I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in
DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.
My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.
My
biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.
I notice a few voters making reference to my stated reluctance to stand, and I fear some may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. My reluctance is absolutely not to be understood as an unwillingness to serve, and I give a pledge to play an active part in ArbCom and devote to it all the time necessary. The reluctance comes only because every minute spent on ArbCom business is a minute not spent writing new articles, or improving existing ones. I hope this makes the situation clearer, at least. Perhaps it's just my good old-fashioned English modesty getting me in trouble again.
David |
Talk 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Looks good. --
AySz88^-^ 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, although I have not previously interacted with this editor, his contributions and answers to the questions are impressive.
Jonathunder 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Arwel (
talk) 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Strongly support - highly experienced editor who is one of the few candidates with a featured page to his name. -
Stevecov 04:48, 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) 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support Dislike politics like approach to arbcom, but stablility and thoughtfulness of statement and answers convinces me. I also always support reluctant suitibles.--
Tznkai 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support--
cj |
talk 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, despite Oleg's oppose (I hate it when rollback is used for non-vandalism reverting), as his qualities more than offset that one incident.
Dan100 (
Talk) 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. A user I trust to put commons sense above technicalities.
Thryduulf 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support very levelheaded. Seems to see ArbCom as "no big deal". I dont think this user will wind up power-tripping.
ALKIVAR™ 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
MARINGAL Support I have my concerns vis-a-vis regard his views, especially POV pushing. --- Responses to
Chazz's talk page. Signed by
Chazz @ 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, sensible and level-headed. And yes, a rollback is "no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert" so I wouldn't hold that against him.
Radiant_>|< 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support per Everyking.
Tomertalk 13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, I think the below comments about rollback are a little too sensitive. Sensible, and being willing to cut to the chase makes him awesome like thunder.
Prototc 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Weak Support. He is dedicated to Wikipedia, but his current line of work, and his initial reluctance to stand for the position, yields uncertainty. I would be more inclined to support him in a by-election for vacancies later in the year. --
KHill-LTown 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - if he's sure he wants the job!
BD2412T 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Appears knowledgeable and thoughtful.
redprince 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Redprince has 35 edits, as of this timestamp. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:49, Jan. 11, 2006
Support. His position in government seems to demand a good deal of general knowledge, thus equiping him for the position. --User:Alvinrune 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support simply 'like' him
Bjrobinson 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Bjrobinson does not have suffrage; he had only
125 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk) 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support –
ABCDe✉ 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
Gmaxwell 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support - Seems very experienced, however, if you enjoy writing articles more, why not just stick to it? I decided not to nominate myself because of precisely that reason. --
NorkNork 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support for answers to my form questions (which I ended up not copying to him for some reason, hmm). —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, Since contacting me, I realize that he would be a good part of the commitee
Alex43223 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support, very down-to-earth as politicians go, didn't realize how often I'd encountered him in discussions and assumed he was a different David. Agree also with the storm in a teacup thing. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:58, Jan. 13, 2006
Support I have withdrawn my opposition vote. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is still new and still rising, so there is no need to worry about "balances of power" quite yet. This canidate is very qualified and will be a fine ArbCom member.
Deckiller 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. (
SEWilco 04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC))reply
Support - good answers --
SarekOfVulcan 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Indeed, seems to take a delight in being as neutral as possible. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. firm devotion to the encyclopedia --
JWSchmidt 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I thought his view on IAR was too liberal, but a very level headed and sensible clarification on his views on my talkpage showed that Dbiv is a good man for ArbCom responsibilities.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. I like his pragmatic view on IAR, plus he is well-reasoned in answers, even when I disagree with his positions.
Youngamerican 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
SupportHarry Hayfield 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (In other words, I support the candidature of David Boothroyd for this position)reply
User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. --
Muchness 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Support --
LifeStar 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. When asked to not use the admin rollback button against well-meaning editors, Dbiv claimed that it is "fuss over nothing", and also found "this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless"
[2]. Admittedly it was a minor matter, however, the response was not appropriate for a future arbitrator.
Oleg Alexandrov (
talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose candidate statement appears to treat the process as judicial, not arbitrarial.
Fifelfoo 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Oleg —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I'm not sure on this one. May change my vote later.
Grue 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, though I feel as Grue does above. Reluctance in standing for this position is also confusing.
siafu 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Truly an excellent admin, but interpretation of IAR is too liberal.
Sjakkalle(Check!) 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Vote switched to "support".
Sjakkalle(Check!) 06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too political. --
kingboyk 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose I feel he lacks committment to Wikipedia process and policy. His membership of controversial orgs like SEIG also make too politcal and thus too partisan. All users need to feel they can trust ArbCom.
Axon (
talk|
contribs) 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
I am not a member of anything called SEIG and do not know to what this refers.
David |
Talk 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose - if you are reluctant to stand, then you are not fully committed.--
Ahwaz 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Ahwaz does not have suffrage; he had only 130 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
caveats) —
Cryptic(talk) 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too controversial.
Davidpdx 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Per Oleg. Banes 15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I cannot support someone who is 'reluctant' to run.
Hermione1980 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Clarification received on my talk page, changing vote.
Hermione1980 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Seems likely that he'll burn out early, and if he does, he might not go back to editing articles. --
Carnildo 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Given the nature of the position, I will not support someone who doesn't appear to want to do the job (the risk of him dropping out mid-term is too high).
Rje 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, reluctant candidate.
HGB 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) changed my mind, my concerns are satisfied.
HGB 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, per Oleg, and the possibility of dropping out mid-term.
Ral315(talk) 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, too partisan. --
Mais oui! 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. If you state that you don't really want to do this job in your candidate statement, I am not going to support you. Pretty simple.
Dr. Cash 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)reply
His linking to a disambig page above may indicate that checking where a link takes to is not a habit for him, which is bad editing procedure.
JoaoRicardotalk 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose --
Svartalf 18:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) If he's reluctant to take office, let's humor that. I don't heel he's the proper kind of person for office.reply
Oppose As per Oleg. --
Ignignot 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose It kills me to cast this vote since his candidate statement and answers are both very intelligent and well-written, but his opinion of
WP:IAR is just way too liberal. --
Hinotori(talk)|
(ctrb) 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose just for the sake of a balance of power.
Deckiller 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose his opening statement I dont want to be here but... opposition with drawn due solely to my misunderstanding of the candidates reluctance to stand
Gnangarra 16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose Too political. Wanted to delete a page about him (and I just don't like deleters ;)). --
pankkake 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Sorry.
Detriment 00:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note?) 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose, because he has knowingly recreated properly deleted content, even after he attempted and failed to get undeletion consensus. That's enough for me.
Postdlf 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
This is untrue.
David |
Talk 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Category:Causes célèbres voted for deletion
here, failed undeletion
here, and recreated by Dbiv
here without any intervening undeletion consensus. Res ipsa loquitur.
Postdlf 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)reply
Oppose He doesn't want the post enough. -
JustinWick 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Clarification on my talk page, vote change. -
JustinWick 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)reply