Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Karmafist

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karmafist

The last thing I wanted to do is run for arbcom, but from my dealings with the system at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, I feel that it's necessary to enact some change.

My running is basically a protest against the arbitration process as it is, not against any particular member of the arbcom itself since I deeply respect all of them i've talked to individually. My goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system.

Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if Jimbo Wales interfered in any way, unless he truly does look down upon other Wikipedians, thus destroying the idea that Wikipedia is Egalitarian, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.

You can see some of my ideas for reforming Policy creation and enforcement here. I wish all the other candidates the best of luck, and ask all the voters to let me know what I can do to gain your trust.

Questions

Support

  1. Sceptre (Talk) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Sean|Black 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Candidate has been through hell and deserves recognition. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 00:13, Jan. 9, 2006
  5. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Babajobu 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Cyberprog 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cyberprog does not have suffrage; he had only 50 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support has extensive experience with ArbCom processes, for good and bad. Would be an interesting member, with different views to the other members. Would be a useful asset. Batmanand 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support experienced user, which would represent a significant part of Wikipedians in the ArbCom --Angelo 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Arbcom reform --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Karmafist is a dedicated WPian; in general, he upsets only the unjust. Xoloz 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Of the strongest possible type. We need ArbCom reform, this user is dedicated to that. Ronline ✉ 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yeah, ditto that. Unbelivably strong support--this is exactly the kind of person we need on arbcom; not another member of the old boys network. Pity that too many people won't let him in. =/ Oh well, that's life. Better luck next year. :) Matt Yeager 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support per Xoloz and Matt Yeager. --Heah talk 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Down with the cabal ;) Kaldari 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- SaikiriRemixed? 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support —Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Angr (tɔk) 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support after dealing with the trolls he has faced, I see him to be an excellent arbitrator.--MONGO 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Akamad 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per Kaldari. Open-minded, and would provide much-needed balance. Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wanted to vote support, but changing my vote to nuetral after further review. I don't feel this editor is sufficiently dedicated to our goals. --Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support. Good attitude. -- Michalis Famelis 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Has the experience. Banes 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support: initiative, experience, vision. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Reform candidate. —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Terence Ong Talk 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Kafziel 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. SupportGator (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Gryffindor 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support You're the best! --Thorri 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Agree with Jimbo should not have more of a saying in thisprocess than other wikipedians... Foant 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Idea of mini-tribunals is just what is needed. Robert McClenon 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, fresh ideas and blood are just what Arbcom needs.Gateman1997 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Reform needed. - Xed 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support--MichaelSirks 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. WhiteNight T | @ | C 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Rangek 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support for platform (although possibly some of his changes are too bureaucratic, I'm sure those won't pass anyway :)). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. SupportObsidianOrder 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. I had some interaction with him and he did some good as far as I can remember. __earth 12:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support User reform-minded while respecting current system. I like that. Extra processes may create bureaucracy, but sometimes that's necessary. Kerowyn 04:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support-- Lawyer2b 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support as Kerowyn and Simetrical. Robdurbar 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Solid candidate. -- Jbamb 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Jobe6 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support --- IS Guðsþegn – UTCE – 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Pintele Yid 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. LordViD 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. Preaky 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support'. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). I do have some mild concerns about Karmafist's behaviour concerning POTW, on an absurdly molehill question of geography. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support, from Oppose, after some discussion with candidate on my talk page. why? ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support, though I have some reservations, I'm also curious to see how this user would impact the ArbCom in a postive manner -- Masonpatriot 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Every parliament needs its George Galloway. Youngamerican 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support, one of the few editiors during my un-fair block situaton who actually cared to analyze the situation properly. Certainly deserves a smidge of reconigtion. -ZeroTalk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. --Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa (talk • contribs)
  60. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Tuohirulla 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Jacqui★ 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. I like the candidate's statement, and agree with the sentiment. ElectricRay 22:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support I agree that Wikipedia should be for Wikipedians, not élites, cabals and overlords Cynical 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Sadly Oppose --Jaranda wat's sup 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose --Doc ask? 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose SqueakBox 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Dmcdevit·t 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose--nixie 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Shanes 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. TacoDeposit 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose--Duk 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Raven4x4x 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Karmafist is objectively unfit to be an admin, much less ArbCom because he is objectively mendacious and abusive. he has personally harrassed me beginning with [1]. more information at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj. r b-j 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak oppose - proposed reforms are too bureaucratic, but Karmafist is otherwise a levelheaded fellow. Johnleemk | Talk 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose -- Sarah Ewart 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose, per Johnleemk though I have little interaction with Karmafist the reforms are too bureaucratic. Kit 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose -- Arwel (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Rx StrangeLove 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [2]) — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:01, Jan. 9, 2006
  32. --⟳ausa کui × 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Agree with platform, however. You know my rationale, karmafist. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. I dislike how he's handled disagreements with other users. kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose -Greg Asche (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - policy proposal is staggeringly impractical. ←Hob 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just don't think this role is the best fit. Jonathunder 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong Oppose Kmccoy states my sentiments well. freestylefrappe 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strongly. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. User has a good heart, but is not yet ready for Arbitration duties. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Evilphoenix (talk • contribs) 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Bobet 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose --Crunch 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. FOo 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose gren グレン 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose --Tabor 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. android79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. — Catherine\talk 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. zen master T 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose per Hob. ～J.K. 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose ArbCom is not a seat for advocacy, nor is it an election of a political officer (para 3 of your statement).--Tznkai 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose--cj | talk 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose nothing personal.--Alhutch 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. siafu 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - too much love of the mob rampant to be a good judge. Don't like his platform. --- Charles Stewart 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Cmouse 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. His reforms are completely unworkable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 09:03Z
  65. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Too quick to judge, and too vehement in his judgements. -- SCZenz 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose -- and ban him while you are at it for gross disruption of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. I like him personally, but he's like Everyking. Just a bit too embattled to focus on the arbcom. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Fishy. --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose I agree with his statement about the election, and I think it's time Wikipedia stopped relying on a God-king. However, I think this user is too confrontational/political to be on ArbCom. --kingboyk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Agree with others, he has good ideas but too controversial Davidpdx 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Kingboyk hits the nail square on the head.  ALKIVAR™ 12:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Lupo 12:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Weak oppose.  Grue  13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose, running for ArbCom in protest in order to massively change it feels like WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. oppose — Dunc|☺ 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. oppose need to learn to play well with others. novacatz 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. BlankVerse 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. Nothing personal, b/c Karmafist is a great editor, but I don't support anyone who's whole intent in trying to get on the arb committee is to enact massive change. --Alabamaboy 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, nothing wrong with the process. Proto t c 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. DES (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. Cannot support; not with his attitude towards existing procedures.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Alanyst 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose. any user exhibitng {{User allow fairuse}} on his userpage exhibits serious deficit of reason. --Wikimol 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose--Sjharte 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose- Jim62sch 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. History of poor judgment. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose --Pjacobi 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. Seems a reasonable fellow, given no conflict, but I don't care for his attitude when he's in a conflict. Hermione1980 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. --HK 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Splashtalk 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose. Recent history. You don't "win trust" on an election platform. You win it before. Avriette 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Avalon 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. -- Krash 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. oppose. BL kiss the lizard 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. older≠wiser 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose --Interiot 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose --Alynna 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose - Cannot support given recent history of wheel warring and other unpleasantness I've seen around karmafist. --Cyde Weys votetalk 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose protest candidacy. Support people willing to arbitrate. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. oppose Kingturtle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose He has the temperment of a legislator and this is a judicial position. The two do not go together. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. oppose Wizzy…☎ 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    oppose based on political edit wars and his blind eye to Wikipedia policy TCorp 12:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    TCorp's account was made on December 20th 2005. --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. oppose as per Radiant! et al. Thryduulf 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose. I do not believe that Karmafist being made an arbitrator would benefit Wikipedia. Rje 14:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose platform and conduct. Conscious 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose Bad attitude. --EMS | Talk 16:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose. Edit-warrior, PoV-pusher. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. Recent wheel-warring leaves a bad taste in my mouth. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose, too inexperienced for arbitrator role, really didn't even start editing until July [3]. HGB 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose not really suited by temperment for this role; more suited as advocate than arbitrator. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose - Strongly disagree with reform proposal. Awolf002 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. 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 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose: I don't agree with your reform, so sadly, I vote no. Sorry. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose, Vsmith 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose, statement. KTC 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  133. Oppose--Carabinieri 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose Fad (ix) 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose protest candidates; be for something, not against everything. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose - not suited, no real goals except disturb arbitration, might slow down arbitration instead of helping. --NorkNork 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose - goals seem incompatible with the intent of the arbcom. Jakew 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Reluctantly Oppose. Although I agree that ArbCom needs overhaul, your ideas I feel would ensnarl the body in bureaucracy. Velvetsmog 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose. Jitse Niesen (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose with regret. If anyone could shake up ArbComm, it's K. But does it need that much shaking? No. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) struck by ++Lar: t/c 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose. Want someone prepared to actually arbitrate, not someone protesting against it. Superm401 | Talk 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose, I don't think you have the right temperament for this role, from what I have seen of your edits -- Francs2000 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose. the sour smell of judicial activism --JWSchmidt 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose, edit wars, POV, bad attitude. - ulayiti (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose Dominick (TALK) 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose Chooserr 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose I can accept standing in protest to the process but... Gnangarra 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Neutralitytalk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose Nothing personal, but this sounds like a bad reason to want to be on Arbcom--Omniwolf 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose Vindictive, petulant, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive, abusive and unable to use his admin powers responsibly. Massively unsuitable. Shouldn't even be an admin. Andy Mabbett 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose, don't want an arbitrator whose "goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system". --Stormie 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose Sunray 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose —Phil | Talk 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose. Monicasdude 12:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose - kaal 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose — some reform ideas have merit, but candidate appears temperamentally unsuited to an ArbCom position. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose not suitable for the arb com Secretlondon 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Oppose too political - JustinWick 16:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose Alex43223 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Oppose CDThieme 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Oppose. Alai 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Karmafist&oldid=1087298347"