al., I eschew moral supports, but this can, I think, be construed as an oppose w/moral support. Joe 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. No. —Doug Bell talk 01:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose one of those AFD-centric accounts, and didn't answer questions Dragomiloff 01:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. Inexperience. --Merlinme 17:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose lack of experience, lack of answers to questions GRBerry 18:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Sarah Ewart 18:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. In particular, some essential question sets left unanswered. As much as I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt, you do need to demonstrate a good knowledge of policy to achieve this position. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. oppose Pete.Hurd 03:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose. Unanswered questions and lack of experience. --Danaman5 06:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. —FlashSheridan 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose Michael 21:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose Although a good person, much too inexperienced for this job. Anom8trw8 20:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. A.M.962 19:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose lack of experience. Lost Kiwi(talk)21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose doesn't understand issues surrounding scientific controversies. --ScienceApologist 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. the wub "?!" 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Inexperience, not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  66. Inexperience, sorry. —Xyrael / 09:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose per almost everyone one above, experience is golden. — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose Kiwidude 22:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)