Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Alexia Death

:I have a recent ArbCom ruling about me. The case in itself gave me an introspect on what ArbCom tries do be and where it fails. At this moment, the process(not the people) of ArbCom is faulty and conflicting with Wikipedia ideology in many ways. One of those is the concept of prevention over punishment. It is not prevention when you slap everybody around and simply ignore the root issues that make problems like this come to ArbCom again and again. People who end up at ArbCom are all dedicated editors, but they need to be told what is acceptable and what is not, not blocked or restricted for long periods. A month block or an actual enforcement of WP:CIVIL policy at the right time can save a lot of trouble for everybody later without actually driving anybody away. Another part of it is passing judgment and showing involvement on ANY issue raised. My case showed that inconvenient issues were simply ignored, motions looked over without a single comment etc. People who end up at ArbCom need somebody to judge and to pass judgment with authority. I wish to bring that change. Thank you. Alexia Death the Grey 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn my candidacy due to real life issues and other projects taking up most of my time, and I do not wish to waste anyones time. To be quite honest, I never expected to win. Rather, my candidacy was an attempt to make people think about quick fixes and permanent solutions. I thank everybody who voted for me, your agreement with my ideas shows that sanity has not gone out of the world. Those who voted against me, I hope you will find something in my ideas that you can support, if a more deserving person steps forward, because I do believe they hold the key for a better Wikipedia. --Alexia Death the Grey (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support for an intelligent and perceptive candidate that telepathy is not enough when it comes to deliberations.  W. Frank talk ✉  13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Acalamari 21:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Docg 00:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support.Biophys 14:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Moral support. You do have some very good ideas and intelligent answers to the questions, and I hope you stick around and turn things around for the better. However, I do tend to agree with Seraphimblade (#56) below. Grandmasterka 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support I agree with Grandmasterka, you have intelligent answers for questions and can well do the job of arbcom. pruthvi (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I don't care if people say you're too new. We need more people in ArbCom who actually think creatively and constructively rather than joining the country club. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. Dealing with the root of the issues is essential. --Sugaar (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Part of the problem rather than the solution I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. spryde | talk 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. BLACKKITE 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Massive history of block-shopping at ANI and IRC against content opponents alone is more than enough. --Irpen 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Icestorm815 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Tim Q. Wells 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Chaz Beckett 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Awfully new. Has experienced WP largely as a disputant. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Too new This is a Secret account 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nufy8 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Hell no.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not enough experience. Snowolf How can I help? 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  — master sonT - C 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. – Gurch (talk) 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
  18. Mr.Z-man 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. - auburnpilot talk 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No. - Jehochman Talk 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nick 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Prolog 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. — iridescent 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose -- Avi 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Miranda 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Coredesat 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28.  M2Ys4U (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Cryptic 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Alexfusco5 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Stephen 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Too new.Zocky | picture popups 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Too new. Rebecca 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Húsönd 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Mercury 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. KTC 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Sorry. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose -Dureo 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Mbisanz 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. JayHenry 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. — xaosflux Talk 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Spebi 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. - Crockspot 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Davewild 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Sorry. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Arbitrators should not have rulings against them. DrKiernan 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. By the time you're at ArbCom, you've already been told what's unacceptable, and chosen to ignore it over and over. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Nope. --Folantin 09:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Shem(talk) 09:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I'm having a hard time assuming good faith in this nomination. All participants in ethnic feuds have no chance to receive my support. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose: A partisan who has not shown the ability to rise above the fray, and rising above one's own feelings is the single qualification for ArbCom. Geogre 10:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose John Vandenberg 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I consider adminship a basic requirement to run for ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Adminship is not a basic requirement of mine but experience is and 6 months is far too less to be judged on..maybe the next elections..--Cometstyles 12:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose, though note that the statement includes some painfully accurate observations. Splash - tk 12:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Lack of experience, recent inactivity and behavioural concerns. the wub "?!" 13:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose Xoloz 13:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose on experience. Sarah 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Addit: having read this, if there "are more rewarding projects calling out to [you]" I strongly recommend withdrawing and not wasting our or your own time. Sarah 14:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Previous sanctions by Arbcom pretty much rule out serving on the Committee. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - AvruchTalk 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. - Philippe | Talk 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Pi 18:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately i think that with only 6 months of editing and no adminship i am concerned about your experience, but maybe in the future :)[reply]
  73. Oppose Ripberger 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - I don't know, but I'm just not convinced you really have the necessary experience and all that. Sorry. -- Schneelocke 21:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose as per Schneelocke, and most of the others on this list. Mindraker 21:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. —Ruud 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Experience. Kaldari 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --Malcolmxl5 22:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Unfamiliar with this candidate. --Pleasantville 22:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Only six months of experience. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Shot info 23:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Too new, may be great sometime in the future. WjBscribe 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Last I heard from candidate was "There are more rewarding projects calling out to me and my time is limited"[1]. While I appreciate openness, I need to see some willingness to commitment. Moreover, I'm somewhat miffed that the candidate couldn't make eir mind up before hundreds of people are forced to make an informed decision. — Sebastian 00:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. Sorry, much too new ×Meegs 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose, not enough experience -- Imperator3733 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. oppose inexperienced. Merkinsmum 02:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Greg Jones II 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Enuja (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. COGDEN 03:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. Jonathunder 04:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Dekimasuよ! 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose due to three criteria of mine: not an admin; not experienced enough; have negative editorial experience with her Alex Bakharev 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. DarkFalls talk 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Heart probably in the right place (that is to say, I'm certain the user wants to be an arbitrator for the right reasons rather than the wrong ones), but a combination of inexperience and the ArbCom ruling against her is concerning enough to oppose. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    OpposeArbCom ruling Travtim(Talk) 15:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (ineligible to vote Tim! 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  97. oppose Pete.Hurd 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. You do have arbcom experience. Unfortunately it's the wrong kind of experience. Wizardman 18:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Nope Xdenizen (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Michael Snow (talk) 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. Viriditas 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Alexia Death has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior, including sustained edit-warring as well as incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith ~~Sasha Callahan 04:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I must say that a brief examination of the candidate and of her answers to (certain, at least, of) the questions leave me a good bit less inclined to oppose than first I was when I saw Alexia on the candidate list, but there remain some significant concerns. Joe 05:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. VanTucky talk 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Agree with DrKiernan. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose Professor marginalia (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. Wetman (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose padraig
  110. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose docboat (talk) 14:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose TheIslander 15:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Skyclown
    Vote indented, user do not have suffrage. Snowolf How can I help? 16:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. GRBerry 17:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Lack of a detailed answer to NPOV/SPOV question, as well as concerns raised above. Skinwalker (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose as she has already adopted the current ArbCom's pace of work in answering the questions asked of her. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose. Dreadstar † 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose failed to answer several questions, including one very important to me. SashaNein (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose, just too new for this kind of thing. Homestarmy (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Changing my vote to Oppose per concerns of block shopping. Sorry :-( Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Law Lord (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Redstarsldr (talk) 02:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC) To much personal ideas about this issue.[reply]
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More