Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

AntonioMartin

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

Support

  1. Exeperienced --Jaranda wat's sup 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Guettarda 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Experienced, communicates clearly.--ragesoss 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support --Bfraga 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support He seems to be experienced and fair enough for the position. --Angelo 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support - He is a dilligent contributor and a fair-minded fellow. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Raven4x4x 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. Seems experienced and fair. --Bumpusmills1 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Bumpusmills1 does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support. r b-j 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support Xoloz 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support Joaquin Murietta 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Have worked with him on WikiProjects. Diligent and fair.
  13. 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)
    Support - it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. support Grutness...wha? 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Tony the Marine 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. -- Scott eiπ 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support seems a good candidate.  Grue  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support, good guy, sure to be fair. Sam Spade 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. --Kefalonia 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. 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)
  22. Fairness with a capital F is what I've seen from this user. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support Davidpdx 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Mild Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support Adrian Buehlmann 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. 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)
  27. 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)
  28. Support --Petros471 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support. --HK 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Abögarp. 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. <KF> 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support Silas Snider (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support 青い(Aoi) 10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Honest and experienced. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. 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)
  37. Support. Rangek 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support, experienced and sounds fair. --JSIN 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support, a good soul with an exemplary editing record. Cedars 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support, naturally. Hedley 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support, been here long time, knows what to do.Alex43223 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support, experienced and civil. Zocky 10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support, fine by me. Deckiller 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. (SEWilco 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
  45. 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)
  46. Support I agree with his nomination.Vertical123 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Strong Support. Oh, Yeah! Sebastian Kessel Talk 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support My only regret about this vote is that I didn't know voting had started yet --mav
  49. Support Tiles 09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support WolfBane06 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  50. Weak Support evrik 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate would expand the diversity of the Committee.
  51. support. Gentgeen 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. support Sounds like a good moderate voice. User:jaedza 21:45 (UTC), 19 January 2005
  53. Support Calwatch 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support, experienced....... speaks clearly too. Edraf 10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support Deb 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Argentino 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support Carptrash 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 17:33, April 9, 2007 (UTC)
  59. Support Seems dedicated to the spirit of the project. --Spondoolicks 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support CDThieme 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. TacoDeposit 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. --Viriditas 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Don't feel Antonio has the right stuff for arbcom, bill of rights crap notwithstanding. Johnleemk | Talk 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. older≠wiser 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose.Crunch 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Dave 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Per Ambi. 172 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Rhobite 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per Ambi. FCYTravis 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose fluffy bunny no content candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. android79 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. 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)
  29. Oppose. siafu 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. As Ambi. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose Blatant political style campaigning in statement & Ambi--Tznkai 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose - WP:NOT and can't be a democracy. --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Lupo 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose as per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. 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)
  37. weak oppose, I'm not certain Antonio has fully grasped that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thryduulf 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose, his statement and answers lean towards the bureaucratic and to using the letter rather than spirit of the rules. Radiant_>|< 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose Meekohi 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose I agree with the criticism of a bureaucratic problem. Nick Kerr 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose as per Thryduulf. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. oppose - per ambi. novacatz 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose. Candidate statement did not impress me much.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. The Literate Engineer 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. As per Radiant —the preceding unsigned comment is by Reflex Reaction (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Jkelly 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Weak oppose - Wikipedia aims towards consensus, not democracy. --AySz88^-^ 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose Jim62sch 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. I like Antonio, but not for Arbcom. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Splashtalk 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. Avriette 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. experienced yes, but understanding of arbitration, not demonstrated.--cjllw | TALK 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. evidence to indicate sound arbitration judgement? --JWSchmidt 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose per Ambi. -- SCZenz 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose per Ambi & others above. Vsmith 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose per Ambi & others. Velvetsmog 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose, lack of experience. User:Siddiqui 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Siddiqui likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. --Carnildo 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose weak candidate statement Robdurbar 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose - Liberatore(T) 14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose per questions--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose, lots of edits, but lacks community involvement. HGB 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose per Bill of Rights support and other worries. Ral315 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose The Jade Knight 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. 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. JoaoRicardotalk 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose as per ambi William M. Connolley 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
  71. Oppose per Ambi --Loopy e 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose sees words of rules, but not their depth and meaning, or even, lack thereof!Ciriii 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Weak oppose. —David Wahler (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. not me 70.239.214.133 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Anons do not have suffrage. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose: Experience isn't everything. Makes a weak argument for himself.Dr. B 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Lincolnite 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose Frenchgeek 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose. Sunray 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose as per joao Bjrobinson 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Bjrobinson does not have suffrage; he had only 125 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. 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)
  82. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Oppose, reluctantly -- Francs2000 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose. Preaky 05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose per Ambi and Radiant Youngamerican 14:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose Itake 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    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)
  88. Oppose per Ambi. kaal 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. 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)
  90. Oppose this time Tuohirulla 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Oppose sorry Dannycas 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose Gavin 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. 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)
  93. Oppose, pedantically. User cannot even properly copyedit his own election speech. - JustinWick 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Oppose with regard to policy. --Pastricide 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. 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))
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/b/Wikipedia%7EArbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006_Vote_AntonioMartin_774c.html"