Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Emt147

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Emt147

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

I'm a relatively new user but very active within Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aircraft. The world is not black-and-white and I believe that some controversial and POV material does belong in an encyclopedia so long as the controversy or the point of view are clearly explained. I think Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators. A well-written explanation of controversial points of view will add depth to the article. I absolutely draw the line at all hate/racist material however, free speech be damned.

I feel the Wikipedia banning guidelines are entirely too lenient and thus I would be content to work without admin priveleges.

Questions

Support

  1. Fred Bauder 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. SupportCberlet 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Concur. Avriette 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support Very nice user to work with abakharev 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Largely agree Septentrionalis 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support--Masssiveego 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I quote from your statement: "Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators". I couldn't disagree more. Batmanand 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, experience —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bunchofgrapes (talk • contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, per Batmanand's objection.--ragesoss 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Staffelde 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:14, Jan. 9, 2006
  21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Bobet 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose inexperience older≠wiser 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Inexperience Dave 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose --Crunch 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose 172 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. android79 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose .  Grue  06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. siafu 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose--cj | talk 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:15Z
  38. Oppose. Lupo 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose Lack of substance to statement, lack of experience. --kingboyk 10:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose, as kingboyk --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Lack of XP, statement too wishy-washy. —Nightstallion (?) 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, too new. --Terence Ong Talk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose as per Kingboyk. I also feel that the experience you do have is a bit limited in terms of the bredth of subject areas on Wikipedia. While this is no problem for an editor, imho an arbitrator needs to be able to take a wider view. Thryduulf 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose - I am in broad disagreement with most of the candidate's statements. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak
  50. Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. Lack of experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, anyone who says "free speech be damned" is not deserving of a vote for a position like this - Masonpatriot 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose Inexperience, attitude. --EMS | Talk 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Inexperienced. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Splashtalk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose While the candidate statement addresses the nature of arbitration, the candidate does so in a manner I disagree with. Thank you for being the first genuinely informed oppose vote which I could cast. Additionally, some of your statements regarding POV appear to be against the consensus editorial policy. Fifelfoo 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose, per Fifelfoo. Too new. Sorry. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign, sorry)
  59. Oppose. Vsmith 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Raven4x4x 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. I disagree with the user statements. More wikipedia experience might refine the candidate's stances. Velvetsmog 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose, experience KTC 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose, not experienced and doesn't seem to understand the role. Gazpacho 09:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. OpposeDr. B 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose. Needs more general experience. Doesn't seem to understand idea of ArbCom. Superm401 | Talk 03:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose alas, not enough experience. --Loopy e 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose Definitely not someone I would like to see on ArbCom given some of his statements. Sjc 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)