Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Starblind

Statement
Hiya, I'm Andrew Lenahan, known to some as Starblind. I've been around since 2004 and have been an administrator since July 2005. In my time I've written articles on urologists, koala puppets, soul music, medieval cookbooks, nudist sci-fi, Victorian crime, novelty cakes, wargames, deer that get pumpkins stuck on their heads, and everything in-between. I've been a VFD regular, gotten a bunch of barnstars, and had a hand in creating policies and guidelines. I'd like to try being on arbcom, not with the goal of "fixing" it or shaking things up, but because I see it as a logical progression of how I can further give back to a community and project which has given quite a lot to me.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Why not? -Amarkov blahedits 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Exactly the sort of person I'd like to see on the committee---level-headed and committed to our goals, not someone looking for an activist platform. --Delirium 01:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Warofdreams talk 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Calm, level-headed, sound judgment. Excellent candidate. Xoloz 04:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) THB 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Nufy8 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Excellent judgement, in discussion, Starblind always gives a level-headed and clear rationale. Excellent ArbCom candidate. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support. --Neigel von Teighen 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) SuperMachine 13:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Great guy; he has my trust. &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) -- danntm T C 20:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Go Starblind. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 22:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. JYolkowski // talk 00:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Friday (talk) 01:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong support. Very clear with a lot of his edits. - T e tsuya-san (talk : contribs) 07:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17)   young american  (ahoy hoy) 19:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Down-to-earth candidate. Andre (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support.  Nish kid 64  01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. --JJay 01:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Weak Support. I liked his answers to the questions. His statement may be light-hearted, but he clearly thinks about things. I do have some concerns about experience though. Merlinme 14:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Deizio talk 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support.--MariusM 16:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. --Ruziklan 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) I liked his oppinions in answers. Okino 23:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 01:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support - While I may not agree with all of his opinions, He seems to be discerning, diplomatic, and appears to be open to discussion (3 of my main criteria : ) - jc37 22:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, Mallanox 20:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support.  Grue  09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Cryptic 13:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, but it's AFD now :P Stifle (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support unconditionally: excellent candidate. Vizjim 13:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Solid editor on Wikipedia and a good person to communicate with. Anom8trw8 20:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support —FlashSheridan 06:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support An inspiration to me in my early days. --InShaneee 06:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Dragomiloff 02:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Shows the right disposition and mindset for the thankless job Lost Kiwi (talk) 03:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. the wub "?!"  20:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. --Kbdank71 21:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. Freshacconci 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Excellent. --Atlantima 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Rivertorch 19:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support --Bondego 20:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support -- Hús ö nd  21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) John254 21:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Jaranda wat's sup 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) - crz crztalk 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weakish oppose. More experience with dispute resolution could help. --Coredesat  01:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Hello32020 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Awolf002 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Needs more experience in WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) —Mi ra  03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) KPbIC 03:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Needs more experience with DR-related activities, contrib history is mostly just Afd. --- RockMFR 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Not enough experience in arbitration stuff. Ter e nce Ong 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Mailer Diablo 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) semper fi —  Moe  05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Dylan Lake 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) not enough experience with arbitration type work.  ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) – Chacor 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) cj | talk 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Opppose - I'm a bit worried that recent participation, especially in non-afds, is too low. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose due to lack of any substance in candidate statement. Feel free to talk me out of it. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Weak Oppose per above. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Not enough Arb-related experience. GizzaChat  &#169;</b> 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Nothing particularly negative, it's just that there are enough better candidates out there. Ohh, and the over-formatting in your sig kind of annoys me.  --<font color="#ff66ff">Cyde Weys  18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Steel 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Sarah Ewart 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - invoked such policies as WP:SNOW on the GNAA DRV instead of following and supporting ACTUAL wikipedia policy regarding the closing of the AFDs. I'm opposed to anyone who has the power of an admin yet refuses to adhere to wikipedia policy and process. Also he relies heavily on pseudo notability metrics and policies like Alexa and Google hits rather than the actual reliable sources such as newspaper articles etc. For instance the ANUS article was totally sourced with multiple news reports and even won a newspaper's best of the web award yet he still claimed the article didn't meet WP:RS []--TrollHistorian 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TrollHistorian does not have suffrage; he had only 135 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - egregious abuse of power in the GNAA DRV, clearly showing that he is incapable of separating personal feelings of vendetta from fact. ContivityGoddess 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * ContivityGoddess does not have suffrage; she had only 19 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 22:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Answers to questions short and sometimes vague. --Danaman5 06:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Weakly, and with regret, insofar as my interactions with the candidate have been quite positive and inasmuch as many of those supporting are editors whose judgment I quite respect.  I agree principally with many of the responses to questions, but I am troubled by the thinking underlying some.  Joe 06:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Leibniz 19:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Tra (Talk) 22:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Eusebeus 01:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Krupo 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose --Afed 18:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Fred Bauder 14:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --incog 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose candidate seems to have a very limited understanding of the issues involved in controversies surrounding science articles. --ScienceApologist 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose not enough mainspace experience, which is something I regard as important for fully understanding how policies apply. --Aude (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Axl 19:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) &mdash;Xyrael / 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) As much as I admire the candidate's work with the deletion process, it's essentially the only thing that appears on the candidate's edits in the entire Wikipedia namespace. theProject 01:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Lack of community interest (fewer than 100 votes as the voting is about to close). Jd2718 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose per audevivere. Kiwidude 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)