Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Luigi30

Luigi30
I'm the unknown 3rd party. Vote for me if you're disillusioned.

I think that Arbcom has become too slow and bloated in the last year. Cases are piling up and waiting months for a final verdict. People are being driven away by the inefficiency. If I am voted to Arbcom, I'd try to speed things along. I hate trolls, and like long walks on the beach. I am against banning except in extreme circumstances or for repeat offenders. I think that a first offense should not be banned for, only for problem users or extreme trolls. Luigi30 (&Tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa;) 03:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Edit history shows level head, positive involvement with problem users.--ragesoss 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support--he'd be a funky arbcom member. And the arbcom could use more funkiness. Matt Yeager 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. This is my apology for killing you so many times in Super Mario Bros.! --maru (talk) Contribs 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. android  79  06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. --Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support a real underdog candidate, but I feel Luigi could do a good job on arbcom.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support not taking life too seriously. --Cel e stianpower háblame 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support seems like a nice chap.  Grue   13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Fresh blood, I think worthy. --kingboyk 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. The best. Soo 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support good even tempered editor. See no reason user won't do a great job and add new blood.Gateman1997 19:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support as kingboyk. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support warpozio 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support he wants to speed up things and keep out lenghty discussions. i'm all for that. jaromil 11:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Jaromil does not have suffrage; he had only 43 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, I think Luigi will make a good arbitrator. The committee needs a balance of outlooks. Thryduulf 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Robdurbar 12:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support -- Davidpdx 13:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --Adrian Buehlmann 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Deckiller 01:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. 20:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support -- Masonpatriot 05:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Mo0 [ talk ] 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Everyking 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, policy. Ambi 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Policy issues. Batmanand 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose for policy issues --Angelo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose Fred Bauder 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose --Crunch 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose Somewhat too new. 172 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Bobet 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose--cj | talk 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. utcursch | talk 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. --Viriditas 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Weak oppose ... I'd like to see more involvement in conflict resolution to better gauge Luigi's capabilities in the area. Tom e rtalk  13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. siafu 17:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. Has shown poor judgement too recently. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 18:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:18Z 
 * 37) Oppose  &#08492;  astique &#09660; par &#08467; er &#09829; voir &#09809;  21:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose Coolgamer 21:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Advocate starting a troll-witch-hunt? Avriette 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) --Doc ask? 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) older&ne;wiser 02:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose - Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) oppose Kingturtle 06:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose I find that certain comments made in the statement and in response to some questions are flippant, which doesn't bode well for a prospective arbitrator. Rje 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) 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 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose, inexperience. Sorry. Run again next year and I'll probably support you. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose Vsmith 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. record for fastest g-line --JWSchmidt 03:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose, questions. KTC 19:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose, Simplistic views, age, somewhat inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 22:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) OpposeDr. B 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose - unconvincing. --NorkNork 21:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) weak Oppose, just a tad too soon. I'll support next year, however. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose. Candidate statement lacks a bit of substance. Appreciate the lightheartedness though. Velvetsmog 23:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose, difficult to take seriously. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. maclean 25 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose. Need more experience. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 06:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Reluctant oppose I really like what I've seen from this editor, so my heart sank a bit when I read the candidate statement. Seems too reluctant to ban. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Opposethe statement has me concerned. Gnangarra 13:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose. Seems unwilling to consider the possibility that an arbitrator could be really wrong. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) weak Oppose WilliamKF 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 22:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Oppose. Preaky 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose angusj 02:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Oppose per MegaManZero. Youngamerican 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) oppose inexperience, questions William M. Connolley 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 78) oppose too inexperienced David D. (Talk) 00:30, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Oppose Jared 20:00, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Oppose --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Oppose Sunray 07:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 82)  Bratsche talk 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Oppose, somewhat reluctantly — candidate seems like a decent fellow, but policy positions do not appear to have been thoroughly considered. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - &#91;&#91;User talk:Wrp103&#124;Talk]] 19:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Oppose Alex43223 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)