Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dogbreathcanada

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dogbreathcanada

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!


It is true that I've only been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 4 months now, but I feel I still have a lot to offer the project. Wikipedia represents cooperative collaberation, but that collaberation works best in an environment where there is a good set of guidelines on submission principles.

The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace. --Dogbreathcanada 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Support. Seems earnest, and 4 months is long enough to get a feel for the climate of the community. Dave 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Philip Stevens 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. richie22 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but your vote cannot be counted since your account is newer than 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150. --TML1988 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support if you're good enough, you're old enough Robdurbar 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Lack of experience, sorry. – ugen64 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Four months is, for me, just not long enough. Batmanand 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. inexperience, narrow editing interest.--ragesoss 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose.Staffelde 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose --Viriditas 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:12, Jan. 9, 2006
  21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Bobet 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. older≠wiser 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose, too inexperienced, sorry. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose --Crunch 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - Paul August ☎ 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. android79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose.  Grue  06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. siafu 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose--cj | talk 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:08Z
  39. Oppose. Lupo 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose: Vague mission statement, and not enough of a track record to support yet. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Lack of experience, nothing to really convince me. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose lack of experience, unconvincing statement, low edits, and erratic history pre Jan 1. Sarah Ewart 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Xtra 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, insuficient evidence from edit history and candidate statement to get a true feel on how well the user would be an arbitrator. Thryduulf 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. — Dunc|☺ 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose, needs more experience. Awolf002 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose, but do try again when you have more experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose I'm not sure the nominee is even entitled to vote (a rule change is required in that regard I think). Inexperienced, but maybe next time. --kingboyk 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose Inexperience --EMS | Talk 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose --Doc ask? 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose - Masonpatriot 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose: It's hard for regular users to even find these pages, so I have no idea how really new users do. At any rate, experience and a track record are almost the only things that matter. This user has neither. Geogre 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose: if you want to demonstrate that you have the necessary insight despite your relatively short time on the project, then a more detailed statement is necessary. TerraGreen 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Just too damned new. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Splashtalk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Lack of experience. Avriette 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. gave up after one day. --JWSchmidt 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. Vsmith 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Raven4x4x 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose. Lack of experience--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego talk 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose Experience, lack of. --PTSE 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose. Inexperience. Get some more experience and try again. Velvetsmog 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose Lack of experience. Only 183 edits. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose Timrollpickering 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose, experience. KTC 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose Sunray 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Oppose Tazz765 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. ''Oppose - Lack of exp. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Oppose: I don't beleive that experience is everything, but this persons appeal does not appeal to me.Dr. B 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose. Experience, plus statement is bland and short. Superm401 | Talk 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Oppose, doesn't seem to be eager to become an arbitrator...bland, not to mention experience.Alex43223 05:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Oppose (But I have no problem with a short statement) --Ignignot 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Oppose - not enough experience, unconvincing statement, doesn't say much about his goals. --NorkNork 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Oppose. Inexperienced and statement is unspecific. SycthosTalk 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Oppose Jared 12:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)