Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

AnthonyQBachler

My intention is to assist in arbitration on matters of technical or historical fact, or where necessary, disagreement on technical terminology. My list of contributions is rather long, some minor, some major, and include a few articles that I created. I have been a member of Wikipedia since shortly after it began.

Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Never heard of you, which is a vast improvement over most candidates. --B (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I approve this candidate. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Because based on his responses to the questions, I think he will benefit wikipedia immensely in this position. Dudemeister1234 (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moral support DurovaCharge! 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support RMHED (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Tactical Support - are the others for the same reason, I wonder? Brilliantine (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tactical support - For a very important and obvious reason. ScarianCall me Pat! 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Despite some reservations, this user is clearly more intelligent and principled than some of the other candidates. --JayHenry (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No reason. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support, not an admin is a good thing, as is his low profile. DuncanHill (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Have a cookie -- lucasbfr talk 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Please don't get discouraged. Grandmasterka 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Caspian blue 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --chaser - t 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Shot info (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Voyaging(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Steven Walling (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. --Elonka 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. MBisanz talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Majorly talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. iridescent 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. krimpet✽ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Avruch T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Doesn't show any significant interest in the position. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. kurykh 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. iMatthew 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Mixwell!Talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --Koji† 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose J.delanoygabsadds 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose rootology (C)(T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Prodego talk 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Insufficient answers to judge suitability. John Vandenberg (chat) 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Not an admin, intermittent editing patterns, not enough experience in dispute resolution or general interaction with other editors. Actually, not enough editing experience in general. No exemplary content contributions. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. His recent contributions show inexperience, despite his emphasis on how long ago he registered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose BJTalk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. GRBerry 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. not enough experience —Chris! ct 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Too inactive. MER-C 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Faking like you would have wanted it may have gotten you some more support votes. Mike H. Fierce! 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Wronkiew (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose per lack of general editing experience (despite the length of time registered here). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Not an administrator, questions not answered, no indication of any particular interest in or aptitude for the job.  Sandstein  06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Davewild (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per my prior oppose. Enigma message 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per lack of editing experience. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, hasn't answered enough questions for an adequate assessment, doesn't seem to particularly want the job. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and WP:DR and run again. //roux   editor review09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits. Sorry.--Mark Chung (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. — neuro(talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Conti|✉ 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Arbcomm members should be active members of the community first, and your 401 edits is not enough for me. Get more involved in whatever areas of Wikipedia interest you most and I'll reconsider in future years. ϢereSpielChequers 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. David Shankbone 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose While I don't place too much stock in the number of edits, you have extremely few edits vs. your total time on Wikipedia. This reflects that you would probably not be present on Wikipedia enough to aid in an arbitration case. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Not enough experience. The Helpful One 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Please don't take it personally; you seem like a solid contributor, but I really think more experience is necessary for this role. MastCell Talk 17:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. More experience needed, good luck. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose --Banime (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Synergy 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. I think every arbitrator should be an administrator for a variety of reasons (though this is not a requirement). I feel you need more experience within the community before acting in authority over it. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. 60 edits per year average is simply not enough. You can't have the experience in the way the community works to arbitrate over it. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose Modernist (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Sorry, but I need to see consistent high-quality activity. Joe Nutter 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. GlassCobra 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Not at this time, but thanks for offering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose BrianY (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose Bearian (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Tiptoety talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Not enough information given above to allow/begin assessment so as to support.--VS talk 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Arbitration is a job that requires a fairly hefty time commitment (this is not surprising or problematic, because Wikipedia is by some metrics the world's largest single source of information, and the project does need highly-dedicated volunteers who would make time commitments that would not be reasonable at less important sites or for less important organizations.) --JayHenry (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Alexfusco5 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. +O Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --Aude (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose: He may have had a Wikipedia account for a long time, but his editing pattern is a handful of sporadic edits followed by several months of inactivity. That's not a level of commitment to the encyclopedia remotely close to the standard to which we hold ArbCom candidates.  RGTraynor  20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --Sultec (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Миша13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Questions unanswered, candidate does not seem to understand ArbCom's policy vis-a-vis "content disputes" - the policy itself may deserve re-examination, but this is not the man for the job. Badger Drink (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose; Candidate does not appear to sincerely want this position, which leads me to concerns that the position may become left vacant as soon as it becomes inconvenient or stressful. More experience and more demonstrated interest would be needed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose; Generally unsatisfying answers to questions. Especially those of Giggy's. Inactivity is a big minus also  Marlith (Talk)  03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Kusma (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Been around for 5 years and all you have to show for that is a mere 400 edits? ..no thanks..it seems you have no real interest in wikipedia and you are doing this for fun...--Cometstyles 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Gentgeen (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose 412 edits in 5 years with edit summaries not always used? I mean, if you suceed, I'll run for ArbCom next year. Leujohn (talk)
    Not a serious candidate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Terence (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose, as with others, just don't seem to have been involved enough to really know what's going on. Daniel Case (talk) 17:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose. I wouldn't oppose AnthonyQBachler in an RfA based on what I have seen, but nor would I feel confident enough to support. Very little involvement in the Project over the years, and no obvious evidence of the knowledge of policies and conflict needed to become a member of ArbCom. SilkTork *YES! 19:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Michael Snow (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. —macy 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose -- Mixed reasons, lack of administrator status, opening statement, apparent lack of interest, are among them. Mww113 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose Happy‑melon 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose. Wikipedia shouldn't be seen merely as a means of improving your CV. More importantly, your attitude towards arbcom secrecy is (to me at least) unpalatable. Cynical (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose, with moral support: don't let this discourage you from reaching towards arbcom in the future. It's just that we expect more of a track record making administrative decisions. You may actually make a great arbitrator one day. Try for adminship first. Randomran (talk) 22:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd suggest that he become an active editor first; just on his activity level alone, he'd go down in flames at RfA.  RGTraynor  22:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Not a particularly active member of the project, to say the least. — Manticore 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose I do, I think, appreciate certain qualities and aptitudes that might well (re)commend the candidate to/for ArbCom membership, but so too are there several areas of concern; I regret, in any case, that Anthony did not partake more actively of the election, in order, inter al., that I should have been better able to weigh the former against the latter. Joe 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose - not qualified in my opinion. Shyam (T/C) 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose - less of 500 edits--Rjecina (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose -- Samir 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose - Not experienced enough. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Tex (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose Alohasoy (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose Fangfufu (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose: not enough tools to handle tasks. Alexius08 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose Large periods of inactivity. Davidpdx (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose SarahPalinesque....--Buster7 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose Does not seem to understand what is involved. Fred Talk 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose: Very inexperienced user, with 400 edits, I hardly see that this user is familiar with wikipedia policies, also the inactivity is a problem, we don't want to wait a few months for action from ArbCom. – Jerryteps 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose Not nearly active enough; hasn't adequately answered questions tgies (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose--thunderboltz(TALK) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose Gazimoff 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose. Lack of experience and regular activity. Rje (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Strong oppose. Complete and utter lack of experience. Computerjoe's talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose Simply not enough edit history (Quentin X (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    Oppose lack of experience and regular activity Lost Kiwi(talk) 17:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro(talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose' Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. — Sebastian 09:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose. Inexperienced; both as an editor and someone with interests in ArbCom. Caulde 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. SQLQuery me! 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139.   jj137 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose - rationale. the wub "?!" 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/AnthonyQBachler

Leave a Reply