Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Doktorbuk

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Doktorbuk

I do not pretend to be high enough for every honour, for every place within Wiki, or for every role needed to ensure the project runs smoothly. I feel my short time here has already taught me how necessary it is to have time, effort and determination; but also a sense of fairness and understanding. Wiki is an ambitious - quite frankly over ambitious and complex in some regard - project, but one of great strength and repute. To keep the wheels turning and all users happy is a task worthy of the strongest person in both mind and spirit. Whether I am able to help and assist is not, as I place myself as a candidate in this election, a question I may be able to answer.

On-line all bets are off. Every trouble maker can cause havoc with edit wars, spamming and inaccurate information. I feel able to help to listen to all sides, to understand the frustration and weed out the vandals. I am a political person, having stood for election in the 'real world' before, so hearing both sides of an argument is second nature. Within this context, the challenge becomes harder but ultimately a challenge worthy of such an all-round project. We must work together to build this from the bottom-up; to be fair, free and focused, and not split into tiny groups of self-interested keyboard juries.

I am willing to give this experience a real shot. If I fail, and I think that is likely, I will continue to work as hard as possible to make all the articles here of the best possible standard. It is the least any determined Wiki user can do.


doktorb 21:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Questions


Support

  1. Support. Strong edit history of consistent contributions since joining (even if "minor" checkbox is overused), seems level-headed.--ragesoss 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Fred Bauder 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. siafu 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Everyone is opposing on experience grounds, I'll be fair and support, only because I oppose this apparent 'club' mentality. --Constan69 01:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support.Limegreen 02:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I know the man! He is a fountain of knowledge! Shaneo619 11:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. SupportWikityke 21:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Weak support. Seems well adjusted, and balanced, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Slightly hesitant owing to lack of evidence of neutral editing (not that there is any counter evidence either). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Jared 19:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Tvaughn05 22:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit was December 11, 2005, so the user may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Inexperience, sorry. Batmanand 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, experience —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bunchofgrapes (talk • contribs) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:12, Jan. 9, 2006
  19. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Bobet 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose older≠wiser 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Question answers unsatisfying. Dave 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Inexperienced. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose --Crunch 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - Paul August ☎ 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. android79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose.  Grue  06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose--cj | talk 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:10Z
  34. Oppose why? ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Lupo 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. I can't support somebody who tells me they are likely to fail. I might support you next time when you have another year of experience and have gained some confidence. --kingboyk 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose, as Kingboyk. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 11:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Reluctant oppose. A good editor, but needs more experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Davidpdx 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Meekohi 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. I hate to sound like a broken record, but yes, experience for an arbitrator is a must.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose The Literate Engineer 16:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, statement isn't impressive and "likely to fail"... can't expect votes when you say that - Masonpatriot 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose per Masonpatriot --EMS | Talk 19:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Too new. Not enough community interaction so far. Hermione1980 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Inexperience. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Splashtalk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose LoE. Avriette 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Statement fails to address the nature of arbitration. Fifelfoo 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. "If I fail, and I think that is likely...." --JWSchmidt 03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Vsmith 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Raven4x4x 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Lack of experience--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. No faith in his skills in his statement. Velvetsmog 22:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Fake modesty is a hard sell. Smeggysmeg 22:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Timrollpickering 02:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose KTC 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 14:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose -- No Exp --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Inexperience. I'm not voting to keep him out of a "club". I'm voting because experience is the only way to gain understanding of the community sufficient to be an ArbCom member. Superm401 | Talk 03:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose --Ignignot 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose --Knucmo2 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) User would be best served gaining some experience on WP:RfC and WP:VfD first.[reply]
  75. Oppose - inexperienced, seems to think he will fail anyway, unconvincing statements. --NorkNork 20:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Extremely Lacking Alex43223 01:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose - lack of experience -- Francs2000 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Sunray 09:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Chooserr 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Preaky 06:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose at this time. SarekOfVulcan 02:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose for 06, likely support in 07. Youngamerican 14:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - kaal 16:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo talk 18:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose due to apparent inexperience with dispute resolution and other process issues —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose I'm sorry but if an arbitrator with that, uh, special of a login name approached me, I would have difficulty taking them seriously. - JustinWick 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Thanks for this vote, but what does my user name have to do with my ability? doktorb | words 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Sounds like he has already resigned to lose. wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose (Bjorn Tipling 06:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  93. Oppose Not yet enough experience. --Spondoolicks 20:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose CDThieme 23:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Doktorbuk&oldid=1087298353"