Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Candidates/Dougweller

Dougweller

 * I'm Kurtis, and I strongly approve this message candidate. :) Kurtis (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think this might be the best candidate to have announced to the time of this writing. His frequent work in some of our most contentious content, including such things as dubious science, pseudoscience, and minority theories regarding early human history, will I think be invaluable in dealing with matters related to those general areas. John Carter (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a good sign that you haven't even bothered to answer any of the questions after 3 days. Arbcom is already very slow, your lack of response says to me you'd make it even slower. --Rotten regard 23:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure if a late response is worse than no response, but real life commitments made long before I was asked to run, and wanting to work on them all (or virtually all) at once before posting my answers are the reasons. Perhaps I should have simply answered them a few at a time, that would have meant I'd have had answers posted earlier. I can assure everyone that I won't slow down ArbCom! Dougweller (talk) 16:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * My experiences with this candidate have always been good, even when we've disagreed on content. I believe he will be fair, and will exercise good judgement. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've interacted with Dougweller on a variety of articles and talk pages during my 4+ years as an editor. I have always found him to be thorough, level-headed, and deliberate as an administrator and a fellow editor. He is a trusted source of advice when tensions rise and he provides support for a clear and encouraging environment, especially when it comes to controversial topics, such as those which brush up against the borderlands of science and history.  John Shandy`   &bull; talk 21:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)