Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

lifebaka

Looking over the other candidates these past two weeks, I haven't seen all that much diversity in them. Pretty much all the strong candidates have lots of involvement at ANI, RFA, other arbitration, etc. While there's nothing wrong with this, I'd like to supply at least some sort of alternative. So, here I am, metaphorically standing as a candidate (I do most of my editing seated, to be honest).
As far as arbitration itself goes, I'm a complete outsider. I've never participated in any case in any way. I do, however, learn fast (then again, so do we all; the learning curve for Wikipedia is pretty steep), so I should be fine in the long run. I assure voters that I wouldn't be running if I didn't feel I am capable of doing a good job on the Committee.
Most of the time I've been active on Wikipedia, both before and after becoming an admin earlier this year, has been spent around the various article deletion processes, at first AfD and then the CSD and DRV. I've worked at DRV for nearly a year now, and am active in editing the CSD policy page and the talk pages of all three. The skill set used in making the decisions for these processes is entirely different from those used at ANI and the like, which I believe would be a useful asset to ArbCom. I also hope it gives me a slightly different perspective than most of the other candidates.
My thoughts on what ArbCom should be doing are pretty much what everyone else says. It should be fast and responsive. Supposing that I am elected, I will do my best to be both, insofar as I am able. Beyond that, I'll try to cause as few drahmahz as possible.
Well, here goes nothing. I sign here, right? lifebaka++ 16:52, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Not a usual suspect, but in a good way. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. iridescent 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oren0 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This user responds quickly to requests for help in a variety of areas (for example, he helped me solve a problem with {{DYKsuggestion}}, and I think his being an outsider will allow him to bring diversity to the committee. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. kurykh 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RockManQReview me 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Epbr123 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. One of the very best! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. DRV disputes are very different than ArbComm disputes. I know his DRV work and support, but think this editor would be a stronger candidate if they spent some time working WP:AE or other dispute resolution fora first. GRBerry 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Realizing you're an outsider is great. Dispute resolution background is also nice to see, although you should take the first month or so to learn how to apply your skills to this position should you be elected. Mike H. Fierce! 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support What we need in arbcom. I also find myself agreeing with much of Lifebaka's views on BLPs. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support While I disagree with some of Lifebaka's views on the precise role of arbcom and its position in the community, my general impression is very positive and my gut feeling is a good one. Answers could be slightly better worded at times, but they do get the point across in a nicely concise way. Brilliantine (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, seems to have a good idea of what's going on and what needs to happen, doesn't seem likely to expand BLP or make policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Clue is important. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support as we need fresh ideas. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. I nominated you for RFA and stick by my nomination there. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Positive and thoughtful in decision making. -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Alexfusco5 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Unusual, but will support. Icy // ♫ 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Synchronism (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. Competence is underrated and I see Lifebaka doing all sorts of things for the community. Time to reward that and give this deserving editor a shot to make serious changes to WP. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. - filelakeshoe 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support one of the regulars who seems to never piss people off, and maintains a cool head. I trust this candidate implicitly, and believe the committee (and the community) will be well served to have Lifebaka on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs)
  35. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Splash - tk 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Liked your answers to the questions, and feel you have a lot of to offer as an outsider to most of the disputes here. If you don't make it this year, I strongly suggest trying again the next. Tiamuttalk 13:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Happy‑melon 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support --VS talk 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support An outside may be good for ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support An outsider with a clue of what really happens on Wikipedia would be a healthy infusion to ArbCom; in this case, the lack of experience is a huge positive for me. Celarnor Talk to me 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Good answers to questions asked, BigDuncTalk 22:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Good new blood with a good history. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Excellent admin, good judgment, and we need new faces on ArbCom. --MCB (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Deb (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Seraphim and Ned, as often they do, have it quite right. Joe 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Per Lar. :) --Elonka 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, due to lack of experience. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. krimpet✽ 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Caspian blue 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Steven Walling (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Majorly talk 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. iMatthew 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No No No. --Mixwell!Talk 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose. There's a lot of diversity in the candidates this year actually, and I'm concerned about your ability to evaluate editors if you've concluded otherwise. I don't really see any articulated vision whatsoever of how you'd be different. --JayHenry (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Nothing personal against this candidate, but there are more qualified candidates running. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Prodego talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Given current problems facing ArbCom, this is not the best time for an outsider (although I would in any other circumstances support a complete outsider, my other opposes re:lack of experience notwithstanding). Next year? //roux   editor review10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — neuro(talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Hopeless on BLP --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. For this, which prompted a following-up comment from Lar. Acalamari 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I agree with GRBerry's rationale, though it led him to support and me to oppose... :) Deletion policy is an important and sadly uncommon skill set, but it's not great preparation for the Committee, and you're just a little too much of an unknown quantity for me to support this year. Keep up the good work, and nothing personal. MastCell Talk 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Synergy 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tiptoety talk 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Weak Oppose Not the time for a complete outsider; we need new faces, but proper experience is still required. GlassCobra 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per GlassCobra (conveiniently right above me :D ).--Koji† 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. When asked to name an Arb decision they disagreed with or would have handled differently, the candidate responded "Give me a day or two for research, pwetty pwease?". That was over a week ago. An apt reflection of the candidacy. Skomorokh 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Nothing personal or specific, I just don't think you're quite seasoned enough for ArbCom. In particular, I would like to see more ... surprise surprise ... ArbCom involvement, or at least mediation of disputes. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose More experience required. --Stormbay (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Gentgeen (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose More experience is needed. I don't feel he's ready at this time. -- Alexf(talk) 12:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Kusma (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Michael Snow (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose due to willingness to sanction on the basis of evidence that the person being sanctioned hasn't seen. Cynical (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Wronkiew (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Seems a nice enough person, but lacks depth and breadth of experience. Answers to questions don't reveal much insight into the nature of the beast, or of how to deal with the post being applied for. SilkTork *YES! 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Per my details. MBisanz talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Tex (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose and a tip: Your assertion that the other candidates aren't "diverse" enough should ideally be backed up by some token effort to differentiate yourself from them. tgies (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose No history of involvement in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Fred Talk 20:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose per JayHenry, Skomorokh, failure to grasp the BLP problem, general knowledge gaps and lack of experience, and misuse of the word "fiat" in his answer to my questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Not sure that I really buy any admin as a "complete outsider". I, too, have had no involvement with ArbCom, but I would still consider myself part of the same prevailing superstructure. Taking this candidacy on its own merits, I feel that the answers to the questions are pretty good but they don't convince me that Lifebaka is better qualified or currently more able than several other candidates. If Lifebaka were to run again next year, having gained more experience, I may well vote the other way. Rje (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose "No diversity" among candidates? They have a lot of diversity! Maybe you should try looking deeper. (PS. I hinted my reason already) Leujohn (talk)
  55. Per MastCell. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose in part b/c of his answer to Mailer Diablo's questions. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Sorry I'm a BLP hawk and I can't in good conscience accept a candidate who I feel doesn't get the BLP problem without good reason otherwise. While I actually partially agree about some of the potential problems with BLP, it seems we are on opposite ends here whereas I'm more concerned about the people harmed by our articles, lifebaka appears to me to be more concerned about our editors which I feel is the wrong approach. While he has decent views on change, it's not enough to make me support or abstain Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 05:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose - I haven't seen lifebaka invest must interest in past ArbCom cases, therefore inexperienced. Caulde 14:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. SQLQuery me! 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Lifebaka

Leave a Reply