Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Trojanpony

Support

 * 1) PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) --A NobodyMy talk 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Good opening statement. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - really nice guy. --harej 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support RMHED (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 10) Tactical Support - You all know why.  Scarian  Call me Pat!  04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 13) Candidate statement might be full of lies. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr  talk 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) -- 'Kanonkas' :  Talk  00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Voyaging (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  MBisanz  talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose  Majorly  talk  00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin. --Elonka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Caspian blue 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11)  iride scent  01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * 12)  krimpet  ✽  01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Unfortunately, some demonstration of competence is required for the job. —  kur  ykh   01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) per answers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Avruch  T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Per [nonexistent] answers to questions. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22)  iMa tth ew  02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) lol wut? --  Mix well ! Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Joke? RockManQ Review me 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) At least some measure of knowledge in Dispute Resolution should be shown prior to ArbCom.-- Koji †  02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27)  J.delanoy gabs adds  02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. rootology  ( C )( T ) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose BJ Talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30)  Prodego  talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) John Vandenberg (chat) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) MER-C 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33)  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) I appreciate the candidate's good-faith in running, but (s)he lacks the experience needd to be an arbitrator.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) I'm sure you are a nice guy! :) Mike H. Fierce! 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 37) -- Avi (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose
 * 1) Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) 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 review 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; neuro(talk) 10:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Mailer Diablo 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Horologium  (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) 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.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) 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)
 * 10) Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) Possible joke candidacy without a great deal of humour. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Inadequate activity level.  GRBerry 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15)  Syn  ergy 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) 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, Peter Symonds  ( talk ) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) AGK 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Davewild (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose: Not enough experience, not active enough. The  Helpful  One  21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Glass  Cobra  00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Alex ' fusco ' 5  02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. macy 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose.Nrswanson (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Seriously, is this a joke? ѕwirlвoy   ₪  04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose nowhere near enough experience or commitment.  Hut 8.5  19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose: Not remotely enough experience.   RGTraynor  20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Миша 13  22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) --Badger Drink (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) 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)
 * 15) Lacks experience and just over 140 edits, seriously..we should have a nomination criteria next year !!..-- Cometstyles 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Kusma (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Gentgeen (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Michael Snow (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Joe Nu  tter  01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose After looking at your answers, I'm thinking if you even care about this job. Leujohn  ( talk )
 * 5) Oppose - Not a serious candidate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Happy ‑ melon  18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) 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)
 * 9) Oppose. Too little involvement with the project.  SilkTork  *YES! 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Terence (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) I don't like nice guys!--Michael X the White (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- VS talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, just being a nice guy doesn't work. -  Shyam  ( T / C ) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) I'm sure you're a nice guy, but... Tex (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) 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)
 * 17) Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Kittybrewster  &#9742;  15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose This ain't no disco! --Buster7 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose This ain't no foolin' around tgies (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Didn't even bother with a statement. — Manti  core  07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Not with the program. Fred Talk 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Horses are the only four-legged candidates I would support... Rje (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Less of 200 edits in total--Rjecina (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 04:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose sorry I'm not a nice guy Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose —  xaosflux  Talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) 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)
 * 30) per Switzpaw. &mdash; Sebastian 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) 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)
 * 32) SQL Query me!  20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)