Jump to content

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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Mrfixter (talk | contribs)
573 edits
Line 194: Line 194:
#'''Oppose''', sorry. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''', sorry. - [[User:Ulayiti|ulayiti]] [[User talk:Ulayiti|<font color="#226b22"><small>(talk)</small></font>]] 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' [[User:Mrfixter|Mrfixter]] 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Oppose.''' [[User:Mrfixter|Mrfixter]] 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#--[[User:Boothy443|Boothy443]] | [[User talk:Boothy443| trácht ar]] 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:56, 15 January 2006

Kim Bruning

I'm changing my candidate statement (the original can be found on the questions page). No-one said that I couldn't, and several have stated that I should. :-P I'd prefer to be a quiet fellow who doesn't want to be noticed too much, but on the other hand, I do want to pass the election.

You're probably wondering if you know me. In a sense, you probably do. If you're new to wikipedia this year, you were probably welcomed, and pointed to the Simplified ruleset, Policy trifecta or Five pillars as your first introduction to the wiki. I started the simplified ruleset project, so that people joining wouldn't be utterly lost in the now truly byzantine body of rules we have on wikipedia. Welcome! :-)

But you're probably wondering why I'm applying for the arbitration committee today:

Early this year, the mediation committee basically just stopped working. If you look at how wikipedia dispute resolution is organised and see how arbitration policy is laid out, you'll see that one of the tasks of mediation is to act as a gateway to the arbitration committee. Without a mediation committee to mitigate their workload, the arbitrators started burning out, one after the other.

What I did this year is to rapidly set up the Mediation cabal, as a stopgap measure to shore up mediation. It wasn't 'till much later that someone finally managed to restart the mediation committee, but until that time the mediation cabal held the line. Today it still exists for when you want to solve some small dispute.

So in summary, I've been helping out people on wikipedia, and making sure that there was an environment there for them that was conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia in peace and quiet.

If you're an administrator, you get extra buttons to help you sort out problems. In the mediation cabal, you have to find your own diffs, interview people, do your detective work, advocate both sides at once, all while not trying to look TOO crosseyed, and then decide what you need to do, and then figure out ways to carry it out. On the arbitration committee, you get Infrastructure. You don't get yet even more buttons, but rather more organisation. It allows you to work on actually figuring out what to do about a situation, with a lot of the distractions taken away. So I'd still be doing what I've always been doing, but I'd be able to do it a lot more effectively.

Can you help me achieve that?

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guettarda 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Sean|Black 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – ugen64 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Ambi 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. An ingenious, practical fellow; I owe the conception of the Medcab to him. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The Land 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sdedeo (tips) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support ➥the Epopt 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Quite a reasonable person in my experience. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. TacoDeposit 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support has done more in regards to trying to fix our policies than anyone. We desperately need the efforts of people like Kim. karmafist 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support we need a med cabalist on Arbcom! --Wgfinley 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support.--ragesoss 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support in the strongest possible way. Will moderate some of the more aggressive arbiter voices, one hopes. Grace Note 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Only positive experiences with this user. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-01-9 02:48
  23. King of All the Franks 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Sarah Ewart 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Fred Bauder 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Especially for his keen understanding of WP:IAR. kmccoy (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. Experienced. Insightful positions. Bold, but temperate enough to be effective (far more so than I in any case :) ). --Gmaxwell 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Bobet 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support I implicitly trust him and his judgement to be fair and reasoned.--Tznkai 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support — Catherine\talk 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, despite concerns about his IAR's stance, he is capable of reasoning. Sam Spade 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Strong Support —Locke Cole • t • c 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. siafu 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support - skilled at the craft of resolving conflict --- Charles Stewart 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. --Kefalonia 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. --Viriditas 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, level-headed and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Dan100 (Talk) 11:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support, as Jmaxwell. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Moderate voice. —Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Wizzy…☎ 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support KillerChihuahua?!? 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, good grasp of the spirit of things. Radiant_>|< 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Trifon Triantafillidis 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support, experienced and sensible. Proto t c 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --Habap 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Sorry Kim - I like you, but not enough to vote against you. Phil Sandifer 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. In my experience, a calm and wise voice. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support --metta, The Sunborn 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Jim62sch 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Good answers to questions, seems to be an excellent addition to the committee. Especially appreciate the realizing that ArbCom will be a full-time job and crowd out most other WP activity. We need someone that dedicated. Turnstep 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Rangek 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Wally 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support Rayc 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Salsb 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support All who encounter ArbCom will benefit from his calm and rational style. Unfocused 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. --Fire Star 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. --GerardM 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Rje 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Always seems to be acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. howcheng {chat} 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Ucucha (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Een Hollandse bioloog-computermuis! Good community knowledge, very much an ideal ArbComm candidate. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. On the basis of prior service demonstrated, indicated potential to arbitrate. Fifelfoo 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Very well answered questions Thryduulf 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Dr. Cash 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. - Vsmith 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support --Carnildo 10:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Andre (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  80. Support Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Robdurbar 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Fad (ix) 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support, seems to have taken concerns from the oppose side to heart, good experience. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Best statement I've read so far. Seems to really get the structure of conflict resolution. Velvetsmog 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. support William M. Connolley 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support ntennis 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support with some misgivings. Hope Kim mellows a bit more. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Reason: his opposition to the way the ArbCom is conducted. ObsidianOrder 10:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Alphax 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support based on altered statement. Tomertalk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, has some prior experience of process, a trustworthy user -- Francs2000 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. support iMb~Meow 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. --dcabrilo 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Owen× ☎ 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. brenneman(t)(c) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Recently inactive and concerned about incivility. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Questions were not to my liking. Batmanand 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Raven4x4x 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. —David Levy 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak oppose per questions. --Angelo 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Unfortunately, the issue over Hamster Sandwich's RfA did not leave you sitting in too good a light with me. I admire your persistance and all, but your attitude in the matter is not what I would prefer to see in an Arbitrator. --Vortex 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Failed to address my question. Xoloz 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Too confrontational. Paul August ☎ 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose 172 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Dottore So 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose --Crunch 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose as per Paul August, Vortex, Dmcdevit. My personal experience with Kim has been less than pleasant. No confidence that he can retain the detachment that is necessary for arbitration duties. Hamster Sandwich 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. android79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Based solely on a lack of platform. Netkinetic 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose.  Grue  06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Excellent admin, but I feel he's a little controversial for an arbitrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Questionable behaviour. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Sometimes tends to make short, confusing remarks rather than explain views, a bad trait for an arbitrator. Too quick to change policy pages before seeking consensus. -- SCZenz 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose: Six months ago, I might have supported, but, recently, I've known Kim to take stances on the activism of ArbCom that I simply can't pass over in silence. Geogre 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, questions --kingboyk 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    very weak mild oppose per GraceNote and SamSpade. Tomertalk 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) changing my vote. Tomertalk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, for bizarre proposals such as changing the 3RR to permit three reverts per person reverting. Basically, if B and C revert A's edits, A could revert B's edits three times and could revert C's edits three times. Carbonite | Talk 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - Broad disagreement with the candidate's philosophy, as exemplified by [1]. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. DES (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sloppily written statement, unimpressive answers to the questions. Kim, you can do better than that!—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to "support" now the statement is re-written.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose --Doc ask? 20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose after the CSD debacle. - SoM 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose I like Kim, but a better mediator than an arbitrator, I think. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. --HK 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. An extraordinarily good mediator does not necessarily a good arbitrator make. -Splashtalk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Confrontational. Avriette 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Weak oppose. No clear position, seems to have a lackadaisical attitude towards this process. ~~ N (t/c) 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. weak oppose older≠wiser 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose : I cannot support anyone that makes comments such as, "I may want to help out with arbitration too." This statement is too, "wishy-washy." Either you really want to participate in ArbCom, or you don't. "I may want to,..." just doesn't cut it for me. Change vote to support based on the changes to the candidate statement. Dr. Cash 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Gazpacho 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. The statement just doesn't sell it for me, given the high burnout rate of arbitrators I cannot support someone who does not appear to be too committed to the position. Rje 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) This comment refers to the original statement, I am moving my vote to support. Rje 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Bensaccount 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose per Nickptar --EMS | Talk 18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, candidate statement makes case for being on medcom rather than being an arbitrator. HGB 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose, reluctantly. Too many dubious AfD decisions. Septentrionalis 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose, too much in favor of IAR-type ideas. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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]
  57. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Arm 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose --2004-12-29T22:45Z 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak oppose KTC 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. OpposeDr. B 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - weak statement. --NorkNork 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. maclean25 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose, sorry. - ulayiti (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Mrfixter 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Kim_Bruning&oldid=35240271"