Revision as of 15:08, 14 January 2006 view sourceStarblind (talk | contribs)Administrators17,274 edits →Oppose← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 16:26, 11 May 2022 view source WOSlinker (talk | contribs)Administrators854,737 editsm Fix lint errors | ||
(24 intermediate revisions by 23 users not shown) | |||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
#'''Support'''. -] ] 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. -] ] 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support'''. --] 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. --] 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' a real underdog candidate, but I feel Luigi could do a good job on arbcom. ]]] 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' a real underdog candidate, but I feel Luigi could do a good job on arbcom. ]]] 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' not taking life too seriously. --]< |
#'''Support''' not taking life too seriously. --]]] <sup>]</sup> 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' seems like a nice chap. ] 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' seems like a nice chap. ] 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' Fresh blood, I think worthy. --] 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' Fresh blood, I think worthy. --] 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support'''. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. ] ] <sup>]</sup> 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support'''. The best. ] 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support'''. The best. ] 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' good even tempered editor. See no reason user won't do a great job and add new blood.] 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' good even tempered editor. See no reason user won't do a great job and add new blood.] 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
#'''Support''' --] 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' --] 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support''' ] 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Support''' ] 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Support'''. 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) {{unsigned|Neutrality}} | |||
#'''Support''' -- ] 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Support'''. ] 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
==Oppose== | ==Oppose== | ||
Line 37: | Line 40: | ||
#]<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #]<nowiki>]<nowiki>]</nowiki> 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#] 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #] 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#—]]] 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #—]]] 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
# '''Oppose''' inexperience. ] | ] | ] 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | # '''Oppose''' inexperience. ] | ] | ] 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose,''' policy. ] 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose,''' policy. ] 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 46: | Line 49: | ||
#'''Oppose''', inexperience. ] | ] 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''', inexperience. ] | ] 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Policy issues. ] 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Policy issues. ] 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#-- ]] ] | ] 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #-- ]] ] | ] 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' for policy issues --] 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' for policy issues --] 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' - Inexperience - ] ] 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' - Inexperience - ] ] 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 52: | Line 55: | ||
#'''Oppose''' —] (]) 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' —] (]) 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #] <sup>'']''</sup> 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. ] <sup |
#'''Oppose'''. ] ] 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' ] 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' ] 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''' --] 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''' --] 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 64: | Line 67: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. --] 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. --] 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#—] ] 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #—] ] 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Weak oppose''' ... I'd like to see more involvement in conflict resolution to better gauge Luigi's capabilities in the area. ]< |
#'''Weak oppose''' ... I'd like to see more involvement in conflict resolution to better gauge Luigi's capabilities in the area. ]]]] 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''', xp. ]]] 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''', xp. ]]] 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. ] 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. ] 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Has shown poor judgement too recently. — ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Has shown poor judgement too recently. — ] <small>]</small> 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
Line 99: | Line 102: | ||
#'''Oppose'''. ] 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. ] 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''', lack of experience -- ] ] 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''', lack of experience -- ] ] 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. Need more experience. -] (<small>] | ]</small>) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. Need more experience. --] (<small>] | ]</small>) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Reluctant oppose''' I really like what I've seen from this editor, so my heart sank a bit when I read the candidate statement. Seems too reluctant to ban. ] - <b>< |
#'''Reluctant oppose''' I really like what I've seen from this editor, so my heart sank a bit when I read the candidate statement. Seems too reluctant to ban. ] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#--] | ] 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''the statement has me concerned. ] 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. Seems unwilling to consider the possibility that an arbitrator could be really wrong. --] | ] 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''weak Oppose''' ] 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. ] | ] 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose'''. ] 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' ] 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' per MegaManZero. ] 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''oppose''' inexperience, questions ] 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC). | |||
#'''oppose''' too inexperienced ] ] 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' ] 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' --] <sup>]</sup> 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' ] 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
# ]<sup>] | ]</sup> 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''', somewhat reluctantly — candidate seems like a decent fellow, but policy positions do not appear to have been thoroughly considered. —] <small>(] • ])</small> 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' ] - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#''']''' ] <small>(])</small> 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
#'''Oppose''' ] 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 16:26, 11 May 2022
Luigi30
I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned.
I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls. Luigi30 (Ταλκ) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Support
- – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Edit history shows level head, positive involvement with problem users.--ragesoss 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support--he'd be a funky arbcom member. And the arbcom could use more funkiness. Matt Yeager 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. This is my apology for killing you so many times in Super Mario Bros.! --maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. android79 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support a real underdog candidate, but I feel Luigi could do a good job on arbcom. ALKIVAR™ 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support not taking life too seriously. --Celestianpower 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support seems like a nice chap. Grue 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Fresh blood, I think worthy. --kingboyk 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. the wub "?!" 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. The best. Soo 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support good even tempered editor. See no reason user won't do a great job and add new blood.Gateman1997 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support as kingboyk. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support warpozio 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support he wants to speed up things and keep out lenghty discussions. i'm all for that. jaromil 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Jaromil does not have suffrage; he had only 43 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support he wants to speed up things and keep out lenghty discussions. i'm all for that. jaromil 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support, I think Luigi will make a good arbitrator. The committee needs a balance of outlooks. Thryduulf 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Robdurbar 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Davidpdx 13:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Adrian Buehlmann 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Deckiller 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs)
- Support -- Masonpatriot 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zach 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Mo0 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Everyking 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, policy. Ambi 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- – Quadell 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Jaranda 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --GraemeL 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Policy issues. Batmanand 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for policy issues --Angelo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rob Church 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Fred Bauder 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Crunch 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Somewhat too new. 172 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bobet 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--cj | talk 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. utcursch | talk 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Viriditas 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Weak oppose ... I'd like to see more involvement in conflict resolution to better gauge Luigi's capabilities in the area. Tomer 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. siafu 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Has shown poor judgement too recently. — Haeleth Talk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 20:18Z
- Oppose ℬastique▼♥♑ 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Coolgamer 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Splash 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Advocate starting a troll-witch-hunt? Avriette 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Doc 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose Kingturtle 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I find that certain comments made in the statement and in response to some questions are flippant, which doesn't bode well for a prospective arbitrator. Rje 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- 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 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperience. Sorry. Run again next year and I'll probably support you. — Ian Manka 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Vsmith 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. record for fastest g-line --JWSchmidt 03:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, questions. KTC 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, Simplistic views, age, somewhat inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- OpposeDr. B 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - unconvincing. --NorkNork 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak Oppose, just a tad too soon. I'll support next year, however. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Candidate statement lacks a bit of substance. Appreciate the lightheartedness though. Velvetsmog 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, difficult to take seriously. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. maclean25 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs2000 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Need more experience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctant oppose I really like what I've seen from this editor, so my heart sank a bit when I read the candidate statement. Seems too reluctant to ban. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Opposethe statement has me concerned. Gnangarra 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Seems unwilling to consider the possibility that an arbitrator could be really wrong. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak Oppose WilliamKF 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Preaky 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose angusj 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per MegaManZero. Youngamerican 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose inexperience, questions William M. Connolley 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
- oppose too inexperienced David D. (Talk) 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Jared 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Loopy 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sunray 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bratsche 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, somewhat reluctantly — candidate seems like a decent fellow, but policy positions do not appear to have been thoroughly considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - ] 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Alex43223 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)