From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Support
- Strongly support. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:15, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
- /me ezafknalbs - and supports. -- Grunt ҈ 01:37, 2004 Nov 18 (UTC)
- Support. This user meets with my personal standards... oh, wait, I don't have any. ;-) func(talk) 19:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Rdsmith4|User:Rdsmith4/sig]] 04:07, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 06:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Support. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 19:53, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
- Support. --[[User:Eequor|η
υωρ]] 05:45, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly support GeneralPatton 03:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. Good bloke. - Ta bu shi da yu 06:32, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Support. —Lowellian (talk)[[]] 10:27, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Oppose
- I've decided not to respond to comments in this section, because the majority of the users commenting are either trolling, or are users whom I've never even come into contact with. Plus I believe this whole page to be a joke. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 01:23, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. His comments towards users on RfA are consistently unreasonable; he calls users trolls he disagrees with. VeryVerily 10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose also. My only experience of Blankfaze is that he has reverted my contributions twice. First time with no explanation, and second time with an explanation that was no longer relevant, as I had made a different change the second time to cater for his objection. We are currently discussion his initial objection on his talk page, but at this stage I suspect it might be flawed! --Rebroad 19:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Too antagonistic. example --Rebroad 15:10, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. I originally supported Blankfaze's self-nomination, but I have changed my mind in light of his revealing cabal-like behaviour. Shorne 04:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Increasingly sycophantic of late towards the 'benevolent dictator' (and harasser of left-wing users), Jimbo Wales - Xed 12:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose for same reason. CheeseDreams 12:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose A person who votes against a candidate for adminship just because he doesn't like one of the supporters and didn't even bother to take into consideration the candidates contributions or dedication , shows a lack of respect for the candidate and therefore cnanot be trusted as an arbitrator.Tony the Marine
- Oppose, without concensus, he removed cricisms, including those of himself, from the endorsements page and created this ghetto page. Fred Bauder 11:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, he is still too new to hold such a position. Even I ,two years after being in this project, have not nominated myself for this position because I question my ability to be an arbitrator, a position that requires pshyclogical knowledge in order to find a solution between two wikipedians. "Antonio Mr Fun all Night Martin"
- Oppose, several inappropriate behaviors as admin point to lack of maturity, perhaps due to youth. Vandalizes pages for "kicks" [1]; Engages in revert wars ignoring discussion in Talk (26x on Dore Gold) [2][3] --MPerel 07:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose --Mrfixter 21:56, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Based solely on candidate's smarmy remarks above. If this is the level of class and tact you display as a candidate trying to garner votes, what should we expect if you were expected to settle disputes as an arbiter? Cribcage 22:21, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Enitely unsuitable. Sjc 07:57, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arbritration requires qualities that blankfaze is sadly lacking (see Rebroad's example). ed g2s • talk 15:44, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose on the basis of his RfA attitude. Sarge Baldy 20:18, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not familiar with him, but if he "believe[s] this whole page to be a joke", then he shouldn't put himself in this position. Nelson Ricardo 08:21, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose, for the same reasons as above. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 10:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Oppose. As you can see here and on the discussion page for this page. He doesn't believe in democracy. That doesn't mean he can't stand in an "election", but it does mean he's declared he's unsuitable for the post of arbcom. I think arbcom users will want their democratic rights of fre speech and equal treatment. I find he talks to people in a way that would be antagonising to arbitration users, and we know how much tact is needed in arbcom cases. There's no reason to assume he'll suddenly become more tactful if he's voted in. I also oppose all candidates who use these confusing names and symbols. In this case "(yto)". WikiUser 21:31, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
