Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Daniel

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement[edit]

Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Wikipedia. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Wikipedia's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. Weak support - unsure about the non-admin issue, but he is a thoughtful and helpful user who has been pivotal in helping to diffuse many disputes and situations that have come up in the past. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 00:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Majorly 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. BhaiSaab talk 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) - See talk page.[reply]
  4. --Seadog ♪ 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support – Elisson • T • C • 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MER-C 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cowman109Talk 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Hello32020 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support! Go for it Daniel! Drizzt Jamo 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Very interesting platform. Titoxd(?!?) 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Of course  Glen  01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I don't understand how people can say he doesn't have a significant contribution to Wikipedia - he has 12,000 edits! Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ßottesiηi (talk) 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Mira 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support As far as I've witnessed, Daniel is extremely balanced and reasonable. Arbitration suits him well.--Húsönd 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ATren 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support - will bring a fresh view on things. "Non-admin does not mean non-arbcommer".Bakaman 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Warofdreams talk 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Seems to me to be a very hard-working editor. --Aminz 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yup — Lost(talk) 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Very helpful and honest. --Hatch68 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support  Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support fair and hard-working. go ahead! Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, I think it's important for some nonadmins to hold this sort of role. Lankiveil 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  26. Dylan Lake (t·c) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: I think a good non-admin should be put in now and then, and this is a good example of that time - he's definitely a good user, and I support him all the way. --NomaderTalk 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Support Amazing editor, excellent person. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. semper fi — Moe 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Weak Support. Not all that familiar, but what I do know and what I see here all seems right. --Gwern (contribs) 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Husnod and Gwern assess the candidacy quite well, IMHO. Joe 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - who knows, maybe "new blood" on ArbCom would do us all good, a new face that hasn't been corrupted by the rest of us :o. Daniel doesn't seem the type to screw around, and he seems to be a (to quote robchurch) a head screwed on guy. -- Tawker 07:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support a strong "new blood" candidate with little connection to the "cabal", might have a fresh perspective.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support per Alkivar. — CharlotteWebb 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Suport seems to have common sense. New blood is generally a good thing to avoid stagnation. --Sugaar 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support I'm sure he'll help to bring in a non-admin view on debates - surely something to be valued!? Martinp23 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Why isn't Daniel an admin; he certainly would be a good one. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Shyam (T/C) 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Ge o. 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support - Is able to distinguish the facts and reason MerryJ-Ho - See talk page.
  44. Support. --Myles Long 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. I believe his comment about being "more in touch" with the average Wikipedian are well-founded. haz (talk) e 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. I like your motives. Wikiwoohoo 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support per Alkivar. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Seems to have enough of the proper experience needed.[reply]
  49. Support - Inexperience can equal a new perspective, and I have every reason to believe that the candidate is very well qualified on all points but lack of admin experience, which is not necessarily a demerit anyway. Badbilltucker 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support-- danntm T C 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support... I'm a fan of the stuff I've seen you do. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - His work in various WP: space areas is commendable. Some are better suited toward behind-the-scenes work, and Daniel is one of those people, imo. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support RFerreira 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Helped me out a lot even in my limited scope, a great guy with determination. 'Inexperienced' editors for Dan! David Fuchs 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. Done lots of useful work in and around wikipedia, seems to be a good prospect for problem resolution. Lincher 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Yamaguchi先生 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support IrishGuy talk 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support He has his head screwed on straight. Xiaopo (Talk) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Silensor 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Rimmeraj 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Prior experiences are good. Makes sound decisions, knows when he has a conflict of interest. Luna Santin 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support always support a fellow Aussie with initiative --Dan arndt 08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. This candidate appears make sense. tgies 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. SupportGazMan7 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support level headed beyond his years. Jpeob 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Jidan 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support —Goh wz 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support excellent Wikipedian with fresh ideas and the ability to take the daily grind. Would bring a new perspective Arbcom --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. --Longhornsg 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Weak support. He has a will, I think. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support - normally would oppose because of his age, but his answers and attitudes are very good - he's pretty exceptional for his age. Argyriou (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. Bahn Mi 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support I like the idea of a non-admin being on ArbCom. Nishkid64 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support at least one non-admin on arbcom would be a good thing...why not Dragomiloff 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support —ptk✰fgs 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. maclean 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support - I respect his judgement. And I am sure he is going to be an admin soon, so that is not an issue for me. - Aksi_great (talk) 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support DemosDemon 12:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Dibo T | C 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Weak Support. I like his platform and common sense approach, however I have some concerns about level of experience. --Merlinme 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Militant support. I was opposing before, [1], but I thought it over - despite still having some concerns about experience, I respect your judgement far too much to oppose with a clear conscience. And I like your platform. riana_dzasta 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Thoughtful user that shows both growth and understanding, who learns from experience as well as mistakes. I believe he is ready.▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Weak Support - Seems like this would be a great addition to the arbcom, but only 6months on wikipedia worrie me. ---J.S (T/C) 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support There are more important things an ArbCom member needs than Wikipedia experience, and the candidate has them in spades!--Runcorn 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. --Ruziklan 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Weak Support. I'm a little bit on the fence about this one, but I believe that he shows enough maturity to be a good member of arbcom. --Danaman5 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Lack of experience is only a minor concern with me; his answers to the questions convince me that he knows wiki-philosophy well and would be a good person to have on the arbcom. He also shares my support for making Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy! --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Mallanox 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. support Yuckfoo 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support A good wikipedian and great editor with a huge amount of potential. Culverin? Talk 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Will provide a valuable perspective.--Brownlee 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: In my honest opinion, Daniel has gotten a lot more wiki-mature than his earlier failed RFAs show and I greatly appreciate his clerking for unblock review. --  Netsnipe  ►  16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Deb 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Tennis expert 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Maturity is extremely important. --Iriseyes 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. AucamanTalk 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. strong support go on daniel. your a kind and hard working wikipedian and you have my full support. ozzies rule DARReNTALK 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Well Supported Support A cracking chap, a fine examople for the rest of us to follow. Good luck! JiMoThYTALK 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Gentgeen 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. --Dakota 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support.--ttogreh 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. —freak(talk) 02:14, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support - Good editor who handles disputes well. -- THLR 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Adminship does not determine adequacy for ArbCom. Youth of candidate is irrelevant to suitability (I'm 16). Any fine candidate will do, and Daniel meets the criteria. --210physicq (c) 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Daniel has an even-handed manner/temperament and editing style. Age should not be a reason for excluding a candidate if they are able to do the job. Orderinchaos78 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support The majority of the oppose reasons is exactley why I support Daniel. Plus he's Australian Pepith 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support James E. Zavaleta T C E 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Support Non-adminship should not be an issue - a well rounded and mature individual who will go on to do well in ArbCom. --Skenmy(t•c•n) 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support I agree with his views. He's got the right attitude. --TinMan 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support You sold me. And I'm a hard sell -- Samir धर्म 06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. Good idea. yandman 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. -- Inner Earth 11:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. --Capsgm2002 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Gargaj 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. There's something charming in having a candidate who is not jaded by the drudgery of day-in day-out counter-vandalism, and just edits to provide a balanced perspective. Not everyone wants to be an Admin, nor has the infrastructure. Being on the road as much as you are, it strikes me that you made a great assesment of what you could best do to contribute. Good luck with the law studies too! Kudos on the contributions. Best wishes // FrankB 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Knuckles sonic8 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. support Leotolstoy 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Sarah Ewart 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support. Balanced and reasonable candidate. bbx 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Balanced and competent candidate. I appreciate the points made in oppose about youth and lack of previous wikipower but I feel a caution to not let the new appointment get to his head would be sufficient. ArbCom needs more people like Daniel. Lost Kiwi(talk)21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Everything indicates this nominee will be an impartial arbitrator.--MONGO 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support per Argyriou. -ryand 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Belated strong support. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. As for the admin issue I'll drag out the old RfA cliché "I thought he already was one". When a candidate is this dedicated, intelligent and respected, the precise value of a bit in the database is irrelevant. the wub "?!" 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Will add an additional perspective. Ksbrown 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. Hall Monitor 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. --Túrelio 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Cpuwhiz11 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support a non-admin on the committee sounds like a good idea. savidan(talk) (e@) 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support I am a big fan of the non-admin on the committee as well, and he sounds like a good one. Jmlk17 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Candidate can bring the benefits of his youth and his global perspective. Eludium-q36 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. —Xyrael / 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. DarthVader 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support--CJ King 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support The timing of the election may hurt Daniel here, in a few months more will appreciate him. Thems the breaks. NoSeptember 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  137. Support Rivertorch 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Daniel seems more mature than a few older Wiki users with Wiki power. His age should not be a factor to hold him back! Also, I agree with him platform. fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support; while one would normally expect the committee to be made up of admins, he makes a reasonable argument for the benefit of including somebody from outside that group too. *Dan T.* 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support; Nice to see someone from outside the wikipedia heirarchy nominate. John Dalton 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Not an admin--ElvisThePrince 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose --ElKevbo 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Reluctant oppose as per MPerel, above , significant contribution so far notwithstanding. Jd2718 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - crz crztalk 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak oppose. --Coredesat 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Avi 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SuperMachine 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  11. KPbIC 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Too little experience, eagerness for positions of authority is a concern. --RobthTalk 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. 6 months of editing is barely enough for adminship, let alone ArbCom. Sorry. - Mark 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Rebecca 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Inexperience. Xoloz 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I do think administrator experience is important for ArbCom. -THB 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Terence Ong 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Has potential, but I am afraid not enough experience. Looking forward to reviewing this next year...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Weak oppose. I think this user needs more experience before one can consider an appointment to ArbCom. (However, I do think Daniel is a great user, so I'm looking forward to another application in future.) ♠PMC♠ 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Too new, sorry. --Cyde Weys 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Nufy8 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Non-admin is not a problem; six months in the project is. Too new for this level of responsibility. No prejudice against consideration next time. Serpent's Choice 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Cryptic 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Inexperience. —Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Not at this time, but maybe by next election. —Doug Bell talk 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Too young. Catchpole 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose: Too young, too unexperienced. Giano 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Too young.--Zleitzen 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. cj | talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. – Chacor 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Lack of experience. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Sorry. Dweller 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Youthful temperament unsuitable for the job. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. TewfikTalk 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. --Pjacobi 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Too early)[reply]
  38. Oppose mainly due to the lack of admin experience. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Poor understanding of the arbcomm and policy. Guettarda 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Michael Snow 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. I really like the idea of a non-admin on the ArbCom, but I fear that it could hold you back. Admin before ArbCom. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Respectful oppose. While I hold high opinions on Daniel, he's still too young to be an ArbCom member. Duja► 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - needs more experience and understanding of how everything fits together (policy, arbcom reasoning, etc.). Metamagician3000 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose ST47Talk 11:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Yanksox 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, impressive edit count but I just can't see giving an ArbCom position to someone with < 1 year on the project.--Isotope23 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose, there are better candidates – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, Too early, and I prefer candidates that have an established history of handling authority responsibly. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. MILITANT OPPOSITION --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - Discussion moved to talk page.[reply]
  51. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - Lack of significant edits. --Andy Blak 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Nothing personal. Steel 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak Oppose one of the most civil and thoughtful editors. Not ready just yet though. Addhoc 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - not being a sysop is perfectly fine, but I think 6 months of experience just isn't enough to become an arbitrator - it should be at least a year. I've also got to admit that the emphasis on edit count ("at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself") for determining whether someone's experienced and/or suitable to be an arbitrator seems a wee little bit elitist to me. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose.MustTC 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose too new.--Aldux 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose too new. E104421 18:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose --CSTAR 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose too new. · rodii · 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Reluctant Oppose age and experience, sorry. Canadian-Bacon 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Weak oppose. I don't like the bit about wishing WP:RS was set in stone. — coelacan talk — 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Weak oppose : lack of adminship and experience, though I really hope to see another application some time. Clearly a dedicated, talented, careful contributor. Shagmaestro 11:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Docg 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Weak oppose per Shagmaestro. Daniel seems like a fine Wikipedian, but he just hasn't been around long enough to qualify for ArbCom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Tra (Talk) 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. oppose inexperience. Pete.Hurd 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Shanes 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC). Maybe next year.[reply]
  73. Tizio 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose, needs more time. Vizjim 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose (regretfully). There are many reasons to support this user but I am worried about the extremely high level of self confidence at such a young age, exhibited by answers to questions, RFA, etc. Time will likely show how much there is to learn, mainly about interactions with people, which is vital experience for the Arbitration Committee. Please note that I am not voting to oppose because I assume I have this right, but because I see it as a risk and the level of risk causes me to lean toward oppose. -- Renesis (talk) 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Although I in principle like the idea that a non-admin could serve on Arbcom in the right conditions, I don't think it's appropriate here: too young, too little time (though I hesitate to say experience) on Wikipedia. Also, I don't think the ArbCom is a good place to find out what happens when a user first gets Wiki-power. Mangojuicetalk 18:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose HeartofaDog 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Lack of time on the encyclopaedia. Clerk work is great, keep that up. Ansell 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose, level of experience. - Introvert • ~ 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. Experience is not the only thing that worries me. Sometimes acts too in haste, IMO. --Irpen 10:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose -- candidate does not seem to appreciate the full breadth of the controversial issues surrounding science-related articles. --ScienceApologist 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Candidate not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose I think that to get such a job, a user should have been in the community for over a year. Eli Falk 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Derex 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose, not enough experience, but working towards it very well. Would see myself supporting in a future arbcom election. Voretustalk 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Too new. —Centrx→talk • 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Too new, needs more experience. Davidpdx 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose would like to see more time demonstrating new skills in tact and maturity. Good editor overall, would support in future with longer track record of above skills. Krich (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Since arbcom has to be able to adjudicate admin behavior, having been one is a key requirement. Stirling Newberry 11:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose: Not enough experience. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ Walkie-talkie 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose, experience, also prefer this role to be filled by an admin. — xaosflux Talk 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Daniel&oldid=1096561574"