Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Ajwebb

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ajwebb

I am a relatively new user to Wikipedia, but I enjoy the community and feel that I would be a strong addition to the Arbitration Committee. Before registering, I browsed Wikipedia with an interest on learning the entire process of editing, contributing, submitting AfD, and other procedures. Wikipedia is focused on allowing people to receive the gift of free information and to make sure that all users follow proper procedures and enjoy contributing information. I would follow all procedures accurately, professionally, and do my best to resolve the situation and work closely with other members of the Arbitration Committee. Even though I am a new member to Wikipedia, I promise to fulfill all requirements and be very active with the Committee. I love Wikipedia and contributing, and I’m sure it will be a lasting process. I would be a successful mediator and vote decisively and accurately. I do not hold personal opinions of members, as everyone deserves a fair resolution process. Feel free to ask any questions or concerns that you might have. I would be happy to answer them. Thank you for your time. Ajwebb 20:19, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support

  1. Support. Seems level-headed, writes clearly.--ragesoss 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support; I agree with Mr. Ross.--Anglius 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. --Kefalonia 09:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support per Ross. Davidpdx 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Some fresh view is definitely good here. Seems reasonable. Good answers. Good representative of newbies. Adrian Buehlmann 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Obviously knows what he's doing, sincerely hopes to get some good things done. Jared 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support despite the fact he is a n00b, he sames like the right type of candidate. ComputerJoe 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support. --HK 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support a good statement, good candidate Robdurbar 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --The Brain 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Reader781 05:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, he seems fine --james_anatidae 06:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support: Not every person on the committee needs to be someone who’s been here a long time. His writing style indicates that he knows what he’s doing.Dr. B 17:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support: His statement shows that we could use more people like him. No one said you had to be here a long time.Alex43223 04:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, as above Bjrobinson 10:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)]].[reply]
  14. Support, I think we need a mix of old hands and new ones. I don't want wikipedia to end up ossified. --Ignignot 16:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, I'm glad to see there are some new users willing to really help out Wikipedia - Good luck! -Benbread 17:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - might be a bit inexperienced but seems very rational and sympathetic. --NorkNork 19:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support This user looks promising. I think that they will work hard and be an excellent edition to Wikipedia. I wish that they did have more experience but I still think that they would help the site. Turcottem 15:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support, well articlulated, being new doesn't mean you dont have ability or a voice Gnangarra 15:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, fresh blood... *evil laugh* Lanoitarus (talk) .:. 20:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. Seems well adjusted and balanced, 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]
    Support. Like to see a mix of young and old hands 'forming' Wikipedia (so to Speak), and I think his lack of experience is buoyed by his good edit style. -- Duey Finster 22:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. SupportItake 22:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support --Randolph 04:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support - Impressive enough to me that you have the gutsy to try. Nothing like trial by fire at times. --LifeStar 14:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SupportDannycas 00:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support There's no reason I can see to oppose. User:jaedza 21:37 (UTC), 19 January 2005
  25. Support Seems unconnected to any particular political views, commonsense approach. A breath of fresh air. - JustinWick 03:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support I'm not sure he knows what he is getting into wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Nortonew 02:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. evrik 20:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Lack of experience, sorry. – ugen64 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. —Kirill Lokshin 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. Just not enough experience. Sorry. Batmanand 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose, not-experienced. --Angelo 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Inexperienced. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Cryptic (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Maybe next time. Neutralitytalk 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Like myself user is too new for this responsibility. --Bumpusmills1 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose too new–Gnomz007(?) 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Reluctant oppose because amount of experience does matter for this type of role. Jonathunder 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. Needs more experience. --Viriditas 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:07, Jan. 9, 2006
  27. Oppose Not yet. Withi time we will be able to see how you handle yourself in difficult situations, such as in edit reverting situations and then we can have an idea of how you would handle yourself as an abritrator. Tony the Marine 02:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose too new, sorry. - Bobet 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Jord 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Too new. older≠wiser 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Inexperience. Dave 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Too new. Paul August ☎ 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Inexperience. Crunch 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Sorry, come back when you have more experience. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Too new. Still, thank you for your contributions so far. 172 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Inexperience. feydey 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Too new. Pacific Coast Highway|Spam me! 19:09, 3 November 2024 UTC [refresh]
  40. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose—LeFlyman 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose fluffy bunny no content candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. android79 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose not enough XP.  Grue  06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose There is more to this job than enforcing the rules. In other words: Not just too new, but also too naive. --EMS | Talk 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. siafu 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. New to wikipedia and very few edits. Gaurav1146 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose --cj | talk 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 07:30Z
  52. Oppose. Inexperience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Lupo 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose, lack of experience --kingboyk 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose sorry, but you're just too new (you aren't even eligible to vote) and too inexperienced (you only have 21 article edits). Sorry. Sarah Ewart 10:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose: I thgink that it's too early to support your bid; we certainly need to see more of you, to see you build a track record, before admitting you to such a considerably powerful rôle. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. You seem like a good user but being on the ArbCom needs a lot more experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose. Honestly, I'm not sure how no one can vote who has less than 1,500 edits but you can RUN for the arbcom with 200 or so. Makes 0 sense. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Like the wub I feel you're too inexperienced in the ways of Wikipedia to make a good arbitrator at this time. Continue your good work and stick around for the year and if your still interested run again next time around and I'm sure you'll get more support votes. Thryduulf 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Too little XP. —Nightstallion (?) 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Far too inexperienced. Morwen - Talk 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Inexperienced. Sorry, nothing personal. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose too little experience.  ALKIVAR™ 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose, Meekohi 13:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose, needs more experience. Awolf002 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose, due to lack of experience.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose: The chief quality of an arbitrator is a proven ability to handle conflict in a manner that is wholly consistent with policy. Being new means no proof, no track record, and no experience with policy. Geogre 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Sorry you are just too new. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reflex Reaction (talk • contribs) .
  73. Oppose; lack of experience. - Liberatore(T) 16:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose, XP Masonpatriot 16:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose edit game articles, start a failed nomination for deletion, become an arbitrator? --JWSchmidt 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Jkelly 17:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. It seems candidate has been on Wikipedia for less than a month, which is way too short for ArbCom. Try again next time. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Maybe after a year. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose. Hasn't been here long enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose -- good attitude, needs more experience —the preceding unsigned comment is by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) 21:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Oppose' - lack of experience. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Splashtalk 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Too new. Sorry. William M. Connolley 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  84. Oppose. too new. Avriette 22:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose, lack of experience. Avalon 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose, lack of experience. -- SCZenz 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose, lack of experience. Velvetsmog 01:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose, lack of experience. Vsmith 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, lack of experience. User:Siddiqui 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose, lack of experience. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose, lack of experience. --JohnDBuell 02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose, too new. kenj0418 04:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose, lack of experience. --Alan Au 05:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Raven4x4x 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose, lack of interaction with other editors. Maybe next year, sorry. 青い(Aoi) 10:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. Lack of experience. No track record. Participation in AfD practically says nothing of his ability. __earth 12:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose, experience. enochlau (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose, insufficient experience -- Gurch 14:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose, insufficient experience--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 16:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Seems like a good person, but hasn't been here for enough time. JoaoRicardotalk 18:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose, I see little in your contribution history that suggests you would be good or poor for arbitration; most of your edits are under AfD. The Jade Knight 19:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose -- Krash 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose, Lack of experience -- Prodego talk 20:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Fad (ix) 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose, lack of experience --PTSE 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose, only 183 edits. Too new. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose - looks like a great user and all, but I couldn't support someone so new --Loopy e 23:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose Rangek 01:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Just not enough done yet Ciriii 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose, experience -- KTC 03:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose, inexperience --Brentt 05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose, more experience is desirable. --JSIN 06:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. not me 70.239.214.133 06:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. --Masssiveego 07:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose, lack of experience. Fastifex 09:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose, lack of experience. --Hurricane111 16:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose Tazz765 17:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose Lincolnite 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose Frenchgeek 21:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose Lack of experience. Not ruling you out for the future, though. Superm401 | Talk 02:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose. No track record that would indicate suitability for ArbCom. Sunray 07:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose. Lack of experience. – ABCDe✉ 17:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose. Unfourtuntely due to lack of experience, but a possible candidate for the future, perhaps due to being keen to get involved. All the best and keep up the great contributions to Wikipedia. Agent Blightsoot 22:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose Inexperience for Arb Comm --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose - lack of experience -- Francs2000 23:53, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose - Great user, but currently has a lack of experience. Deckiller 01:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose - Too few edits. joturner 03:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose - lack of experience. -- Marcika 17:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose - inexperience. Good luck getting it, though. --William Pietri 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose - general lack of experience, still too new to editing -- fewer than 50 main namespace edits, fewer than 200 overall edits, first edit October 5, 2005. --Mysidia (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose. Preaky 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose, lack of experience. Try again next time. --SarekOfVulcan 05:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose lack of experienceNewyorktimescrossword 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Newyorktimescrossword's 94th edit. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 06:47, Jan. 16, 2006
  137. Oppose Too new for this year's cycle. Youngamerican 14:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Inexperienced. WolfBane06 | My Talk Page | My User Page 18:41, 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?) 21:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Sorry. Detriment 00:24, 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?) 00:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose Kaiser matias 05:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) Just give yourself a bit of time before you do this. Its a lot of responsiblity, first get some more experiance.[reply]
  140. Oppose - too new. Guettarda 14:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose - too new. kaal 16:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo talk 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose. Inexperienced. Johntex\talk 00:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Oppose Too new :-(. Samboy 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose — seems intelligent and thoughtful, but needs more experience. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:49, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Acegikmo1 04:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC). Ajwebb is a good writer and seems well-motivated, but the user has made too few edits to allow me to gauge the content of his/her contributions. Acegikmo1[reply]
  148. Oppose Lack of experience. (Bjorn Tipling 06:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  149. Oppose Too new. Lerdsuwa 08:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose Not enough experience (yet). --Spondoolicks 19:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose CDThieme 23:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Ajwebb&oldid=1087298212"