Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

I'm withdrawing my candidacy. I did well, but the community finds me inexperienced, and the only way to remedy that is via a year's worth of dispute resolution experience. Can't say I didn't try. Wizardman 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wizardman

If there is one place where I feel I can help Wikipedia, it would be in ArbCom. I’ve been around since March 2006, an administrator since January 2007, and I’ve certainly viewed enough disputes, especially the impact such disputes have on the community at large, where I understand what a responsibility ArbCom would be.

I do have some experience with dispute resolution, doing some work providing third opinions and participating occasionally at WP:MEDCAB. I’ve definitely browsed around ArbCom in the past few months, so I understand that it is not only a huge responsibility, but something where you have to know what you’re doing, and something where you have to handle criticism. Of course, you can’t let criticism, or anything for that matter, sway your decision. We are voted in by the community in hopes that we handle the largest of disputes in a way that ultimately abides by the core principles of Wikipedia and improves Wikipedia as a whole.

One thing I can guarantee is that if I am elected, I will be an active member. We’re elected to be the decision makers of the final step of dispute resolution, and that’s what we need to be. If something has went through dispute resolution with no consensus, and it is a matter which ArbCom has generally accepted in the past, then of course we need to do our job, and determine the proper course of action that will most benefit this encyclopedia. I trust that I can uphold what I believe can be done in this statement, and I believe I can be a good arbitrator. Wizardman 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• Wizardman (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

Support

1. --W.marsh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. —trey(wiki) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Anthøny 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Kurykh 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Good judgment Gracenotes^T § 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Nick 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. – Gurch (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Qst 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Fresh Face ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Bakaman 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. --- RockMFR 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Captain panda 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Stardust8212 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
17. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
18. krimpet⟲ 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
19. SQL^{Query me!} 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support -- Cirt 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
21. B 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Alexfusco5 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Hasn't been worn down by the years of dispute resolution as our current arbitrators have been. Quite capable of the job and with a fresh enthusiasm I like to see. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Cryptic 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
27. GlassCobra 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Aboutmovies 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Húsönd 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
31. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
32. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:41, December 3, 2007
33. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
35. ~ priyanath talk 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Define "too new" and I will oppose!!..we need new ideas and not the same old failing perspective of yesteryears..--Cometstyles 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Addhoc 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Support.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Wizardman is trustworthy. Acalamari 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
41. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Support - Avruch^Talk 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
43. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Davewild 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Rockpocket 22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Support. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
49. WjBscribe 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
50. _→AzaToth 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
53. EconomistBR 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Seen this editor around, and liked what I saw. Anynobody 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
55. Jerry 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Greg Jones II 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
57. support Kingturtle 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
58. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
59. We need to try something different this time and I hardly consider Wizardman that inexperienced. Voting based on experience has brought us to where we are today, it just isn't working as it should. Wizardman would be a refreshing change from that. EconomicsGuy 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
60. This isn't per se an uncritical endorsement of Wizardman, but I think he would be vastly preferable to Raul654, for instance. As noted above, candidates with "experience" are often those who already have too much power for their own good. Walton^One 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Support, I've seen some very good things with Wizardman, and think he would make an excellent Arbitrator. Dreadstar † 15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Support -- Fram 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
63. RMHED 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
64. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Support for mediation experience. And I don't think the field of competitors is that good anymore, since Ryan jumped off :-] — Sebastian 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
66. Support. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
67. I see no reason why not. None at all. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
68. W/mint^-Talk- 07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
69. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
70. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this candidate! - 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Lack of experince for the job, sorry :( This is a Secret ^account 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
4. Nufy8 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. - auburnpilot talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Regretful oppose.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. --Agüeybaná 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Very regretful oppose, though would support later. --Coredesat 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Well on your way, but I believe there are numerous better qualified candidates. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Too new. Maybe later. Zocky | picture popups 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Too new, but certainly a possibility in the future. Rebecca 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Sorry, I preferred the other Wizardman :( Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Too new, maybe next time --Duk 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose -Dureo 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Perhaps next election. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
17. —Mira 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
18. I agree, perhaps the next election. I appreciate your work here, though. Spebi 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
19. I would like to be able to support, but some of the answers to the questions are a bit disquieting. Joe 06:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. showed a very disturbing tendency of not doing his homework in his participation of the Ideogra-Certified.Gangsta arbCom case. definitely doesn't seem to be competent for the job--Certified.Gangsta 07:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
21. WAS 4.250 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
22. - Crockspot 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Does good work for the 'pedia, but inexperienced for this position. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
24. You don't really stand out, sorry. Shem^(talk) 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose Good fellow, but not ready for this heavy duty yet. Xoloz 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Too soon to tell if he;d make a good arbitrator in a year or two, but not ready this year. Neil ☎ 15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Not yet. Antandrus (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Not convinced either way leading to siding with the caution. KTC 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose Edivorce 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose Ripberger 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Oppose - you certainly seem nice enough, but I'm not convinced you're experienced enough when it comes to dispute resolution. Maybe next year? -- Schneelocke 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Weak oppose Would like more experience in ArbCom areas. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Oppose. Risker 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Tyrenius 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Atropos 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
39. A little to new for me. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Oppose: Geogre 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Regretful oppose - seems to think it's OK to revert an admin action without discussion and has no clear understanding of recent arbcom rulings.--Doc^g 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Michael Snow (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Picaroon (t) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
44. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Oppose. Viriditas 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Weak oppose Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Weak oppose Antelan ^talk 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose, sorry, but please get more experience first. Jonathunder (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
50. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Oppose Per crockspot Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Very good editor, but not ready for Arbcom. PeaceNT (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
54. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)