Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Sam Spade: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Axon (talk | contribs)
2,062 edits
Line 91: Line 91:
#'''Oppose''' no way. Because of recent RFC behaviour, and this ridiculous demand: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FKelly_Martin&diff=33846074&oldid=33844865]. [[User:Sarahe|Sarah Ewart]] 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' no way. Because of recent RFC behaviour, and this ridiculous demand: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_comment%2FKelly_Martin&diff=33846074&oldid=33844865]. [[User:Sarahe|Sarah Ewart]] 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' . — [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' . — [[User:Rama|Rama]] 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Biased, too involved with too many other disputes, would be too distrusted.

Revision as of 10:06, 9 January 2006

Sam Spade

My experience is extensive, I have handled more cases before the ArbCom than I can easilly remember, all but one decisively successful, and I mediate contentious pages on a daily basis.

I oppose the ArbCom deciding based on its own precedent, and favor rather an interpretation of wikipedia:policy most effective in producing and sustaining an encyclopedia and its editorial staff.

I will be especially severe with administrators who violate policy, misuse their status, and disgrace their office. I will be particularly leniant with new users who clearly mean well, and I am particularly inclined to allow experienced users to act as mentors in such cases.

Rather than thinking of myself as a judge determining guilt and punishment, I will adjudicate based on the needs of the encyclopedia, mindful of the mechanics of Group dynamics and behavior modification.

Questions

Support

  1. Haukur 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. BorgQueen 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – ugen64 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Suuport. KHM03 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. --DanielCD 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support May be a bit impulsive at times but his heart is in the right place. Haiduc 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Your ideas about recusal are some of the most sensible things said here for a while. Even though, according to your biases, I disagree with you on pretty much everything, I still think you would make a good ArbCom member. Batmanand 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Staffelde 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. View of IAR made me fall in almost love with him. Xoloz 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support.--ragesoss 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. I like his policy platform, and I think that WP:IAR has gotten way out of hand recently, especially with regard to the user box fiasco (which I deliberately tried to stay out of). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. I belive on him. He is so open minded, and never narrow, i am sure Wikipedia will surely be safe on his hands. HappyApple 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support kinda crazy and biased, but for some reason i think he'll make an excellent arbcom member- Sam looks out for the little guy. --Heah talk 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Very intelligent and does not let dogma restrict his thinking. RJII 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Justforasecond 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support has some interesting views.  Grue  06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. -- 上村七美 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Antandrus (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely not.--Sean|Black 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nunh-huh 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --nixie 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. No --Doc ask? 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - IAR is not a joke. Bensaccount 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose --Duk 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose no way --Angelo 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - absolutely not. -- Arwel (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I think not. Johnleemk | Talk 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:31, Jan. 9, 2006
  27. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Don't trust his judgment. Calton | Talk 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose: nothing personal, just not right for this role. Jonathunder 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Per Ambi and Calton. 172 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Never ever, not in a million years. Sam Spade is the longest-running and most successful (in terms of the amount of other people's time wasted) of the legion of Wikipedia trolls. Should have been hard-banned ages ago. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose strongly. Rhobite 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Bobet 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose based on questions and temperament. ←Hob 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose --Daniel 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. RadicalSubversiv E 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Too divisive. Kaldari 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration.Fifelfoo 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration. We need someone with a milder temperament in AC. An An 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose --Crunch 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. android79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose per Ambi.--cj | talk 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose I've heard too many things about this user that I do not think will be characteristic of a good arbitrator. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Definitely not a troll, but too controversial for an Arbie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. — Catherine\talk 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - I think he's got ArbCom potential, but I'd like to see some months of admin experience under his belt before. I opposed his last RfA, I'd support it now. --- Charles Stewart 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. — mark ✎ 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose no way. Because of recent RFC behaviour, and this ridiculous demand: [2]. Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose . — Rama 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Biased, too involved with too many other disputes, would be too distrusted.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Sam_Spade&oldid=34480465"