RomaC

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

Thanks to all who voted and especially those who left feedback on my run for Arbitrator, I appreciate you taking the time to look over my statement despite my relative lack of experience. I will withdraw from the elections at this time as I think the last week might be better spent focusing on the frontrunners. RomaC 14:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia: You take something, you give something back -- that's how I see it. I've been using Wikipedia as an information source for years now, making occasional edits along the way when something was wrong or just awkward. I registered in 2005 and started making more edits. Oh, I donated the piffling sum of $5 to the fundraising drive (but if everyone gave just five dollars...).

Anyway, I love the Wikipedia project and I do what I can to try and keep it progressing. As an arbitrator, well, I'd do what I could to try and keep it progressing. Philosophy? The five pillars work for me. Plus an open and inquiring mind. As for banning, I believe that's got to be the last resort, people will find a way to come back and screw with the project if they are simply kicked out. Better to go in with respect and reason first, help people realize that Wikipedia is their place too. And if that fails, then try again. Of course, sometimes that won't work and action will be necessary -- I'm hopeful but not utopian.

Arbitration is more an art than a science in my opinion -- it is impossible to totally control the environment in which the process takes place. I believe I could bring flexibility and resourcefulness to the task.

I realize that my lack of experience is a concern and that I'm running into the Snowball Clause. I threw my toque into the ring regardless, to participate in the process and learn from it. Perhaps some of you will remember me when I run again in two years!


Questions

Support

  1. Support. --Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --HK 23:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Wally 00:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: Experience isn't everything. Dr. B 17:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support: A good attitude and a reasonable disposition trump experience. Ncsaint 20:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Get real and keep it simple. This is what I'd be doing if I had more time for wikipedia... --Ozkar 06:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Lack of experience. Batmanand 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose for same reason. Staffelde 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose not experienced --Angelo 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:33, Jan. 9, 2006
  16. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Reluctantly must oppose because not quite enough experience yet. Jonathunder 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Bobet 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose 172 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Newness novacatz 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose --Crunch 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. android79 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose--cj | talk 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose, --Interiot 08:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —Nightstallion (?) 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose.  Grue  14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Lack of experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 18:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 20:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:26Z
  37. Splashtalk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Inexperience. (Not even qualified to vote in this election) --EMS | Talk 23:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. older≠wiser 02:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. It's a terrific, but naive, attitude. I'd love to see you edit more articles and become more prevalent in the community. But oppose for now due to LoE. Avriette 06:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Raven4x4x 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose, as Avriette. — It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, inexperience. HGB 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. No mention of arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 22:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose(Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. siafu 03:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  53. Oppose. new user account with less than 100 edits. --JWSchmidt 20:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose, inexperienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Lack of substance with the user statement. Velvetsmog 01:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Krash 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Inexperience. -- William Pietri 00:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Lack of experience. User also hasn't identified that they understand the degree of responsibility that arbitration entails. –Comics (Talk) 08:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 00:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Preaky 01:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Seems resigned to defeat, so doesn't engender much confidence. -- Masonpatriot 05:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not piling it on. Youngamerican 18:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More