From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I'm quite interested in helping with Arbcom, but I have hesitated to put my name forward as I am reluctant to hand myself over to a selection process that doesn't yet seem to exist.
I've been a Wikipedians since December 2001 and have been an admin since December 2003 (which by extrapolation means that something good has to happen in December 2005). I currently have the distinction of being number one on the
List of Wikipedians by number of edits . Sheer number of edits is a pretty meaningless statistic, but it does show that I have a fair amount of time to dedicate to the project.
I follow Arbcom fairly closely, but have only participated directly in only a couple of cases. I feel that in almost all cases the committee does its job admirably, though its speed is, as has often been noted, is sometimes far slower than ideal.
Questions
Support --
Doc
ask?
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
David |
explanation |
Talk
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Owen×
☎
00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support.
Ambi
00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Michael Snow
00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support without reservations. –
Quadell (
talk ) (
bounties )
00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Antandrus
(talk)
00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
–
ugen64
00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Cryptic
(talk)
00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
Kirill Lok
s
hin
00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Without question.--
Sean |
Bla
ck
00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
GraemeL
(talk)
00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
PRueda29 /
Ptalk29 /
Pcontribs29
00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
Jaranda
wat's sup
00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support.
Carbonite |
Talk
01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .--
Bookandcoffee
01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Tony Sidaway |
Talk
01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
JYolkowski //
talk
01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
nixie
01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
TacoDeposit
01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . An outstanding editor, admin and (hopefully soon to be) arbitrator.
Batmanand
01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Duk
01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support definitely experienced --
Angelo
01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support —
Ruud
02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support Trustworthy editor.
Xoloz
02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , the biggest surprise is that there are opposers.
Croat Canuck
02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Likely to be more moderate than some.
Grace Note
02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Shanes
02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
King of All the Franks
03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Guettarda
03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Jord
03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
Banyan
Tree
03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Fred Bauder
03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
172
04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Congrats, you spend way too much time on Wikipedia.--
ragesoss
04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Wile E. Heresiarch
04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Bobet
04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
freestylefrappe
04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
Charles P.
(Mirv)
04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Dottore So
04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Zach
(Smack Back)
Fair use policy
04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Daniel
05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Aaron
05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Christopher Parham
(talk)
05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
gren
グレン
05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
cj |
talk
06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
android
79
06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Chick Bowen
06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Wetman
07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . -
newkai |
talk |
contribs
07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . —
Catherine \
talk
07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Jiang
07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
Fabricationary
07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Alhutch
07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
Tim Rhymeless
(Er...let's shimmy)
07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Can't believe this - somebody has opposed this user!
utcursch |
talk
07:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , hoping that his superb work in the article namespace wouldn't suffer from being an arbitrator. —
mark
✎
08:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
Akamad
08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
Cmouse
09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support experience, questions ---
Charles Stewart
09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support mister wikipedia. --
M P er el (
talk |
contrib )
09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Kefalonia
09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . —
Saxifrage |
☎
10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Terence Ong
Talk
10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , a no-nonsense user.
Dan100 (
Talk )
11:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk
12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
Nightstallion
(?)
12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Roisterer
12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Meekohi
13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support I really like this guy, he shows clear judgement and logical thinking.
ALKIVAR
™
13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
mdmanser
14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support per opposition, although I worry that ArbCom duties might interfere with productivity on the rest of the project...
Tom
e
r
talk
14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support I've seen this user doing some bad VfD decisions, but otherwise he's quite solid candidate.
Grue
14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , sound of judgment.
R
adiant
_>|< 14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Moved to neutral, see below.
R
adiant
_>|<
10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Proto
t
c
15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Habap
16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support moderate, reasonable, and has loads of experience.
Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd
16:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
the wub
"?!"
RFR - a good idea?
16:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
Dunc |
☺
16:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - dedicated to wikipedia.
Skeezix1000
17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Rhion
17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
kingboyk
18:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
OntarioQuizzer
19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
CDN99
19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support May you do all you can for wikipedia --
metta ,
The Sunborn
19:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support Level headed with right priorities -
Xed
20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
TestPilot
20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Donar Reiskoffer
20:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Terra
Green
20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support great user - solid editor, balanced. --
Loopy
e
20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support No objection whatsoever
ℬ astique▼
parℓ er ♥
voir ♑
21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Aldux
21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . One of the first Wikipedians, I'm certain he'll arbitrate with experience and wiki-wisdom. --
KHill-LTown
21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Haukur
21:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
jpgordon
∇∆∇∆
22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . —
Quarl (
talk )
2006-01-09 22:23
Z
Support - Though I'd agree w/
Novacatz about your absence in the admin pages. I trust you. Cheers
Szvest
23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Wiki me up™
reply
If this is really what you want to do I guess you can count on my support - although as I mentioned I think this is going to take up a lot more of your time then you think it will.
WhiteNight
T |
@ |
C
01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Splash
talk
23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support :
RENTASTRAWBERRY
FOR LET?
röck
23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Confuzion
23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support easiest vote in the lot of 'em.
Smmurphy (
Talk )
23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support per Wetman and others. --
Ghirla |
talk
23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Stbalbach
00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Maltmomma
(chat)
02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Andrew_pmk |
Talk
02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
older ≠
wiser
02:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Dl yo ns 493
Ta lk
03:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Rossami
(talk)
03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support –
Abe Dashiell (
t /
c )
05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Trusted.--
cjllw |
TALK
06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Interiot
07:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
DanielNuyu
07:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Willmcw /
user:Will Beback /
10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Delirium
10:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
SchmuckyTheCat
11:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
E Pluribus Anthony |
talk |
12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
It's-is-not-a-genitive
13:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - An excellent editor --
Reflex Reaction (
talk )•
15:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , questions. See my
vote rationale .
Talrias (
t |
e |
c )
18:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
The Brain
18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
howch
e
ng {
chat }
18:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Raistlin
19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Ral315
(talk)
19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Thue |
talk
20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
G Rutter
20:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Big support, with bells on
Oskar
20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Solipsist
21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Seems to have the time to commit. No character or behaviour flaws contrary to ArbCom seem to have been exposed. --
Ds13
22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support as per 172.
Phil Sandifer
23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strongly support . SimonP is a good editor who seeks consensus, assumes good faith and is overall a great credit to wikipedia. He would be an excellent AbCom member. -
SocratesJedi |
Talk
00:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support The man has experience--
Berndd11222
00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
HollyAm
01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo
02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
siafu
04:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Karl Meier
09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
Bhadani
09:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
10:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Punkmorten
12:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
JK the unwise
12:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Syrthiss
13:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Gozar
17:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
A Y Arktos
20:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support User brings long-term Wikipedia experience --
Rye1967
21:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - Strong belief that this user is a distinguished neutral.
BD2412
T
21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support has the experience
V8rik
19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , very experienced. —
Ian Manka
Questions? Talk to me!
20:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Fad
(ix)
20:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - I have worked with this user before, he would be a good choice. --
NorkNork
21:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Ze miguel
09:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , and allow for organic growth. ;-)
Bahn Mi
19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Fred -
Chess
19:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Would do well on the Committee. Good luck. Agent
Blightsoot
23:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , has knowledge of process, a good and trustworthy editor all round --
Francs
2000
00:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
maclean25
00:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Rohirok
02:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Lee S. Svoboda
tɑk
17:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Marskell
17:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Mushroom
01:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Evidence --
JWSchmidt
01:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
*drew
03:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . (
SEWilco
05:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC) )
reply
Support . --
Mysidia (
talk )
06:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
support
Kingturtle
21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Masonpatriot
06:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Lumos3
10:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Upholds npov to the T.
Youngamerican
18:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support ,
Duran
03:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Randolph
04:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support -
llywrch
17:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
John Cross
19:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate has the best statement I have seen so far.
reply
support
William M. Connolley
22:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Jitse Niesen (
talk )
00:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Homey
03:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . An extremely strong choice.
CJCurrie
04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
PedanticallySpeaking
16:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Hurricane111
20:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Bratsche
talk |
Esperanza
05:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Pschemp |
Talk
07:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Flcelloguy (
A note? )
02:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Eminently qualified. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs )
07:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support –
Smyth \
talk
12:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
DS1953
talk
19:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , calm and knows policy.
Kappa
22:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
+sj
+
22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Alai
23:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support Seems good. --
AySz88^
-
^
23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Monicasdude
23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson -
Shazaam! -
<*>
02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk )
02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose : Does not go renegade, but has circumvented process, in my experience, and ArbCom needs the most legal and careful people. Nothing against the person, just against this position.
Geogre
11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . --
HK
23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , I have seen worryingly tendentious AFD closures by this user.
Bishonen |
talk
00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) .
reply
Oppose , with wooden stakes, garlic, silver bullets, etc. Position on fancruct intolerable .
Avriette
06:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak Oppose , though a prolific editor, have not seen evidence of much previous involvement with community, a must for an arbitrator.
HGB
19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Have seen be too doctrinaire and unreasonable to be suited for ArbCom; conduct on
Republic and its relatives particularly troublesome.
Septentrionalis
19:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Candidate statement inadequate for appointment as arbitrator, as does not address nature of arbitration.
Fifelfoo
21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per above.
Saravask
23:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
enochlau (
talk )
05:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . --
Masssiveego
07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Astrotrain
21:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
jni
08:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose --
Davidpdx
12:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Dr. B
18:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . I'm not usually a single issue guy, but I was disappointed in your mocking lack of regard for the consensus question.
Velvetsmog
01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Regretfully Oppose .
why? ++
Lar :
t /
c
02:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
Boothy443 |
trácht ar
06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong oppose . Despite having many edits to his name, most are minor. SimonP has entered a campaign of flooding wikipedia and hence its mirrors and caches with Bible cruft, the entire text of parts of the bible itself, and other behaviour demonstrating activity that the
IVCF /
IFES /
UCCF would be proud of. SimonP has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to respect community consensus on these matters and others, such as template locations. --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft
18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , but not because your contributions are insignificant. Rather, I have and will continue to respect them. However, you've given little reason to make you an arbitrator.
Superm401 |
Talk
00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Preaky
01:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis above --
Francis Schonken
13:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose concerns about neutrality and open mind
wrp103 (Bill Pringle)
21:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose edit spamming does not make you worthy of the Arbcom
Cynical
22:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , being a good editor does not mean someone is a good mediator. Also, his messages on talk are often somewhat hostile, without much provocation, which is inappropriate for a mediator. If he could learn to be friendly, even when extremely frustrated and/or annoyed, I would support. --
Kjkolb
02:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose The times I've encountered him it's been stuff like deleting a legitimate article just because that article had been vandalized (
Chris Carpenter ) and he didn't bother checking the edit history, simply adding {{wikify}} tags to obvious copyright violations, hoaxes, etc. in huge quantities with no edit summaries ever. Again, might be a great editor, but my contact with him hasn't been great... and the above comments make me worried. --
W.marsh
02:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . --
Angr (
tɔk )
16:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
CDThieme
23:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Neutral Editing record is excellent and I like your responses -- however, I have not heard of you at all on admin pages. Just can't say without more info.
novacatz
05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong Neutral - I've never heard of him. Which is kinda surprising if he has more edits that anyone else. Otherwise, sounds like a great candidate. --
Phroziac . o º O (
♥♥♥♥ chocolate! )
05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Neutral --
Crunch
05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Vote Signed By:
Chazz - Place comments
here
Neutral Good editing record, but statement doesn't say much about why he's running or what he'd do. --
William Pietri
23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I've withdrawn my support, because of
[1] this usage of the rollback button to remove a {{
mergeto }} tag placed in good faith.
R
adiant
_>|<
10:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Neutral
Dannycas
00:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak Neutral , almost teetering into opposition. Nice long record, but you don't provide information about what you'd do while ain ArbCom. Merely having the most number of edits doesn't say much to me about your ability of arbitration.
Author782
08:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Neutral , statement haven't told me anything.
KTC
12:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply