Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Comments/Unomi

This is a public page for voters who wish to comment briefly on the candidacy of Unomi or the way they have voted in relation to the candidate. For extended discussion, please use the attached talk page.

Voting in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee elections will be open until 23:59 UTC on 14 December 2009, at which time this page will be archived.

To cast your vote, please go to your personal SecurePoll ballot page. Only votes submitted through the SecurePoll election system will be counted.

• Opposing through inexperience, pure and simple; 127 article space edits to date is less than many of us have managed in a single day.  RGTraynor  15:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Very little experience of editing - indeed, still appears to be learning how to edit comfortably. No experience of adminship and responsibility. With so little experience, candidate would normally be advised to wait before applying for adminship, let alone ArbCom. With gratitude for the offer of helping out, it might, however, be more helpful to the community for candidate to withdraw to save people time investigating the candidate's potential. Neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 16:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Oppose. SilkTork *^YES! 12:38, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed; I simply cannot support this candidate on the basis of inexperience. The answers to the questions were simply too short and lacked sufficient content for me to ignore the lack of visible experience on Wikipedia. With neither question answers nor visible presence on Wikipedia to support the candidate, I cannot justify supporting election to ArbCom at this time. However, your eagerness to help out is duly appreciated and hopefully this will work to your favor in the future when you have gained experience. --Mpdelbuono (talk) 01:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well-meaning but not ready - I am not sure the candidate comprehends the trial of fire that serving on ArbCom is (which has snared even some of our best contributors). Orderinchaos 04:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Opposed on the basis of inexperience and demonstration of continuing questionable grasp on Wikipedia policies including civility (see, for example, a recent example). As this user began editing with agenda-promoting and sock-reminiscent behaviour resulting in a checkuser, I would have to continue to oppose in the future without evidence of a clear and lasting change in behaviour. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 00:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This comment is the subject of discussion on the talkpage.  Skomorokh  16:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Not a bad candidacy, but not enough experience yet, see User:Camaron/ACE2009 for details. Camaron · Christopher · talk 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]