Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Blnguyen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy5190 (talk | contribs) at 22:37, 5 December 2006 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Statement

Hello. I registered in September 2005, becomin an administrator this May. I try to be active across a wide variety of activities, due to my enjoyment of the project, trying to become a more complete editor, as it is clear that I am very far from such a state. I have written extensively across a variety of topics with featured contributions, as well as janitorial duties, clearing backlogs, mediating disputes, and stuff in between. I feel that as Wikipedians tend to specialise more, a wide experience gives a good view of the issues facing Wikipedia , so that good faith contributors of all trades get the respect and fair treatment that they deserve.

Every arbcom decision must be geared towards advancing our fundamental goal of advancing the encyclopedia, by creating an environment which allows for maximum growth and productivity of quality content. The Arbcom intervenes when dispute resolution fails, to break deadlocks so that human resources are redirected to their ideal use, when users who persistently misbehave in a manner preventing the encyclopedia's progress, cannot be dealt with through the blocking policy.

As Wikipedia grows, the attention it receives from people with strong ethno- political and religious ideologies has exploded, and content improvement is stifled due to attempted advocacy, propaganda or rewriting of history. High levels of tendentious and disruptive behaviour persist for months before sanctions are put in place, resulting in many high profile and complex articles being in an embarrassingly poor state. This benefits detrimental editors whilst hardworking productive editors, often our best, who maintain delicate articles are forced out, sometimes simply due to the stigma of being in a protracted dispute. I strongly believe in the use of tailored remedies, as everybody has different strengths, in order to retain the productive facets of editing, whilst restricting negative activity, with banning as a last resort. I also favour maximum transparency.

I have a commitment to attention to detail (shown here in RfA nominations) , to maximise the likelihood of making correct decisions which give the encyclopedia the optimal opportunity to continue growing. I will attempt to make arbcom become more visible, by helping to formulate the findings and remedies so that problems are resolved faster. I have a thick skin, neutral, analytical and objective style and approachable and willing to respond to requests for assistance in detail, as shown by my talk archives.

Questions

Support

  1. -- Agathoclea 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Alex Bakharev 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guy (Help!) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolute Support. This is one of the most thoughtful, active, polite sysops. He does so much here, and manages to never piss people off. This user absolutely deserves to be our arbitrator. We could hardly do better. - crz crztalk 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. DVD+ R/W 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. bainer (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Is a thoughtful and dedicated Wikipedian.--§hanel 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Titoxd(?!?) 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 210physicq (c) 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Coredesat 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support A worthy addition to ArbCom. -- Avi 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Khoikhoi 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Jd2718 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hello32020 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jaranda wat's sup 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. per crz, — Moondyne 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Please, please, please, please, please.... Alphachimp 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Dakota 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Ars Scriptor 01:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sarah Ewart 02:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. KPbIC 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ßottesiηi (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. —Mira 02:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Hesperian 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. Jayjg (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Strong Support - user is very fair.Bakaman 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support most definitely. KazakhPol 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support --Húsönd 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Very fair, thoughtful, and reasonable. Would make a great arbitrator. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strong Support — Lost(talk) 03:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Excellent, kind, consistently sound judgment. Xoloz 03:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - agree with the above. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, good admin, fair judgement. Terence Ong 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Crum375 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Dylan Lake (t·c) 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Nufy8 04:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Opabinia regalis 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong Support --Srikeit 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. semper fi — Moe 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. SUPPORT Bucketsofg 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support Brilliant editor... Nobleeagle [TALK] [C] 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Xoloz, Crz, and Slim, inter al., put it quite well. Joe 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. -- AuburnPilottalk 05:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support. Antandrus (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Super strong support - enough said. Sarvagnya 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Support I have seen a range of his wonderful abilities here that will serve him well as an Arbcommer. GizzaChat © 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Strongest possible support - Don't know if the degree of support matters, but I would just like to say that Blnguyen would be the ideal Arb. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 07:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Beit Or 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Davewild 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. A very even-handed wikipedian with well-balanced experience of mainspace editing. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. Fair user. Has shown balanced opinion whenever admin intervention was asked for. --Naveen (talk) 09:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Bduke 10:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support! NDCompuGeek 10:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Kusma (討論) 11:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Suited for the job and brings some necessary ethnic knowledge and sensitivities which will surely help. -- Sundar \talk \contribs 12:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Any fucking time. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong support, per Sir Nicholas. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Shyam (T/C) 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Good reliable, hard working and sensible editor. Giano 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. --Muchness 13:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Competant, with a level head. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support isn't it obvious? Rama's arrow 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support --CBD 13:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support somewhere between weak and regular. not weak, not not full--based on answers to my questions Anomo 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support 172 | Talk 14:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Dina 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. TewfikTalk 16:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 'Strong Support अमेय आर्यन DaBrood© 16:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong Support. Full marks to the candidate. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Ge o. 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support --NRS | T/M\B 17:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support Done some good stuff ! Mick Knapton 18:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support Everyone has flaws, and Blnguyen is no exception. However, he has been fairly neutral throughout many disputes on wikipedia. All one can ask is neutrality and adherence to wikipedia rules and norms, something that is increasingly scarce here with the encyclopedia slowly being taken over by zealots and their sympathizers. Blnguyen has done all of these things and done them as well as can be expected from any sysop. Blnguyen, as an ArbComm member, can be a valuable deterrent to this disturbing trend and restore the ArbComm to it's roots. Hkelkar 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support IronDuke 18:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support -- Mytwocents 19:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Wikiwoohoo 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support will make an excellent arbitrator. Eluchil404 20:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support ~ trialsanderrors 20:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support David D. (Talk) 21:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support--D-Boy 22:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support-- danntm T C 22:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support brilliant candidate -- Samir धर्म 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support JoshuaZ 00:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, strong, experienced candidate. Newyorkbrad 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Tintin (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:08Z
  101. Support Royalbroil T : C 02:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Really Strong Support. Absolutely one of the best all-around users on Wikipedia. NPOV concerns? I don't get it. Grandmasterka 02:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support fair, civil, one of our best admins (if not the best, if an admin is an ambassador for Wikipedia). Absolute whole-hearted support. riana_dzasta 03:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Kiwidude 04:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. utcursch | talk 05:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support I'm amazed people think he can't get his head around complex disputes—he's one of the most fair and active admins, even in disputes where angels fear to tread. Xiaopo (Talk) 05:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - SpLoT (*T* C+u+g+v) 07:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Good editor = Admin2 Sfacets 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. (Edit Conflict)Suppport - To his credit, he has shown a cool ahead when it comes to disputes. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support ST47Talk 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Jpeob 11:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Gurch 13:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support "As Wikipedia grows, the attention it receives from people with strong ethno- political and religious ideologies has exploded, and content improvement is stifled due to attempted advocacy, propaganda or rewriting of history." You have my support a hundred times over. michael talk 13:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. —Nightstallion (?) 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Pruthvi 14:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Thε Halo Θ 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support--Antorjal 14:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Very Strong Support - Very suited for the job.--thunderboltz(Deepu) 15:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support It would be helpful if bullies could be restrained, especially those who fail even to register and are unavailable for discussion on their talk page. Roger Arguile 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support--Isotope23 15:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support--Mayuresh 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support-- Ofcourse. Ganeshk (talk) 16:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 17:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Hell yeah! Nishkid64 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Effer 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Parthi talk/contribs 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. SupportDineshkannambadi 22:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - has a very complete and forward plan, knows what needs to be done. Respectable. --Andy Blak 22:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. An arbitrator should not only be able to realize his or her mistakes but admit them. BhaiSaab talk 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Blnguyen is a good guy, but much about his candidacy concerns me. "Tailored remedies" have been a disaster for the committee this past year, and have fallen out of favour for good reason - they're a large part of the reason why the committee is seen as so ineffectual. I'd hate to see these become mainstream again. I'm also not sure that he's got a great grip on the sorts of complex disputes that often come before the committee. Rebecca 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Peta 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Catchpole 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Nothing personal, just don't think you're suited for it. – Chacor 09:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose- Weighed into a complex, well publicised dispute on behalf of a fellow Australian editor, who was committing what was subsequently agreed to be gross violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Fuelled dispute by wilfully misrepresenting respected editors' positions to assist compatriot. Clique issues, and a potential to protect an errant compadre over basic good judgement. My experiences of Blnguyen have left me unconvinced that he is able to be a neutral arbitrator.--Zleitzen 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose-After review of the history of Blnguyen, I have reached the conclusion that he/she does not understand the concept of WP:NPOV, and therefore is unqualified to serve on the Arbcom. BruceHallman 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose per Rebecca above and NPOV worries.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. SuperMachine 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Though I know he will have enough votes to win.He appears prone to flattery.Persistent editing can be rewarded. MerryJ-Ho 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. MichaelW 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose per above Striver 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ITAQALLAH 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose per Rebecca above and NPOV concerns. Palestine48 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Rebecca above RFerreira 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Michael Snow 23:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose--TruthSpreaderTalk 03:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose I do not like him and do not think he can help in resolving disputes and enforce rules. I think him also a bit POV pusher. --- ALM 08:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose--ragesoss 09:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose --BostonMA talk 12:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opposing solely per statement--I don't understand what this sentence means: I strongly believe in the use of tailored remedies, as everybody has different strengths, in order to retain the productive facets of editing, whilst restricting negative activity, with banning as a last resort. I also favour maximum transparency. It doesn't seem to follow from what came before, that being too slow to ban people encourages bad editing. Chick Bowen 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose too bureaucratic -Drdisque 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Blnguyen&oldid=92322474"