Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Danny

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mcginnly (talk | contribs) at 09:54, 3 December 2007 (→‎Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Danny

I have decided to run for ArbCom. The reason is simple: I see so many people complaining about ArbCom and how long it takes to resolve problems, but they themselves are imitating those very problems with their candidacies. We now have 27 candidates with more on the way. Each is asked at least 27 questions, which they often answer in several paragraphs of vapid prolix. In other words, in order to make an educated decision as to whom to vote for, the Wikipedia community is left with reading some 1000 paragraphs of platitudes, or playing the prom king/queen game and selecting the wiki-superstar du jour. In my tradition, wasting someone's time is worse than stealing their money, because time can never be returned.

The goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The purpose of rules is to keep that goal on track. With a touch of common sense, and a willingness to be decisive, that can be achieved. I believe I can do that.

This is my statement. In keeping with the principles mentioned above, I will not be answering any further questions. (184 words) Danny 23:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BLACKKITE 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ragesoss 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Kurykh 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Full Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cla68 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Anthøny 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Extended comments moved to talk page. Nick 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Bakaman 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unquestionably qualified --Docg 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. W.marsh 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. GracenotesT § 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 00:41, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  21. Ρх₥α 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- Ned Scott 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- Avi 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Fred Bauder 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Despite his refusal to question my question. --Carnildo 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Alexfusco5 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. SQLQuery me! 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. krimpet⟲ 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --InkSplotch 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Mercury 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Solid record spanning a broad array of Wikipedia roles is a far better indicator than reams of tedious verbage at election time. --MPerel 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. WAS 4.250 06:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. SchmuckyTheCat
  43. Keegantalk 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. - Straight talkin'. ScarianTalk 08:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Itub 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Arrogance demonstrated in this run and earlier totally unacceptable and predicts the conduct as an arbitrator. Regret to oppose because the candidate's intelligence and commitment is beyond doubt. --Irpen 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Willing to stand on a record that newer WPians don't know. How tilted would the scales be? (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sorry, while I really like Danny, but I don't think this is the best role for him This is a Secret account 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In order to be a good arbitrator, you must be a good diplomat. Monsieurdl 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nufy8 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Given the general concerns about arbitrator activity, no. I don't think the arbcom would be top of your list. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. AniMate 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Gurch (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Duk 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
  13.  — master sonT - C 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Wrong tone. futurebird 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. spryde | talk 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Icestorm815 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Tintin 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Not willing to answer questions isn't a good sign. • Lawrence Cohen 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Good god no --> not answering questions = definite oppose. Qst 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. - Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. — TKD::Talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose, mainly because of his public criticism of Anthere, chair of the Foundation, and his recent co-nomination of Kelly Martin for adminship. [1] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Not for arbcom. Prodego talk 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. per Secret and Monsieurdl. —Random832 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Sorry, but anyone who seriously thought nominating Kelly Martin for (re)adminship was a good idea isn't someone I'd trust to make major decisions. — iridescent 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --- RockMFR 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Some things just don't sit right with me, sorry. Grandmasterka 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. We've had one ArbComm member actively trying to fork the project. I don't think another is a good idea. Also, Kelly has since admitted that her willingness to go through RfA again was intentional trolling, that Danny fell for it is not a good sign. GRBerry 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Captain panda 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per Kelly Martin, and no answers. Crum375 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Bad idea. RxS 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. - auburnpilot talk 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. While I definitely respect Danny and the work he has done, I don't think an arbitrator should refuse to answer the questions posed. As Monsieurdl said, an arbitrator should be a good diplomat. James086Talk | Email 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sorry. --Coredesat 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sorry, but I'm not comfortable supporting someone who won't answer questions posed before them. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Cryptic 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. ➪HiDrNick! 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Stephen 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. wish I could have said otherwiseDGG (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Not this time. Zocky | picture popups 02:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. bibliomaniac15 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Danny is a good guy, but I worry about his ability to work effectively as part of a group such as this. I think being the Jimbo of Veropedia might be a better use for his talents. Rebecca 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Húsönd 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. No. Absolutely not. --B 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Rebecca put it well. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. I support you in many things, but my main concern with you has always been what I have perceived as a minor obsession with secrecy/lack of transparency. Neither are what I want from a committee member. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Great guy with best of intention. Though understandable intention, refusal of answering questions from individual editor is not what I'm looking for. KTC 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Too controversial. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I share, though, in Irpen's regrets. Joe 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Imperious nature of candidate statement, dismissive attitude towards other candidates, refusal to answer questions. These are all indicative of qualities ill suited to a prospective arbitrator.
    /END vapid prolix /END platitudes. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. A platform of not answering questions doesn't do it for me. Especially as I wanted to ask one about Veropedia. Johnbod 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose -Dureo 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - Someone who feels he's above answering the hoi polloi should not be in a position over them. -- Robster2001 04:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. — xaosflux Talk 04:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Eluchil404 04:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Emphatically oppose. Everyking 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Spebi 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I possibly would have supported but many people had questions that we wanted to ask you in good faith. --JayHenry 04:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. IronDuke 04:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. —Mira 05:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose I dorftrottel I talk I 05:15, December 3, 2007
  67. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. I don't trust Danny's judgment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Dragons flight 06:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 06:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. - Crockspot 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. --Jack Merridew 07:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Davewild 07:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. If you can't be bothered to answer questions, I can't be bothered to support you. Lack of communication skills != good arbitrator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. skip (t / c) 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. No answers, no support. Shem(talk) 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Danny&oldid=175450404"