Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ilyanep

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ilyanep

Hi, I'm Ilyanep. I've been here since May 2003. I'm an admin and a bureaucrat, and have quite a bit of experience as both. The ArbCom has gone very far in the years since it's been created, but there are still some kinks that need to be worked out, and I decided to run because I'd like to be the one to help out.

ArbCom was almost unanimously and rightly criticised last year for its tardiness. I believe that there has been significant improvement, but the large caseload and burnout of arbitrators still remains a problem. I promise that if I am elected, I will try to help find a way to expedite cases while still allowing time for the arbitrators to compile, read, and decide on evidence, which I find very important. I also promise to stay on for my entire term, as I see myself as a person who finishes what he started. The ArbCom has also been accused of bias in the past. I commit myself to strict neutrality in all cases, and am able to see when I can not possibly be neutral, in which case I will recuse. I don't see that happenning too often, however.

I find that complete bans from Wikipedia are nearly impossible to enforce, and go against the spirit of the project. I would support more revert-enforced bans on editing certain categories of articles, mentorship programs, and, if necessary, more topical bans. These are more wikilike than outright bans, and are a step in the right direction in searching for more innovative ways to maintain order.

In the end, I believe that we are here to write an encyclopedia, and most people here are aiming for that goal. A negative experience shouldn't cause one to leave the project. As is said numerous times around the project: if an article is let to evolve, the good will filter through. I believe the community does the same. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the reason I'm not voting for anyone else is at the top of my userpage. —Ilyanep (Talk) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions


Support

Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (vote changed)[reply]
  1. Support. Mo0[talk] 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – ugen64 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Interesting, and IMO correct, views on banning. Batmanand 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Intelligent, reasonable, civil fellow, who has the precision of judgement to make an ideal arb. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sdedeo (tips) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Haukur 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support — Omegatron 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support correct user, with good principles. --Angelo 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. JYolkowski // talk 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support. Clear writer, level head, strong history, despite being 14.--ragesoss 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Raven4x4x 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Duk 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support--CBD ☎ ✉ 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Strongly agree with stated policies.[reply]
  26. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Kf4bdy 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kf4bdy does not have suffrage; he had only 62 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:21, Jan. 9, 2006
  30. brenneman(t)(c) 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 'Support - Fabricationary 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. King of All the Franks 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Ronline ✉ 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. uh-huh' Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Fred Bauder 05:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support – Very reasonable. – ClockworkSoul 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support--Robert Harrisontalk contrib 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Very impressed with answers to questons. Maturity far more important than age and this user has the former. Kit 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support — Catherine\talk 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support Sounds like you have a solid platform. Netkinetic 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. android79 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. -- Scott eiπ 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. jni 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Definitely. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. Appears to manage responsibility well. /blahedo (t) 07:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:49Z
  51. Support -- Banes 10:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. --Kefalonia 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. support: Ombudsman 11:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support: sensible, and seemingly democratic, too. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Clear as crystal to me. —Nightstallion (?) 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support a very good choice for arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ 12:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support, sensible user, and who cares about age anyway? Radiant_>|< 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support brilliant user and Esperanzian. Oppose age-based voting. --Celestianpower háblame 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. I am willing to give this candidate a try, diversity being one of the main reasons (but not the only one).—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, the best statement I've read. Proto t c 15:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - someone we can trust JoJan 16:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. A trustworthy user. Thryduulf 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -- Masonpatriot 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support --metta, The Sunborn 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support, though troubled by possible conflict of interest (bureaucrat status) - Xed 20:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support Garion96 (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, but dislike the notion of combining ArbCom, Admin, and Bureaucrat. Avriette 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support:We need some young blood in the ArbCom. RENTASTRAWBERRY FOR LET? röck 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Wally 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. This is my wildcard. --Ghirla | talk 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Warofdreams talk 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support teenagers have had less time to build up biases that cloud the ethic of NPOVRayc 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support - friendly, and took the criticism about Macedonia well — Sebastian (talk) 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support - extremely mature for his age, shows good judgement and has been nothing but nice to me and other people that I've seen him talk with. WikiFanatic
  85. Support. Age is not the relevant factor here. His ability and know-how are. Corax 06:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support, but with concerns that he may not have the time to do the job. --Carnildo 09:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Robdurbar 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support, and see no reason why a bureaucrat shouldn't be an ArbCom member too. Ral315 (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. Seems good enough to me! --G Rutter 20:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 20:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support It took a lot of convincing to get me to vote for a 14 year old, but this guy seems solid. Halidecyphon 21:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support --BACbKA 22:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support The Literate Engineer 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Ilyanep is a thoughtful contributor, and has been for a long time. Isomorphic 03:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. A young and bright kid that's been long enough here to know the rules --Filip (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Djordjes (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support --Syrthiss 13:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Andre (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Per Filip (Dungodung). --millosh (talk (sr:)) 15:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support mikka (t) 21:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. SupportDr. B 21:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Timrollpickering 01:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Neutralitytalk 05:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Weak support. Experienced and mainly civil. I'm only concerned about his youth and consequential lack of life experience, but OTOH having a young arbiter could also provide useful balance. Zocky 11:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Jobe6 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support - good statement. --NorkNork 20:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. ntennis 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Alphax τεχ 12:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support  Grue  16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Superm401 | Talk 22:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. I liked your statement and you've shown your reliability in other roles on the Wiki. Good Luck. Agent Blightsoot 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. support good William M. Connolley 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Strong support -- someone I know I can trust -- Francs2000 00:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Rohirok 02:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Ruy Lopez 05:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. support iMb~Meow 07:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. bainer (talk) 10:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support. - ulayiti (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support - Good candidate with a good editing record. Although I feel his philosophy to arbitration is not as well-developed as some of the other candidaters overall I believe he would make a valuable addition to the diversity of the ArbComm. Cedars 18:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Wootwoot support; seems to have the right idea. Matt Yeager 20:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Gnangarra 13:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). I would however, remind Ilyanep that there is no evidence contradicting the highly philosophical argument that no knowledge can be true. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. support Kingturtle 21:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support.-gadfium 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Reasonable, sane, all around good guy. Only qualm I have about supporting him is that I feel sorry for throwing him into the meat-grinder. Sometimes, sanity isn't a good thing :-) crazyeddie 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. I'd been ruminating on this one for a while due entirely to the age issue, but then once I started reading his comments I realized that it was almost impossible to ascertain his age from them. Thus I can't logically vote 'oppose' due solely to a number. If he can act the part, there's no reason he shouldn't have the part. ArbCom isn't exactly brain surgery. --Aaron 22:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support —Phil | Talk 10:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - kaal 17:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. One of Wikipedia's most important contributors, as he's been around forever. Good luck! Harro5 20:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - Samboy 22:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support -- Pakaran 22:41, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Fully support. Already has significant experience on the wiki in an administrative capacity. He would do an excellent job. I disagree to the fullest extent possible with Grace Note that age is in any way a criterion. Clearly this candidate is meritous, and deserves support. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support -- Astrokey44|talk 04:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Diversity is good. :) .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 17:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. --Irpen 04:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Speed is good. Looks like he's going to make it, lets see if he can deliver. - JustinWick 06:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Pschemp | Talk 07:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support Sounds good, and younger than me! :p --AySz88^-^ 01:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support ~leif ☺ (talk) 04:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Ingoolemo talk 18:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Brilliance shows itself at all ages. Ashibaka tock 21:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. +sj + 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose I don't think this candidate understands what he/she is signing up for. --EMS | Talk 21:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cryptic (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sadly oppose. While I greatly respect this user personally, his suggestions here call for a definite oppose on policy grounds. Ambi 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TacoDeposit 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Record of unsound judgment. Xoloz 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Still a child. I don't say it makes him a bad user but I do say he should not judge adults. Grace Note 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Age does not correlate ability. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    You will direct me to the champion five-year-old chess players at the last international tournament then? In any case, I don't consider it a question of ability but aptness. Ilyanep could not become the president of the United States and I think there's reason in that. Whining that the constitution is "ageist" doesn't negate its wisdom.Grace Note 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Nonsense; age does not indicate merit. If it did, we'd simply always elect the oldest members to positions of responcibility. Ilyanep already has shown significant administrative trust and clearly has merit. To deny support of him on the basis of age does not appear to be a well-conceived strategy for evaluating the qualifications of anyone. -SocratesJedi | Talk 04:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That much for evaluating persons based on their actions, not on their hair colour, age, or dietary habit... —Nightstallion (?) 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I intially agreed with Grace. But then I remembered that Ambi and Neutrality, who are about as young, proved that notion incorrect. 172 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't consider that anything like an endorsement. Grace Note 08:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Age matters. (Bjorn Tipling 07:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  13. Bobet 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Experience does not always equal sound judgment--Crunch 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - seems very thoughtful but I'm troubled by the idea of voting on "arbcom recall". ←Hob 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose --Daniel 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose (not convinced about topical bans). Chick Bowen 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose--cj | talk 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. siafu 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose --kingboyk 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Per Chick Bowen Davidpdx 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose (reluctantly) sets of bureaucrats and arbcommers shouldn't intersect.  Grue  13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. --HK 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Splashtalk 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. While the candidate has a theory of arbitration, and clearly addresses it in the candidate statement, I disagree with their conception of arbitration. Fifelfoo 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. You say in your questions that you can devote as much time as necessary, but on your userpage you say "I really really really want to go to the Illinois Mathematics and Science Academy. If I do I'll be taking month-long wikibreaks though." This would be unacceptable for an arbitrator. Plus, I don't think topical bans are that hot of an idea. The one Arbitration case that I've had much involvement in gives me the impression that they would often be too lenient. ~~ N (t/c) 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't mind I'll explain on your talk page. —Ilyanep (Talk) 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still oppose, per second part of my argument, and per Grue's argument brought up above. Sorry. ~~ N (t/c) 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. somewhat reluctantly older≠wiser 01:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, reluctantly. I really don't think that arbitrators and bureaucrats should mix. Sorry. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose SchmuckyTheCat 11:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose reluctantly per Nickptar, and concerns over age of candidate. David | Talk 11:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. I agree with a number of concerns already raised. Rje 14:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 14:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose, frequent gaps in edit history [2] indicate may not be reliable enough to fulfill role. HGB 18:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - - Vsmith 23:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. maclean25 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. —David Levy 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Rangek 01:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Age. --Ignignot 17:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. Questions on whether the user can commit the time. Velvetsmog 20:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose with regret. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Not too young, but too lenient in my opinion according to candidate statement. -- Marcika 18:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Preaky 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strongly oppose Too young to vote, drive or consent to a medical exam. Too young for ArbCom. EdwinHJ | Talk 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Reluctantly oppose: just can't be confident this user is ready for this role. Jonathunder 17:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. Not enough substance presented to inspire confidence for ArbCom membership. Also for someone who has been around for almost three years there is remarkably little contribution in article space (which is arguably the "turf" of ArbCom). Sunray 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Tuohirulla 22:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. wikiway: open votes, open everything --JWSchmidt 04:09, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose --Durin 17:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose 14 years old? If a kid of this age ends up on ArbCom it will affect Wikipedia's reputation negatively, and I think I may just lose my taste for it. Imagine the news controversy involved if something goes wrong and it's all over the news which does happen. 'Teenagers running Wikipeda.' There are businesses. libraries, and schools that use Wikipedia for reference purposes. They're planning on using Wikipedia to print inexpensive textbooks for under-developed countries. This is not a place for a kid to end up with these kinds of administrative powers. Either Wikipedia wants to be taken serious, or it wants to be a joke. (Bjorn Tipling 07:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  54. Oppose. His age bothers me too. His work to date shows potential, so maybe with a bit more experience in the university of life he might like to come back. Moriori 21:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Due only to age. Seems like an excellent user and a good guy but I can't vote to commit a 14 year old to a position like this. --Spondoolicks 21:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose CDThieme 23:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral, not sure about policy. KTC 05:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral, age gives me pause, NOT because I'm worried about maturity, but because it will be hard for this user to be able to adequately judge his ability to commit time in the next few years. In addition, the gaps in editing history worry me. --128.200.138.236 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry... that was me --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Not sure about policy on admins. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Neutral. per kzollman. Youngamerican 16:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral, also per Kzollman. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Neutral Alex43223 20:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ilyanep&oldid=1087298202"