Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

blankfaze

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Upon my recent return from a fairly successful wikivacation, I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed to see that the Arbitration process has seemingly fallen into disrepair, or, in the least, "grinded to a near-complete halt".

It's possible that the Arbitrators, be them willing or not to affirm it, are simply burned-out. If that's the case, I'm willing, ready, and able to take up some of the slack.

Too many people see the Arbitration process as a sort of Inquisition or prosecutorial body; perhaps we need to be reminded of its original purpose: to arbitrate, to settle, disputes. If elected I would take a solutions-oriented approach to arbitration. There are times when punitive measures must be taken, but it should not be the go-to solution.

I would like to believe that I have a reputation for striving hard to be impartial and civil in all my endeavours. I think many if not most Wikipedians who know me well would attest to such. I offer myself up as a qualified, experienced, intelligent candidate for the Committee.

  • Less bureaucracy
  • Refocus on civilly resolving disputes
  • Common sense

BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions

An update

I have, for the most part, and excepting occasional minor edits, ceased to be an active editor at Wikipedia. Whilst I still consider this a good and noble project, and a good resource, one that I read at length quite often, I am dismayed and disheartened at the direction in which the community and the leadership are going.

If it matters, or if it is permitted under the rules of this haphazard and misformed "election" (if there are any), I hereby withdraw my candidacy, or at least make it known that I have absolutely no interest in it. — {{User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Secondly, to my detractors citing my lack of civility: I admit that in my later months here, I was increasingly frustrated with the downward spiral in which Wikipedia is entrapped, and with the continuous and inane flow of malicious and problematic edits, and that accordingly I allowed myself to lose my temper more times than I would care to have. I apologise to any who may have been put off or offended. Truly. I hold no grudges. And I really do want to see this project succeed, and prosper. {{User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Most certainly. – ugen64 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. Despite age, edit history shows a level head and broad interests.-- ragesoss 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Down-to-earth candidate. Support. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 00:38, Jan. 9, 2006
  4. Arbitration reform is needed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Wgfinley 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support - this is an everyman candidate with wide interests. - Stevecov 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Support Common-sensical (but do work on that civility thing!) — Catherine\ talk 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Support candidate statement indicates a genuine understanding of the nature of the arbitration process. Fifelfoo 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Support I see nothing wrong with this candidate.  Grue  06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. android 79 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support. jni 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support, based on policy stance. Sam Spade 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Support. Good attitude. / blahedo ( t) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. Per above. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Support. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Support. utcursch | talk 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. as Ragesoss -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Support level headed, for sure. Don't burn out if you get it mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Support per statement, policy stance and previous knowledge of candidate. If he has not picked up editing again by the end of the elections then I would trust Jimbo not to appoint him. If he has then he will be an asset to the ArbCom. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. -- Terrible Tim 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Terrible Tim does not have suffrage; he had only 117 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Support Davidpdx 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Support I would trust Blankfaze to make the right decisions to benefit the community as a whole.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. 'Strong Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Meekohi 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Support - previous interaction good. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Support. A dedicated, experienced administrator with a fresh approach to arbitration issues. Willing to give him a try.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Seems very bright, experienced. Would be great for the commitee. Jared 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Support for sure -- Loopy e 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support. Exploding Boy 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support. I hope you get back to editing again as soon as is practicable. You will be good on the Committee because you are broad-minded and understand people. -- EuropracBHIT 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  32. Support on account of lack of involvement in Wiki-Politics. Avriette 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Support - in agreement with candidate's statements. -- JohnDBuell 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Support. Neutrality talk 04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Support Robdurbar 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support - I like what he has to say Giles22 13:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)ç reply
    • Giles22 likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 17:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Support -- Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support Gnangarra 13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support Fad (ix) 21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Support Keith D. Tyler 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. Seems good, level-headed, and fair. Would provide a needed energy boost to the ArbCom. Dr. Cash 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Strong support. I read the statement and some of the talk on his user page. This person has both the experience and the patience it takes to be an excellent admin. -- Heptor talk 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. At time of writing, last edit summary said, and I quote, "READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE - INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING - NOT YET DECLARED SUICIDE". Sorry, but not the kinda person I want on ArbCom. Oppose Batmanand 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose; mostly skipped questions. And I noticed Batmanand's issue too. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose. Abusive comments in summary, as per Batmanand.-- ragesoss 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose too many skipped questions. -- Angelo 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose — Omegatron 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose. Ambi 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Raven4x4x 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. TacoDeposit 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose per above. -- AySz88^ - ^ 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose, lack of answers. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose. Civility, questions, etc. -- Viriditas 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose mildly. Grace Note 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose, Kit 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose, older≠ wiser 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose, Crunch 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose, per Batmanand. Experienced, but not professional. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose questions Dave 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose His account has been pretty inactive over the past year. 172 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose, almost inactive last three months. -- Interiot 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose, good values but not professional. Ronline ✉ 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose (smile) Tony the Marine 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose: WP:CIV & unprofessional. ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose – Does not exhibit the people skills necessary for such a vital role. – Clockwork Soul 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose. siafu 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose. Lupo 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. Doesn't seem very professional. Maybe next time. -- kingboyk 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose as per Batmanand. Also, I'm concerned about your erratic editing history and whether you will actually make yourself available sufficiently. And not impressed by lack of answers to your questions. Sarah Ewart 10:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose: Hardly active, inarticulate, willing to vote and take stands on hearsay -- definitely not ArbCom. Geogre 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Weak oppose, would like to support, but a few issues make it impossible for me. — Nightstallion (?) 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose, at least until he answers the questions when I will reconsider (please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if I haven't spotted the questions being answered). Thryduulf 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose due to abusive edit summaries. Not the sort of temprament we need on the ArbCom. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose - did not answer questions, yet. Awolf002 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose The Literate Engineer 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. -- Doc ask? 16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose Seems to have the right values, but lack of civility in edit summaries is disturbing. -- Comics 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose, agree with Comics - Masonpatriot 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose Jkelly 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose Failed to answer my question, and besides that, per Batmanand. Xoloz 18:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose -- Petros471 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose TestPilot 19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose. Civility issues raised by others are a concern; also, Interiot's tool shows a trend of decreasing activity on Wikipedia. H e rmione 1980 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose. Insufficiently active on Wikipedia recently for my tastes. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Splash talk 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose. Insufficiently civil, sorry Avalon 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose. per activity and civility concerns.-- cjllw | TALK 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. not active -- JWSchmidt 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose - civility concerns, Vsmith 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose. Per Batmanand. Velvetsmog 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose, per Batmanand. I've interacted little with this user, but I don't recall that he left a good impression. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose. Gazpacho 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. oppose Kingturtle 06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose. Failure to answer most of the questions. -- Carnildo 08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose. I too have concerns over Blankfaze's occasional civility problems. Rje 12:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose, civility. enochlau ( talk) 13:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose. Per Batmanand. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Oppose, inactive and what's with this edit summary [1]? HGB 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)\ reply
  83. Oppose. Did not answer important questions and profile and contribution history suggest that he is more interested in arguing than settling disputes. The Jade Knight 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. [2] and [3]. JoaoRicardo talk 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose, civility Oskar 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose, per Batmanand. Prodego talk 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose. maclean25 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Blankfaze&oldid=1223288391"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE