Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/DoctorMike

< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006‎ | Vote

DoctorMike

My name is Michael Russell, and I am a Ph.D. Clinical Psychologist practicing in Southern Virginia. I have been a long time user of Wikipedia, but only recently started actively posting, researching, and participating in the back end of the product. I am willing to devote the time to Wikipedia, because I believe it is a noble and worthwhile project.

Growing up in an academic environment where one is expected to be "peer reviewed", I am amazed that this system works as well as it does. I am concerned that the internet seems to be spawning pressure groups pushing for their particular positions or advocacy, and that further many of these seem willing to take liberty with facts in an "end justifies the means" point of view. I watch on-line polls being "pushed" daily, ratings played with at Amazon or IMDB, and have no doubt this happens here as well. I do not support distortion of fact to make a case--if your argument can't be made with facts, it probably needs to be reconsidered.

I will be as fair and as unbiased as possible, and see no reason legitimate conflicts can't often be included in Wiki articles as a discussion, to the satisfaction of all concerned that they have been heard, which is probably the best way to solve many of these conflicts.

I am 47 years old, graduate of the University of Washington (Seattle).

Questions

Support

  1. Support. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Davidpdx 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Meekohi 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support His professional experience and his thoughts about manipulation are exactly the sorts of ideas (and ideals) we need to try to stay focused on. --JohnDBuell 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support I love his reference to peer-reviewed journals. It shows that he understands the role of the arbcom as, effectively, the peer reviewers for an otherwise anarchical encyclopedia. And he doesn't suffer from the delusion that his position is, well, that of a therapist. Anybody who has the honesty and astuteness to say, "[I]f your argument can't be made with facts, it probably needs to be reconsidered," deserves the position. Corax 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support great academic background. --Zzzzzzus 13:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)zzzzzzus[reply]
  7. Support--The Brain 18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as per Corax; someone needs to rein these people in. Septentrionalis 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Rangek 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Limegreen 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Strong support. Anyone who doesn't think this guy has any experience doesn't seem to be paying attention to his appeal. He's got a Ph.D in Psychology. If I'm not mistakin, psychologists work with people's minds.Dr. B 21:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support --Ignignot 17:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support - Maybe inexperienced with Wikipedia, but otherwise rational and sensible. --NorkNork 20:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Jared 12:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Wikityke 21:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Preaky 06:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - Wikipedia needs more credentialed persons and people from the outside to contribute. Calwatch 08:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. Oh, what the hell, even if you ARE an officer. If this doesn't work out, stick around and pitch in until the next round of elections. --Calton | Talk 13:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Samboy 22:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support -Hoekenheef 12:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Slicey 13:51, 19 January 2006 (UTC) The addition of a committee member with a PhD will be an asset to wikipedia.[reply]
  21. Strong Support - I generally oppose anti-elitism in Wikipedia and welcome individuals with good experience with scientific Peer Review. Real life experience wins over in this case. - JustinWick 03:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Skiasaurus 20:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User's first edit was January 2, 2006; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support CDThieme 23:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Liked statement a lot, but just has not been around for long enough. A definite support in future, but just not now. Sorry. Batmanand 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose this time around. Antandrus (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, experience —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bunchofgrapes (talk • contribs) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose inexperience--ragesoss 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose — Omegatron 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:23, 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) 03:05, Jan. 9, 2006
  22. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Bobet 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose inexperience older≠wiser 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Very reluctant Oppose - Definitely the sort of person I want to see run for ArbCom... but he needs more experience here in order to do the job. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Inexperienced. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose --Crunch 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Please run again next year. Paul August ☎ 05:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Yes, don't be discouraged Fred Bauder 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. android79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose.  Grue  06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. siafu 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose--cj | talk 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Inexperience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose until more experienced. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:09Z
  40. Oppose why? ++Lar: t/c 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Way too new to the project. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 09:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Lupo 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose, maybe next time. --kingboyk 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose weakly; I like many of his ideas, but there's not enough of a track record for me to support his bid this time around. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Reluctant oppose. I like the statement and probably would support if not for the lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose inexperience. Also you haven't addressed any of the concerns expressed in your questions. Sarah Ewart 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Lack of XP. I'd advise the candidate to withdraw, personally. —Nightstallion (?) 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™  12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. DoctorMike is too new to fully understand the ins and outs of Wikipedia imho. Thryduulf 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Sounds like a great candidate, but definitely needs more experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Would love to see the Doc active this year so that he has the experience to be an arbitrator next year. --Habap 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. STRONG OPPOSE Issues raised in questions page are major red flags!!! --EMS | Talk 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - Masonpatriot 18:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose at this point of time. Still tabula rasa, as far as Wikipedia is concerned. --romanm (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose: Probably a real bonus for us as a user, but ArbCom elections are all about conflict, I'm afraid, and people must be well known quantities for folks to support them. Geogre 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. He's only been here for a week, but he has considerable potential. Likely to support next year. --KHill-LTown 21:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 22:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Too new. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Splashtalk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Would be happy to see you contribute, but don't think PhD belongs in ArbCom. Avriette 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Candidate statement does not address arbitration. Fifelfoo 00:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Try again next time! :) Neutralitytalk 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Vsmith 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Raven4x4x 08:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Lack of experience--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. Lack of experience. Get some more time under your belt and run again. Velvetsmog 22:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Weak oppose Inexperienced Timrollpickering 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose, way too new (actively) on here. KTC 05:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose Low exp --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 03:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. new user account --JWSchmidt 05:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 20:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000   01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose. Great statement. Too soon for ArbCom. Sunray 09:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. Also has so few edits that he can't even vote in this election. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose I wasnt even going to vote in this election (I barely qualify), until i read his appeal, very well spoken and I was ready to support, until noticing how new his account is. Maybe next time. --Omniwolf 19:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose per Mailer Diablo. Youngamerican 14:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Itake 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose - Inexperience kaal 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo talk 18:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Pete.Hurd 05:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose due to inexperience (although I really like his statement). —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose I'm sceptical about the education just because of the tone and as if that's really going to help with arbcom. (Bjorn Tipling 06:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  101. Oppose Experience. --Spondoolicks 20:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, like only bits and pieces of what he has to offer.Alex43223 05:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/DoctorMike&oldid=1087298011"