I do not pretend to be high enough for every honour, for every place within Wiki, or for every role needed to ensure the project runs smoothly. I feel my short time here has already taught me how necessary it is to have time, effort and determination; but also a sense of fairness and understanding. Wiki is an ambitious - quite frankly over ambitious and complex in some regard - project, but one of great strength and repute. To keep the wheels turning and all users happy is a task worthy of the strongest person in both mind and spirit. Whether I am able to help and assist is not, as I place myself as a candidate in this election, a question I may be able to answer.
On-line all bets are off. Every trouble maker can cause havoc with edit wars, spamming and inaccurate information. I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals. I am a political person, having stood for election in the 'real world' before, so hearing both sides of an argument is second nature. Within this context, the challenge becomes harder but ultimately a challenge worthy of such an all-round project. We must work together to build this from the bottom-up; to be fair, free and focused, and not split into tiny groups of self-interested keyboard juries.
I am willing to give this experience a real shot. If I fail, and I think that is likely, I will continue to work as hard as possible to make all the articles here of the best possible standard. It is the least any determined Wiki user can do.
Support. Strong edit history of consistent contributions since joining (even if "minor" checkbox is overused), seems level-headed.--
ragesoss 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everyone is opposing on experience grounds, I'll be fair and support, only because I oppose this apparent 'club' mentality. --
Constan69 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Seems well adjusted, and balanced, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Slightly hesitant owing to lack of evidence of neutral editing (not that there is any counter evidence either). --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I can't support somebody who tells me they are likely to fail. I might support you next time when you have another year of experience and have gained some confidence. --
kingboyk 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, needs experience.
Awolf002 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I hate to sound like a broken record, but yes, experience for an arbitrator is a must.—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, too new.
HGB 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Lack of experience--
Birgitte§β ʈ
Talk 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No faith in his skills in his statement.
Velvetsmog 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Fake modesty is a hard sell.
Smeggysmeg 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Inexperience. I'm not voting to keep him out of a "club". I'm voting because experience is the only way to gain understanding of the community sufficient to be an ArbCom member.
Superm401 |
Talk 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Ignignot 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Knucmo2 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) User would be best served gaining some experience on
WP:RfC and
WP:VfD first.reply
Oppose - inexperienced, seems to think he will fail anyway, unconvincing statements. --
NorkNork 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job.
Ingoolemotalk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to apparent inexperience with dispute resolution and other process issues —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs) 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm sorry but if an arbitrator with that, uh, special of a login name approached me, I would have difficulty taking them seriously. -
JustinWick 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for this vote, but what does my user name have to do with my ability?
doktorb |
words 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I do not pretend to be high enough for every honour, for every place within Wiki, or for every role needed to ensure the project runs smoothly. I feel my short time here has already taught me how necessary it is to have time, effort and determination; but also a sense of fairness and understanding. Wiki is an ambitious - quite frankly over ambitious and complex in some regard - project, but one of great strength and repute. To keep the wheels turning and all users happy is a task worthy of the strongest person in both mind and spirit. Whether I am able to help and assist is not, as I place myself as a candidate in this election, a question I may be able to answer.
On-line all bets are off. Every trouble maker can cause havoc with edit wars, spamming and inaccurate information. I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals. I am a political person, having stood for election in the 'real world' before, so hearing both sides of an argument is second nature. Within this context, the challenge becomes harder but ultimately a challenge worthy of such an all-round project. We must work together to build this from the bottom-up; to be fair, free and focused, and not split into tiny groups of self-interested keyboard juries.
I am willing to give this experience a real shot. If I fail, and I think that is likely, I will continue to work as hard as possible to make all the articles here of the best possible standard. It is the least any determined Wiki user can do.
Support. Strong edit history of consistent contributions since joining (even if "minor" checkbox is overused), seems level-headed.--
ragesoss 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Everyone is opposing on experience grounds, I'll be fair and support, only because I oppose this apparent 'club' mentality. --
Constan69 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak support. Seems well adjusted, and balanced, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Slightly hesitant owing to lack of evidence of neutral editing (not that there is any counter evidence either). --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I can't support somebody who tells me they are likely to fail. I might support you next time when you have another year of experience and have gained some confidence. --
kingboyk 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, needs experience.
Awolf002 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I hate to sound like a broken record, but yes, experience for an arbitrator is a must.—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, too new.
HGB 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Lack of experience--
Birgitte§β ʈ
Talk 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. No faith in his skills in his statement.
Velvetsmog 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Fake modesty is a hard sell.
Smeggysmeg 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Inexperience. I'm not voting to keep him out of a "club". I'm voting because experience is the only way to gain understanding of the community sufficient to be an ArbCom member.
Superm401 |
Talk 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Ignignot 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Knucmo2 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) User would be best served gaining some experience on
WP:RfC and
WP:VfD first.reply
Oppose - inexperienced, seems to think he will fail anyway, unconvincing statements. --
NorkNork 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job.
Ingoolemotalk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose due to apparent inexperience with dispute resolution and other process issues —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs) 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm sorry but if an arbitrator with that, uh, special of a login name approached me, I would have difficulty taking them seriously. -
JustinWick 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Comment Thanks for this vote, but what does my user name have to do with my ability?
doktorb |
words 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)reply