Login
Login

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/The prophet wizard of the crayon cake

Statement

I can't really say too much about myself. I deal with these sorts of issues quite a lot here (I almost exclusively dabble in behavior stuff, to be honest), and I'm willing to give this a shot as well.

Questions

Support

  1. Not the greatest statement, but I've always been quite impressed by this user. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. The doctor is in.--SB | T 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Moral Support on basis of awesome username. Lankiveil 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
  4. Per Lankiveil :) Cowman109Talk 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Moral support semper fi — Moe 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. Seems to understand that sysops should not go beyond their attributions. --Sugaar 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Ge o. 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support Even-keeled reliable user. User:Pedant 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Heart in the right place, plus the arbitration process could always use more modesty and dadaism ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Takes Wikipedia too seriously. Andre (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Come on, if Bush and Ted Stevens can get positions of power, surely this guy can. ShadowMan1od 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. per Sugaar. Addhoc 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Helped Wikipedia a lot by taking the gravity out of disputes with his fresh, detached style. — Sebastian (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support Will be a breath of fresh air.--Brownlee 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, Mallanox 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Moral Support, as there are a lot good things about him, some mentioned above. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support per Lankiveil. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Pretty good user. [wossi] 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support --t ALL IN c 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support Chsf 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  2. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --ElKevbo 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  4. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  5. Sorry, not enough experience yet. --Coredesat 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as per MPerel, above Jd2718 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. - crz crztalk 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  9. Titoxd(?!?) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  10. Hello32020 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  11. SuperMachine 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  12. Awolf002 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  13. Delta Tango • Talk 01:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  14. I don't think 5 months of editing is sufficient for adminship, let alone arbcom. - Mark 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  15. Get some more experience in WP:DR and reapply next time if you like it≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  16. Too new. —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  17. Sarah Ewart 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  19. —Mira 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  20. KPbIC 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  21. Per not enough experience, although being active in mediation is a great good start. I am looking forward to supporting you next time if you keep up such involvment...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  22. Terence Ong 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  23. Lack of experience, as evidenced by some answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  24. Inexperience, including poor statement and answers to questions. Xoloz 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  25. Mailer Diablo 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  26. THB 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  27. Such a poor statement seems to indicate that the user has either not thought much about what the position entails or is not taking it seriously. --Hyperbole 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  28. --Riley 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  29. Dylan Lake 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  30. Nufy8 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  31. I never had a chance to find out anything in the nom statement, it makes it very hard for me to support -- Tawker 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  32. His statement would earn a 0 if it were used as an academic paper. In addition, his userpage is so disorganized that I can't make any sense of it. Scobell302 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  33. I think articulation is a prerequisite plus the level of interest shown in his statement doesn't give a lot of confidence. —Doug Bell talk 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  34. – Chacor 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose per Cowman's vote. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  36. cj | talk 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  37. Inexperience. — Nearly Headless Nick [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Sir+Nicholas+de+Mimsy-Porpington {L}] 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  38. Too new --Neigel von Teighen 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  39. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Lacks the requisite experience; answers are vague and/or unsatisfactory on key issues. --Muchness 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  41. Shyam (T/C) 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose try again when you've accrued more experience, TewfikTalk 16:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  44. No experience... maybe next election.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose per Alkivar. 1ne 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  46. --Pjacobi 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  47. Brian Boru is awesome 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. ßottesiηi (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  49. Gurch 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  50. Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  51. Please don't eat the crayons. —Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose, per Muchness. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  53. Strong Oppose - Getting rid of NOTABILITY?!?! --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  54. Weak answers. GizzaChat © 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. Insufficient experience at this point. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose - Due to several things I found in the nominee's edit contributions, including: :Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck. - jc37 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  58. Besides inexperience, the paltry statement just gave me a sort of "I don't really care enough to compose a few paragraphs explaining my views" vibe. --Cyde Weys 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  59. *Hmmm... my views. I hold a staunch position of indifference and disinterest. So I think my statement summed that up well. :D -The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose - I agree with Cyde, I am getting a "don't really care about this" vibe from his/her statement and answers to questions. Admits to being out of the loop. Guettarda 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose - shows no sense of concern about Wiki, and appears to "not know/care" about the Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy5190 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC{{{3|}}})
  62. Oppose. Not right now. Nishkid64 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose -- Lack of motivation.--*Kat* 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose Username is too ridiculous. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose as above lack of motivation Lethaniol 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose - please, do write a better statement. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose, the statement does not convince me of the qualities of this candidate. — mark ✎ 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose insufficient reason to believe the user will complete the term GRBerry 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. Very short statement, and lacks experience.--Merlinme 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose Needs to work on the communication skills -- Sakurambo 桜ん坊 21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Arbitration commitee needs dedication, not some vague interest. Fram 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  73. : Oppose seems pretty flaky to me SDG 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  74. :*SDG does not have suffrage; he had only [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=150&go=first&target=SDG 74 edits] as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  75. oppose inexperience, unsawayed by answers Pete.Hurd 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  76. Per Sakurambo, DougBell, and WarofDreams, et al., with the provision that I don't think we ought categorically to disfavor those users who seem not entirely eager to serve. Joe 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose. Seems to lack the maturity required for the position, and his statement does nothing to offset those fears. --Danaman5 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  78. Your statement doesn't tell me anything about you.--Andeh 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose Genuinely disruptive and unhelpful in contentious situations. Pretty much the exact opposite of what you want in arbcom jbolden1517Talk 15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose. I DO think we ought to disfavor users who seem not entirely eager to serve. ArbComm is a hard, largely thankless job that wins its members few friends. We can't afford reluctance. Ravenswing 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose. A.M.962 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  84. Would have supported for experience with mediation, but oppose because of scarcity of recent MC cases and short time with Wikipedia. Conscious 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose — inexperience, doesn't seem to be a serious candidate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose due to inexperience, answers, and nearly dying when I inhaled Dr. Pepper after seeing his user page. The colors, they burn. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose -- terrible response to SPOV question. Seems to evince a lot of popular misconceptions that an encyclopedia should help remedy not perpetuate. --ScienceApologist 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  90. Oppose due to lack of motivation. Also userpage makes my eyes bleed. the wub "?!" 20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose Inexperience, not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  92. Oppose. Axl 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  93. Great editor, but lack of experience. —Xyrael / 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  94. The candidate is certainly on the right track to this type of dispute resolution position, and I will certainly take the candidate into serious consideration at the next scheduled election. theProject 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  95. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  96. Oppose I think even I'm a better candidate... yet I'm not standing. --Stevecov 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  97. oppose lack of experience. Kiwidude 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  98. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)