Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)

Statement
First a (very) little about myself- I've been a Wikipedian since July 05, accumulating over 2000 mainspace edits in the process, starting over 30 articles and contributing significantly to over 30 more including a featured article. I've had the pleasure and privilege of working along side Kirill Lokshin here. I'm very proud of what we have accomplished so far together. But, it is no small secret to those who know me, I've also grown a little disgruntled . As I've observed in the past, Wikipedia is a victim of its own success and is starting to collapse under its own weight. The current mechanisms for dispute resolution, mediation and participation are starting to break down. I think I can help in some measure to counter, or at least slow, these ill trends. This is an example of what I can bring to the Arbcomm, here is another. I strongly endorse creating a sub-committee system to speed the Arbcomm's work. I believe strongly that openness and transparency at all stages in the process are vital to prevent Arbcomm from turning into a Star Chamber...these virtues have been too lacking in the past, I shall work to change this. Besides a keen sense of fairness and what is best for the project and community, I also happen to live only 2-3 hours (depending on traffic) from Wiki-HQ, so should an emergency arise I could be there ASAP. For great justice vote Ghost!

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support Leotolstoy 23:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow, I am surpised. R.D.H. is one of the few users I know who do think about important issues like iron law of oligarchy and I sincerly believe people like this are need 'at the top'. Casting a proxy vote is not forbidden by any policy I am aware of - as a reason for opposing I find it very weak. So, for what it is worth, good luck R.D.H.!--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Tankred 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support&mdash;he's got what really matters, the right ideas. Everyking 08:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support yes, definitely Dragomiloff 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. A serious and good-tempered Wikipedian who is cut out for the task.--Berig 19:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. I used to think RDH was eccentric but having followed at his edits for a while I can see he is just very laid back, but far from comatose. Lurking beneath a sometimes irreverent and dry sense of humour is a great deal of common sense and anxiety to see fair play. He has made his fair share of mistakes, but he seems to have learned a lot from them.  I think he would be a valuable member of the Arbcom, and a catalyst for fresh thinking and a wider view. Giano 15:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Thought a bit about this one, but in the end I agree with Giano. Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. -- Ghirla -трёп-  17:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Conn, Kit 02:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conn, Kit does not have suffrage; he had only 147 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Awesome answers to the questions. Demonstrates intelligence, experience, and maturity. —Lantoka ( talk 03:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I like his attitude. Having reviewed the proxy vote saga, I would describe his views as "strongly felt" rather than bad tempered. I think passion is a good thing, provided it is moderated by reason, and R.D.H seems to have both. --Merlinme 16:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support "Discussion and voting should be public." You won me over with this in one of your answers! Most impressed with the replies to the questions.PEACETalkAbout 20:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) definitely. dab (𒁳) 09:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - fdewaele, 7 December 2006, 21:04
 * 5) Support - A bit odd, but since when is that a bad thing? --Iriseyes 02:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Were this a preferential voting system, I'd likely place Ghost somewhere between twelfth and eighteenth, so he's surely not my first choice, but he is, on the whole, eminently reasonable and sensible and surely embraces an understanding of ArbCom and the requisite openness thereof that is consistent with mine. Joe 06:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Gnetwerker 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support -- Randall Bart 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Bryson 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. fit for the job.--Panarjedde 06:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --roy&lt;sac&gt; Talk!  .oOo. 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.  Grue   09:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) maclean 03:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support seems level-headed and thoughtful --rogerd 11:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, based on his answer to the question concerning the MONGO desysopping. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Wetman 23:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. the wub "?!"  20:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Cpuwhiz11 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) &mdash;Xyrael / 22:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Krich (talk) 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support --John Seward 07:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Avalon 11:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Ter e nce Ong 16:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support per above. Just H 23:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose per his casting of a proxy vote for a banned user, and his angry response when I asked him about the incident.  Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Ideogram 00:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) - crz crztalk 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong per Ral315. --Core desat  00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) theProject 01:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Hello32020 01:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Peta 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Tito xd (?!?) 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) SuperMachine 01:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Per Ral315; that says it all, really.  -- Cyde Weys  02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) — Mi  ra  03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) KPbIC 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Rebecca 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Xoloz 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) No. semper fi —  Moe  05:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) More concerned about his sense of dissatisfaction and feelings of structural decay than about casting a proxy vote that may or may not contravene policy.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Dylan Lake 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 08:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) What can I say ... Ral's point is very clear.   ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 08:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) No. – Chacor 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) cj | talk 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Hahahah no. --Elar  a girl  Talk 19:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) pgk 19:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) —Doug Bell talk 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Michael Snow 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) per Ral315. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Bobet 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Mackensen (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose.  Nish kid 64  01:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Per diff 1 -- Tawker 03:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose Fred Bauder 15:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose - "You can't take away peoples' right to be assholes"? Quite the opposite, you have to. There's no place for "assholes" of *any* kind on Wikipedia. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Looking at his block log and his general attitude I have serious doubts that he would make a good ArbCom member. CharonX /talk 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Weak Oppose. Some good ideas, but a bit too confrontational for my taste. --Danaman5 05:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose per Ral315. We should not sympathize with banned users by allowing them to make edits here, directly or indirectly. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Sarah Ewart 01:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose Strictly on the basis of his continued support for a convicted sockpuppeteer. Dppowell 19:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose per questions.  Does not appear to be able to make strong decisions based on evidence. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose -- Candidate does not understand basic issues related to controversies. -ScienceApologist 17:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Lovelight 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Jorcoga † 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Samir धर्म 20:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose Stirling Newberry 10:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose Kiwidude 22:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) With regret. ++Lar: t/c 23:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)