Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/KyleHamilton

KyleHamilton
My Name is Kyle Hamilton; I am a junior at the Brooks Inst of Photography. I am majoring in Film.

I am interested in the working on the arbitration committee because I have a good deal of experience in dealing with disputes and getting to a speedy resolution. I refined my ability by working with producers in the film industry and by working on set having to make quick decisions/resolutions on set.

The approach I would use to help resolve disputes here would be as follows
 * 1: Look at how the article was developed and try to establish a clear unclouded record of how the article was developed.
 * 2: Look into what other users have done in the past.
 * 3: Review what other members of the arbitration committee have done in the past.
 * 4: stay neutral stay neutral stay neutral.
 * 5: Beat people with sticks

Wikipedia is more then an encyclopedia to me, it is a repository of all human knowledge a concept that many here in our community don’t grasp this is something more then an encyclopedia it is something short of a miracle, Wikipedia and her sister projects are home to all of Humanitys works and knowledge.

Questions

Support

 * Support -- Sound reasoning and good intentions. ArbCom oughtn't be a veterans-only cartel. Adrian Lamo 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Adrian_Lamo does not have suffrage; he had only 136 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Like his reasoning. --Dogbreathcanada 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Dogbreathcanada does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 19:56, 30 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Support Dogbreathcanada should be given suffrage due to his fantastic username. freestylefrappe 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Kefalonia 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Only because he seems to deserve substantially less opposition than some of these candidates are getting.   &#08492;  astique &#09660; par &#08467; er &#09829; voir &#09809;  21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) SupportDr. B 21:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. Being fairly new, and not part of a clique, is a good thing, not something to be frowned upon. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jared 12:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose as too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose --Angelo 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, experience. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose.--ragesoss 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Bobet 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose inexperience. --Crunch 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. android  79  06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. Too new. &mdash; Catherine\talk 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose--cj | talk 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. Sorry, too new. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Lack of XP. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppoaw beat people with sticks? Come on!  Grue   13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose, xp --kingboyk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Not enough experience (in beating people with sticks :))&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. siafu 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose Not enough experience --Comics 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose for lack of experience. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:13Z 
 * 38) Oppose - not active enough, needs experience. Awolf002 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose, as Awolf. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 20:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Hasn't been active enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione1980 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. If you can't bother to check your spelling, how much effort can you expend on arbitration? Avriette 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) --Doc ask? 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) older&ne;wiser 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Opposed based on the answers to questions and overall expression of understanding. &asymp; jossi &asymp; t &bull; @ 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Raven4x4x 09:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Opposed warpozio 12:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose inexperienced --EMS | Talk 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose. This candidate is the first where I believe their statement indicates that they comprehend arbitration, and that I agree with that comprehension as a matter of policy, but that I believe the candidate does not show the character required of an arbitrator on a personal level.  Maybe in a number of years.  Try working as a mediator on Wiki first, it'll knock some of the corners off your idealism, and make you well placed to arbitrate. Fifelfoo 22:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose, inexperienced, sorry. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose Vsmith 01:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Opposed. clear unclouded record --JWSchmidt 02:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose, experience. KTC 19:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 61) Oppose. Not sure if the candidate understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 23:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose. Inexperience --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 06:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. Can't spell properly! -Palthrow
 * 66) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose interesting candidate but I can forsee conflict with wiki and life outside Gnangarra 13:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose. Neutralitytalk 15:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose. Barely has suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose. Preaky 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose--nixie 01:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose XP and poorly written candidate statement -- Masonpatriot 04:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose inexperience. Youngamerican 17:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76)  Bratsche talk 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Oppose —inexperience and incoherent answers to some questions —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Oppose inexperience and poor writing &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by wrp103 (talk &bull; contribs).
 * 79) Oppose - wikipedia is not a repository of all human knowlege (that would violate copyright, and currently wikipedia has no absolutely reliable fact checking methodology). - JustinWick 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Oppose Alex43223 19:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Support for statement and questions (and as per Bastique), but oppose based on lack of experience = Neutral. Thryduulf 16:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)