Home • Search • Translate
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AnthonyQBachler

My intention is to assist in arbitration on matters of technical or historical fact, or where necessary, disagreement on technical terminology. My list of contributions is rather long, some minor, some major, and include a few articles that I created. I have been a member of Wikipedia since shortly after it began.

Support

  1. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Never heard of you, which is a vast improvement over most candidates. -- B ( talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. I approve this candidate. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support Because based on his responses to the questions, I think he will benefit wikipedia immensely in this position. Dudemeister1234 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 ( talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Tactical support. ST47 ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Moral support Durova Charge! 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Support RMHED ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Tactical Support - are the others for the same reason, I wonder? Brilliantine ( talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Tactical support - For a very important and obvious reason. Scarian Call me Pat! 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. Despite some reservations, this user is clearly more intelligent and principled than some of the other candidates. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos ( talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. No reason. Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Support, not an admin is a good thing, as is his low profile. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Have a cookie -- lucasbfr talk 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Please don't get discouraged. Grand master ka 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Caspian blue 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Avi ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. -- chaser - t 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose Shot info ( talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Voyaging (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Steven Walling (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. -- El on ka 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Majorly talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. iride scent 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. krimpet ✽ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. Avruch T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Doesn't show any significant interest in the position. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. — Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. kur ykh 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. iMatthew 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Koji † 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose J.delanoy gabs adds 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose rootology ( C)( T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose Prodego talk 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Insufficient answers to judge suitability. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose Not an admin, intermittent editing patterns, not enough experience in dispute resolution or general interaction with other editors. Actually, not enough editing experience in general. No exemplary content contributions. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. His recent contributions show inexperience, despite his emphasis on how long ago he registered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose BJ Talk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. GRBerry 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. not enough experience — Chris! c t 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Too inactive. MER-C 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Faking like you would have wanted it may have gotten you some more support votes. Mike H. Fierce! 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose per lack of general editing experience (despite the length of time registered here). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. Not an administrator, questions not answered, no indication of any particular interest in or aptitude for the job.  Sandstein  06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Davewild ( talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose per my prior oppose. Enigma message 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose per lack of editing experience. Ironholds ( talk) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, hasn't answered enough questions for an adequate assessment, doesn't seem to particularly want the job. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. Cirt ( talk) 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and WP:DR and run again. // roux    editor review09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits. Sorry.-- Mark Chung ( talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 ( talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. — neuro (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. -- Conti| ✉ 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose Arbcomm members should be active members of the community first, and your 401 edits is not enough for me. Get more involved in whatever areas of Wikipedia interest you most and I'll reconsider in future years. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. David Shankbone 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose While I don't place too much stock in the number of edits, you have extremely few edits vs. your total time on Wikipedia. This reflects that you would probably not be present on Wikipedia enough to aid in an arbitration case. inclusivedisjunction ( talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose Not enough experience. The Helpful One 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Please don't take it personally; you seem like a solid contributor, but I really think more experience is necessary for this role. MastCell  Talk 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. More experience needed, good luck. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose -- Banime ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Syn ergy 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. I think every arbitrator should be an administrator for a variety of reasons (though this is not a requirement). I feel you need more experience within the community before acting in authority over it. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. 60 edits per year average is simply not enough. You can't have the experience in the way the community works to arbitrate over it. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose Modernist ( talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose JPG-GR ( talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose Sorry, but I need to see consistent high-quality activity. Joe Nu tter 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Glass Cobra 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose. Franamax ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Not at this time, but thanks for offering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose BrianY ( talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose Bearian ( talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Tiptoety talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose Not enough information given above to allow/begin assessment so as to support.-- VS talk 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Arbitration is a job that requires a fairly hefty time commitment (this is not surprising or problematic, because Wikipedia is by some metrics the world's largest single source of information, and the project does need highly-dedicated volunteers who would make time commitments that would not be reasonable at less important sites or for less important organizations.) -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Alex fusco 5 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Guettarda ( talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. +O Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. -- Aude ( talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose: He may have had a Wikipedia account for a long time, but his editing pattern is a handful of sporadic edits followed by several months of inactivity. That's not a level of commitment to the encyclopedia remotely close to the standard to which we hold ArbCom candidates.  RGTraynor  20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. -- Sultec ( talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose. Миша 13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  88. Questions unanswered, candidate does not seem to understand ArbCom's policy vis-a-vis "content disputes" - the policy itself may deserve re-examination, but this is not the man for the job. Badger Drink ( talk) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose; Candidate does not appear to sincerely want this position, which leads me to concerns that the position may become left vacant as soon as it becomes inconvenient or stressful. More experience and more demonstrated interest would be needed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose; Generally unsatisfying answers to questions. Especially those of Giggy's. Inactivity is a big minus also   Marlith (Talk)  03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  91. Kusma ( talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  92. Been around for 5 years and all you have to show for that is a mere 400 edits? ..no thanks..it seems you have no real interest in wikipedia and you are doing this for fun...-- Comet styles 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  93. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  94. Oppose 412 edits in 5 years with edit summaries not always used? I mean, if you suceed, I'll run for ArbCom next year. Leujohn ( talk)
    Not a serious candidate. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  95. Terence ( talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  96. Oppose, as with others, just don't seem to have been involved enough to really know what's going on. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose. I wouldn't oppose AnthonyQBachler in an RfA based on what I have seen, but nor would I feel confident enough to support. Very little involvement in the Project over the years, and no obvious evidence of the knowledge of policies and conflict needed to become a member of ArbCom. SilkTork * YES! 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  98. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  99. — m acy 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  100. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  101. Oppose -- Mixed reasons, lack of administrator status, opening statement, apparent lack of interest, are among them. Mww113 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  102. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose Happy‑ melon 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose. Wikipedia shouldn't be seen merely as a means of improving your CV. More importantly, your attitude towards arbcom secrecy is (to me at least) unpalatable. Cynical ( talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  105. Oppose Wikipeterproject ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  106. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  107. Oppose, with moral support: don't let this discourage you from reaching towards arbcom in the future. It's just that we expect more of a track record making administrative decisions. You may actually make a great arbitrator one day. Try for adminship first. Randomran ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'd suggest that he become an active editor first; just on his activity level alone, he'd go down in flames at RfA.  RGTraynor  22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  108. Not a particularly active member of the project, to say the least. — Manti core 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  109. Oppose I do, I think, appreciate certain qualities and aptitudes that might well (re)commend the candidate to/for ArbCom membership, but so too are there several areas of concern; I regret, in any case, that Anthony did not partake more actively of the election, in order, inter al., that I should have been better able to weigh the former against the latter. Joe 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose - not qualified in my opinion. Shyam ( T/ C) 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  111. Oppose - less of 500 edits-- Rjecina ( talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  112. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose -- Samir 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  114. Oppose Awadewit ( talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  115. Oppose - Not experienced enough. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  116. Tex ( talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  117. Oppose Alohasoy ( talk) 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  118. Oppose Fangfufu ( talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  119. Oppose: not enough tools to handle tasks. Alexius08 ( talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  120. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose Large periods of inactivity. Davidpdx ( talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  122. Oppose SarahPalinesque....-- Buster7 ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  123. Oppose Does not seem to understand what is involved. Fred Talk 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  124. Oppose: Very inexperienced user, with 400 edits, I hardly see that this user is familiar with wikipedia policies, also the inactivity is a problem, we don't want to wait a few months for action from ArbCom. – Jerry teps 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose Not nearly active enough; hasn't adequately answered questions tgies ( talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  126. Oppose-- thunderboltz (TALK) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  127. Oppose Gazi moff 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  128. Oppose. Lack of experience and regular activity. Rje ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  129. Strong oppose. Complete and utter lack of experience. Computerjoe 's talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  130. Oppose Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  131. Oppose Simply not enough edit history ( Quentin X ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
    Oppose lack of experience and regular activity Lost Kiwi (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  132. Oppose' Nil Einne ( talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  133. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  134. Oppose Switzpaw ( talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  135. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  136. — Sebastian 09:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  137. Oppose. Inexperienced; both as an editor and someone with interests in ArbCom. Caulde 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  138. SQL Query me! 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  139.   jj137 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  140. Oppose -- Stux ( talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  141. Oppose - rationale. the wub "?!" 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/AnthonyQBachler&oldid=1221636456"
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AnthonyQBachler

My intention is to assist in arbitration on matters of technical or historical fact, or where necessary, disagreement on technical terminology. My list of contributions is rather long, some minor, some major, and include a few articles that I created. I have been a member of Wikipedia since shortly after it began.

Support

  1. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, -- A Nobody My talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. Never heard of you, which is a vast improvement over most candidates. -- B ( talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. I approve this candidate. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Support Because based on his responses to the questions, I think he will benefit wikipedia immensely in this position. Dudemeister1234 ( talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 ( talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. Tactical support. ST47 ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Moral support Durova Charge! 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Support RMHED ( talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Tactical Support - are the others for the same reason, I wonder? Brilliantine ( talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Tactical support - For a very important and obvious reason. Scarian Call me Pat! 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. Despite some reservations, this user is clearly more intelligent and principled than some of the other candidates. -- JayHenry ( talk) 05:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos ( talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. No reason. Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. Support, not an admin is a good thing, as is his low profile. DuncanHill ( talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. Have a cookie -- lucasbfr talk 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Please don't get discouraged. Grand master ka 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  4. Caspian blue 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Avi ( talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  6. -- chaser - t 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  7. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose Shot info ( talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  9. Voyaging (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  10. Steven Walling (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. -- El on ka 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  12. MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose Majorly talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  14. iride scent 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  15. – Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  16. krimpet ✽ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  17. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  18. Avruch T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  19. Doesn't show any significant interest in the position. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  20. — Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  21. kur ykh 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  22. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  23. See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  24. - NuclearWarfare contact me My work 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  25. iMatthew 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  26. -- Mixwell! Talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  27. -- Koji † 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  28. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose J.delanoy gabs adds 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose rootology ( C)( T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose Prodego talk 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  32. Insufficient answers to judge suitability. John Vandenberg ( chat) 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose Not an admin, intermittent editing patterns, not enough experience in dispute resolution or general interaction with other editors. Actually, not enough editing experience in general. No exemplary content contributions. Dabomb87 ( talk) 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  34. His recent contributions show inexperience, despite his emphasis on how long ago he registered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose BJ Talk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  36. GRBerry 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  37. not enough experience — Chris! c t 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  38. Too inactive. MER-C 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  39. Faking like you would have wanted it may have gotten you some more support votes. Mike H. Fierce! 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  40. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  41. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose per lack of general editing experience (despite the length of time registered here). ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  43. Not an administrator, questions not answered, no indication of any particular interest in or aptitude for the job.  Sandstein  06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  44. Davewild ( talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose per my prior oppose. Enigma message 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose per lack of editing experience. Ironholds ( talk) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, hasn't answered enough questions for an adequate assessment, doesn't seem to particularly want the job. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. Cirt ( talk) 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and WP:DR and run again. // roux    editor review09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits. Sorry.-- Mark Chung ( talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 ( talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  50. — neuro (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  51. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  54. -- Conti| ✉ 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose -- CrohnieGal Talk 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose Arbcomm members should be active members of the community first, and your 401 edits is not enough for me. Get more involved in whatever areas of Wikipedia interest you most and I'll reconsider in future years. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  57. David Shankbone 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose While I don't place too much stock in the number of edits, you have extremely few edits vs. your total time on Wikipedia. This reflects that you would probably not be present on Wikipedia enough to aid in an arbitration case. inclusivedisjunction ( talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  60. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose Not enough experience. The Helpful One 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  63. Please don't take it personally; you seem like a solid contributor, but I really think more experience is necessary for this role. MastCell  Talk 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  64. More experience needed, good luck. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  65. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose -- Banime ( talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  67. Syn ergy 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  68. I think every arbitrator should be an administrator for a variety of reasons (though this is not a requirement). I feel you need more experience within the community before acting in authority over it. Best, PeterSymonds ( talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. 60 edits per year average is simply not enough. You can't have the experience in the way the community works to arbitrate over it. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose Modernist ( talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose JPG-GR ( talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose Sorry, but I need to see consistent high-quality activity. Joe Nu tter 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  73. Glass Cobra 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose. Franamax ( talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  75. Not at this time, but thanks for offering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose BrianY ( talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose Bearian ( talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  78. Tiptoety talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose Not enough information given above to allow/begin assessment so as to support.-- VS talk 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Arbitration is a job that requires a fairly hefty time commitment (this is not surprising or problematic, because Wikipedia is by some metrics the world's largest single source of information, and the project does need highly-dedicated volunteers who would make time commitments that would not be reasonable at less important sites or for less important organizations.) -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  80. Alex fusco 5 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  81. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  82. Guettarda ( talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  83. +O Ling.Nut ( talk— WP:3IAR) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  84. -- Aude ( talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose: He may have had a Wikipedia account for a long time, but his editing pattern is a handful of sporadic edits followed by several months of inactivity. That's not a level of commitment to the encyclopedia remotely close to the standard to which we hold ArbCom candidates.  RGTraynor  20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  86. -- Sultec ( talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose. Миша 13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  88. Questions unanswered, candidate does not seem to understand ArbCom's policy vis-a-vis "content disputes" - the policy itself may deserve re-examination, but this is not the man for the job. Badger Drink ( talk) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose; Candidate does not appear to sincerely want this position, which leads me to concerns that the position may become left vacant as soon as it becomes inconvenient or stressful. More experience and more demonstrated interest would be needed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose; Generally unsatisfying answers to questions. Especially those of Giggy's. Inactivity is a big minus also   Marlith (Talk)  03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  91. Kusma ( talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  92. Been around for 5 years and all you have to show for that is a mere 400 edits? ..no thanks..it seems you have no real interest in wikipedia and you are doing this for fun...-- Comet styles 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  93. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  94. Oppose 412 edits in 5 years with edit summaries not always used? I mean, if you suceed, I'll run for ArbCom next year. Leujohn ( talk)
    Not a serious candidate. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  95. Terence ( talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  96. Oppose, as with others, just don't seem to have been involved enough to really know what's going on. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose. I wouldn't oppose AnthonyQBachler in an RfA based on what I have seen, but nor would I feel confident enough to support. Very little involvement in the Project over the years, and no obvious evidence of the knowledge of policies and conflict needed to become a member of ArbCom. SilkTork * YES! 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  98. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  99. — m acy 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  100. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  101. Oppose -- Mixed reasons, lack of administrator status, opening statement, apparent lack of interest, are among them. Mww113 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  102. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose Happy‑ melon 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose. Wikipedia shouldn't be seen merely as a means of improving your CV. More importantly, your attitude towards arbcom secrecy is (to me at least) unpalatable. Cynical ( talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  105. Oppose Wikipeterproject ( talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  106. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  107. Oppose, with moral support: don't let this discourage you from reaching towards arbcom in the future. It's just that we expect more of a track record making administrative decisions. You may actually make a great arbitrator one day. Try for adminship first. Randomran ( talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    I'd suggest that he become an active editor first; just on his activity level alone, he'd go down in flames at RfA.  RGTraynor  22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  108. Not a particularly active member of the project, to say the least. — Manti core 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  109. Oppose I do, I think, appreciate certain qualities and aptitudes that might well (re)commend the candidate to/for ArbCom membership, but so too are there several areas of concern; I regret, in any case, that Anthony did not partake more actively of the election, in order, inter al., that I should have been better able to weigh the former against the latter. Joe 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose - not qualified in my opinion. Shyam ( T/ C) 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  111. Oppose - less of 500 edits-- Rjecina ( talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  112. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose -- Samir 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  114. Oppose Awadewit ( talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  115. Oppose - Not experienced enough. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  116. Tex ( talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  117. Oppose Alohasoy ( talk) 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  118. Oppose Fangfufu ( talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  119. Oppose: not enough tools to handle tasks. Alexius08 ( talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  120. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose Large periods of inactivity. Davidpdx ( talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  122. Oppose SarahPalinesque....-- Buster7 ( talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  123. Oppose Does not seem to understand what is involved. Fred Talk 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  124. Oppose: Very inexperienced user, with 400 edits, I hardly see that this user is familiar with wikipedia policies, also the inactivity is a problem, we don't want to wait a few months for action from ArbCom. – Jerry teps 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose Not nearly active enough; hasn't adequately answered questions tgies ( talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  126. Oppose-- thunderboltz (TALK) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  127. Oppose Gazi moff 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  128. Oppose. Lack of experience and regular activity. Rje ( talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  129. Strong oppose. Complete and utter lack of experience. Computerjoe 's talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  130. Oppose Paranormal Skeptic ( talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  131. Oppose Simply not enough edit history ( Quentin X ( talk) 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)) reply
    Oppose lack of experience and regular activity Lost Kiwi (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro (talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  132. Oppose' Nil Einne ( talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  133. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  134. Oppose Switzpaw ( talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  135. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  136. — Sebastian 09:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  137. Oppose. Inexperienced; both as an editor and someone with interests in ArbCom. Caulde 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  138. SQL Query me! 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  139.   jj137 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  140. Oppose -- Stux ( talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
  141. Oppose - rationale. the wub "?!" 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/AnthonyQBachler&oldid=1221636456"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE