Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/SVera1NY

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

SVera1NY

Although I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months, I have contributed alot, especially reverting vandalism and inviting newcomers. I think I would be a great addition to the Committee and would greatly appreciate a post. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Questions

Support

  1. Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support TestPilot 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --HK 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: This looks user truelly looks he deserves it - Chooserr 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Kirill Lokshin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose — Omegatron 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Too new at the moment. Batmanand 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose - same. Staffelde 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose not experienced --Angelo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, too new. Crunch 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Bobet 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose.--ragesoss 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Too new. 172 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Experience (lack of) novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose. android79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose--cj | talk 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Elle vécu heureuse à jamais (Be eudaimonic!) 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose.  Grue  14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Lack of experience. Keep up good work, though.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, xp --kingboyk 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose, WAY 2 nu ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z
  41. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Splashtalk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Too new and not active enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. older≠wiser 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Fuzzy bunny statement. Fifelfoo 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Did you send them flowers, too? Avriette 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Raven4x4x 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego talk 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Not enough experience, not enough thought given to election statment.--JK the unwise 12:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  56. Oppose. I'm looking for more experience. --JWSchmidt 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Krash 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose Dr. B 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - inexperienced -- Francs2000 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. No substance to the statement. Velvetsmog 01:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Too inexperienced. --Optichan 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Inexperienced, and statement provides no insight. --William Pietri 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. siafu 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Preaky 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. Inexperienced and gives no reason for me to vote for him. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Dannycas 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Inexperience Ingoolemo talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. Lack of experience and flagrant abuse of boxes on userpage. Avengerx 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose --Loopy e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose seems to want to be on the Arbcom as a status symbol, not to actually accomplish anything Cynical 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose --moof 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, the usual reasons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose, experience. KTC 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Not enough experience yet. --Spondoolicks 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose CDThieme 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Although from the few responses given to questioning, SVera1NY appears fairly sensible, neutral, and balanced, I feel that her candidacy was too late to be properly investigated via hustings. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Youngamerican 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral. Good, balanced, thinking kid, but doesn't give me much information about what she would do once in "office." Maybe next time. (P.S. - Just how much experience is everyone expecting from the candidates?!) Author782 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/SVera1NY&oldid=1087298019"