Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Luigi30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)

Questions

Support

  1. – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Edit history shows level head, positive involvement with problem users.--ragesoss 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support--he'd be a funky arbcom member. And the arbcom could use more funkiness. Matt Yeager 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is my apology for killing you so many times in Super Mario Bros.! --maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. android79 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support a real underdog candidate, but I feel Luigi could do a good job on arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support not taking life too seriously. --Celestianpower háblame 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support seems like a nice chap.  Grue  13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support Fresh blood, I think worthy. --kingboyk 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support. The best. Soo 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. 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)
  15. Support as kingboyk. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. 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)
  17. Support, I think Luigi will make a good arbitrator. The committee needs a balance of outlooks. Thryduulf 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support Robdurbar 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support -- Davidpdx 13:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support Deckiller 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neutrality (talk • contribs)
  23. Support -- Masonpatriot 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Everyking 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose, policy. Ambi 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Policy issues. Batmanand 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for policy issues --Angelo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --Crunch 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Somewhat too new. 172 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Bobet 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose--cj | talk 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. utcursch | talk 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. --Viriditas 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. —Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Weak oppose ... I'd like to see more involvement in conflict resolution to better gauge Luigi's capabilities in the area. Tomertalk 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. siafu 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. Has shown poor judgement too recently. — Haeleth Talk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:18Z
  37. Oppose ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Coolgamer 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Splashtalk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Advocate starting a troll-witch-hunt? Avriette 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. --Doc ask? 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. older≠wiser 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. oppose Kingturtle 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. 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)
  48. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. 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)
  50. Oppose, inexperience. Sorry. Run again next year and I'll probably support you. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. 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)
  52. Oppose Vsmith 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. record for fastest g-line --JWSchmidt 03:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose, questions. KTC 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose, Simplistic views, age, somewhat inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. OpposeDr. B 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose - unconvincing. --NorkNork 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. weak Oppose, just a tad too soon. I'll support next year, however. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Candidate statement lacks a bit of substance. Appreciate the lightheartedness though. Velvetsmog 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose, difficult to take seriously. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. maclean25 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs2000 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Need more experience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. 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)
  69. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Opposethe statement has me concerned. Gnangarra 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. 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)
  72. weak Oppose WilliamKF 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose. Preaky 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose angusj 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose per MegaManZero. Youngamerican 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. oppose inexperience, questions William M. Connolley 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
  78. oppose too inexperienced David D. (Talk) 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose Jared 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose Sunray 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. 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)
  84. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Oppose Alex43223 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)