Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Secret

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Secret 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

 * Example: I am supporting this candidate because I feel they have the necessary qualifications for the position. Examplevoter, 00:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And I'm sorry, but I'm voting Oppose on relative inactivity as an editor; according to the tools, November 2007 represents a full quarter of Secret's edits to date, and there've been two large gaps entirely. If he was running for admin from scratch on that record, the candidacy would fail.    RGTraynor  14:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I feel candidate has genuine enthusiasm for the project, but there have been long-standing stability and commitment issues. There are also concerns regarding clarity of writing, which may reflect either poor writing skills, or poor thought processing. Motivation to become an ArbCom member appears to be largely based on own negative experiences - which one can empathise with, but is not a sound basis for entering into a challenging and time-consuming task. SilkTork  *YES! 23:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I apologize but I have to oppose this candidate. The answers to some of the questions, specifically #9, seems to indicate a distrust in the community. While ArbCom deals with the "ends" of the community, they should be aware that (as WP:AGF states), the overwhelming majority of the community is good and not destructive. I feel this candidate has lost this belief and thus cannot support on the basis of fear of potentially biased (albeit subconsciously and not intentionally) decisions against users. Hopefully this trust in the community can return and I can support you in the future. Mpdelbuono (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per SilkTork. I've taken to opposite view than SilkTork on some other candidates but here I fully agree. Martinp (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Date Delinking, a successful case? Wait- highly successful? Seriously? Badger Drink (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point of an arbitrator who doesn't intend to read the arbcom-l list? Would he just hang around the proposed decision page and say "hey guys what's going on"? rspεεr (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)