Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Jeepday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Jeepday

[edit]
I have been a named user contributer since October 2006. My contributions have included a few articles from scratch and a major redo or two, but most of my contributions have been through the projects stubsensor or Unreferenced articles and dabbling in a few other projects or discussions related to referencing articles. I read the Wikipedia Signpost regularly and realize that the Arbitration Committee has a challenging task. I considered the challenges and length of commitment carefully before offering myself as a candidate for one of these positions. In my professional life I do a lot of project and process improvement work in state government and I beleive that that history will permit me to continue personal growth through work on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, if I am selected by the community to participate. Jeepday (talk) 03:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Addhoc 14:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support, would provide a fresh perspective. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support, not of the establishment. Lankiveil (talk) 10:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  6. Moral support - E104421 (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moral Support - Perhaps in a year or two? NF24(radio me!) 01:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral Support --Jack Merridew 08:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Moral Support Needs a few more years for a wider perspective. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Moral Support It looks like my vote here won't affect the outcome, so I cast a support vote so you don't get to discouraged. But, like many other comments, I also feel more experience on Wikipedia is probably neccessary. wbfergus Talk 10:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree with the above. Acalamari 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Arbcom statement doesn't tell me much on why he wants to become a member This is a Secret account 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Experience not broad enough (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nufy8 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. spryde | talk 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  10.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose -- Avi 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Uninspiring nomination statement and answers to questions, sorry. Grandmasterka
  14.  — master sonT - C 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Coredesat 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Alexfusco5 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Nothing personal but I didn't see anything beyond CV padding. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Cryptic 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose Thatcher131 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rebecca 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Húsönd 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Mercury 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose -Dureo 03:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. JayHenry 04:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Spebi 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. — xaosflux Talk 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mbisanz 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Crockspot 08:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Inexperience. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Arbcom candidates need to already have the respect of the community. John Vandenberg 11:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. z0mg..who O_o..sorry, but I don't see what you can really offer to the arbcom..sorry..needs more experience and better answers to the Q's ...--Cometstyles 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Hate to pile-on... Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Splash - tk 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Xoloz 13:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Davewild 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Shem(talk) 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. KTC 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Mattisse 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Not nearly enough experience in the right areas, and insufficient awareness of what experience is needed. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Ripberger 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Answers to questions have not left me convinced. Pagrashtak 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - you seem like a good person, but you also seem a bit too inexperienced really. So, sorry, but no for now. -- Schneelocke 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. —Ruud 21:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Wizardman 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. WjBscribe 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Experience issues. --David Shankbone 23:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. βcommand 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. EconomistBR 01:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Wants to become an arbitrator for his 'personal growth'? Not a statement that convinces me that he is grounded and has got the wiki's interests as his main motivation. Merkinsmum 02:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Too little experience and understanding of arbitration. --DarkFalls talk 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. That the candidate realizes (and intends to act consistent with the idea) that ArbCom does not make policy is certainly a good sign, but the record here is simply not sufficient to provide a basis for support. Joe 19:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. — Rudget contributions 19:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose -- SECisek 19:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose -- for the personal growth comment. Xdenizen (talk) 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Michael Snow (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Viriditas 03:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose, needs more Wikipedia time, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  70. Oppose, sorry, but please get more experience first. Jonathunder (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. ArbComm is not a personal growth opportunity, it is a service opportunity requiring experience. Not even an admin. GRBerry 17:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose per NPOV/SPOV answer... the flat earth bit is a straw man, and has been repeated by more than a few candidates. Skinwalker (talk) 18:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Terence (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose No offense, but while the personal growth thing might sound good when running for high school class president, it doesn't really work at all in the real world. Homestarmy (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Weak oppose, too soon. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Miranda 18:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Tonywalton Talk 12:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose - not enough experience. Sorry to pile on, but I think it is important to vote for every candidate still running. Carcharoth (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Refuses to show any example for relevant experience - using lame excuses. — Sebastian 18:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Per Carcharoth. Dekimasuよ! 08:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose - might be very good, but there are other candidates who have significantly more evidence that they will be. Warofdreams talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Sorry to oppose for lack of experience. Bearian (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose - not enough experience. Luqman Skye (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. the wub "?!" 13:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose --Allen3 talk 16:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose. The answers to questions do not give confidence. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. My (only) experience with the candidate shows him to be a reasonable person who one can discuss reasonably with, but lack of experience puts me in the oppose column. Maybe next year. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Saudade7 22:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC) The "personal growth" thing sounded too self-involved to really be open to hearing other people's plights / sides.[reply]
  92. JJ Williams (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Arbcom membership is not about what it can bring you but rather what you can bring to the community. KissL 15:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. No hoy. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Maxim(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose I am certain this user has alot to give the wikipedia community, but this position is not a good fit, considering experience. JERRY talk contribs 00:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose on experience grounds. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 05:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Karl2620 (talk) 11:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Insufficient expirience. Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose You just don't seem ready as yet.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Jeepday&oldid=1140152741"