From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 and NSLE (who are both ArbCom candidates) are the most biased admins that I've seen.

I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.

BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Jeffrey O Gustofson has used a false-portraying strawman tactic in his very vote. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, IanManka, Duncharris, and TML1988 have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Carnildo, Thryduulf, Robdurbar, Andrew Lenahan, and Carbonite, in their very vote comments, have used the sly tactic of falsely portraying truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks. Netoholic, Ambi, and especially NSLE, have libellously falsely portrayed my actions, and have used that as a pretense for blocking me. I hold the actions of those 20 people as evidence of my neutrality.


Questions

Support

  1. That's right. Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate really is just plain awful. Seriously. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Weak Support: the user is an Iconoclast. -- Michalis Famelis 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support The owner of all 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User does not have suffrage - created account in November, has less than 50 edits. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Support; I agree with the user's statement that I am the most biased admin. Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Support. JSIN 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support All in 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Support; I also agree with Ral315, and the candidate's statement about him.-- Дрakюлa Talk 07:05, 16 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. Obviously.-- Sean| Bla ck 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Speedy Oppose -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. Evil Eye 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. Lack of a userpage doesn't help. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Hardly neccessary but oppose -- Doc ask? 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose A little overzealous with second-guessing intentions; inexperience. -- DanielCD 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose b/c account doesn't even qualify to vote. -- AySz88^ - ^ 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose -- Angelo 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. OpposeBunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose. Lack of a user page doesn't help your case. Aside from that, I really am not satisfied with any aspect of your submission. -- Vortex 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose.-- ragesoss 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose per Wikipedia:User name Kit 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose: dilatory submission. Jonathunder 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose per OMGWTFBBQ is this? FCYTravis 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose. -- Viriditas 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose - Paul August 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Bobet 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose -- Crunch 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. — Catherine\ talk 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose of course. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose no experience. Mate, do you actually know what you are in for? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose agree with most above comments TrafficBenBoy 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose. -- RobertGtalk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Lack of XP and, apparently, grasp on reality. — Nightstallion (?) 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose meh.  Grue  13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Happy sparkly oppose per candidate statements. Tom e r talk 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Next time, creating a user page before you run may help your case. Kafziel 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose This must be a joke, right? No user page, signed up this week. He's not even eligible to vote! -- kingboyk 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose, per all of the above.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose as per Kingboyk. -- Thorri 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. siafu 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose No experience, no userpage -- Comics 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose for attacking another admin in his candidate statement (regardless of the rights or wrongs of his assessment of the other admin). Terra Green 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 20:14 Z
  56. 'Oppose - too new. Awolf002 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose: I agree with some of his (vague) ideas, but, really, to say that he has no track record is an understatement. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose: No userpage, no identity astique parer voir 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose Not really entering into the spirit of it, I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. Bad attitude. ArbCom candidate statements aren't the place to air disagreements with admins. H e rmione 1980 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose. Step 1. Create a user page. Avriette 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Strong Oppose Biased, immature, reactive, inexperienced. -- EMS | Talk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. olderwiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose if the user can't be bothered to make his own user page... Rayc 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose for some of the reasons cited above, and potentially misleading username - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose. I hate to jump on the dogpile, and I hate to be using agecountitis, but this is an extreme case. No. Sorry. Try again in a year or two year's time, if you've built up suffrage. WikiFanatic 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. Ditto. Cjpuffin 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Raven4x4x 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. No userpage, no vote. Dave Kielpinski 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose Lack of experience. Too new. -- Nick123 ( t/ c) 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Pushing a specific agenda. Smeggysmeg 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose, lack of experience, civility. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose. I wasn't intending to vote in this, and I apologize in advance for piling on, but seeing how he is calling out specific oppose voters and saying, "I hold those 8 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.", he seems like he takes offense far too easily and is not nearly stable enough to be on the ArbCom. Oppose votes are not personal attacks, and WP:NPOV only applies to articles, definitely not to voting. I know it's hard, but please don't take oppose votes personally. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose Vsmith 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose. wiki trust is built on a transparent record -- JWSchmidt 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose for personal attack in candidate statement. -- Carnildo 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Oppose the statement is just one personal attack after another. Thryduulf 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  86. For some odd reason, I oppose. Hedley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose - Wikipedia:No personal attacks Robdurbar 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Oppose: Not too sure about his appeal. the preceding unsigned comment is by Dr. B ( talk •  contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. OpposeAB C D e 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose - not convincing. -- NorkNork 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Oppose - has been around 10 days, already has started an RfC, and has a grand total of 3 edits to articles. Is this a joke?-- Stephan Schulz 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. [1] Guettarda 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Oppose. No. Gamaliel 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Oppose. — David Levy 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Oppose. Jkelly 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. oppose troll. — Dunc| 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose. Soliciting votes is forbidden.-- ghost 22:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Oppose for many reasons. -- Pjacobi 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Oppose per Guettarda. -- Eugene van der Pijll 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Oppose - This users ranting and his utter lack of civility is totally unbecoming of an arbitrator. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Oppose. No need for a why here. Velvetsmog 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose NO experience whatsoever, candidate statement is a dungheap of personal attacks on various editors, spamming/solicitation of votes on user talk pages, while not expressly forbidden as far as I know, is annoying and poor form for one trying to gain our trust. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. Oppose Tony the Marine 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Oppose. I wasn't going to bother opposing this candidate, but after seeing the personal attacks in the candidate statement and the spamming for votes, I wanted to express my disappoval of his behavior. Carbonite | Talk 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Oppose. -- Elkman 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Oppose. Evidence of your neutrality must come from you, not from the actions of others. -- Kbdank71 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Oppose Geogre 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose for pretty much the same reasons listed. Agent Blightsoot 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Oppose per many responses above -- Francs 2000 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. OpposeOmegatron 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose - Lawyer2b 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. Oppose DreamGuy 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Oppose. Too new -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Oppose. Inexperienced and not enough information for this vote. ( SEWilco 06:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  118. Oppose. It would have been an interesting ride to watch but Wiki isnt an amusement park Gnangarra 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Neutrality talk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. 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 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose No experience, virtually no edit history. Account appears to have been created just to run for Arbcom.-- Omniwolf 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Oppose. Preaky 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Oppose. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose. Some more maturity wouldn't hurt. -- TML1988 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Oppose. SarekOfVulcan 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Oppose angusj 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Oppose OMG. crazyeddie 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Oppose Masonpatriot 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Oppose because I'm a jerk. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Oppose this user claims I blocked Pgio, which never took place. freestylefrappe 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Oppose Jared 12:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  133. Oppose - kaal 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. oppose - WP:FAITH and all that Samboy 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. Oppose, too many adjectives and adverbs in statement. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  136. Oppose -- Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Oppose Sunray 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Oppose Accusing without verifying. - 上村七美 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Very Strong Oppose Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Oppose Secretlondon 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Oppose — inexperience and general bad attitude. — Josiah Rowe ( talkcontribs) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Oppose appears too judgemental wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  144. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  145. Oppose Alex43223 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  146. Oppose. Alai 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I support, in principle, but a candidate with no editing and discussion experience is not someone I can vote for. Ben 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Comment - I have half a mind to block user for NPA and CIV. Contribs show vote-begging as well, btw. NSL E ( T+ C) 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    NSLE- Libellous false portrayal that an innocent person has violated the NPA and CIV policies is a violation of those same policies, but you knew that of course. LawAndOrder 10:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    I'm gonna request a checkuser be performed. NSL E ( T+ C) 10:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    A CheckUser will reveal that I have clearly never violated policy, nor have been blocked. This CheckUser request, and your libellous reasoning for making it, only demonstrates your own dishonest immature reactionism to someone that has opposed your gross policy violations. LawAndOrder 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Neutral to avoid pileons. WP:BITE Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General rule: Any candidate that specificly states that they are particularly unbiased, and/or states that they have some particularly good and/or innocent generic intent, is likely to be the most biased of all. FYI: Ral315 and NSLE (who are both ArbCom candidates) are the most biased admins that I've seen.

I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors. Those disruptive behaviors are: selective information suppression and the related strawman tactics, pseudo-lecturing about wikipedia policies to people that have not violated them so as to falsely portray both themself and their target, otherwise using the trick of addressing one's enemy directly (as opposed to third parties, who are the real audience) while falsely portraying them so as to make one's false portrayal more convincing, false portrayal of objective acts and/or statements as being motivated by personal subjectivities, libel and otherwise discrediting opponents, false portrayal of truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks and/or violations of 'assume good faith', false portrayal of ones self as being particularly unbiased and NPOV when one is in fact the exact opposite, and engaging in conspiracies to commit any of the aforementioned offenses. I intend to ban any person that is subjected to an RfAr that commits such sick offenses.

BTW: Look at the votes below. Ems57fcva (signs as EMS) is one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would libellously project his own traits of bias and immaturity onto me. Todfox (signs as Kit) is also one of the worst cases that I've seen of people that have committed the offenses described above. No wonder that he would falsely imply that my username does not comply with the username policy when it clearly does comply, in a shameful attempt to get me blocked on a technicality. Also, look at the recent history of FCYTravis. He discreditted and deleted a legitimate contribution of mine without discussion due to opposing his POV. Hermione1980 has used the tactic of falsely portraying an objective fact as a personal subjectivity in her very vote comment. Nightstallion has used the grossly libelous statement that I 'lack a grasp on reality' in his very vote comment. Jeffrey O Gustofson has used a false-portraying strawman tactic in his very vote. Smeggysmeg, Fifelfoo, IanManka, Duncharris, and TML1988 have used false portrayal in their very vote comments. Idont_havaname, in his very vote comment, has used the sly behavior of using fake sympathetic lecturing to make his libellous accusations that I am 'unstable' and 'interpret oppose votes as personal attacks' be more convincing. Carnildo, Thryduulf, Robdurbar, Andrew Lenahan, and Carbonite, in their very vote comments, have used the sly tactic of falsely portraying truthful informative descriptions of behavior as personal attacks. Netoholic, Ambi, and especially NSLE, have libellously falsely portrayed my actions, and have used that as a pretense for blocking me. I hold the actions of those 20 people as evidence of my neutrality.


Questions

Support

  1. That's right. Because if he's elected, Arbcom will be destroyed. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate really is just plain awful. Seriously. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Weak Support: the user is an Iconoclast. -- Michalis Famelis 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support The owner of all 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User does not have suffrage - created account in November, has less than 50 edits. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Support; I agree with the user's statement that I am the most biased admin. Ral315 (talk) 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Support. JSIN 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support All in 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Support; I also agree with Ral315, and the candidate's statement about him.-- Дрakюлa Talk 07:05, 16 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. Obviously.-- Sean| Bla ck 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Speedy Oppose -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. Evil Eye 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. Lack of a userpage doesn't help. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Hardly neccessary but oppose -- Doc ask? 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose A little overzealous with second-guessing intentions; inexperience. -- DanielCD 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose b/c account doesn't even qualify to vote. -- AySz88^ - ^ 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose -- Angelo 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. OpposeBunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose. Lack of a user page doesn't help your case. Aside from that, I really am not satisfied with any aspect of your submission. -- Vortex 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose.-- ragesoss 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose per Wikipedia:User name Kit 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose: dilatory submission. Jonathunder 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose per OMGWTFBBQ is this? FCYTravis 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose. -- Viriditas 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose - Paul August 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Bobet 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose -- Crunch 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose. — Catherine\ talk 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose of course. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose no experience. Mate, do you actually know what you are in for? - Ta bu shi da yu 10:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose agree with most above comments TrafficBenBoy 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose. -- RobertGtalk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Lack of XP and, apparently, grasp on reality. — Nightstallion (?) 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose meh.  Grue  13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Happy sparkly oppose per candidate statements. Tom e r talk 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Next time, creating a user page before you run may help your case. Kafziel 14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose This must be a joke, right? No user page, signed up this week. He's not even eligible to vote! -- kingboyk 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose, per all of the above.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose as per Kingboyk. -- Thorri 17:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. siafu 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose No experience, no userpage -- Comics 17:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose for attacking another admin in his candidate statement (regardless of the rights or wrongs of his assessment of the other admin). Terra Green 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 20:14 Z
  56. 'Oppose - too new. Awolf002 20:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose: I agree with some of his (vague) ideas, but, really, to say that he has no track record is an understatement. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose: No userpage, no identity astique parer voir 21:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose Not really entering into the spirit of it, I'd say. Naturenet | Talk 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. Bad attitude. ArbCom candidate statements aren't the place to air disagreements with admins. H e rmione 1980 22:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose. Step 1. Create a user page. Avriette 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Strong Oppose Biased, immature, reactive, inexperienced. -- EMS | Talk 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. olderwiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose if the user can't be bothered to make his own user page... Rayc 02:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose for some of the reasons cited above, and potentially misleading username - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose. I hate to jump on the dogpile, and I hate to be using agecountitis, but this is an extreme case. No. Sorry. Try again in a year or two year's time, if you've built up suffrage. WikiFanatic 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. Ditto. Cjpuffin 07:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Raven4x4x 09:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. No userpage, no vote. Dave Kielpinski 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose Lack of experience. Too new. -- Nick123 ( t/ c) 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Pushing a specific agenda. Smeggysmeg 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose, lack of experience, civility. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose. I wasn't intending to vote in this, and I apologize in advance for piling on, but seeing how he is calling out specific oppose voters and saying, "I hold those 8 oppose votes as evidence of my neutrality.", he seems like he takes offense far too easily and is not nearly stable enough to be on the ArbCom. Oppose votes are not personal attacks, and WP:NPOV only applies to articles, definitely not to voting. I know it's hard, but please don't take oppose votes personally. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose Vsmith 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose. wiki trust is built on a transparent record -- JWSchmidt 02:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose for personal attack in candidate statement. -- Carnildo 10:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Oppose the statement is just one personal attack after another. Thryduulf 16:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  86. For some odd reason, I oppose. Hedley 22:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose - Wikipedia:No personal attacks Robdurbar 12:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Oppose: Not too sure about his appeal. the preceding unsigned comment is by Dr. B ( talk •  contribs) 17:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. OpposeAB C D e 18:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose - not convincing. -- NorkNork 21:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Oppose - has been around 10 days, already has started an RfC, and has a grand total of 3 edits to articles. Is this a joke?-- Stephan Schulz 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. [1] Guettarda 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Oppose. No. Gamaliel 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Oppose. — David Levy 21:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Oppose. Jkelly 21:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. oppose troll. — Dunc| 22:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose. Soliciting votes is forbidden.-- ghost 22:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Oppose for many reasons. -- Pjacobi 22:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Oppose per Guettarda. -- Eugene van der Pijll 22:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Oppose - This users ranting and his utter lack of civility is totally unbecoming of an arbitrator. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Oppose. No need for a why here. Velvetsmog 23:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 23:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose NO experience whatsoever, candidate statement is a dungheap of personal attacks on various editors, spamming/solicitation of votes on user talk pages, while not expressly forbidden as far as I know, is annoying and poor form for one trying to gain our trust. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. Oppose Tony the Marine 15:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Oppose. I wasn't going to bother opposing this candidate, but after seeing the personal attacks in the candidate statement and the spamming for votes, I wanted to express my disappoval of his behavior. Carbonite | Talk 18:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Oppose. -- Elkman 19:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Oppose. Evidence of your neutrality must come from you, not from the actions of others. -- Kbdank71 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Oppose Geogre 22:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose for pretty much the same reasons listed. Agent Blightsoot 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Oppose per many responses above -- Francs 2000 00:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. OpposeOmegatron 03:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose - Lawyer2b 05:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. Oppose DreamGuy 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Oppose. Too new -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Oppose. Inexperienced and not enough information for this vote. ( SEWilco 06:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  118. Oppose. It would have been an interesting ride to watch but Wiki isnt an amusement park Gnangarra 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Neutrality talk 15:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. 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 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose No experience, virtually no edit history. Account appears to have been created just to run for Arbcom.-- Omniwolf 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Oppose. Preaky 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Oppose. User:Zoe| (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose. Some more maturity wouldn't hurt. -- TML1988 01:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Oppose. SarekOfVulcan 01:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Oppose angusj 02:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Oppose OMG. crazyeddie 03:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Oppose Masonpatriot 04:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Oppose because I'm a jerk. Danny Lilithborne 07:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Oppose this user claims I blocked Pgio, which never took place. freestylefrappe 00:53, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Oppose Jared 12:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  133. Oppose - kaal 17:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. oppose - WP:FAITH and all that Samboy 22:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. Oppose, too many adjectives and adverbs in statement. Bishonen | talk 02:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  136. Oppose -- Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Oppose Sunray 06:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  talk 07:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Oppose Accusing without verifying. - 上村七美 13:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Very Strong Oppose Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Oppose Secretlondon 16:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Oppose — inexperience and general bad attitude. — Josiah Rowe ( talkcontribs) 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Oppose appears too judgemental wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  144. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  145. Oppose Alex43223 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  146. Oppose. Alai 23:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

  1. Neutral. I support, in principle, but a candidate with no editing and discussion experience is not someone I can vote for. Ben 02:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Comment - I have half a mind to block user for NPA and CIV. Contribs show vote-begging as well, btw. NSL E ( T+ C) 02:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    NSLE- Libellous false portrayal that an innocent person has violated the NPA and CIV policies is a violation of those same policies, but you knew that of course. LawAndOrder 10:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    I'm gonna request a checkuser be performed. NSL E ( T+ C) 10:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    A CheckUser will reveal that I have clearly never violated policy, nor have been blocked. This CheckUser request, and your libellous reasoning for making it, only demonstrates your own dishonest immature reactionism to someone that has opposed your gross policy violations. LawAndOrder 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Neutral to avoid pileons. WP:BITE Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook