Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/NSLE

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This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.

The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.

Banning should be undertaken preferably only when the editor is found to be disruptive and it is certain that he/she will not make any sort of useful contributions. However, if a user has made good contributions but has a case up at ArbCom that may need banning for the first time, I'm willing to give the user a second chance.

Questions

Withdrawal
Thanks to all who took the time to vote, but I think it's time for a withdrawal as this isn't going anywhere (having hovered around 1/3rd support for about a week). NSL E (T+C) 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Haukur 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Миборовский U 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per my interactions. karmafist 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong Support Trustworthy Editor. Xoloz 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support.--ragesoss 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Super strong support, all interactions with the user have been very positive; NSLE seems like an awesome editor. Arbcom would be better with him on board. Matt Yeager 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support —Locke Cole • t • c 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support, impressive statement. NicM 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 13) Support - Akamad 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Sarah Ewart 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support DTC 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:46Z 
 * 21) --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Wally 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support in substantial part for IAR views. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simetrical (talk &bull; contribs).
 * 24) Support. WikiFanatic 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Search 4 Lancer 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * SupportRickoniX (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User has less than 150 edits and probably does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, candidate statement overcomes any inexperience issues I may have had. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, Rangek 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, per candidate statement and answers to statement questions.-- Dakota  ~  ε  06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.Tan DX
 * 6) Support.--  A dam1213 Talk + 13:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Although not many questions asked, good answers and I like Contributions. (SEWilco 05:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

Oppose

 * 1) Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Too new, and does not understand core policy. Ambi 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Cryptic (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, inexperience, policy. Carbonite | Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. I quote from your candidate statement: "I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules". I do. Sorry. Batmanand 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Barely qualifies for suffrage. Cookiecaper 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose lack of experience and policy understanding --Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) What Ambi said. Johnleemk | Talk 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Sorry, NSLE, too new (I'd oppose myself too.) &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose great editor, but too new. Greg Asche (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctant oppose - Great editor but I think WP:IAR is a vital tool when properly used. FCYTravis 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand your concerns; please see the new section under the statements section. (To everyone in general; it's not intended to change any of your minds, so don't feel the need to if you don't, or please don't see this as an attempt to win supports from opposes) NSL E (T+C) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Also reluctant oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Bobet 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Also reluctant oppose 172 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just not enough experience at this time, but please stay involved and interested. Jonathunder 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Reluctant Oppose - think you need more time dude. There is no rush for this time around. novacatz 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose --Crunch 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. android  79  06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose--cj | talk 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose experience, sorry.--Alhutch 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Cannot agree with total rejection of WP:IAR. -- Michalis Famelis 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please see my comment to FCYTravis, while I don't subscrbe to it, I don't "(totally) reject" it. NSL E (T+C) 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, rejection of WP:IAR disturbs me. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose sorry but your simply too controversial and a tad too inflexibile. Perhaps next election.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak oppose I believe this user lacks the experience needed.  Grue   13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per my personal policy of opposing ppl with red names. for this year. Tom e rtalk  14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Inexperience and WP:IAR. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - sorry, too new. Awolf002 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctant Oppose - Good, level headed editor, but experience is important. I also question the strong opposition to WP:IAR (not that I want to see in invoked without compelling cause). --EMS | Talk 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) I've noticed several questionable applications of admin power recently and, on writing him a note asking about them, have been soundly ignored. Much more practise and interacting is needed. -Splash talk 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Policy. Avriette 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. siafu 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Rob Church Talk 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) older&ne;wiser 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) oppose Kingturtle 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Maybe next time. Rje 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Candidate does not adquately address the nature of arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 24) Oppose KTC 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Needs more experience. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. You take stances, which is refreshing. But I don't feel you would bring much innovation to the ArbCom role. Velvetsmog 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Dr. B 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose(Gibby 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)) Has taken sides with friends to bully oposition in pages like Communism
 * User's first edit was on December 1, 2005; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. maclean 25 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctantly oppose - a very good editor, just too new for this role -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Inexperienced. --William Pietri 01:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. *drew 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose WilliamKF 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Preaky 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Three months is not sufficient experience, regardless of edit count. Superm401 | Talk 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose as too new, but liable to support in the future. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)