Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/AntonioMartin

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

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)[reply]
  2. Guettarda 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Experienced, communicates clearly.--ragesoss 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support --Bfraga 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support He seems to be experienced and fair enough for the position. --Angelo 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support - He is a dilligent contributor and a fair-minded fellow. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Raven4x4x 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Seems experienced and fair. --Bumpusmills1 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. r b-j 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support Xoloz 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Joaquin Murietta 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Have worked with him on WikiProjects. Diligent and fair.[reply]
  13. 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)[reply]
    Support - it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. support Grutness...wha? 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Tony the Marine 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. -- Scott eiπ 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support seems a good candidate.  Grue  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, good guy, sure to be fair. Sam Spade 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. --Kefalonia 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support: he is a fine candidate, as an experienced, egalitarian, and seemingly fair user. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Fairness with a capital F is what I've seen from this user. —Nightstallion (?) 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Davidpdx 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Mild Support --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Adrian Buehlmann 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. Support --Petros471 18:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. --HK 22:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Abögarp. 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. <KF> 22:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Silas Snider (talk) 04:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support 青い(Aoi) 10:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Honest and experienced. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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)[reply]
  37. Support. Rangek 02:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support, experienced and sounds fair. --JSIN 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, a good soul with an exemplary editing record. Cedars 10:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support, naturally. Hedley 22:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support, been here long time, knows what to do.Alex43223 04:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support, experienced and civil. Zocky 10:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support, fine by me. Deckiller 01:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. (SEWilco 03:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Support I agree with his nomination.Vertical123 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong Support. Oh, Yeah! Sebastian Kessel Talk 05:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support My only regret about this vote is that I didn't know voting had started yet --mav
  49. Support Tiles 09:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support WolfBane06 18:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  50. Weak Support evrik 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate would expand the diversity of the Committee.[reply]
  51. support. Gentgeen 18:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. support Sounds like a good moderate voice. User:jaedza 21:45 (UTC), 19 January 2005
  53. Support Calwatch 06:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, experienced....... speaks clearly too. Edraf 10:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Deb 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Argentino 20:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Carptrash 05:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 05:28, 5 August 2024 UTC [refresh]
  59. Support Seems dedicated to the spirit of the project. --Spondoolicks 19:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support CDThieme 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose - Mackensen (talk) 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, policy. Carbonite | Talk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  10. TacoDeposit 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. --Viriditas 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Don't feel Antonio has the right stuff for arbcom, bill of rights crap notwithstanding. Johnleemk | Talk 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. older≠wiser 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose.Crunch 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Dave 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Per Ambi. 172 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose. Rhobite 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Ambi. FCYTravis 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose fluffy bunny no content candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. android79 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  29. Oppose. siafu 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. As Ambi. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Blatant political style campaigning in statement & Ambi--Tznkai 06:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - WP:NOT and can't be a democracy. --- Charles Stewart 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Lupo 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose as per Ambi. Sarah Ewart 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  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)[reply]
  37. weak oppose, I'm not certain Antonio has fully grasped that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Thryduulf 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, his statement and answers lean towards the bureaucratic and to using the letter rather than spirit of the rules. Radiant_>|< 13:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Meekohi 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose I agree with the criticism of a bureaucratic problem. Nick Kerr 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose as per Thryduulf. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. oppose - per ambi. novacatz 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Candidate statement did not impress me much.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. The Literate Engineer 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. As per Radiant —the preceding unsigned comment is by Reflex Reaction (talk • contribs) 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose Jkelly 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Weak oppose - Wikipedia aims towards consensus, not democracy. --AySz88^-^ 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Jim62sch 21:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. I like Antonio, but not for Arbcom. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Splashtalk 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Avriette 22:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. experienced yes, but understanding of arbitration, not demonstrated.--cjllw | TALK 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. evidence to indicate sound arbitration judgement? --JWSchmidt 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose per Ambi. -- SCZenz 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose per Ambi & others above. Vsmith 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per Ambi & others. Velvetsmog 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, lack of experience. User:Siddiqui 01:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. --Carnildo 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose weak candidate statement Robdurbar 12:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - Liberatore(T) 14:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose per questions--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose, lots of edits, but lacks community involvement. HGB 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose per Bill of Rights support and other worries. Ral315 (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose The Jade Knight 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. No experience in resolving conflict, uses Wikipedia as a chat forum [1] [2] [3], dedicates articles to other people [4] [5], which might be a violation of WP:OWN. JoaoRicardotalk 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose as per ambi William M. Connolley 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  71. Oppose per Ambi --Loopy e 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose sees words of rules, but not their depth and meaning, or even, lack thereof!Ciriii 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Weak oppose. —David Wahler (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. not me 70.239.214.133 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Anons do not have suffrage. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose: Experience isn't everything. Makes a weak argument for himself.Dr. B 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Lincolnite 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Frenchgeek 21:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Sunray 07:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose as per joao Bjrobinson 10:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. 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)[reply]
  82. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 17:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose, reluctantly -- Francs2000 01:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Preaky 05:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose per Ambi and Radiant Youngamerican 14:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Itake 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  88. Oppose per Ambi. kaal 16:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Though obviously a strong contributor, seems rather naïve and simplistic, and not prepared to make hard answers to hard questions. Ingoolemo talk 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose this time Tuohirulla 22:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose sorry Dannycas 00:13, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Gavin 04:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. 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)[reply]
  93. Oppose, pedantically. User cannot even properly copyedit his own election speech. - JustinWick 03:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose with regard to policy. --Pastricide 17:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 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))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/AntonioMartin&oldid=1223288386"