Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Rowlan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Rowlan

I am nominating myself, because, well, I like me. I have been a "wikipedian" for only a short time, but it's been glorious. I think there is a great deal to be done in terms of getting the word out about how great a resource wikipedia can be. I use it everyday to check facts, and to beat people in stupid trivia. I'm sure if I were still in school, that I'd use it for educational research as well. One key issue to me is that of silly censorship. Yes, you may have been here longer than me, but this is an open community of people working for the same goal. Let's keep it this way. So grab a pitch fork and a torch and let's hit the streets together and burn whatever monsters there are that might be hampering the cause and progress of Wikipedia!


Rowlan 18:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

  1. Support. --Kefalonia 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support TestPilot 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. Quoting Kafziel, Megalomaniacal lunatics need representation on the ArbCom as much as anyone else. Well put. Avriette 06:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support. I love myself!!! (and yes, I love you too) Rowlan 06:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Rowlan's account was created on 9 November 2005 [1], and thus he does not have suffrage to vote for himself. --Interiot 07:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. --Masssiveego 07:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Because I like this guy/gal. Rohirok 02:35, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support we need more arbitrators who aren't pretentious fools Cynical 22:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Sorry, but just too inexperienced. Batmanand 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose experience cares --Angelo 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [2]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:34, Jan. 9, 2006
  15. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose.--ragesoss 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Bobet 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Too new. 172 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Opppose Too new novacatz 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --Crunch 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. android79 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose --cj | talk 06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. —Nightstallion (?) 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose  Grue  14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. Do not like candidate's attitude towards something as important as nomination for ArbComm membership. Lack of experience is also obvious.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose as per Ezhiki. --kingboyk 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:27Z
  36. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Splashtalk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose. --HK 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Raven4x4x 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. --Viriditas 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. older≠wiser 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose, as Ëzhiki. −−It's-is-not-a-genitive 13:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Statement indicates candidate utterly unsuitable for arbitration.Fifelfoo 22:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Lack of experience. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. siafu 04:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. experience.--JK the unwise 12:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  52. Oppose. --JWSchmidt 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, inexperienced. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 18:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. 'Oppose - inexperienced, not serious. --NorkNork 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. Statement scares me, even if it is tongue-in-cheek. Velvetsmog 01:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose Bad appeal for votes Dr. B 17:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Krash 18:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. maclean25 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, based on first sentence of statement and lack of experience -- Francs2000 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Too new. --Aude (talk | contribs) 06:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Inexperienced. Also doesn't seem to get what ArbCom is for. --William Pietri 00:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose Lack of experience, and it sounds like the user is campaigning for some type of marketing committee, not an arbitrator. –Comics (Talk) 08:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Strong oppose. Answers to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) are evasive at the best, and statements like "who names their kid Yuber anyway" completely fails to comprehend that there is a world outside the US, and a culture other than what passes for one in America. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. Too new.--Omniwolf 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Joke nomination. See Ril's comment; also, he does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 00:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. Preaky 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 05:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Inexperience. Ingoolemo talk 07:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose --Loopy e 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose, inexperience. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose, experience. KTC 12:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose CDThieme 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 18:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral Eh. Not impressed, but not reviled. Welcome to election purgatory, and try again later. Author782 11:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)