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 Alhutch (talk | contribs) at 07:35, 9 January 2006 (→Oppose: experience). 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]
  8. Support. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Super strong support, all interactions with the user have been very positive; NSLE seems like an awesome editor. Arbcom would be better with him on board. Matt Yeager 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 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]
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose great editor, but too new. Greg Asche (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reluctant oppose - Great editor but I think WP:IAR is a vital tool when properly used. FCYTravis 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your concerns; please see the new section under the statements section. (To everyone in general; it's not intended to change any of your minds, so don't feel the need to if you don't, or please don't see this as an attempt to win supports from opposes) NSLE (T+C) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Also reluctant oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Bobet 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Also reluctant oppose 172 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just not enough experience at this time, but please stay involved and interested. Jonathunder 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Reluctant Oppose - think you need more time dude. There is no rush for this time around. novacatz 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose --Crunch 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. android79 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose--cj | talk 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose experience, sorry.--Alhutch 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/NSLE&oldid=34471026"