Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Trojanpony

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trojanpony

I'm just a really nice guy. :)

Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Good opening statement. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - really nice guy. --harej 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support RMHED (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Tactical Support, I would have preferred to see more answers to questions though. Wonder if the other tactical supports were for the same reason as mine? Brilliantine (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tactical Support - You all know why. ScarianCall me Pat! 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tactical support - this user isn't suitable for arbcom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Despite some reservations, this is by no means the least intelligent candidate, and does not deserve such a low finish. --JayHenry (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Candidate statement might be full of lies. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr talk 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voyaging(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Majorly talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin. --Elonka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caspian blue 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. iridescent 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Unfortunately, some demonstration of competence is required for the job. —kurykh 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per answers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Avruch T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per [nonexistent] answers to questions. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. iMatthew 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. lol wut? --Mixwell!Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Joke? RockManQReview me 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. At least some measure of knowledge in Dispute Resolution should be shown prior to ArbCom.--Koji† 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. J.delanoygabsadds 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose BJTalk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Prodego talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. MER-C 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I appreciate the candidate's good-faith in running, but (s)he lacks the experience needd to be an arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I'm sure you are a nice guy! :) Mike H. Fierce! 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose due to being a nice guy with no other real qualifications. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. -- Avi (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose
  38. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Also no dispute resolution experience. Please RFA, gain experience in WP:DR, and run again. //roux   editor review09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. — neuro(talk) 10:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mailer Diablo 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Horologium (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose165 edits is insufficient in my opinion to show you are sufficiently involved in this community to serve on Arbcomm this year. Get more involved in things like wp:fac or wherever else in wikipedia that you find enjoyable and I'll reconsider in a future year. ϢereSpielChequers 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Being nice is great, but more experience is needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Possible joke candidacy without a great deal of humour. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Inadequate activity level. GRBerry 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Synergy 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Not experienced enough yet, but thanks for volunteering. :) I feel it's important for the arbcom to be administrators, as they will deal with things that require the admin flag (such as deleted revisions). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. AGK 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Davewild (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose: Not enough experience, not active enough. The Helpful One 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration is a job that requires a fairly hefty time commitment (this is not surprising or problematic, because Wikipedia is by some metrics the world's largest single source of information, and the project does need highly-dedicated volunteers who would make time commitments that would not be reasonable at less important sites or for less important organizations.) --JayHenry (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. GlassCobra 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Alexfusco5 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. macy 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose.Nrswanson (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Seriously, is this a joke? ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose nowhere near enough experience or commitment. Hut 8.5 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience.  RGTraynor  20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. --Badger Drink (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Without answers to questions, and a one-sentence, ethos-filled statesment. It looks like this candidate isn't even trying.  Marlith (Talk)  04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Lacks experience and just over 140 edits, seriously..we should have a nomination criteria next year !!..--Cometstyles 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Kusma (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Gentgeen (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a serious candidate. Looks to me like you're trying to make a joke of this election and you even fail at doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Michael Snow (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Joe Nutter 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose After looking at your answers, I'm thinking if you even care about this job. Leujohn (talk)
  80. Oppose - Not a serious candidate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Too little involvement with the project. SilkTork *YES! 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Terence (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. I don't like nice guys!--Michael X the White (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose --VS talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose, just being a nice guy doesn't work. - Shyam (T/C) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. I'm sure you're a nice guy, but... Tex (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose candidates should fulfill the requirements for voting before being allowed to run. Also, this candidate has not put in sufficient effort into this process, which I would suggest is indicative of their interest, and predictive of their likely effectiveness in the position if elected, which I belive would be sadly lacking. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose This ain't no disco! --Buster7 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose This ain't no foolin' around tgies (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Didn't even bother with a statement. — Manticore 07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Not with the program. Fred Talk 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose Horses are the only four-legged candidates I would support... Rje (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Less of 200 edits in total--Rjecina (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 04:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose sorry I'm not a nice guy Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose - So you can apply to be an Arbitrator with 143 edits but you have to have >150 to vote? Score one for Wikipedia. Switzpaw (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. per Switzpaw. — Sebastian 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. Too inexperienced; unable to deal with difficult issues at ArbCom as demonstrated by sporadic answering of questions. Caulde 14:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. SQLQuery me! 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Trojanpony&oldid=1221636640"