Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/KyleHamilton - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boothy443 (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 15 January 2006 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 05:57, 15 January 2006 by Boothy443 (talk | contribs) (→Oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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

Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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)
Support. Like his reasoning. --Dogbreathcanada 02:30, 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. ℬastique▼♥♑ 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. SupportDr. B 21:31, 11 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 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 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 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. – Quadell 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! - <*> 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose, experience. —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 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. Ëvilphoenix 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. android79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Too new. — Catherine\ 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 | 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 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_>|< 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, xp --kingboyk 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Not enough experience (in beating people with sticks :))—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. —Quarl 2006-01-09 20:13Z
  38. Oppose - not active enough, needs experience. Awolf002 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose, as Awolf. --It'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. Hermione1980 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Splash 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 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. older≠wiser 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Opposed based on the answers to questions and overall expression of understanding. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 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 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 00:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. Inexperience -Kmf164 (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)

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)