This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Boothy443 (talk | contribs) at 05:57, 15 January 2006 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:57, 15 January 2006 by Boothy443 (talk | contribs) (→Oppose)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Kitch
Hello. I am officially throwing my hat into the ring for appointment as a Misplaced Pages Arbitrator.
I am running because I feel I can provide an impartial mind to the arbitration process. I have an extensive access to knowledge to assist me in determining facts, an ability to determine the difference between neutral and biased points of view, and uncanny problem-solving capabilities that were developed and exploited in Future Problem Solvers competitions in my youth.
I am a frequent page editor and creator. I have recently been invited to join WikiProject Professional wrestling in recognition of my contributions to the project from outside. I am also a major player in the creation and maintenance of pages relating to Dance Dance Revolution. I have done reverts on many cases of vandalism.
I seek to be a user-arbitrator. I will not seek the powers of an administrator or bureaucrat if I am appointed to a position as arbitrator.
Thank you for your consideration.
Support
- It didn't say in the rules that you couldn't vote for yourself, so why wouldn't I? --Kitch 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support freestylefrappe 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Kefalonia 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. User certainly doesn't deserve this level of opposition. ℬastique▼♥♑ 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Wally 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- SupportDr. B 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zach 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Jaranda 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --GraemeL 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- – Quadell 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose as too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Angelo 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Staffelde 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose.--ragesoss 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)- Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:28, Jan. 9, 2006
- Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. SlimVirgin 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bobet 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose inexperience --Crunch 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. android79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Too new. — Catherine\ 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose--cj | talk 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. siafu 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Viriditas 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose sorry but I must oppose. ALKIVAR™ 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose xp. Grue 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Questions --kingboyk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Experience; do not believe candidate truly understands ArbComm's purpose.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Doc 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl 2006-01-09 20:12Z
- Oppose as per Jonathunder. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperienced. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not enough community interaction so far. Hermione1980 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Splash 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Clean up Loop quantum gravity first. Avriette 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Lack of platform, lack of initiave (in not copying and answering the common questions dealt with by other candidates) --EMS | Talk 19:58, 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 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, inexperienced. -- Ian Manka 23:34, 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 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Vsmith 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. the vision thing --JWSchmidt 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, as per EMS. Thryduulf 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. —David Levy 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose KTC 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
- Oppose - what exactly is your "extensive access to knowledge"? ...no real statements, no experience. --NorkNork 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. User statement lacks the substance to support. Maybe next time. Velvetsmog 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Late entrant? Maybe next year... also something just didn't quite ring true. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)