This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!
Upon my recent return from a fairly successful wikivacation, I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed to see that the Arbitration process has seemingly fallen into disrepair, or, in the least, "grinded to a near-complete halt".
It's possible that the Arbitrators, be them willing or not to affirm it, are simply burned-out. If that's the case, I'm willing, ready, and able to take up some of the slack.
Too many people see the Arbitration process as a sort of Inquisition or prosecutorial body; perhaps we need to be reminded of its original purpose: to arbitrate, to settle, disputes. If elected I would take a solutions-oriented approach to arbitration. There are times when punitive measures must be taken, but it should not be the go-to solution.
I would like to believe that I have a reputation for striving hard to be impartial and civil in all my endeavours. I think many if not most Wikipedians who know me well would attest to such. I offer myself up as a qualified, experienced, intelligent candidate for the Committee.
- Less bureaucracy
- Refocus on civilly resolving disputes
- Common sense
BLANKFAZE |
(что??)
04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
reply
Questions
I have, for the most part, and excepting occasional minor edits, ceased to be an active editor at Wikipedia. Whilst I still consider this a good and noble project, and a good resource, one that I read at length quite often, I am dismayed and disheartened at the direction in which the community and the leadership are going.
If it matters, or if it is permitted under the rules of this haphazard and misformed "election" (if there are any), I hereby withdraw my candidacy, or at least make it known that I have absolutely no interest in it.
—
{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}
03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Secondly, to my detractors citing my lack of civility: I admit that in my later months here, I was increasingly frustrated with the downward spiral in which Wikipedia is entrapped, and with the continuous and inane flow of malicious and problematic edits, and that accordingly I allowed myself to lose my temper more times than I would care to have. I apologise to any who may have been put off or offended. Truly. I hold no grudges. And I really do want to see this project succeed, and prosper.
{{User:Blankfaze/sig}}
03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Jaranda
wat's sup
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Most certainly. –
ugen64
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support. Despite age, edit history shows a level head and broad interests.--
ragesoss
00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Down-to-earth candidate. Support. —
FREAK OF NURxTURE (
TALK) 00:38, Jan. 9, 2006
- Arbitration reform is needed. --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson -
Shazaam! -
<*>
01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Wgfinley
01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Crotalus horridus (
TALK •
CONTRIBS)
03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - this is an everyman candidate with wide interests. -
Stevecov
04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support Common-sensical (but do work on that civility thing!) —
Catherine\
talk
05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support candidate statement indicates a genuine understanding of the nature of the arbitration process.
Fifelfoo
05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support I see nothing wrong with this candidate.
Grue
06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
android
79
06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
jni
06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, based on policy stance.
Sam Spade
07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Good attitude. /
blahedo (
t)
07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Per above.
Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (
Be eudaimonic!)
07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. -
Tim Rhymeless
(Er...let's shimmy)
07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
utcursch |
talk
07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --
Kefalonia
09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. as Ragesoss --
It's-is-not-a-genitive
10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support level headed, for sure. Don't burn out if you get it mate! -
Ta bu shi da yu
10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support per statement, policy stance and previous knowledge of candidate. If he has not picked up editing again by the end of the elections then I would trust Jimbo not to appoint him. If he has then he will be an asset to the ArbCom.
the wub
"?!"
RFR - a good idea?
11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Terrible Tim
12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Davidpdx
12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support I would trust Blankfaze to make the right decisions to benefit the community as a whole.
ALKIVAR
™
12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- 'Strong Support --- Responses to
Chazz's talk page. Signed by
Chazz @
12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Meekohi
13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - previous interaction good. --
Cel
e
stianpower
háblame
13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. A dedicated, experienced administrator with a fresh approach to arbitration issues. Willing to give him a try.—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)
14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support Seems very bright, experienced. Would be great for the commitee.
Jared
20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support for sure --
Loopy
e
20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Exploding Boy
21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. I hope you get back to editing again as soon as is practicable. You will be good on the Committee because you are broad-minded and understand people. --
EuropracBHIT
22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
reply
- Support on account of lack of involvement in Wiki-Politics.
Avriette
22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - in agreement with candidate's statements. --
JohnDBuell
02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Neutrality
talk
04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Willmcw/
user:Will Beback/
09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Robdurbar
12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - I like what he has to say
Giles22
13:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)ç
reply
- Support --
Neigel von Teighen
13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Gnangarra
13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Fad
(ix)
21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Keith D. Tyler
¶
21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Seems good, level-headed, and fair. Would provide a needed energy boost to the ArbCom.
Dr. Cash
01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong support. I read the statement and some of the talk on his user page. This person has both the experience and the patience it takes to be an excellent admin. --
Heptor
talk
01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Zach
(Smack Back)
Fair use policy
00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, questions. See my
voting rationale.
Talrias (
t |
e |
c)
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Michael Snow
00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Everyking
00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- —
Kirill Lok
s
hin
00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- At time of writing, last edit summary said, and I quote, "READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE - INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING - NOT YET DECLARED SUICIDE". Sorry, but not the kinda person I want on ArbCom. Oppose
Batmanand
00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - Questions -
Mackensen
(talk)
00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
GraemeL
(talk)
00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Madame Sosostris
00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Antandrus
(talk)
00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- –
Quadell (
talk) (
bounties)
00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose; mostly skipped questions. And I noticed Batmanand's issue too. —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk)
00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose questions.
David |
explanation |
Talk
00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Cryptic
(talk)
00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Abusive comments in summary, as per Batmanand.--
ragesoss
00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose too many skipped questions. --
Angelo
00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose —
Omegatron
00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, questions.
Carbonite |
Talk
00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Ambi
00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose →
P.MacUidhir
(t)
(c)
01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Raven4x4x
01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
TacoDeposit
01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose per above. --
AySz88^
-
^
01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, lack of answers.
EWS23 |
(Leave me a message!)
01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Civility, questions, etc. --
Viriditas
02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose mildly.
Grace Note
02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose,
Kit
02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose,
older≠
wiser
03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose,
Crunch
03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, per Batmanand. Experienced, but not professional.
Ian Manka
Questions? Talk to me!
03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Netoholic
@
03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose questions
Dave
03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose His account has been pretty inactive over the past year.
172
03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, almost inactive last three months. --
Interiot
03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, good values but not professional.
Ronline
✉
04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- —
Charles P.
(Mirv)
04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose (smile)
Tony the Marine
04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose:
WP:CIV & unprofessional. ←
Humus sapiens
←ну?
05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Hamster Sandwich
05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose – Does not exhibit the people skills necessary for such a vital role. –
Clockwork
Soul
05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Fred Bauder
05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
Scott
eiπ
06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
siafu
06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
why? ++
Lar:
t/
c
08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Lupo
09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Doesn't seem very professional. Maybe next time. --
kingboyk
09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose as per Batmanand. Also, I'm concerned about your erratic editing history and whether you will actually make yourself available sufficiently. And not impressed by lack of answers to your questions.
Sarah Ewart
10:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose: Hardly active, inarticulate, willing to vote and take stands on hearsay -- definitely not ArbCom.
Geogre
11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Weak oppose, would like to support, but a few issues make it impossible for me. —
Nightstallion
(?)
11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, at least until he answers the questions when I will reconsider (please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if I haven't spotted the questions being answered).
Thryduulf
11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk
12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose due to abusive edit summaries. Not the sort of temprament we need on the ArbCom.
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak
13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Hipocrite -
«Talk»
13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - did not answer questions, yet.
Awolf002
14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
The Literate Engineer
15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Doc
ask?
16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Seems to have the right values, but lack of civility in edit summaries is disturbing. --
Comics
17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, agree with
Comics -
Masonpatriot
17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Jkelly
18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Failed to answer my question, and besides that, per Batmanand.
Xoloz
18:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Petros471
18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
TestPilot
19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Civility issues raised by others are a concern; also, Interiot's tool shows a trend of decreasing activity on Wikipedia.
H
e
rmione
1980
21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Insufficiently active on Wikipedia recently for my tastes. —
Matthew Brown (
T:
C)
21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Splash
talk
22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Insufficiently civil, sorry
Avalon
23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. per activity and civility concerns.--
cjllw |
TALK
23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. not active --
JWSchmidt
01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - civility concerns,
Vsmith
02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Per Batmanand.
Velvetsmog
02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, per Batmanand. I've interacted little with this user, but I don't recall that he left a good impression. --
Idont Havaname (
Talk)
03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Gazpacho
06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- oppose
Kingturtle
06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Failure to answer most of the questions. --
Carnildo
08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Adrian Buehlmann
10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
E Pluribus Anthony |
talk |
10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. I too have concerns over Blankfaze's occasional civility problems.
Rje
12:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, civility.
enochlau (
talk)
13:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Per Batmanand. --
Birgitte§β ʈ
Talk
17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, inactive and what's with this edit summary
[1]?
HGB
18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Ral315
(talk)
19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)\
reply
- Oppose. Did not answer important questions and profile and contribution history suggest that he is more interested in arguing than settling disputes.
The Jade Knight
19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
[2] and
[3].
JoaoRicardo
talk
20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, civility
Oskar
20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, per Batmanand.
Prodego
talk
22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
maclean25
00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo
00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Timrollpickering
01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply