Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

George The Dragon

I, George The Dragon, am standing in order to give the community a chance to decide how they are governed. Currently, User:Jimbo Wales decides who to appoint to the Arbcom. Mr Wales retains the right to ignore the results of this poll and appoint whomever he so desires. A vote for me will be a vote to say this situation is not right and then Mr Wales will have to decide whether to appoint me or use his powers as Wikipedia's de facto Constitutional Monarch to appoint someone else.

Has not Wikipedia now reached a stage where we need to be free of the whims and personal views of one man?

It's really as simple as that: Who governs Wikipedia - one man or all of us?

Support

  1. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't entirely agree with the platform, but answers were good. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Statement is a bit silly, but question answers were excellent. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support. Not so much for the statement, but for the answers to the questions I (and others) posed. Why my vote? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Judging from George the Dragon's responses to the candidate questions posed, I hope this editor will step in sometimes as amicus curiae in ArbCom cases in the coming year, to demonstrate suitability for 2009 election.--Wetman (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - I like the idea of a constitutional crises. Zginder 2008-12-02T03:31Z (UTC)
  10. Support As per User:Zginder... This is a WP:SNOW oppose win, so why not vote against the current when its safe?--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support per answers to questions, particularly Lar's. MookieZ (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral Support - per Lar and the fact I hate opposes based on "this sure is not an admin". not reasonable enough...--Cometstyles 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Of the "breath of fresh air" candidates this one is the most interesting. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support RMHED (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Would make a great arbitrator. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Moral Support for being the only candidate statement so far to make a straightforward suggestion to improve the project rather than being full of wikipolitician prose. Cynical (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support --Dezidor (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Eóin (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Terence (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Moral Support for having a sensible straightfoward goal. Leujohn (talk)
  22. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Per Jimbo's recent toss up RE giano.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Revolution. Alun (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Gregg (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. Mensuur (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I like the Jimbo system.--chaser - t 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voyaging(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I cannot support a Molotov cocktail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --Elonka 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Majorly talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I agree with you about Jimbo, but I don't think we have a viable replacement yet. iridescent 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. --Kanonkas :  Talk  01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Kuru talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oren0 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Steven Walling (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Even the nom statement is chock-full of wikipolitics. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Sorry, even-keeled temperament is an absolute requirement for any arbitrator in my view. Avruch T 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Pcap ping 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. iMatthew 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Koji† 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ҉ Sorry :) --Mixwell!Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. J.delanoygabsadds 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose JodyB talk 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sorry, but I think you have a really poor attitude; ArbCom requires magnanimity, an area in which I think you're lacking. --David Shankbone 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I agree that Wikipedia has grown too large to be "governed" by Jimbo, but that doesn't make you qualified for ArbCom. On top of that, the answers you gave to Lar truly worry me. Oppose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. oppose GtstrickyTalk or C 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Incompetence. Prodego talk 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose BJTalk 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. While I agree with regard to Jimbo, I don't want this editor on the Arbitration committee. GRBerry 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. kurykh 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I wish we could speed up the Jimbo devolution too, but this sort of referendum candidacy is the wrong way to go about it. Other concerns as well. --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. per JayHenry. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Concerned by this candidate's temperament. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Do not have a good impression of user. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose --Caspian blue
  43. A lot of us want to see a lot less Jimmy (like the Queen of England, you see her in photo ops but never in an actual governing position where it matters), but voting for you won't be the way to go about it. It's too vague. Mike H. Fierce! 05:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose per concerns about attitude and temperament. I am not convinced this editor would be responsible in the position. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose - Per Titoxd (#31). --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose I didn't think the answers to questions were that bad but question the ability of this user to divorce their personal views from their on-wiki judgement. I have a couple of other concerns too. Brilliantine (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux   editor review09:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose, no real substance to candidacy, and supports BLPSE/on demand deletion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. I feel adminship is a necessary prerequisite to ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. — neuro(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Mailer Diablo 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Synergy 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Conti|✉ 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Personally, I can't bring myself to care about you one way oe the other, but this sort of pointy candidacy ought to leave as big a black mark as possible in order to discourage future pointy candidacies. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Nothing personal; good answers to the questions, but I really think that some experience as an admin is necessary for this role. MastCell Talk 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Concern over conduct, plans if elected, and experience. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose I support Jimbo.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose, --A NobodyMy talk 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Not because I disagree or agree with your statement but because I cannot support a candidate who runs on such a basis. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Tiptoety talk 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose as making a grandstanding point - not a good starting pointing to be an Arb. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose This sentence turned me away: One day, this project will be edited, administrated and governed by people with as much quality and ability as Giano. Until that day, why should anyone be surprised that Wikipedia has critics, has people prepared to attack it, has proof that it defames senior politicians so many times?— Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose The Helpful One 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. No. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. GlassCobra 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - points about Jimbo are fair enough, but we need people whose focus is on improving the processes of ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - BrianY (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Drama seeker. Possible might have added some content at some stage, but wheather or not is now lost in the hot air and either. No thanks, very much. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Alexfusco5 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. Nice idea, and I'd support your ends - but single issues candidates will still have to do the job. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Not an admin, too political --Sultec (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - lack of answers to several questions bring a foreboding, C68-FM-SV sorta feeling. Badger Drink (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. While I have no problem with reducing Jimbo's role, needs to focus more on other issues as opposed to only this one, minor one, which is enacted (from what I understand) not very frequently. Joe Nutter 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose - I'd sooner vote for a random IP editor to ARBCOM. Too much drama, too little real contributions. Trusilver 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Poor answers and an overdramatic candidate statement devoid of facts.  Marlith (Talk)  03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Kusma (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose You voted oppose to some other candidates. The fact that you voted support to some others gives partial redemption but still opposing your fellow candidates is very poor.--Avg (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose - Never thought this Wikipedian had the right attitude to even be an admin. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. That's it? You're basing your whole candidacy on not letting Jimbo appoint ArbCom? He's always picked the top vote getters except for a small exception one year. I mean, I think the top vote-getters should just get in, too, but there are real issues the new ArbCom is going to have to deal with, and this is ridiculously trivial next to that. Grandmasterka 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. OpposeI can find no information in the nomination that shows this user is qualified for the job. He statement clearly shows he is trying to prove something. Arbcom is not the place for agendas.--Adam in MO Talk 09:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose. Candidate has little evidence of all round experience of building the project. Contributions appear to be mainly vandal reverts, and some minor comments on Admin noticeboards which add little to the discussions themselves. Lack of perception and insight. Lack of generating respect. Lack of conflict resolution experience. There's a lot lacking here for someone putting themselves forward for ArbCom. The candidate's statement in itself is not helpful. SilkTork *YES! 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose --VS talk 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Shyam (T/C) 09:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Tex (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. SashaNein (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Disliking Jimbo's role in the community doesn't make you qualified for ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Goofy melodramatic Wikipedia politics abound tgies (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose I like this candidate's answers more than those of any other editor I'm opposing, but I don't believe that his record on the project is one that inspires confidence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Appreciate the sentiment, but this isn't a serious nomination. — Manticore 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose Gazimoff 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose Fred Talk 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose Grandstanding in his statement is enough to demonstrate his unsuitability for the role. Rje (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Opposee Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a theocracy or a monarchy. Computerjoe's talk 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose, with some reluctance. I was ready to support the candidate strongly—he professes to appreciate well the nature of the project (as one in which, most notably, the community are sovereign [or, precisely, bound only by the official dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation] and that [almost] nothing here is immutable)—but his answers to Lar's questions reveal an astounding willingness to abandon his admirable elevation of the community where the decisions the community might make are inconsistent with those that he should like, at least with respect to BLP (as, e.g., in, "Given the seriousness of enforcing BLP policy, if the community fail to act strongly, I have no real problem with ArbCom stepping in for both the good of the project and, far more importantly, the subject of the BLP", which plainly suggests a willingness to substitute his judgment for that of the community, which would, after all, be entirely within its rights to jettison BLP tomorrow [or at least after some extended community-wide discussion] absent some intervention by the Board of Trustees or someone acting pursuant to a delegation of authority thereby). I like almost all of the candidate's answers, and I quite like the candidate qua person and editor, but the most pernicious thing the committee have done across the past year-plus is to usurp the role of the community in the formulation of BLP and the practices that follow, and I can take no chance on a candidate, even one who offers as much good as does George, of whose commitment to judicial restraint and deference to the community I cannot be certain. Joe 06:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. per Wikipedia:NOT. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose - he's right about Jimbo, but I can't agree with him about anonymity. It's one of the key policies of Wikipedia, and forbidding anonymous editing, even on an area as important as BLPs, would cause more problems than it would solve. Terraxos (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. Caulde 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. SQLQuery me! 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose -- lucasbfr talk 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/George_The_Dragon

Leave a Reply