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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Alphax (talk | contribs)
6,681 edits
m →‎Oppose: too many userboxes
Line 188: Line 188:
#'''Oppose''' - seems too inexperienced. --[[User:Pierremenard|Pierremenard]] 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - seems too inexperienced. --[[User:Pierremenard|Pierremenard]] 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Legitimate concerns have been raised in the opposition comments. [[User:Velvetsmog|Velvetsmog]] 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Legitimate concerns have been raised in the opposition comments. [[User:Velvetsmog|Velvetsmog]] 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', too many userboxes. [[User:Alphax|Alphax]] 13:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:27, 13 January 2006

Merovingian

Greetings. I'm Merovingian. I've been a Wikipedian since November 2003 and an administrator since March 2004. That doesn't really matter, though. Wikipedia has changed immensely since I joined, and the key to its prosperity is only more change. As the community has grown and diversified, the need for binding solutions has grown, too. The Arbitration Committee is dedicated to finding and developing these solutions.

Certainly, the committee has been a mixed blessing. While it has solved many disputes, it has been plagued by a backlog of cases and too much unimportant arguing. Usually, a fairly simple disagreement escalates, and the committee spends too much time picking through longwinded rants. An enlargement of the Arbitration Committee of just three could very well move cases through much more quickly.

I believe that I can help. During my time at Wikipedia, I have tried my very best to adhere to the projects tenets of honesty, good faith, and neutrality. All three are important features to be found in an arbitrator. If elected, I will maintain a high level of participation; the committee’s progress has been hindered by inactive members and resignations. I care about this project too much to give up. If elected, I will act with fairness to all involved parties, and conduct my work with the other arbitrators in the open. If elected, I will keep my personal views out of all cases, as I have tried to do when writing articles.

I welcome questions, comments, or criticisms.

Questions

Support

  1. Haukur 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Ancheta Wis 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Sean|Black 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – ugen64 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Kirill Lokshin 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. DarthVader 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. The Land 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Raven4x4x 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Your ideas about policy are very interesting. Batmanand 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. JYolkowski // talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support--Duk 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Croat Canuck 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Dogbreathcanada 02:35, 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) 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Palpatine 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Seems youthfully idealistic.--ragesoss 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support. -Mysekurity 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Fine Broken S 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support freestylefrappe 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --cj | talk 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Chick Bowen 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. android79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support — Catherine\talk 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. jni 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --Wetman 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Donar Reiskoffer 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Mihai -talk 08:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Djnjwd 08:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support why? ++Lar: t/c 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - Banes 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Urthogie 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support - Szvest 10:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  51. Support --Deepak|वार्ता 10:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support --Meursault2004 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Martin 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Wizzy…☎ 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support been aware of Mero since he founded AIW. Would be a good candidate.  ALKIVAR™ 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support mint-choc chip ice cream. --Celestianpower háblame 13:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Brookie :) - a collector of little round things! (Talk!) 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support per Quadell. Tomertalk 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support.  Grue  13:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support would bea trustworthy and excellent member. We'd be missing out if we didn't elect him.Gator (talk) 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea?
  66. Support --kingboyk 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support -- Alfakim --  talk  15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Gryffindor 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Rock solid support.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support -- Rhion 18:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support — Eoghanacht talk 18:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Question. Xoloz 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. TerraGreen 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Absolutely. —BorgHunter (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:28Z
  78. Support. Candidate statement is ideal definition of what an Arbcom member should aspire to. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Sceptre (Talk) 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Daniel11
  81. Support. Opposing votes don't convince me at all. --Ghirla | talk 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Wally 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Bishonen | talk 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  84. support BL kiss the lizard 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support Maltmomma (chat) 01:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support for belief that IAR is largely inapplicable to admin actions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --Delirium 10:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support --Neigel von Teighen 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, and damn the agecountitis. Ral315 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Need a bit more of this fellow. Lincher 20:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Seems good. --G Rutter 20:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support David Hoag 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support--MONGO 04:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support --Woggly 08:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. --Bhadani 09:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support veteran __earth 11:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Arniep 14:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. – BCorr|Брайен 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  105. Support. BDAbramson T 21:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Experienced and civil. Zocky
  107. Support Dr. B 17:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Jobe6 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - experienced, constructive criticism of ArbCom. --NorkNork 21:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support -- IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 05:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Liberatore(T) 12:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support -- Davidpdx 13:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. User seems to nice for the job. RfA votes too lenient imo.Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Ambi 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose --Angelo 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose --Dlyons493 Talk 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Endorsing Kelly Martin in the current circumstances doesn't suggest an arbiter who will be fair. Grace Note 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Good editor, but reluctantly must oppose given unblocking of 3RR violators without communication with blocking admin. Jonathunder 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. --Viriditas 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Per Voice of AllT. Also too young. 172 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose --Daniel 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Bobet 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose --Tabor 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose platform, inexperience --- Charles Stewart 08:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose warpozio 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Oppose. Well respected wikiContributor but I disagree with some parts of platform. -- Michalis Famelis 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak oppose, per Michalis: I like the candidate but I have to disagree some parts of the platform. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Repeatedly unblocked an individual who had been fairly blocked for 3RR violations without knowing the 3RR policy, without reading the policy, without asking someone else about the policy, and without even consulting with the admins who had blocked the individual. This shows recklessness and disregard for the way things should work. I'm unclear on other actions of this individual, which might be good, but these actions were completely out of line for any admin, let alone someone who wants to be on ArbCom. DreamGuy 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, his judgment is not always sound. Radiant_>|< 14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --Thorri 16:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Ziggur 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose as Natalinasmpf. I like some of his proposals, but elements of his track record push me just into opposition. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose too inconsistent ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose due to all above. Turnstep 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. siafu 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Splashtalk 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Divisive, polarizing, confrontational, etc. Avriette 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose--Doc ask? 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. per Michalis.--cjllw | TALK 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weak oppose. older≠wiser 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Reluctant oppose, per DreamGuy. Also, about a month ago he permanently blocked a user for linkspam (per another editor's request) when that user had never been warned. I like Mero, though; maybe next year if he shows more consistency. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Gazpacho 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 17:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak oppose. I like him, but repeatedly unblocking a 3RR violator without consultation is just wrong. ~~ N (t/c) 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weak oppose. Sorry, but 17 is really young for something like this. howcheng {chat} 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak Oppose, great editor, lacks judgment for this role. HGB 19:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Reluctantly Oppose, very experienced, but, however, noting DreamGuy's reservations, I must also note my reservations. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose KTC 20:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose--A Y Arktos 20:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. --Carnildo 05:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - seems too inexperienced. --Pierremenard 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Legitimate concerns have been raised in the opposition comments. Velvetsmog 23:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, too many userboxes. Alphax 13:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Merovingian&oldid=35016226"