Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Blankfaze

blankfaze
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

blankfaze
 * talk page
 * contributions
 * Wikipedian since: April 2004
 * Administrator since: July 2004 Upon my recent return from a fairly successful wikivacation, I was unpleasantly surprised and disappointed to see that the Arbitration process has seemingly fallen into disrepair, or, in the least, "grinded to a near-complete halt".

It's possible that the Arbitrators, be them willing or not to affirm it, are simply burned-out. If that's the case, I'm willing, ready, and able to take up some of the slack.

Too many people see the Arbitration process as a sort of Inquisition or prosecutorial body; perhaps we need to be reminded of its original purpose:  to arbitrate, to settle, disputes. If elected I would take a solutions-oriented approach to arbitration. There are times when punitive measures must be taken, but it should not be the go-to solution.

I would like to believe that I have a reputation for striving hard to be impartial and civil in all my endeavours. I think many if not most Wikipedians who know me well would attest to such. I offer myself up as a qualified, experienced, intelligent candidate for the Committee.

User:Blankfaze 04:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Less bureaucracy
 * Refocus on civilly resolving disputes
 * Common sense

Questions

An update
I have, for the most part, and excepting occasional minor edits, ceased to be an active editor at Wikipedia. Whilst I still consider this a good and noble project, and a good resource, one that I read at length quite often, I am dismayed and disheartened at the direction in which the community and the leadership are going.

If it matters, or if it is permitted under the rules of this haphazard and misformed "election" (if there are any), I hereby withdraw my candidacy, or at least make it known that I have absolutely no interest in it. &mdash; &#123;&#123;User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Secondly, to my detractors citing my lack of civility:  I admit that in my later months here, I was increasingly frustrated with the downward spiral in which Wikipedia is entrapped, and with the continuous and inane flow of malicious and problematic edits, and that accordingly I allowed myself to lose my temper more times than I would care to have. I apologise to any who may have been put off or offended. Truly. I hold no grudges. And I really do want to see this project succeed, and prosper. &#123;&#123;User:Blankfaze/sig}} 03:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Most certainly. – ugen64 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Despite age, edit history shows a level head and broad interests.--ragesoss 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Down-to-earth candidate. Support. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  00:38, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 2) Arbitration reform is needed. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Wgfinley 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - this is an everyman candidate with wide interests. - Stevecov 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Common-sensical (but do work on that civility thing!) &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support candidate statement indicates a genuine understanding of the nature of the arbitration process. Fifelfoo 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I see nothing wrong with this candidate.  Grue   06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. android  79  06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. jni 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, based on policy stance. Sam Spade 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good attitude.  /blahedo (t) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Per above. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. utcursch | talk 07:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. --Kefalonia 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. as Ragesoss --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support level headed, for sure. Don't burn out if you get it mate! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per statement, policy stance and previous knowledge of candidate. If he has not picked up editing again by the end of the elections then I would trust Jimbo not to appoint him. If he has then he will be an asset to the ArbCom. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Terrible Tim 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrible Tim does not have suffrage; he had only 117 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Davidpdx 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support I would trust Blankfaze to make the right decisions to benefit the community as a whole.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) 'Strong Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Meekohi 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - previous interaction good. --Cel e stianpower háblame 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. A dedicated, experienced administrator with a fresh approach to arbitration issues.  Willing to give him a try.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Seems very bright, experienced. Would be great for the commitee. Jared 20:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support for sure --Loopy e 20:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Exploding Boy 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. I hope you get back to editing again as soon as is practicable. You will be good on the Committee because you are broad-minded and understand people. --EuropracBHIT 22:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 11) Support on account of lack of involvement in Wiki-Politics. Avriette 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - in agreement with candidate's statements. --JohnDBuell 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Neutralitytalk 04:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Robdurbar 12:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - I like what he has to say Giles22 13:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)ç
 * Giles22 likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 17:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --Neigel von Teighen 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Gnangarra 13:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) * Support Peter J. Mello, Jr. 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) **User has 133 edits --Jaranda wat's sup 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Fad (ix) 21:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Seems good, level-headed, and fair. Would provide a needed energy boost to the ArbCom. Dr. Cash 01:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support. I read the statement and some of the talk on his user page. This person has both the experience and the patience it takes to be an excellent admin. -- H eptor   talk 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) At time of writing, last edit summary said, and I quote, "READ THE FUCKING ARTICLE - INVESTIGATION IS ONGOING - NOT YET DECLARED SUICIDE". Sorry, but not the kinda person I want on ArbCom. Oppose Batmanand 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Questions -Mackensen (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Antandrus (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose; mostly skipped questions. And I noticed Batmanand's issue too. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Abusive comments in summary, as per Batmanand.--ragesoss 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose too many skipped questions. --Angelo 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose — Omegatron 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Ambi 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose → P . M a c U i d h i r   (t)  (c)  01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Raven4x4x 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) TacoDeposit 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose per above. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose, lack of answers. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Civility, questions, etc. --Viriditas 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose mildly. Grace Note 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose, Kit 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose, older&ne;wiser 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose, Crunch 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose, per Batmanand. Experienced, but not professional. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose questions Dave 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose His account has been pretty inactive over the past year. 172 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose, almost inactive last three months. --Interiot 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose, good values but not professional. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose (smile) Tony the Marine 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose: WP:CIV & unprofessional. &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose – Does not exhibit the people skills necessary for such a vital role. – ClockworkSoul 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Fred Bauder 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. -- Scott ei&#960;  06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. siafu 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. Lupo 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose. Doesn't seem very professional. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose as per Batmanand. Also, I'm concerned about your erratic editing history and whether you will actually make yourself available sufficiently. And not impressed by lack of answers to your questions. Sarah Ewart 10:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose: Hardly active, inarticulate, willing to vote and take stands on hearsay -- definitely not ArbCom. Geogre 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Weak oppose, would like to support, but a few issues make it impossible for me. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose, at least until he answers the questions when I will reconsider (please feel free to leave a message on my talk page if I haven't spotted the questions being answered). Thryduulf 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose due to abusive edit summaries. Not the sort of temprament we need on the ArbCom. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) OpposeHipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose - did not answer questions, yet. Awolf002 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose The Literate Engineer 15:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) --Doc ask? 16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose Seems to have the right values, but lack of civility in edit summaries is disturbing. --Comics 17:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose, agree with Comics - Masonpatriot 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose Jkelly 18:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose Failed to answer my question, and besides that, per Batmanand. Xoloz 18:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose --Petros471 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose  TestPilot  19:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose. Civility issues raised by others are a concern; also, Interiot's tool shows a trend of decreasing activity on Wikipedia. H e rmione1980 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. Insufficiently active on Wikipedia recently for my tastes. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Splash talk 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose. Insufficiently civil, sorry Avalon 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose. per activity and civility concerns.--cjllw | TALK  23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose. not active --JWSchmidt 01:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose - civility concerns, Vsmith 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose. Per Batmanand.  Velvetsmog 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose, per Batmanand. I've interacted little with this user, but I don't recall that he left a good impression. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose. Gazpacho 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) oppose Kingturtle 06:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose. Failure to answer most of the questions. --Carnildo 08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Oppose. I too have concerns over Blankfaze's occasional civility problems. Rje 12:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Oppose, civility. enochlau (talk) 13:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Oppose. Per Batmanand. -- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Oppose, inactive and what's with this edit summary ? HGB 18:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)\
 * 83) Oppose. Did not answer important questions and profile and contribution history suggest that he is more interested in arguing than settling disputes.  The Jade Knight 19:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 84)  and . JoaoRicardotalk 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Oppose, civility Oskar 20:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Oppose, per Batmanand. Prodego  talk 22:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Oppose. maclean 25 00:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Oppose Timrollpickering 01:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)