Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/NSLE

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Ragesoss (talk | contribs) at 03:35, 9 January 2006 (→Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

NSLE

I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.

The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.

Banning should be undertaken preferably only when the editor is found to be disruptive and it is certain that he/she will not make any sort of useful contributions. However, if a user has made good contributions but has a case up at ArbCom that may need banning for the first time, I'm willing to give the user a second chance.

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Haukur 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per my interactions. karmafist 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong Support Trustworthy Editor. Xoloz 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support.--ragesoss 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Too new, and does not understand core policy. Ambi 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, inexperience, policy. Carbonite | Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. I quote from your candidate statement: "I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules". I do. Sorry. Batmanand 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Barely qualifies for suffrage. Cookiecaper 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose lack of experience and policy understanding --Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. What Ambi said. Johnleemk | Talk 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Sorry, NSLE, too new (I'd oppose myself too.) —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/NSLE&oldid=34449096"