Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 91: Line 91:
#'''Oppose'''. [[User:Arminius|Arm]] 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. [[User:Arminius|Arm]] 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. --[[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. --[[User:Masssiveego|Masssiveego]] 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. -- i am sure he is porbably a nice guy but he is acting so dictatorial in preventing accurate summaries of information on the usc football website...to have him as an abitrator seems silly -- he acts on his own in this dispute without an abitrator
#'''Oppose'''. -- i am sure he is probably a nice guy but he is acting so dictatorial in preventing accurate summaries of information on the usc football website...to have him as an abitrator seems silly -- he acts on his own in this dispute without an abitrator

Revision as of 08:33, 11 January 2006

Kingturtle

My name is Oliver Brown. I have been a Wikipedian since February 2003, serving as a contributor, copyeditor, policeman, administrator and bureaucrat. I am fair, empathetic, articulate, firm and forgiving. An arbiter should be tactful and considerate. One must remember that there is a face behind each user name.

In regards to what experience I have that would help the Arbitration Committee, I’ve created a WikiCity to chronicle underground music in my local community. I teach history in a public high school. I’ve served as the PTA parliamentarian, and currently serve on the Equity Team. I’ve written rulebooks and by-laws for various projects - including (when in my teens) arbitration by-laws for a homemade baseball little league we had on my street. My BA is in Political Science.

In regards to how the committee should handle disputes, this is how I would lay it out: the arbiters should not know the usernames or identities of those involved in a dispute. Each side of the dispute would submit a report making their case; the report would refer to PERSON A and PERSON B, keeping the arbiters in the dark. There’s more to the process, but that’s the gist.

In regards to the banning question, I wouldn’t rule out a ban as a last resort. It’s like expelling a kid from school. There’s a process - a long process, even for serious offenses. The number one task at hand is to create a wikipedia - an encyclopedia formed and shaped by the minds of thousands - but can it be done fairly and without hurt to contributors? This is a great social experiment. As a committee member, I will take great care in understanding the various points-of-view at hand, and I will try to find solutions that will bring dignity to all. I will also work to create procedures that are efficient and fair. I feel wikipedia is important and vital to mankind. I am devoted to it. Kingturtle 07:40, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Weak support. JYolkowski // talk 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Seems like a very reasonable Wikipedian, even if policy opinions clash with majority.--ragesoss 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support fair, reasonable, and dedicated Wikipedian.--Jiang 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support freestylefrappe 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --Kefalonia 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support candidate seems honest and perfect for the job. I don't see any problems with him. TrafficBenBoy 10:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support based entirely upon his response to Snowspinners question  ALKIVAR™ 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Being an arbitrator requires a finely tuned bullshit detector. What in your life has prepared you to detect bullshit with ease? Phil Sandifer 21:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
    I am a high school teacher.
  12. Strong support  Grue  13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong support: he is down to earth, but also prudent, daring, and shows initiative. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems an excellent choice. I'm not convinced at all that the PERSON A / PERSON B thing would work (too many technical problems), but have not hesistancy in recommending them for the committee. Turnstep 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. --HK 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. <KF> 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Avalon 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Wally 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. We chessplayers, from Rochester, who are related to Ralph Waldo Emerson, should stick together.--RattBoy 12:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. DenisMoskowitz 18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. HGB 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support per Turnstep --EMS | Talk 19:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support, mildly. Real-life background is relevant. Stated policy is very idealistic. No obvious displays of dishonesty or inability to be objective. --Ds13 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Real life gives merit, very experienced. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - understands the importance of common sense. Thryduulf 00:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - I disagree with his policy; but, he seems well preprared to be on the ArbCom and to do a good job. -- Rmrfstar 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. —Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Issues with your interpretations of policy. Batmanand 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose --Angelo 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Really Strong Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Ideas are not practical Fred Bauder 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Policy seems difficult to implement --Crunch 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Bobet 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. android79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. — Catherine\talk 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose--cj | talk 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - disagree with platform. --- Charles Stewart 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose on issues of policy. -- Michalis Famelis 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. --Viriditas 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose per policies. —Nightstallion (?) 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, idealistic users are a boon to the project, but the ArbCom must be practical. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Radiant! the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Broad disagreement with the candidate's views on how best to arrive at a fair judgement. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. siafu 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:10Z
  33. Oppose. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Splashtalk 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Proposed policy amendments are interesting, but impractical impossible. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Arbitrating is not Policing!!! Avriette 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. I like the idealism, but arbcom requires a pretty hard nose. older≠wiser 02:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose at this time. Rossami (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Radiant! has already put it perfectly. Rje 17:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per Radiant! Ral315 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Believes half-hour blocks with no warning are acceptable, and generally disagrees with existing admin policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Arm 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. -- i am sure he is probably a nice guy but he is acting so dictatorial in preventing accurate summaries of information on the usc football website...to have him as an abitrator seems silly -- he acts on his own in this dispute without an abitrator
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Kingturtle&oldid=34731337"