Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/BillMasen

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BillMasen

I have been a Wikipedia editor for three productive years. I have not been an admin or official, but an ordinary contributor who has, I hope, contributed to the project in some small way. In the spirit of a recent election victor, I would suggest that the true essence of wikipedia is best represented by the ordinary editors who work in the background to improve neutrality and sourcing. I will do my best to carry that spirit to the Arbitration Committee if elected.
The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.


Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Seems to have a good head, actually does have experience (despite a few oppose notes to the contrary), and being an admin isn't a requirement for being on ArbCom. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Contributions show that the candidate has been a sensible voice on some seriously contentious pages, and in my view would be an asset to ArbComm. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support because I agree with the statement and the view on contributors and editors.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. support - per Elonka. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. support--Severino (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Voyaging(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Steven Walling (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. --Elonka 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Majorly talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. iridescent 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. krimpet✽ 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Avruch T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. kurykh 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. iMatthew 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Mixwell!Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Koji† 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Not yet experienced. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose - not enough experience. Sorry. J.delanoygabsadds 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Prodego talk 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose BJTalk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. MER-C 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Just too vague for me. Questions are left unanswered. Mike H. Fierce! 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Not an administrator, simplistic answers to questions, no indication of any particular aptitude for the job.  Sandstein  06:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Davewild (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. -- Avi (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, little experience, and those questions which are answered indicate he would weaken nonfree content rules which need strengthening instead. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. I wasn't convinced by the answers to certain questions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Weak oppose, wIshy-washy answers to questions, and then the whole experience thing. Maybe next time. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux   editor review09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits and blocks. Sorry. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. — neuro(talk) 10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Regretfully, since I generally think you're a good user, who has the best interests of the project at heart. However, your views of arbcom as the "highest court" on WP give me great pause. AC is definitely not a "court", and someone who would treat it that way need not be elected to the post. Best regards, S.D.D.J.Jameson 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Needs more experience, administrator maybe in the future? --CrohnieGalTalk 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nothing personal; you seem like a great editor, but I really think that experience as an admin is necessary experience for this role. MastCell Talk 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Good contributor, but more experience needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Sorry, more experience needed. The Helpful One 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Synergy 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. While adminship is no requirement for arbcom, the level of trust is significant. Remember that arbcom is an authority above and beyond the community, and with the work they involved in, access to admin tools will probably become necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Due to inexperience. Joe Nutter 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Has the right idea and seems to be serious, but I'd like to see more experience. GlassCobra 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Tiptoety talk 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Just because of your lack of experience.--Caspian blue 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Alexfusco5 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Questions vague or unanswered, not admin. Sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose - Trix is for Kids, ArbCom is for Admins!--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. 1100 edits over three years is relatively paltry.  RGTraynor  20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. Миша13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Out to lunch on the OrangeMarlin case. Candidate either does not have much background knowledge of previous ArbCom cases, or does not elect to display that knowledge. Badger Drink (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose User has been around for a long time. But he has edited very, very sporadically.  Marlith (Talk)  03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Lacks experience as an editor..--Cometstyles 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Kusma (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Gentgeen (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Terence (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/BillMasen&oldid=1222935510"