Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/KyleHamilton

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My Name is Kyle Hamilton; I am a junior at the Brooks Inst of Photography. I am majoring in Film.

I am interested in the working on the arbitration committee because I have a good deal of experience in dealing with disputes and getting to a speedy resolution. I refined my ability by working with producers in the film industry and by working on set having to make quick decisions/resolutions on set.

The approach I would use to help resolve disputes here would be as follows

1: Look at how the article was developed and try to establish a clear unclouded record of how the article was developed.
2: Look into what other users have done in the past.
3: Review what other members of the arbitration committee have done in the past.
4: stay neutral stay neutral stay neutral.
5: Beat people with sticks

Wikipedia is more then an encyclopedia to me, it is a repository of all human knowledge a concept that many here in our community don’t grasp this is something more then an encyclopedia it is something short of a miracle, Wikipedia and her sister projects are home to all of Humanitys works and knowledge.

Questions

Support

Support -- Sound reasoning and good intentions. ArbCom oughtn't be a veterans-only cartel. Adrian Lamo 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
(削除) Support. Like his reasoning. --Dogbreathcanada 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (削除ここまで)reply
  1. Support Dogbreathcanada should be given suffrage due to his fantastic username. freestylefrappe 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. Only because he seems to deserve substantially less opposition than some of these candidates are getting. Bastique ▼parler ♥voir ♑ 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. SupportDr. B 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. 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). Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. Being fairly new, and not part of a clique, is a good thing, not something to be frowned upon. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Support Jared 12:06, 18 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. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose as too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose --Angelo 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose, experience. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Bobet 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose inexperience. --Crunch 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose. Too new. — Catherine\talk 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose--cj | talk 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose. Sorry, too new. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose sorry but I must oppose. ALKIVAR TM 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppoaw beat people with sticks? Come on! Grue 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose, xp --kingboyk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. Not enough experience (in beating people with sticks :))—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. siafu 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose Not enough experience --Comics 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006年01月09日 20:13Z
  38. Oppose - not active enough, needs experience. Awolf002 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose, as Awolf. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose. Hasn't been active enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose. If you can't bother to check your spelling, how much effort can you expend on arbitration? Avriette 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. --Doc ask? 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. older≠wiser 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Opposed based on the answers to questions and overall expression of understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Raven4x4x 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Opposed warpozio 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose inexperienced --EMS | Talk 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. This candidate is the first where I believe their statement indicates that they comprehend arbitration, and that I agree with that comprehension as a matter of policy, but that I believe the candidate does not show the character required of an arbitrator on a personal level. Maybe in a number of years. Try working as a mediator on Wiki first, it'll knock some of the corners off your idealism, and make you well placed to arbitrate. Fifelfoo 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose, inexperienced, sorry. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. 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
  55. Oppose Vsmith 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Opposed. clear unclouded record --JWSchmidt 02:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose, experience. KTC 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  61. Oppose. Not sure if the candidate understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose - too new -- Francs 2000 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose. Inexperience --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose. Can't spell properly! -Palthrow
  66. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose interesting candidate but I can forsee conflict with wiki and life outside Gnangarra 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose. Neutrality talk 15:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. Barely has suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose. Preaky 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose--nixie 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose XP and poorly written candidate statement -- Masonpatriot 04:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose inexperience. Youngamerican 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose —inexperience and incoherent answers to some questions —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose inexperience and poor writing —The preceding unsigned comment was added by wrp103 (talk • contribs) .
  79. Oppose - wikipedia is not a repository of all human knowlege (that would violate copyright, and currently wikipedia has no absolutely reliable fact checking methodology). - JustinWick 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Oppose Alex43223 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

  1. Support for statement and questions (and as per Bastique), but oppose based on lack of experience = Neutral. Thryduulf 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /