Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ultraexactzz

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Ultraexactzz

I have lurked on Wikipedia for several months now, learning about the system and all of the unique elements that make Wikipedia the fascinating endeavor that it is. I have recently begun to add my own touches to articles, interconnecting and disambiguating and wikifying. I admit freely that I am relatively new to this process, particularly given the experience of many other candidates.

That might be a strength.

I am eager to provide a fresh perspective to the committee. I haven't been around that long, I don't have any biases to fall back onto. Nor do I have a preconcieved notion as to how the site (or the committee) should function. This may make me a sort of "odd man out", where a pseudo-outsider is brought into the committee to provide just that fresh perspective. My experience is with the encyclopedia; I believe it is the duty of each committee member to evaluate the merits of each case in terms of impacts to the Wikipedia project as a whole. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and any decision must reflect that ultimate goal.

I agree with and support the hastening of the process; arbitration should not take forever. It is important to ensure that the committee is able to make an informed and reasoned decision, and time must be allotted for due diligence. With the committment of the committee members, I believe that this due diligence does not need to take forever.

It is unfortunate when a case escalates to the point of ArbCom's involvement, but such cases can and will occur from time to time. The committee's committment to swift and fair resolution of such matters is precisely why such a committee can be effective as a final semi-judicial authority.

ZZ 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Support, a difference in opinions can be good. Matt Yeager 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support All signs say he's not fit for the job, but I think he is TrafficBenBoy 11:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak Support Nothing wrong with this candidate, but by far not the most qualified I've seen so far. Jared 18:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Dr. B 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Opppose. Mo0[talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose; need more experience with the community. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. —Kirill Lokshin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Jaranda wat's sup 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose — Omegatron 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. While I agree almost totally with your candidate statement, you have just not been around long enough. Sorry. Batmanand 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose for lack of experience --Angelo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose.Crunch 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Too new. Good luck with future contributions. 172 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Bobet 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - Too inexperienced. Paul August ☎ 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Track record too short.--ragesoss 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Experience (lack of). novacatz 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, agree with Batmanand. 青い(Aoi) 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, not enough experience at this time. --Muchness 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose --cj | talk 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. android79 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. —Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Meekohi 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. oppose — Dunc|☺ 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. oppose.  Grue  14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Needs experience. There are too many ropes around here for a newbie to be able to efficiently pull them all.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Donar Reiskoffer 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z
  47. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per above. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Splashtalk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. older≠wiser 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose too new. Herostratus 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Fuzzy bunny candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Several whats? Avriette 07:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Raven4x4x 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. not enough of a track record. # Oppose: lack of experience, and also the arbcom must be under some pressure: it has to be accountable to everyone here, rather than above and beyond. ——It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  59. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose, lack of experience. Prodego talk 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose, needs more experience. --PTSE 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. User's first edit is December 22, 2005. You can't learn enough about the wikipedia community in less than a month! Dr. Cash 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Not enough experince.--JK the unwise 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  69. Oppose. looking for a long-term relationship --JWSchmidt 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose -- Schaefer 10:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Krash 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - nothing personal, but you are inexperienced. ComputerJoe 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose, inexperienced, and I'm looking for an actioner, not a lurker -- Francs2000 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Deckiller 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Don't feel like your statement brings much to the table. Velvetsmog 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Inexperience --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. I'm all for fresh faces, but user doesn't demonstrate enough understanding of what makes Wikipedia work. --William Pietri 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. Sarah Ewart 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Could not possibly understand all of Wikipedia's policies with such little experience. –Comics (Talk) 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Preaky 02:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 06:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose --Loopy e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Hastiness in arbitration doesn't appeal to me. Time needed for deliberations. Author782 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. Good statement, but too inexperienced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose KTC 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Alex43223 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Not enough experience yet. --Spondoolicks 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose CDThieme 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Youngamerican 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ultraexactzz&oldid=1084999958"