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.
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]
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]
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]
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. Secretaccount12:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. ϢereSpielChequers14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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. Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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...--Cometstyles07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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. Joe02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. – Jerryteps01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]