From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First of all, happy new year to all voters. I have been working here for three years and three months. While I know that alone doesn't mean I could be an arbitrator, I promise if I am honored with such position I will do my best to solve discrepances according to wikipedia principles, and to keep expanding wikipedia into the website I think it will be, in other words, the website of the 00's. Furthermore, I will keep pursuing unity among writers.
Antonio New year, new resolutions Martin 12:37, 1 January, 2006 (UTC)
Questions
Exeperienced --
Jaranda
wat's sup
00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Guettarda
00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Experienced, communicates clearly.--
ragesoss
00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
PRueda29 /
Ptalk29 /
Pcontribs29
00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Bfraga
00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support He seems to be experienced and fair enough for the position. --
Angelo
00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - He is a dilligent contributor and a fair-minded fellow. →
P . M a c U i d h i r
(t)
(c)
00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Raven4x4x
01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support. Seems experienced and fair. --
Bumpusmills1
01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support.
r b-j
02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Xoloz
02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Linuxbeak (drop me a
line )
03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Joaquin Murietta
04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Have worked with him on WikiProjects. Diligent and fair.
reply
Support . You are very experienced, and therefore, you know what is going on, and can assist ArbCom.
Ian Manka
Questions? Talk to me!
03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support - it's an experience thing. -
Stevecov
04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
support
Grutness ...
wha?
04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Tony the Marine
04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support –
Clockwork
Soul
05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Scott
eiπ
05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support seems a good candidate.
Grue
06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , good guy, sure to be fair.
Sam Spade
06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
Kefalonia
09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong support : he is a fine candidate, as an experienced, egalitarian, and seemingly fair user. --
It's-is-not-a-genitive
10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Fairness with a capital F is what I've seen from this user. —
Nightstallion
(?)
11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Davidpdx
12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Mild Support --- Responses to
Chazz's talk page . Signed by
Chazz @
12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Adrian Buehlmann
14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , bill of rights silliness notwithstanding, he seems like a dedicated contributer who would be a good addition
Masonpatriot
16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , dedicated member of the wikipedia community, and always ready to give a helping hand in controversial issues.
Cjrs 79
17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support --
Petros471
18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . --
HK
22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Abögarp .
22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support.
<K
F>
22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Silas Snider
(talk)
04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Willmcw /
user:Will Beback /
09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
青い(Aoi)
10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . Honest and experienced. —
Asbestos |
Talk
(RFC)
16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo
00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support .
Rangek
02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , experienced and sounds fair. --
JSIN
06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , a good soul with an exemplary editing record.
Cedars
10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , naturally.
Hedley
22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , been here long time, knows what to do.
Alex43223
04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , experienced and civil.
Zocky
10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , fine by me.
Deckiller
01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support . (
SEWilco
03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) )
reply
Support . Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft
18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support I agree with his nomination.
Vertical123
05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong Support . Oh, Yeah!
Sebastian Kessel
Talk
05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support My only regret about this vote is that I didn't know voting had started yet --
mav
Support
Tiles
09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
WolfBane06
18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
User's first edit was January 16 and has less than 150 edits; most likely does not have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note? )
21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak Support
evrik
16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate would expand the diversity of the Committee.
reply
support .
Gentgeen
18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
support Sounds like a good moderate voice.
User:jaedza 21:45 (UTC), 19 January 2005
Support
Calwatch
06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support , experienced....... speaks clearly too.
Edraf
10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]]
18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Deb
10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Argentino
20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Carptrash
05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
Pacific Coast Highway |
Leave a message ($.25) 09:14, 23 July 2024
UTC [
refresh
Support Seems dedicated to the spirit of the project. --
Spondoolicks
19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Support
CDThieme
23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Zach
(Smack Back)
Fair use policy
00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , questions. See my
voting rationale .
Talrias (
t |
e |
c )
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Michael Snow
00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose -
Mackensen
(talk)
00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . --
GraemeL
(talk)
00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk )
00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose policy.
David |
explanation |
Talk
00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , policy.
Carbonite |
Talk
00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak, reluctant oppose. Antonio is a sweetie, but his support for the "code of conduct" and "bill of rights" nonsense forces me to oppose.
Ambi
00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
TacoDeposit
01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson -
Shazaam! -
<*>
01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Tony Sidaway |
Talk
01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . --
Viriditas
01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Don't feel Antonio has the right stuff for arbcom, bill of rights crap notwithstanding.
Johnleemk |
Talk
02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
—
Guan
aco
02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
older ≠
wiser
03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose.
Crunch
03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose.
Dave
03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. Per Ambi.
172
03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Rhobite
03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi.
FCYTravis
04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
SlimVirgin
(talk)
04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Hamster Sandwich
05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose fluffy bunny no content candidate statement.
Fifelfoo
05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Fred Bauder
05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
I don't know you , but wish you the best.
Ëvilphoenix
Burn!
05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
android
79
05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose I see nothing in his statement or his user page that recommends him for this sensitive position. --
EMS |
Talk
06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
siafu
06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . As Ambi. ·
Katefan0
(scribble) /
mrp
06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose Blatant political style campaigning in statement & Ambi--
Tznkai
06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose -
WP:NOT and can't be a democracy. ---
Charles Stewart
08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Lupo
09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose as per Ambi.
Sarah Ewart
09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , while I am impressed by your experience I do not feel you would be right for ArbCom.
the wub
"?!"
RFR - a good idea?
11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
weak oppose , I'm not certain Antonio has fully grasped that
Wikipedia is not a democracy .
Thryduulf
11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk
12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose sorry but I must oppose.
ALKIVAR
™
12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , his statement and answers lean towards the bureaucratic and to using the letter rather than spirit of the rules.
R
adiant
_>|<
13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Meekohi
13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose I agree with the criticism of a bureaucratic problem.
Nick Kerr
13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose as per Thryduulf.
Ξxtreme Unction |
yakkity yak
13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
oppose - per ambi.
novacatz
14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . Candidate statement did not impress me much.—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)
14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
The Literate Engineer
15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . As per Radiant —the preceding
unsigned comment is by
Reflex Reaction (
talk •
contribs ) 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
Jkelly
17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak oppose - Wikipedia aims towards consensus, not democracy. --
AySz88^
-
^
19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Jim62sch
21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Gamaliel
21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . I like Antonio, but not for Arbcom. —
Matthew Brown (
T :
C )
21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Splash
talk
22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Avriette
22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . experienced yes, but understanding of arbitration, not demonstrated.--
cjllw |
TALK
23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . evidence to indicate sound arbitration judgement? --
JWSchmidt
00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi. --
SCZenz
01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi & others above.
Vsmith
01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi & others.
Velvetsmog
01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , lack of experience.
User:Siddiqui
01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . Supports the Bill of Rights. --
Carnildo
08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
E Pluribus Anthony |
talk |
10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose weak candidate statement
Robdurbar
12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
enochlau (
talk )
13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose -
Liberatore (
T )
14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per questions--
Birgitte§β ʈ
Talk
17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , lots of edits, but lacks community involvement.
HGB
18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Bill of Rights support and other worries.
Ral315
(talk)
19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
The Jade Knight
19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
No experience in resolving conflict, uses Wikipedia as a chat forum
[1]
[2]
[3] , dedicates articles to other people
[4]
[5] , which might be a violation of
WP:OWN .
JoaoRicardo
talk
19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose as per ambi
William M. Connolley
21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) .
reply
Oppose per Ambi --
Loopy
e
23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Timrollpickering
01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose sees words of rules, but not their depth and meaning, or even, lack thereof!
Ciriii
02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Weak oppose . —
David Wahler
(talk)
02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . not me
70.239.214.133
06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Anons do not have suffrage. Regards,
Ben Aveling
06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose --
Masssiveego
07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose.
Andre (
talk )
14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose : Experience isn't everything. Makes a weak argument for himself.
Dr. B
17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Lincolnite
19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Frenchgeek
21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Superm401 |
Talk
02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Sunray
07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose as per joao
Bjrobinson
10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose While I like your experience, I am voting for those that want to make information free to everyone instead of creating "the website of the 00's" --
Ignignot
16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose –
AB
C
D
e
✉
17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , reluctantly --
Francs
2000
01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose .
Preaky
05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
--
Boothy443 |
trácht ar
05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi and Radiant
Youngamerican
14:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Itake
23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose . Sorry.
Detriment
00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage.
Flcelloguy (
A note? )
00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose per Ambi.
kaal
16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Though obviously a strong contributor, seems rather naïve and simplistic, and not prepared to make hard answers to hard questions.
Ingoolemo
talk
17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose this time
Tuohirulla
22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose sorry
Dannycas
00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Gavin
04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , reluctantly. Candidate seems good-natured and intelligent, but does not appear to have considered contentious policy questions deeply enough. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs )
17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose , pedantically. User cannot even properly copyedit his own election speech. -
JustinWick
03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Bratsche
talk |
Esperanza
04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose with regard to policy. --
Pastricide
17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose
Flcelloguy (
A note? )
01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose not much consideration in statement. Holding up Wikipedia's principle is expected , it's not as if anyone is running as 'will not uphold wikipedia rules'. (
Bjorn Tipling
06:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) )
reply