Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Luckyluke

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LuckyLuke

Hello all! I'm not going to lie. Even though, I've been a Wikipedan since October, 2004, there is still so much about the project and community that I still need to immerse myself in. Just some backgrounder, my real name is Luke and I herald from the Beautiful British Columbia city of Vancouver in Canada.

Since discovering Wikipedia in 2004, and in keeping with its' foundings, I believe that I have taken an active approach to improving the credibility and knowledge base of the database. As egotistical as it sounds, I feel that Wikipedia and future disputes will be well served by having me on the committee. I'm able to bring depth, experience, knowledge to resolving disputes and am able to approach problems to hopefully reach an un-biased, comprimisable decision.

With regards to banning, it is unfortunately neccessary during some situations. However, it should be noted that banning should only be used as a last resort and not freely.

On how the Committee should handle disputes, I feel that to ensure credibility and consistency, it should handle all potential cases as they are requested. I believe that some guiding pointers to follow when resolving disputes are:

  • to keep an open mind, free of prejudices
  • understand that even though this is an English version, that other cultures use this version
  • decisions should be for the good of the community and encyclopedia
  • always think first and never rush

For a more in depth discussion on any of the issues surrounding my candicacy, be sure to visit the subpage where I will happily answer all questions.

Luke 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Not contentious, seems level-headed.--ragesoss 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Strong Support. Agree with policy. Also, inexperience is not a reason to oppose per se. -- Michalis Famelis 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. "... that the English Wikipedia is also used by other cultures" has got me for sure. —Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support as per User:Nightstallion Rhion 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support.. I like the cut of his jib, so to speak. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. --HK 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. --Raistlin 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. SupportDr. B 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Tuohirulla 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support //Big Adamsky 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Inexperience. --Ancheta Wis 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Lack of experience indeed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose not experienced --Angelo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Bobet 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose --Crunch 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. android79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Too new. — Catherine\talk 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose--cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose for lack of experience. Quarl (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. --Viriditas 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. While he seems genuine enough and is a relatively uncontroversial character, he lacks experience. Perhaps later in the day. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs Germany 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Weak oppose no opinion on this particular user.  Grue  13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose, xp --kingboyk 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. Good statement, intentions; lacks experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. siafu 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose TestPilot 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 20:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Splashtalk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose. the "b" word. Avriette 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. older≠wiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Raven4x4x 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose Lack of experience. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, too inexperienced. Sorry. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose Vsmith 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luckyluke --JWSchmidt 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  60. Oppose per KTC --EMS | Talk 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose fairly week statement Robdurbar 12:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. weak oppose, I disagree with his views on precedent and am not keen on punishments being used to set an example. Thryduulf 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose - inexperienced, unconvincing. --NorkNork 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. The misspellings and lack of coherent message in the candidate statement concerns me. Velvetsmog 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose agree lack of experience. Davidpdx 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose Arbitrators should not be bound by precedent. Arbitrating is not rule making. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose, not enough experience -- Francs2000 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Neutralitytalk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Inexperienced and somewhat wishy-washy on questions. Superm401 | Talk 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. Preaky 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose angusj 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose Kusma (討論) 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Youngamerican 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. I like your spirit, though. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose — appears to have a good attitude but too inexperienced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose sporadic contribution pattern wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. 'Oppose Alex43223 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)