Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Redwolf24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Redwolf24

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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


I myself would like to lend a helping hand to the endevours of the arbcom. Some of my positions? I hate trolls, yet at the same time I believe in criminal rights. I strongly believe in such organizations as WP:AMA. As can be seen from my work at the medcom, I often take out time of my own to reorganize stuff and make sure everyone's doing what they should be. I'd check the RfAr page often, voting on every case I could manage. I see a lot of cases only get the attention of maybe four members. Do we want four people deciding things that can potentially affect the whole project? The more the merrier, much like we should never close AfD's where only two people voted, and RfA's with 4 supports and no other votes. I had told a good friend of mine here I wasn't going to run for arbcom, but after my friends pushed me, I gained interest. I'd like to lend a helping hand. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps its worth noting that my proudest contribution is the reactivation of the medcom. Its also worth noting that I pulled out of the race after the events here thinking I didn't have a shot. But friends and otherwise very kind people have nagged me into reentering the race. Direct questions below, or at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 19:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Sceptre (Talk) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Doc ask? 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --BorgQueen 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guettarda 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The Land 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – ugen64 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --Ancheta Wis 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Sean|Black 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. KHM03 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support.--Bookandcoffee 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. uriah923(talk) 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. A proven history of Arb- and Med-ing. Batmanand 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. JYolkowski // talk 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. karmafist 02:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) per his work at Esperanza. karmafist 02:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. --Dlyons493 Talk 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Tony the Marine 02:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. King of All the Franks 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Fred Bauder 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. brenneman(t)(c) 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support.--ragesoss 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. You back yet? -Mysekurity 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support, a lot of good work. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Bobet 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Getting to be about time I supported him on something :-). Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Strong support – Has my full respect and support. – ClockworkSoul 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support SoLando (Talk) 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strong support, one of the nicest and most dedicated users I've met. - Pureblade | Θ 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support I think (good) mediation is helpful in achieving neutral articles. It is always easier to paint unpopular views as Trolls. Benjamin Gatti 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support WAvegetarian (talk) (email) (contribs) 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. android79 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong Support I have much respect for this user Brian | (Talk) 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, user is youthful and exuberant, but his heart is in the right place. I am confident he can be reasoned with. Sam Spade 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support, good work on MedCom. — Catherine\talk 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Dedicated, patient and kind, while not giving in. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. utcursch | talk 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Still a bit concerned over losing a good mediator, but that is not a very good reason to oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I like what he did for the medcom. Banes 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. MJ(☎|@|C) 09:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  55. Support --Leo44 (talk) 09:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. Only concern is whether he has the 100% committment necessary as he just came off of a long Wikibreak. #--Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. support: Ombudsman 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. support: diligent admin and a genuinely nice guy Jbetak 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Wizzy…☎ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Yup →FireFox 12:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. —Nightstallion (?) 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support --Celestianpower háblame 13:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good work with mediation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support well respected user, full support. mdmanser 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support endangered animals. Tomertalk 14:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support, sensible user. But the oppose-voters have a point in that he may be more suited for mediation. Radiant_>|< 14:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support Gryffindor 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support Dick Clark 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Wikimol 18:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --Ixfd64 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Haukur 21:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support A realistic statement and a history of advocacy and kindness; a good balancing influence on the Arbcom. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Robdurbar 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Only concern is burnout, otherwise editer deserves support. Smmurphy(Talk) 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-10 00:02Z
  81. Support as much because I want some teenagers in leadership positions than anything else. ~~ N (t/c) 00:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Raven4x4x 01:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. SupportMaltmomma (chat) 01:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support AnnH (talk) 01:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support DTC 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --Rayc 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. I share concerns about future burnout, but throwing himself into the gaping maw of arbitration is a noble sacrifice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support and agree with TenOfAllTrades. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support, good editor --Alynna 04:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support: Gives helpful answers — Sebastian (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. A veteran. Definitely an experienced WPian. __earth 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Yeah, I think you'll make sound decisions.--MONGO 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, with some reservations due to the incidents referred to in the opposition table. I strongly approve of his diligence & his anti-exclusionist stance on Arbcom. — It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support a good editor with a personality suited for arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reflex Reaction (talk • contribs)
  98. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Prodego talk 20:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ditto Sam Spade in #48 Donama 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Earliest edit October 17; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. --Carnildo 06:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Weak oppose. Would rather see focus on MedCom. Ambi 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Another sad oppose, would burnout easily --Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --nixie 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. TacoDeposit 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --Angelo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Good editor, but so many tasks already. Xoloz 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Too keen. Grace Note 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose (for now), due to unanswered questions. After answering them, drop me a line and I'll reconsider, okay? Thanks. Matt Yeager 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose This user blanks other users' pages and then denies any wrongdoing. freestylefrappe 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - inexperience and insubstantial answers. Good editor though. ←Hob 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. — Dan | talk 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose --Crunch 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak oppose--cj | talk 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose same reason as Jaranda and Xoloz really... too likely to burnout from the stress.  ALKIVAR™ 13:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. oppose per above.Gator (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Same as Jaranda, Xoloz and Alkivar above.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose great user, but unfit for ArbCom.  Grue  14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - too juvenile (and not because of his age). Proto t c 15:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - would prefer to see focus on medcom. Phil Sandifer 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose --kingboyk 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose — Saravask 19:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - needs experience (and stamina) Awolf002 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Splashtalk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Creo que no. I used to be that cocky, too. Wally 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Rob Church Talk 01:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Reluctantly, in that the work on medcom is perhaps more valuable older≠wiser 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Age, lack of life experience. Great editor and MedCom member however and nice guy. EdwinHJ | Talk 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. silsor 05:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Seems to think that Wikipedia should include only facts that people don't find offensive, while it omits facts that some people might find offensive. How can anybody with such a perspective have a claim to such a high position? Corax 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. "hate"? "criminal"? them's fightin words. find a common ground, and help sow unity. not derision. Avriette 06:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Dalf | Talk 09:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Very good at organising MedCom, but I've never seen him in action on any mediation, and it seems a little like it was just an addition to his WikiResume. A also worry a little about his age, sorry. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. "criminal rights"?! yikes, are Wikipedia editors criminals now? HGB 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, for reasons already expressed by others above. This was a tough decision as he is doing a great job at MedCom. Rje 19:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Septentrionalis 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Very Strong Oppose. Candidate thinks "I believe in criminal rights" is relevent to arbitration. Arbitration is not a judicial or a penal system. Fifelfoo 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose per above I like Redwolf24. But the distinction between a judicial system and Wikipedia arbitration is an important one for an arbitrator to understand, e.g., trolls could argue that they are allowed to waste more of our time because they weren't afforded "due process." 172 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Redwolf24&oldid=1087280444"