Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze

blankfaze

blankfaze

talk page
contributions
Wikipedian since: April 2004
Administrator since: July 2004

Upon my recent return from a fairly successful wikivacation, I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed to see that the Arbitration process has seemingly fallen into disrepair, or, in the least, "grinded to a near-complete halt".

It's possible that the Arbitrators, be them willing or not to affirm it, are simply burned-out. If that's the case, I'm willing, ready, and able to take up some of the slack.

Too many people see the Arbitration process as a sort of Inquisition or prosecutorial body; perhaps we need to be reminded of its original purpose: to arbitrate, to settle, disputes. If elected I would take a solutions-oriented approach to arbitration. There are times when punitive measures must be taken, but it should not be the go-to solution.

I would like to believe that I have a reputation for striving hard to be impartial and civil in all my endeavours. I think many if not most Wikipedians who know me well would attest to such. I offer myself up as a qualified, experienced, intelligent candidate for the Committee.

Less bureaucracy
Refocus on civilly resolving disputes
Common sense

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

--Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Most certainly. – ugen64 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Despite age, edit history shows a level head and broad interests.--ragesoss 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Down-to-earth candidate. Support. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 00:38, Jan. 9, 2006
Arbitration reform is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Wgfinley 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is an everyman candidate with wide interests. - Stevecov 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Common-sensical (but do work on that civility thing!) — Catherine\^talk 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support candidate statement indicates a genuine understanding of the nature of the arbitration process. Fifelfoo 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see nothing wrong with this candidate. Grue 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. android 79 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. jni 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, based on policy stance. Sam Spade 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Good attitude. /blahedo (t) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Per above. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. utcursch | talk 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Support. --Kefalonia 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. as Ragesoss --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support level headed, for sure. Don't burn out if you get it mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per statement, policy stance and previous knowledge of candidate. If he has not picked up editing again by the end of the elections then I would trust Jimbo not to appoint him. If he has then he will be an asset to the ArbCom. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Terrible Tim 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Terrible Tim does not have suffrage; he had only 117 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Davidpdx 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would trust Blankfaze to make the right decisions to benefit the community as a whole. ALKIVAR™ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Strong Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meekohi 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - previous interaction good. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A dedicated, experienced administrator with a fresh approach to arbitration issues. Willing to give him a try.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems very bright, experienced. Would be great for the commitee. Jared 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for sure --Loopy ^e 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Exploding Boy 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I hope you get back to editing again as soon as is practicable. You will be good on the Committee because you are broad-minded and understand people. --EuropracBHIT 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
Support on account of lack of involvement in Wiki-Politics. Avriette 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - in agreement with candidate's statements. --JohnDBuell 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Neutrality^talk 04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Kirill Lok s hin 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
At time of writing, last edit summary said, and I quote, "READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE - INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING - NOT YET DECLARED SUICIDE". Sorry, but not the kinda person I want on ArbCom. Oppose Batmanand 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Questions -Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
– Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; mostly skipped questions. And I noticed Batmanand's issue too. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Abusive comments in summary, as per Batmanand.--ragesoss 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose too many skipped questions. --Angelo 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Omegatron 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Ambi 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Raven4x4x 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
TacoDeposit 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. --AySz88^-^ 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, lack of answers. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Civility, questions, etc. --Viriditas 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mildly. Grace Note 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Kit 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, older≠wiser 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, Crunch 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Batmanand. Experienced, but not professional. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose questions Dave 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose His account has been pretty inactive over the past year. 172 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, almost inactive last three months. --Interiot 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, good values but not professional. Ronline ✉ 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
—Charles P. (Mirv) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (smile) Tony the Marine 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: WP:CIV & unprofessional. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Does not exhibit the people skills necessary for such a vital role. – Clockwork Soul 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fred Bauder 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. -- Scott e^iπ 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. siafu 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Lupo 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Doesn't seem very professional. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per Batmanand. Also, I'm concerned about your erratic editing history and whether you will actually make yourself available sufficiently. And not impressed by lack of answers to your questions. Sarah Ewart 10:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Hardly active, inarticulate, willing to vote and take stands on hearsay -- definitely not ArbCom. Geogre 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, would like to support, but a few issues make it impossible for me. —Nightstallion (?) 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, at least until he answers the questions when I will reconsider (please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if I haven't spotted the questions being answered). Thryduulf 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to abusive edit summaries. Not the sort of temprament we need on the ArbCom. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeHipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - did not answer questions, yet. Awolf002 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Literate Engineer 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Doc ^ask? 16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Seems to have the right values, but lack of civility in edit summaries is disturbing. --Comics 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, agree with Comics - Masonpatriot 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Jkelly 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Failed to answer my question, and besides that, per Batmanand. Xoloz 18:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Petros471 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose TestPilot 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Civility issues raised by others are a concern; also, Interiot's tool shows a trend of decreasing activity on Wikipedia. H e rmione1980 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficiently active on Wikipedia recently for my tastes. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Splash^talk 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficiently civil, sorry Avalon 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. per activity and civility concerns.--cjllw | TALK 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. not active --JWSchmidt 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - civility concerns, Vsmith 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Batmanand. Velvetsmog 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Batmanand. I've interacted little with this user, but I don't recall that he left a good impression. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gazpacho 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Kingturtle 06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Failure to answer most of the questions. --Carnildo 08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]