Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin

AntonioMartin
First of all, happy new year to all voters. I have been working here for three years and three months. While I know that alone doesn't mean I could be an arbitrator, I promise if I am honored with such position I will do my best to solve discrepances according to wikipedia principles, and to keep expanding wikipedia into the website I think it will be, in other words, the website of the 00's. Furthermore, I will keep pursuing unity among writers. Antonio New year, new resolutions Martin 12:37, 1 January, 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Exeperienced --Jaranda wat's sup 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Guettarda 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Experienced, communicates clearly.--ragesoss 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support -- PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support --Bfraga 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He seems to be experienced and fair enough for the position. --Angelo 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - He is a dilligent contributor and a fair-minded fellow. → P . M a c U i d h i r   (t)  (c)  00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Raven4x4x 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Seems experienced and fair. --Bumpusmills1 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bumpusmills1 does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 07:07, 9 December 2005 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. r b-j 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Xoloz 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Joaquin Murietta 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Have worked with him on WikiProjects. Diligent and fair.
 * 5) Support. You are very experienced, and therefore, you know what is going on, and can assist ArbCom. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) support Grutness...wha?  04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Tony the Marine 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – ClockworkSoul 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. -- Scott ei&#960;  05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support seems a good candidate.  Grue   06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, good guy, sure to be fair. Sam Spade 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. --Kefalonia 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support: he is a fine candidate, as an experienced, egalitarian, and seemingly fair user. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Fairness with a capital F is what I've seen from this user. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Davidpdx 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Mild Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Adrian Buehlmann 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, bill of rights silliness notwithstanding, he seems like a dedicated contributer who would be a good addition Masonpatriot 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support, dedicated member of the wikipedia community, and always ready to give a helping hand in controversial issues.Cjrs 79 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --Petros471 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. -- HK 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Abögarp. 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. &lt;K  F&gt;  22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Silas Snider (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support 青い(Aoi) 10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Honest and experienced. &mdash; Asbestos | Talk   (RFC)  16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Rangek 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support, experienced and sounds fair. --JSIN 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, a good soul with an exemplary editing record. Cedars 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, naturally. Hedley 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support, been here long time, knows what to do.Alex43223 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support, experienced and civil. Zocky 10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support, fine by me. Deckiller 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. (SEWilco 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 32) Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support I agree with his nomination.Vertical123 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Strong Support. Oh, Yeah! Sebastian Kessel Talk 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support My only regret about this vote is that I didn't know voting had started yet --mav
 * 36) Support Tiles 09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support WolfBane06 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User's first edit was January 16 and has less than 150 edits; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak Support evrik 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate would expand the diversity of the Committee.
 * 2) support. Gentgeen 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) support Sounds like a good moderate voice. User:jaedza 21:45 (UTC), 19 January 2005
 * 4) Support Calwatch 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, experienced....... speaks clearly too. Edraf 10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Edraf does not have suffrage; he registered at 09:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC) and he had no edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 15:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - &#91;&#91;User talk:Wrp103&#124;Talk]] 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Deb 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Argentino 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Carptrash 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Pacific Coast Highway |Leave a message ($.25) June 29, 2024
 * 6) Support Seems dedicated to the spirit of the project. --Spondoolicks 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support CDThieme 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose - Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak, reluctant oppose. Antonio is a sweetie, but his support for the "code of conduct" and "bill of rights" nonsense forces me to oppose. Ambi 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) TacoDeposit 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. --Viriditas 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Don't feel Antonio has the right stuff for arbcom, bill of rights crap notwithstanding. Johnleemk | Talk 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) older&ne;wiser 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose.Crunch 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Dave 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Per Ambi. 172 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Rhobite 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per Ambi. FCYTravis 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose fluffy bunny no content candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Fred Bauder 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. android  79  05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose I see nothing in his statement or his user page that recommends him for this sensitive position. --EMS | Talk 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. siafu 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. As Ambi. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose Blatant political style campaigning in statement & Ambi--Tznkai 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose - WP:NOT and can't be a democracy. --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose Lupo 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose as per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose, while I am impressed by your experience I do not feel you would be right for ArbCom. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) weak oppose, I'm not certain Antonio has fully grasped that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thryduulf 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose, his statement and answers lean towards the bureaucratic and to using the letter rather than spirit of the rules. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Meekohi 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose I agree with the criticism of a bureaucratic problem. Nick Kerr 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose as per Thryduulf. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) oppose - per ambi. novacatz 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. Candidate statement did not impress me much.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. The Literate Engineer 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose. As per Radiant &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Reflex Reaction (talk &bull; contribs) 15:59, 9 January 2006  (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose Jkelly 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Weak oppose - Wikipedia aims towards consensus, not democracy. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose Jim62sch 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) * Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) **Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose. Gamaliel 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. I like Antonio, but not for Arbcom. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Splash talk 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose. Avriette 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose. experienced yes, but understanding of arbitration, not demonstrated.--cjllw |  TALK  23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose. evidence to indicate sound arbitration judgement? --JWSchmidt 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose per Ambi. -- SCZenz 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose per Ambi & others above. Vsmith 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose per Ambi & others.  Velvetsmog 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, lack of experience. User:Siddiqui 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Siddiqui likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 16:31, 9 December 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. --Carnildo 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose weak candidate statement Robdurbar 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Liberatore(T) 14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose  per questions-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, lots of edits, but lacks community involvement. HGB 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose per Bill of Rights support and other worries. Ral315 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose  The Jade Knight 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) No experience in resolving conflict, uses Wikipedia as a chat forum  , dedicates articles to other people  , which might be a violation of WP:OWN. JoaoRicardotalk 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose as per ambi William M. Connolley 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 12) Oppose per Ambi --Loopy e 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Timrollpickering 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose sees words of rules, but not their depth and meaning, or even, lack thereof!Ciriii 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ciriii does not have suffrage; he registered at 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 93 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak oppose. &mdash;David Wahler (talk)  02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. not me 70.239.214.133 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons do not have suffrage. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--Masssiveego 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose: Experience isn't everything. Makes a weak argument for himself.Dr. B 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Lincolnite 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Frenchgeek 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Sunray 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per joao Bjrobinson 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bjrobinson does not have suffrage; he had only 125 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose While I like your experience, I am voting for those that want to make information free to everyone instead of creating "the website of the 00's" --Ignignot 16:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose – ABCDe ✉ 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, reluctantly -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Preaky 05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose per Ambi and Radiant Youngamerican 14:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Itake 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Ambi. kaal 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Though obviously a strong contributor, seems rather na&iuml;ve and simplistic, and not prepared to make hard answers to hard questions. Ingoolemo talk 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose this time Tuohirulla 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose sorry Dannycas 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Gavin 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kaiwen1 does not have suffrage; he registered at 05:01, 18 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 66 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, reluctantly. Candidate seems good-natured and intelligent, but does not appear to have considered contentious policy questions deeply enough. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, pedantically. User cannot even properly copyedit his own election speech. - JustinWick 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3)  Bratsche talk 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose with regard to policy. --Pastricide 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose not much consideration in statement. Holding up Wikipedia's principle is expected, it's not as if anyone is running as 'will not uphold wikipedia rules'. (Bjorn Tipling 06:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC))