For me, the most important of the
five pillars is the one that states that we are an encyclopaedia. More than any other idea or policy, this is the one that will serve as my guiding principle if I am elected to the committee. However, this maxim is hardly a simple litmus test that can be applied with ease in every case. For example, an abrasive editor, however excellent the articles they write, may cause a net negative effect on our quality by poisoning the atmosphere for other contributors; blindly enforcing the rulebook is a poor mode of operation, but at the same time, ignoring the rulebook too much erodes community support. All members of the Arbitration Committee must be aware of the ripple effect from any decision, or the committee will lose its effectiveness. To sort through all the possible ramifications of any ruling is a task that requires a thoughtful, reasonable, and humble ;) person such as myself.
User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.)
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Liked your history of conflict-resolution, did not like your ideas on Wikipedia policies and how to apply the rules.
Batmanand00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Dogbreathcanada does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —
Cryptic(talk)04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose My goodness -- he declined to answer my question in deference to a somewhat similar one, and then declined to answer that question, because he wanted to "think about it." Sorry, but that's horribly evasive.
Xoloz17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Fifelfoo23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
While I don't think that Ingoolemo will make a bad aribitrator, I'm not certain he'll make a good one either. As there are other candiates I am more certain of I think that it would be a shame to lose participation on the unsoruced images and wikiprojects.
Thryduulf12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
For me, the most important of the
five pillars is the one that states that we are an encyclopaedia. More than any other idea or policy, this is the one that will serve as my guiding principle if I am elected to the committee. However, this maxim is hardly a simple litmus test that can be applied with ease in every case. For example, an abrasive editor, however excellent the articles they write, may cause a net negative effect on our quality by poisoning the atmosphere for other contributors; blindly enforcing the rulebook is a poor mode of operation, but at the same time, ignoring the rulebook too much erodes community support. All members of the Arbitration Committee must be aware of the ripple effect from any decision, or the committee will lose its effectiveness. To sort through all the possible ramifications of any ruling is a task that requires a thoughtful, reasonable, and humble ;) person such as myself.
User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.)
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Liked your history of conflict-resolution, did not like your ideas on Wikipedia policies and how to apply the rules.
Batmanand00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Dogbreathcanada does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —
Cryptic(talk)04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose My goodness -- he declined to answer my question in deference to a somewhat similar one, and then declined to answer that question, because he wanted to "think about it." Sorry, but that's horribly evasive.
Xoloz17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
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.
Fifelfoo23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
While I don't think that Ingoolemo will make a bad aribitrator, I'm not certain he'll make a good one either. As there are other candiates I am more certain of I think that it would be a shame to lose participation on the unsoruced images and wikiprojects.
Thryduulf12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply