Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Kirill Lokshin

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Kirill Lokshin or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

Candidate statement • Questions for the candidate • Comment on the candidate • Discuss the candidate

Comments

 * I have voted to Oppose this candidate and many other candidates due to significant involvement in drama on the Wikipedia project. Whether or not I agree with the candidate's stances in such conflicts is negligible. I simply cannot contribute my support to anyone that could potentially devalue the integrity of the Arbitration Committee more than it already has. I desire to cancel the soap opera, rather than help renew it for another season with brand new cast members, or, in this particular case, a contract renewal. Vodello (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - did a good job last time and I'd trust him again. However, I hope that this time he sticks to AC doing Arbitration and not trying to provide for "project development" or any other leadership roles. Orderinchaos 04:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: classic excellent Arbitrator. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral - leaning to oppose. I am very undecided on this. Candidate has experience and skills, and is clearly hardworking, organised, intelligent and committed. However, I am uncomfortable about the thinking behind creating Advisory Council on Project Development, and the resulting drama. The vision of an elite group controlling development of Wikipedia is against the community spirit of Wikipedia, so I would feel uncomfortable supporting the person who thinks that vision is attractive, and who hand selects the people to rule before announcing it to the community. SilkTork  *YES! 18:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have voted to Support. Hardworking arbitrator, good communicator, ongoing content contributor. The advisory council issue was severely overblown - a well-intentioned idea perhaps poorly communicated, and certainly misinterpreted by many. Martinp (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - he's level-headed.Tttom1 (talk) 05:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Per Martinp. King Pickle (talk) 03:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support He's no idea who I am, but everything I've heard suggests he was and will be a fine representative. Dduff442 (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It has been a while but his votes at Requests for arbitration/Abu badali/Proposed decision make me a strong opposer. Garion96 (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Support - Deserves another chance to serve on the committee, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 22:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)