User:ST47/ACECascade2

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Never heard of you, which is a vast improvement over most candidates. --B (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I approve this candidate. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)

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)
Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Xavexgoem (talk) 01:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support Durova^Charge! 02:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical Support - are the others for the same reason, I wonder? Brilliantine (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support - For a very important and obvious reason. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
No reason. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, not an admin is a good thing, as is his low profile. DuncanHill (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Please don't get discouraged. Grand master ka 21:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--chaser - t 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Shot info (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. --El on ka 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't show any significant interest in the position. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mixwell!^Talk 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose rootology (C)(T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Prodego ^talk 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Insufficient answers to judge suitability. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
His recent contributions show inexperience, despite his emphasis on how long ago he registered. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 03:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
not enough experience —Chris! _ct 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too inactive. MER-C 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Faking like you would have wanted it may have gotten you some more support votes. Mike H. Fierce! 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Davewild (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per my prior oppose. Enigma ^message 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per lack of editing experience. Ironholds (talk) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
--Conti|✉ 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough experience. The Helpful One 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
More experience needed, good luck. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose --Banime (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Oppose Modernist (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I need to see consistent high-quality activity. Joe Nu tter 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not at this time, but thanks for offering. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BrianY (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Bearian (talk) 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough information given above to allow/begin assessment so as to support.--VS ^talk 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
+O Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aude (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
--Sultec (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
Kusma (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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...--Comet styles 07:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)~~
Terence (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—m acy 23:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Mixed reasons, lack of administrator status, opening statement, apparent lack of interest, are among them. Mww113 (talk) 01:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
Not a particularly active member of the project, to say the least. — Manti core 05:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Oppose - not qualified in my opinion. Shyam ^(T/C) 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - less of 500 edits--Rjecina (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Samir 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 23:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not experienced enough. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Alohasoy (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fangfufu (talk) 02:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: not enough tools to handle tasks. Alexius08 (talk) 12:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Large periods of inactivity. Davidpdx (talk) 12:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose SarahPalinesque....--Buster7 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not seem to understand what is involved. Fred Talk 01:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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. – Jerry^teps 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not nearly active enough; hasn't adequately answered questions tgies (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 07:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 13:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Lack of experience and regular activity. Rje (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Complete and utter lack of experience. Computerjoe 's talk 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Simply not enough edit history (Quentin X (talk) 14:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Oppose lack of experience and regular activity Lost Kiwi^(talk) 17:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 17:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose' Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — xaosflux ^Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
— Sebastian 09:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Inexperienced; both as an editor and someone with interests in ArbCom. Caulde 14:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - rationale. the wub "?!" 23:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eluchil404 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Must support the wolfman! Yes, I must, because his never-ending caution, explicatoriness, and readiness to work things through would be great assets to the committee. So I must... even though I have a nasty feeling I may be doing Carch a disservice, insofar as those are also qualities that may set him up for being the first new arb with burnout. Bishonen | talk 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. I think he will add a very unique perspective to the committee.John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Expanded: John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per Bish. Giggy (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Through involvement at every level of Wikipedia, and particularly prolific content generation, I've seen enough to trust Carcharoth's judgment to something so important as ArbCom, although it would be unfortunate to see other areas of contribution suffer for the sake of the worst of Wikipedia.--ragesoss (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Calmer and more thoughtful than most. PhilKnight (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support From what i hear, a good contributor. Sam ^Blab 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Clear support - jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom, you this candidate was one of them. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
i <3 him --Mixwell!^Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Support. We do not always agree, but seems reasonable. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
His willingness to allow editors a chance to work constructively is a net postive, IMO, and he has always shown clear judgement at ArbCom encounters. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Carcharoth would make a good arb, but I also think Carcharoth's most beneficial contributions to a situation happen long before the situation gets to arbitration. Gimmetrow 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. S B H arris 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.May cool heads prevail. GJC 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support John254 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Toffile (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Calm, knowledgeable, hard working. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Beyond a single ounce of doubt. Carcharoth is one of Wikipedia's most level-headed administrators, and a voice of reason in many difficult discussions. More than qualified for the ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No negative interactions with him that stand out --B (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. I am consistently impressed by his thoughtful approach to problems and I believe he has the qualities necessary to be an excellent arbitrator. Everyking (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support every time I have collided with him I did agree with his judgement Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I don't always agree with him or his actions, but I think he has been generally fair and would do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Carcharoth has always struck me as fair and level-headed. I don't always agree with him, but I do agree with his approach. Enigma ^message 06:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fair and level-headed, as others have mentioned above. -- Ned Scott 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, levelheaded, doesn't want to let BLP further out of control, and when Carcharoth gets involved in a tough situation, it usually improves. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Clear and level-headed, good at defusing situations. Total asset to ArbCom. I don't think that not blocking users is a negative. //roux editor review09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hmm... looks like nothing's wrong with this user... I support! --Mark Chung (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Whenever I come across Carcharoth he at least tries to grapple with the evidence. Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 12:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as part of a ticket. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ATren (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support As solid judgement as we're likely to see. --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 16:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust Carcharoth's judgment. Acalamari 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not without reservations, but overall his thoughtfulness and maturity outweigh the fact that he almost never agrees with me. :) MastCell ^Talk 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Have always liked what I see here. Ronnotel (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. AGK 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support well respected admin Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Martinp (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - However...Carch, we already have several on arbcom that write posts that fall under tl;dr. Please keep in mind "less is more" whenever you give your opinion. Tex (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Catchpole (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support NVO (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good judgment on controversial subjects; he is always ready to talk.Biophys (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Enjoyable editor to work with. Calm, fair and analytical - all of which are assets for an Arb. One of my very top inspirations on this project. Franamax (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has the right idea broadly. Davewild (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have disagreed with Carch on several occasions, but I find his levelheaded demeanor a necessity on the committee, even if his lack of decisiveness (as pointed out in the oppose section), is a bit of a concern. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Respected member of the community, has impressed me with his well thought out and insightful analyses of situations. GlassCobra 22:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Euryalus (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs and Gimmetrow who express my feelings better than I can. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was somewhat ambivalent because I agree with Moreschi's analysis below that Carcharoth is (as SBHB put it) "too willing to argue for giving disruptive editors a third, fourth, fifth... sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth... chance"[1] but would be effective at handling admin abuse. On balance, while the former is a concern, the latter is of greater importance to me. --JayHenry (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Icewedge (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Thoughtful and fair. Ceoil (talk) 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical vote, positives outweigh the negatives with this candidate. Skomorokh 01:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've always been impressed with his thoughtful analysis of situations. Would rather have no blocks than thousands of overturned ones. Dr. e X treme 01:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah makes a fair point, but Carcharoth would bring other assets.--chaser - t 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
How could I not support him? –Sarregouset (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RxS (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Absolutely. A ni Mate 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Rividian (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Khoi khoi 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ArbCom could use levelheadedness. Don't disappoint!--Cerejota (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.User:Kaiwhakahaere--Voted 03:11, 2 December 2008 but forgot to sign, so here goes Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I was very impressed by Carcharoth's nomination of James I of England for FAR, which, unlike many nominators there, he followed through to the end, determined featured status should be saved and the article improved in the process. I was also appreciative of the time and effort he spent in reviewing (acutely) an article I'd been working on: see Talk:Catherine de' Medici's building projects. Carcharoth has unusual talents which I think would be suited to arbcom, in particular a tenaciously investigative turn of mind—he turns up a lot of earth, much of which tends to be just earth, but he also turns up gems. I'm also voting for Carcharoth because I suspect he will make a good replacement for Paul August, who was similarly slow to judge and rightly protective of some of our most eccentric and volatile but also most valuable article writers. That approach needs representing on the arbcom, in my opinion. qp10qp (talk) 18:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Alæxis_¿question? 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 19:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Carcharoth has always struck me as having a level head & a willingness to see a task thru until it's completed. I believe he is the strongest candidate for ArbCom in this election, & happily cast this vote for him. (Uh, you are male, aren't you C.?) But like Bishonen, I hope these qualities don't lead to him burning out on both ArbCom & Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cactus.man ✍ 21:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Миша 13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sultec (talk) 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A wonderful voice of reason whenever I have discussed with him or seen him discuss with other people. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I believe he would be a good addition. He is rational and thoughtful. I have some reservations, as expressed by opposers, but I believe the positives of his perspective and thoughtful consideration far outweigh the concerns. Vassyana (talk) 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Great answers to questions. Experience with ANI and ArbCom. Thoughtful editing philosophy. Good luck. Marlith (Talk) 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support diligent, contemplative. --Raayen (talk) 04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 16:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Davo88 (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I've been impressed by your WP:ANI contributions. ~Eliz81^(C) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. However, Carcharoth, do take note of the comments regarding brevity of expression. As can be seen in some sitting arbs' comments, a lack of brevity can blunten one's meaning and lead to less effective communication as well as being rope to hang oneself with. Do also hold in check the occasional tendency to focus too strongly on minor points — the committee has to fry the bigger fish usually. Splash - tk 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Objectivity and attention to detail. Desired qualities for ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support The best editor of those I have edited with; a good admin. His opposers confirm this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The care with which each question has been answered shows that this user will be thoughtful. For the answer to jehochman's blocking question alone, he should be an arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support VartanM (talk) 06:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --DeLarge (talk) 09:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jc37 10:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
support. --Wayiran (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for not always using blocks to deal with disruptive people. I think Wikipedia would be a better place if blocks were not issued unless unevitable. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support we need greater science focus on WP. Though I disagree with you that it and NPOV shouldn't be synonymous (otherwise you fall into relativist trap)Mccready (talk) 15:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 17:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Reluctance to impose blocks as an admin is precisely the reason why I am voting in support. At times the arbcom has forgotten that it is not a judicial body out to punish bad people, but instead is tasked with applying the minimum degree of restriction necessary for the good of the project. Cynical (talk) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
He can do the job. --TS 00:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. For reasons already mentioned many times. Hectorian (talk) 15:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
An impressive candidate in my view. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. We need science for sure. Politis (talk) 22:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jim62sch^dissera! 23:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. My experience with Carcharoth indicates to me that he'd likely become a skilled arbitrator fairly rapidly. ... Kenosis (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. @pple complain 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I see no conduct that would be a bar to this user's being an asset to ArbCom. Ordinarily, that'd keep me neutral, but given my experience with Ryan Postlethwaite, I have to support anyone he criticizes for prolonging drama. --SSBohio 05:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Level-headed and fair. --John (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support' Bencherlite ^Talk 16:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Chergles (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support yes --Mardetanha ^talk 18:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Even as I can't be as confident as Seraphim in the candidate's capacity and willingness to push back against BLP overreach and even as I am not without reservations here, I am relatively confident that Carcharoth properly understands that judicial restraint and subservience to the community must be the Committee's guiding principles, and never has it been more important that a candidate should so believe. Joe 02:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 06:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jon513 (talk) 16:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Clearly thoughtful, intelligent, imaginative and humane. And doesn't rush into mistakes. Will no doubt take on board comments regarding tendency to over complicate matters and to be lacking in decisiveness. SilkTork *^YES! 17:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. —CComMack (t–c) 18:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 00:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
When I first saw this candidacy, I was sure that Carcharoth was going to get in, so I am a little surprised at where this is heading. While I understand the opposers' concerns, I think the candidate's thoughtfulness and calm in heated situations will lead to constructive remedies. Grand master ka 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support In my experience this candidate always goes to great lengths to be fair. Giano (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems good. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support' Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
–Outriggr § 02:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A candidate of inexhaustible patience and a functional understanding of the middle way. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --IvoShandor (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --FluffyWhiteCat (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust his judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Changing to support per clarification on answer to my question. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - - Give a man a hammer and nails will be driven.Tttom1 (talk) 02:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support tgies (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Parishan (talk) 07:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Thoughtful, logical, clueful. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 16:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A fair, objective and reasonable candidate. I think Carcharoth will be a hugely beneficial voice to have on the committee. Rje (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
support Pedro : Chat 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hús önd 21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support :) Computerjoe 's talk 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Wayiran (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shenme (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 08:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very careful answers to questions show a realistic attitude. I in particular approve of admin who do not need to use blocks. Realistic attitude to the amount of work involved. Excellent ability to make a major contribution in explaining decision rationales. DGG (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Fedayee (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support MikeHobday (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
As far as power animals go I'll trust wolves over pigs, sheeps, and kangaroos. — CharlotteWebb 18:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - after examining the oppose votes. ArbCom is not all about banning people. --Illythr (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --- The Myotis (talk) 21:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support arbcom gets a lot of science cases and he's well qualified. Wkdewey (talk) 04:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 08:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bikasuishin (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
DrKiernan (talk) 10:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for thoughtful and thorough analysis of problems, good answers generally though the comment on What the Bleep Do We Know!? seems questionable as content in the film presenting or promoting scientific claims has to be dealt with as a science subject, showing the reaction from science sources, while other expert views are appropriate for aspects such as film production or quality. Some concerns about tendency to give disruptive editors more chances, trust Carcharoth will take this on board and support decisive action where shown to be appropriate. . dave souza, talk 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 18:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent answers to my questions, you have clearly prepared for this role. I wish you good luck Ϣere Spiel Chequers 23:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thoughtful and good judgments on controversial subjects. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - have some concerns of leniecy but overall feel he would be a great addition and has good experience and seems able to stay calm and rational under pressure. Also okay views on need for discrecion by the arbcom in some instances Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: We disagree quite frequently, but Carch is fair minded, independent, and clear on his principles. That is what we need on ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:37, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Carcharoth has demonstrated a remarkable ability at negotiation, often calming both sides in a heated debate. Such skills would be most welcome on the Arbitration Committee.Ryoung122 23:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I ran into Carcharoth long before they were an admin, and I was highly impressed, both with their ability to mediate disputes, and their knowledge of Wikipedia. Would be a good addition to the Committee. Ariel♥Gold 05:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support - I share many of the concerns expressed by the opposers, but a thorough reading of his answers to the questions indicates substantial depth of thought on the issues that matter and significant level-headedness. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Shares my goal of transparency, and worked actively for it during the last two ArbCom elections [2][3]. — Sebastian 09:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Gregg (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The answers to questions are acceptable. Ruslik (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, I favor this candidate over Jayvdb. --Pixelface (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --NE2 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sfrandzi (talk) 20:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Armatura (talk) 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sandy's oppose makes sense, and it is a little concerning. But you know, I've studied you closely in the past, and I'm confident that you would be a far better arbitrator than I would be. We definitely need a Carcharoth on ArbCom, and it's a shame that it looks like you'll just miss out. Strong Support Wizardman 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - seems like a sensible, knowledgeable candidate who has been would work well on ArbCom. The worst that can fairly be said of him is that he is somewhat long-winded, but that isn't always necessarily a vice. I certainly don't think 'excessive leniency' is a good enough reason to oppose - even if it's an accurate assessment, ArbCom should contain a range of opinions, with some arbitrators more willing to 'give someone a chance' to balance out those more inclined to rush to punishment. Terraxos (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems level-headed and trustworthy. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Stux (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --PseudoOne (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom needs some members who will kick major butt, not shy away from doing what needs doing in a timely fashion. Carcharoth, in my view, is not one of them. However Arbcom also needs some members who are COM:MELLOW... That's Carcharoth. Not sure I'm doing the right thing here but ... weak support ++Lar: t/c 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical Support - this candidate has a greater number of supporters than Vassyana, who is slightly ahead in percentage decimal points, and this vote attempts to reflect the views of the editorship. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support In trying to determine how to vote, I asked Jesus, what would he do, and as you can see, this is what he told me. If Carcharoth is good enough for Jesus, he's good enough for me. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) (see comments on talk)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst not his intention, I believe Carcharoth too often prolongs drama and defends disruptive users. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, will add reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, he sometimes prolongs drama/disputes more than needed. krimpet ✽ 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Smart guy, dedicated, thoughtful. I think he's been aiming at this since last year, so I've been watching, and I think that while Carcharoth would not make a bad arbitrator his contribution to the dynamic of the committee would take it in a direction I don't think is positive. Avruch^T 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not everyone gets it, and not everyone should get second chances at disruptive editing. Sometimes, enough is enough and Carcharoth has failed to get that in the past. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment:Comments like the one above by Aboutmovies ARE disruptive. "Not everyone gets it" includes those editors and admins who fail to recognize their OWN disruptiveness. Also, a comment such as "second chances at disruptive editing" is, again, prejudicial---it presumes that users given a second chance will be disruptive. How about "second chance at editing"? I note that in my own major dispute last year, over 90% of the accusations made against me proved false, from the claim that I wasn't with Guinness to the claim that Catherine Hagel wasn't Delvina Dahlheimer's sister-in-law. Nothing wrong with gathering facts first, attempting to hear both sides of a dispute (as Carcharoth tends to do) instead of engaging in a witch-hunt.Ryoung122 23:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Too nice. CIreland (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. At ArbCom we need people who reduce drama, not incite it, and we need to move away from the sort of rigid/inflexible interpretation of policy this user favours. That being said, user does work in good faith and tries hard to do the right thing. Orderinchaos 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Orderinchaos said it nicely. Candidate needlessly gravitates toward an awful lot of disputes, sometimes offering sound reasoning, but often offering little more than his/her presence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Eusebeus (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Weak oppose.~~ Excellent editor; agree with Avruch's comment. –Outriggr § 05:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Orderinchaos, Krimpet, Elonka and SandyGeorgia. Like Avruch, I've long felt that Carcharoth was positioning himself for the committee and while I'm sure that he acts in good faith and with good intentions, I find his tendency to prolong drama and to defend and excuse disruption exasperating in the extreme and I really don't want to see that transferred to an ArbCom which often already needs help in being prompt and decisive. I don't want ArbCom to be block or ban happy, but I do want them to be willing and able to act decisively and I find Carcharoth's reluctance to block/ban or otherwise take action, particularly when dealing with disruptive users, a big concern in a potential arbitrator. Also I must note that I'm really not comfortable with the whole AN:mainspace ratio, though it has nothing to do with my vote here. Sarah 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully - I think Carcharoth is one of our most fairminded admins but what is an asset as an admin is not necessarily so as an arb. Carcharoth has never blocked a single user, yet he is standing for a position that will at times require him to consider applying the harshest of sanctions. While his commitment to discussion and conflict resolution are commendable, an arbitrator's role is to make judgements rather than mediate. Carcharoth's strengths are IMO more in the latter category. Gatoclass (talk) 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Has been positioning himself for this for a long time, but is not very decisive, which is what arbcom needs right now. Woody (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Seraphim ♥ 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - for me, it isn't anything like a lack of blocks or other punitive measures. It's simply that, when confronted with evidence you take so long to come to any decision, and when you do it seems to always be a "perfect" compromise. This smacks of an inability to be decisive, which is not what Arbcom needs at the moment. Sorry. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Though he means well, Carcharoth has defended too many banned users for my taste. Skinwalker (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose lacks the level of gravitas to his words which we need, at least to an extent, in an arb. Sticky Parkin 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
God, this is a hard one. I like the guy, but ultimately ArbCom's major job at the moment is to kick disruptive users who come their way off the project (along with desysopping rogue admins). I have confidence in Carcharoth to do the latter well, but not the former. Moreschi (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but no prior blocks. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) See here. Bearian (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Caspian blue 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Carcharoth's level-headed assessments will be better used in amicus curiae approaches, occasionally setting the record straight.--Wetman (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nice guy but too often advocates on behalf of disruptive users. Giving multiple chances is nice but he needs to realize that constructive editors who play by the rules are valuable too. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I know you wouldn't make a bad arbitrator, but I have to say that drama seems to follow you, and that is not what we need. I am very sorry, you are a good person and editor. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with regrets. I'm in favor of moderation, but his is too often focused on defense (which can foster conflict) rather than conciliation. Chick Bowen 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with regrets, per the "too drama-prone" line of thought that's cited by many above, e.g. SandyGeorgia and The Fat Man. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Also oppose based on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Cardamon (talk) 07:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, with regrets. Moreschi puts it rather well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe the ArbCom needs more decisiveness. >Radiant< 17:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. ~~Friendly, forgiving nature, but never acts. Could be a great mediator instead.~~ Lost his way. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. GOOD GOD NO. I think of Carcharoth as the poster boy for WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Nowhere else on the project have I seen someone who takes so much delight in perpetuating needless and cumbersome bureaucracy. Considering the level of instruction creep that has taken place over the last two years of the project, this kind of editor is the last thing that we want on the ARBCOM. Trusilver 00:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Er. That is a matter of personal viewpoints. I perceive Carcharoth as a someone who is patient, merticulous, and can absolutely be trusted to respect and follow policies and proper process — the kind of editor that we need most on Arbcom. --PeaceNT (talk) 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia.Nrswanson (talk) 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cri du canard (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite articulated my views well. You make a great admin, but you're not the remedy ArbCom needs in my mind. Sorry. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Max (talk) 10:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections - you need 150 mainspace edits, and you only have 71. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 10:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
My personal interaction with you has suggested you're wrong about points 2 and 9 in your list of skills above. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose without prejudice. This is a good editor and well-intentioned ARB nom. But I've found Carcharoth given to excessive verbiage over trivial issues, something we most definitely do not need on the committee right now. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ RMHED (talk) 22:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per answers to some of the questions, remember that sometimes the rules must be bent for the common good. Mww113 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Node (talk) 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
R. Baley (talk) 02:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Mostly per SandyGeorgia - unneeded distraction is unneeded. Also admins and potential arbs must really use their banhammer to have experience in that area. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 17:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 06:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy.Tony (talk) 09:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
As Ryan puts it succintly; although not intentional, Carcaroth defends the wrong people and, is often reluctant to give punishment against users who have been shown to disrupt en.wiki. Caulde 11:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose logs; failure to answer G4 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Iamawesome800 17:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; election is unlikely to hasten the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Nsk92 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much politicking and drama. Dmcdevit·t 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeI can't support anyone who honestly thinks that policy can legitimately come from ArbCom. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: nothing personal, but I think there are a few candidates who are simply better suited for the job at this point. Don't let this discourage you from running again. Randomran (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per respected reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - indecissive and over even-handedness risks loosing the valuable editors - sorry. Wikipedia expanding at a rate we can't manage (look at the backlogs for citing or NPOV disputes), so: engage (yes), warn (definitely), but do then need to get on to block and if fail to learn then to remove from the project. Answers given whilst showing good intent fail to show any teeth to get on and protect the project and at variance with actual practice which, IMHO, unintentionally pampers to tendentious editing. David Ruben ^Talk 14:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not support enforcement of currrent arbitration rulings, believes the community can ignore or overrule them. Fred Talk 01:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes and Moreschi .Sorry Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose same as Maxim (way above) aye matthew ✡ 01:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Orderinchaos, Krimpet, Elonka, SandyGeorgia, Avruch and Sarah. Good-intentions, but not the change I think we need. لenna vecia 04:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Would probably end up being a decent arbitrator though I partly share SandyGeorgia's concern. But this vote is in part tactical: if it comes down to choosing 2 arbs out of Vassyana, Jayvdb, Carcharoth and Wizardman, the first two are better choices. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 22:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm concerned after seeing Sandy's oppose rationale. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- billinghurst (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Interim vote - will make final vote later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per rationale from SandyGeorgia. (Quentin X (talk) 15:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 22:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
regretfully per User:Sarah. E104421 (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Not confident he'd be decisive enough.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see my recent statement here for a general response to this concern and others raised by those voting oppose, and in particular those who have stated that they regret opposing. I hope that what I have said there will allay at least some of the concerns. Also, due to the large number of "per Sandy" comments, I have written a separate response to the concerns raised by SandyGeorgia, which can be seen here. I am posting this note here on the vote page because I want to make sure those voting are aware of these responses on my part. Carcharoth (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sunray (talk) 08:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Epbr123 (talk) 13:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
seresin ( ¡? ) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 22:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Throwawayhack (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – Waltham, The Duke of 23:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool Hand Luke 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin talk 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Seraphim ♥ 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tom B (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Perhaps a head doctor is what we need around here! JodyB_talk 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Jehochman ^Talk 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support A fair, level-headed contributor who resolves conflict well and whom I trust to put their considerable expertise and experience to work for the betterment of the project. Steven Walling (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I would like to add that I would support you for multiple positions at ArbCom at the same time. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sam ^Blab 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I like Casliber, I think he's very bright, it would be very interesting to have a psychiatrist on the Arbitration Committee and all in all I have hopes that he will do a great job. His lack of familiarity with the issues before the committee does concern me, and I found it very strange that he set up a straw poll on the contents of his signature. But, on balance, a support. Avruch^T 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite some concerns, I think Cas would be a net benefit to arb. Gimmetrow 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support has strong understanding of the basics. AC makes articlewriters more inclined to write, I think. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--- Euryalus (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— CharlotteWebb 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Perhalps one of the most talent, balanced and charasmatic editors we have seen on wikipedia. His contribs are just amazing. Ceoil (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dedicated to the encyclopedia part of the project. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Great user! Great helper :D --Mixwell!^Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Possibly the strongest support for anyone I will vote for. All around good contributor and colleague. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Though the mainspace needs you. John Reaves 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support yes. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Never previously heard of this editor, but seems well qualified, certainly enough to be given a chance at this. And a trained psychiatrist no less ... that shouldn't do any harm! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tentative support. Prodego ^talk 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Strong candidate, mature outlook and even temperament, good demonstrated abilities in conflict resolution and taking the heat out of situations, unquestionably part of the community - all things ArbCom needs right now. I hope it doesn't affect his excellent mainspace contribs too much though :( Orderinchaos 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 03:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has a calm demeanor suited for an arbitrator. Royal broil 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BJ^Talk 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Eusebeus (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Casliber is a well-rounded editor and knows much of the site in and out - he would likely bring an educated and intelligent perspective to ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I heartily endorse this product and/or service. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest support, an ideal candidate-the highest competency with everything that matters, patient, diligent, gets the project. --JayHenry (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Would make a good arb. --Alecmconroy (talk) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
upgrade to Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ^Law_shoot! 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Everyking (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as fellow DYK reviewer. Haven't seen this guy lose his head there, and there are opportunities. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Outriggr § 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems to have his head on straight, has been fair whenever I've run into him, and I think he'd do a fine job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, OK. MER-C 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Graham Colm ^Talk 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support لenna vecia 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Likely to get stuff done, and get it done well. Pedro : Chat 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support, sensible stance on BLP and ArbCom's role, exactly what we need right now. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support per stance on BLP indicated in Lar's questions Fritzpoll (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Dark ^talk 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. - The only negative that could possibly come from this person sitting on ArbCom would be a slightly lower article development level of activity. I think that's a reasonable tradeoff for such an obviously thoughtful and careful addition to the committee; contributing to a better environment on WP will necessarily attract more good editors. // roux editor review09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Avenue (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oldelpaso (talk) 10:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very pleasant interaction despite occasionally opposite views. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. PeterSymonds (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Mr Bungle | talk 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very sane. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - With the condition that he continues his great article work. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support with the hope that his article work does not suffer. Woody (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jayen466 12:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good chap. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 12:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Everything about him sounds good. Sticky Parkin 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, even though his content contributions may diminish.[4] Kablammo (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JoJan (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Colchicum (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good judgment: hopefully a breath of fresh air. Moreschi (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Verbal chat 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Helpful, thoughtful and voice of reasonful. But don't you dare slack off the mainspace work! --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Taprobanus (talk) 15:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Provisional support: good user, but I want a promise that you won't stop writing articles. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Tikiwont (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, but please do keep contributing to the encyclopedia. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have complete confidence in Casliber. He is very trustworthy, experienced, and civil. Acalamari 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust Casliber's judgement completely. I fully expect his excellent contributions to articles to continue as well, as I think that will provide the grounding that he (and other arbs) need to make sure they understand how the community works now. Karanacs (talk) 17:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I'll be honest, I'd oppose just to keep him working on the articles (even if they're about shrooms). But we need to upgrade and improve Arbcomm, and Cas is the right person to do it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hate to bureaucratize such a great content contributor, but his content work will give him excellent perspective on the Committee. Plus, he can help the Committee work through some of their Oedipal issues... :) MastCell ^Talk 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jmorrison230582 (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sandstein 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - sound responses and communication, background good addition to arbcom. Martinp (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, just don't leave DYK ! NVO (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
AGK 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I share the concerns of the FA crew on the opposition but I think he is capable of both. spryde | talk 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As long as you promise not to overmedicate Giano ;) Pcap ping 20:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wetman (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Just look at his most-edited articles: vampire, lion, mental disorders and poisonous mushrooms. He's way more dangerous than Bishzilla! Franamax (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.Biophys (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Helpful One 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kafka Liz (talk) 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Like many others, I worry that his FA-related activities may lessen because of it, but one should not be prevented from "branching out" just because they are good at something else. JPG-GR (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support if he keeps contributing. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ...Modernist (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. m acy 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for a fair-minded and competent user, though I do note the concerns of the opposers regarding potential loss of content. Hopefully Cas will keep up his high-quality article work. GlassCobra 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - lots of relevant experience. Warofdreams talk 23:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - both real-life and enWiki experience. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BrianY (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan shell (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Chensiyuan (talk) 02:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportNrswanson (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Great candidate.--Kubigula (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Moni3 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Khoikhoi 03:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. I'm only supporting a handful of candidates. I'm only "strong supporting" one. check. Keeper ǀ 76 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I especially like the response to Sarcasticidealist's question #2. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly has the right focus (content not drama), although I'm concerned he may not be a heavily-engaged arbitrator. Skomorokh 04:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome candidate. It will be sad to have you do less article-writing though! Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Great answers, fair caring candidate. Yes. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Althought, can't wait for Scientologist to say something about the Psych Cabal...--Cerejota (talk) 05:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Probably the best candidate running, though sadly I'm sure his article work would suffer. Guettarda (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Melburnian (talk) 06:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support S B H arris 10:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Best candidate this year. I hope your stellar article work won't suffer too much but you're just the sort of person we need to restore faith in the ArbCom so thanks for offering your help and good luck! EconomicsGuy (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I think so - support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've interacted with Casliber on a few occasions and have always come away with a very positive impression. He's familiar with the ground level reality of Wikipedia and consistantly works towards cooperation and solutions. Vassyana (talk) 12:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Bucketsofg 14:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I wasn't going to support any candidate I had no real knowledge of, but upon reading some of the praise doled out to Casliber, I decided to dig a little deeper. Everything I've read since leads me to believe Casliber is an excellent choice and will make an excellent Arb'. Steve ^{T • C} 14:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aude (talk) 15:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babakexorramdin (talk • contribs) 16:31, 2 December 2008
Support Probably the candidate I'm most comfortable with. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Novickas (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Like the other guys say... Ecoleetage (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.-gadfium 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I trust Comrade Boris. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support More than deserves it, but I hope we won't lose all the excellent article contributions. Joe Nu tter 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support seems suitable - good luck! --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Step hen 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Chris (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
support Gnan garra 00:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support faithless (^speak) 02:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't originally going to vote, as I am a fellow candidate this election. But you know, we agree on quite a bit based on arbcom cases we've both been involved in, you're an amazing content contributor, and I can't hold off supporting you any longer :) Wizardman 03:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Couldn't think of a better candidate. Marlith (Talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per GlassCobra. --Raayen (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - good candidate Nokhodi (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Steven Walling. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Casliber has got real clue and has his mind in exactly the right place when it comes to this project. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support N p holmes (talk) 07:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Badger Drink (talk) 08:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - very trustworthy above others. --Marianian (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 13:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. TBH Cas I was hoping for a longer reply to my question. I'm still not entirely convinced your cheerful nature won't take a drubbing on the committee. But you have the intelligence, the fair-mindedness, and the mainspace contributions we need in an ARB. It looks like you're already through, so good luck. Marskell (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportTundrabuggy (talk) 15:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A very sound candidate. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hiberniantears (talk) 18:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Banjeboi 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I really hate voting, but I can't imagine anything nicer for Wiki than having this keen contributor and very friendly man helping to look after us. Full of good humour is Cas, a great contribution to ArbCom. Alastair Haines (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support vi5in^[talk] 23:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
sure, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Strong answers, good candidate. Mww113 (talk) 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cube lurker (talk) 01:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A strong foundational candidate..well grounded.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --cmelbye (^t/_c) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Always level headed and would be willing to carefully consider all sides of an issue before passing judgement. Always a good characteristic of an ArbCom member.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Chapultepec (talk) 08:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support dougweller (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Impressive article work. A man in space (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tony (talk) 16:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 18:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. BuddingJournalist 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support L337*P4wn 19:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cactus.man ✍ 19:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support hbent (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Slrubenstein | Talk 20:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support YES. Poltair (talk) 20:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per the rest. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A shoo-in. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – interesting elements, assume wide experience in RL with relevant qualities, Julia Rossi (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support' Decent enough choice I guess. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Though you'll have less time for FA level work.--MONGO 02:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 03:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support because of some of the reasons people casted oppose votes (like it is a loss to content creators) Leujohn ^(talk)
Support. One of the most competent WP editors. Whenever I had the chance to talk with him, he was always calm, open-minded and constructive. I think he will be the kind of "judge" we need.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Warrington (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I know this editor/admin for more than a year, and I have no doubts that he will make a good arb. Ruslik (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Hectorian (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Strong editor, ready to contribute in a different way. You have my support. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
A good candidate to me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pile-On Support. I have heard/seen nothing but good things from/about the CAS. Just don't allow the corrupt political culture of the ArbComm change you, but rather change it!R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup Jim62sch^dissera! 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support - You are just incredible!!!@pple complain 00:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Casliber's on-wiki and real life experience will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wikisaver62 (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you did not have 150 mainspace edits before November 1. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - EdJohnston (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - AdjustShift (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wkdewey (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support My experience—little of it direct, to my detriment, I imagine—with the candidate leads me to support, even as I am not quite thrilled with certain of the answers. I hope and trust, I should say, that Casliber's deliberative temperament and sound sense of judgment will lead him to be the arbitrator whom Seraphim and Fritz, for two, suppose that he will be vis-à-vis BLP. Joe 03:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — BillC ^talk 03:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - ---Buster7 (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Communicates with clarity and conviction
Support Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - SmthManly / ^ManlyTalk / ^{ManlyContribs} 04:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Aunt Entropy (talk) 05:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 08:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jon513 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support No reason not to.--Iamawesome800 16:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Likely to be ineffective as an arbitrator, which should hasten the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giants2008 (17-14) 00:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 02:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very fair and knowledgeable user. – Alex43223^{T | C | E} 08:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter cohen (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — E ↗ 14:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. He seems really good. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Good enough for me. Tex (talk) 19:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shows strong willingness and ability to write and act in an impartial manner, to persevere in detailed investigations, and to ratiocinate complex situations. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Willking1979 (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Huldra (talk) 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per rationale at User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Abyssal (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. A few of his answers are a little underwhelming, and it's not all together clear how transferable his dazzling article writing experience will be to Arbing, but seems generally quite sensible. Besides that, I have a bias towards editors with disclosed identities and real life experience and grown up responsibilities (despite meeting only the "disclosed identity" criterion myself). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A genuinely nice guy, which is apparent from the support he's getting. Cas and I don't agree on all issues, just the important ones. I believe he has extremely useful insights regarding the issues facing the wiki. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - excellent contributor at the coal-face as it were of what the project is ultimately about. Whilst several of answers been noted as weak, I am actually reassured that recognises limit of knowledge and not some tekkie who knows all possible aspects of past decissions. Coming afresh to the committee (other members will be able to point out relevant points) makes him a good choice of candidate as breath of types of arbcom members would be useful. Has clear writing style, open thinking processes, pragmatic, sensible and polite - ticks all the boxes for me... David Ruben ^Talk 14:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support tgies (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Parishan (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support User: Marcos987 (User talk:Marcos987) 07:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 13:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 13:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 14:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A fair, open-minded candidate. Escellent contributions across the wiki. Rje (talk) 20:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hús önd 21:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shyamal (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shenme (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -SusanLesch (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
momoricks (make my day) 07:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Candidate of the year. DGG (talk) 15:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Dacy69 (talk) 16:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust the candidate's judgement. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, not only on basis of good statement, but the fact that some folks I respect also favor the candidate. Having had no interactions myself w/ the editor, that seems like a fair metric. --Jim Butler (t) 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support His experience listening to people should prove very useful. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support miranda 09:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, good answers to my questions (although they fell short in Questions 1c, 2 and a few parts in 4), and no concerns with timeliness (except in answering Question 4). A lack of directness in a few responses may be an issue, but I am trusting that this user will make attempts to resolve this concern with time. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 8. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Knows how to disagree without being disagreeable. Haiduc (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Grandmaster 12:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, seen around doing useful thoughtful work in reslolving disputes, answers interesting and good. . dave souza, talk 12:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (Quentin X (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Support Per Kelly Martin I can't wait to enjoy the end. ILovePlankton (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support User has been around since May 2006 and track is outstanding.Liked the way he supported a candidate in a RFA with whom he had disagreed.Further as per User:JayHenry/chimpmanzee. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I don't agree with SandyGeorge that all the candidates need to necessarily have extensive recent work on content, but this who I feel I can support Nil Einne (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 21:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Looks pretty good, although I would have like to see more decisive answers and stands on some controversial issues. It seems clear that you will be elected to ArbCom. While serving there, please remember that ArbCom is there to resolve disputes, usually the most nasty and unpleasant ones. This means that often pretty decisive measures will be needed, and a fireside chat with the concerned parties will usually not be sufficient. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 04:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sure. --Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 06:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have seen nothing but good things from/about Casliber. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ateshi-Baghavan 11:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
support E104421 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 23:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Have had good interactions with Casliber. I'm sure he'll make a fine member of the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. – RyanCross (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A good and sound candidate. --Anish (talk) 06:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, solid candidate, but I echo the article production concerns. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sunray (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Orlady (talk) 22:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sarah 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Per User:Lar/ACE2008 ++Lar: t/c 23:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JGHowes ^talk 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Waltham, The Duke of 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
RMHED (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I fear we will lose Casliber's prolific Banksia/fairy wren/dinosaur/random animal FA production if he is elected to the AC. Also, a bit too unfamiliar with the committee's dealings for my liking. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but I chose a group I want to win. Good luck though. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because I'd rather have Cas continue his excellent featured work than have him get sidelined and end up with enemies. The articles need you more than the 'cracy! --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All things to all men. Too nice, and too many politicians' answers.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Fuchs sums up my concerns well. Mackensen (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He deserves better. Dengero (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Extremely, extremely, good user. That about sums it up, since his content is too good to lose. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Either 1) is unwilling to cast even the slightest amount of criticism towards potential future colleagues, or 2) takes a nice long while to answer questions, or 3) feels that the ArbCom has never made a mistake and has no thoughts on the ArbCom RFC. So, the candidate, for all his wonderful mainspace qualities (and there are lots!) is either 1) political to a fault, 2) a bit too prone to C68-SV-FM style inactivity, or 3) brain damaged. The mainspace contributions should rule out possibility #3, which leaves what is likely a mixture of #1 and #2. Neither of those possibilities are compatible with a seat on the already slow-moving, politics-besotted ArbCom. Badger Drink (talk) 23:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Moving to support per Talk conversation Badger Drink (talk) 08:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Different people have different strengths, and I feel that Casliber's strengths do not lie in the realm of ArbCom mediation. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is my first oppose in the two ArbCom elections for which I've been eligible, and I hate to register it, but (since it won't matter anyway) this candidate is simply too congenitally noncommittal to be an effective member of the committee. Deor (talk) 03:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) With considerable embarrassment, I'm withdrawing my vote. I had the nominee confused with someone else. Deor (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer (talk) 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Max (talk) 10:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not eligible to vote as you have fewer than 150 mainspace edits Fritzpoll (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose. log; G.4 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Seems to want to apply the absolute standard of confidentiality present in medicine (where nobody else has any right to know the information) to arbcom evidence (where the person the evidence is being used against has an absolute right to know the information). Cynical (talk) 22:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Article work isn't the carte blanche for arbitrators, saying that, it is of a high quality and losing that would be regretful. Caulde 11:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Very strongly oppose. Saying that leaving a half-completed RfC around is just not on is unacceptable. More seriously, this candidate is the subject of a strong electioneering campaign; unless he pledged to recuse himself from all issues of interest to his sponsors, I could not, and do not, trust him. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. See this spectacular answer to the question about nationalist edit warring. Jd2718 (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
seresin ( ¡? ) 00:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose He doesn't obey NPOV. He doesn't realize that Taiwan is part of China. Alonso McLaren (talk) 01:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 19:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose based on answer to my question; nothing else really need to be said, the answer speaks for itself. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The quality, breadth and diligence of this candidate's content output far outweigh the worth of his service as an arbitrator. The same could be said of several other candidates, but I am not as familiar with their work. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Glib, but failure to unambiguously support fundamental policies such as Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 02:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per his role in the TV episodes case. I don't want an arbitrator who regards pop-cruft cleanup as a disruptive activity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, as an assigned mentor of a serial harasser, I don't think it would be appropriate for Casliber to be an arbitrator in the least. ArbCom does not exist to hold the hands of and enable trolls. Although I feel free to say this since you're #1 in the running. --Pixelface (talk) 11:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Per comments at my RFA, Casliber doesn't quite grasp WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. That's a pretty critical policy for someone who wants to be an Arbcom member.—Kww(talk) 21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heart of wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per sound argument in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infinite monkey theorem in popular culture (second nomination). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Martinp (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I don't agree with everything he says, but the Arbcom needs both continuity and fresh blood. Martinp (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC
Support 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 12:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The steady hand of Matthews is needed here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You did not have 150 edits by November 1, so per the rules, your vote had to be struck. Sorry, but please understand that we put these measures in place to prevent any unfair voting through sockpuppets or other means. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since Mervyn Emrys's eligibility was incorrectly rated by a bug in the software, a discussion about whether his votes should be counted or not is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --El on ka 02:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I think I have been one of the louder voices finding fault with how the 2008 ArbCom has executed against the tasks before it. And I have a great deal of sympathy for those who want to throw all the bums out and start afresh. Further, I think the recent RfC was perhaps a sign that we are none of us perfect. I also respect voices like SandyGeorgia who did such a good analysis of contributions. All that said, I still am supporting Charles here. I think he's one of the sanest arbitrators, and much of the interminable delay in some cases occured while he (and NYB) were unavoidably called away. He DOES edit in articlespace, although it may not all be pushed to the rarefied FA levels, it's good workmanlike stuff. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, he seems to be one of the few arbitrators willing to stand up against certain Meatball:VestedContributors and their shenanigans. I will be supporting more than 7 candidates, I'm not in the "oppose everyone except the exact 7 I want", but Charles is one of the folk I support. Will he win? Perhaps not... if so I hope every candidate who does is as good or better than Charles. It's rather a high bar, really. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While I can't say I'm strongly supportive, I do believe Charles is a net positive to the committee, and reelecting him won't make things worse. I'm really not seeing a slate of electable candidates that I'm certain would be better. GRBerry 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Like Lar, I'm inclined to see CM as a steady hand and a sane voice. Bucketsofg 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Mostly sane. Catchpole (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good judgment during his work in ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
At the risk of endorsing "more of the same," continuity is important to a system as complicated and fraught as arbitration. Mackensen (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have read the oppose votes and they are very weak (change, heh, even Obama is backtracking on that apparently). Charles has good judgment and I admire his willingness to deal with the worst of what the Wikipedia community has to offer. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Quality candidate, would be a powerful and competent Arbcom member. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I am, frankly, dumbfounded by the prevalence of the oppose votes. Charles has done uniformly excellent work, and though I have often disagreed with him, I respect what he has done. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support UC said it well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott Mac (Doc) 09:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--BozMo talk 09:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 16:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for the valuable experience already gained in ArbCom, and the keen desire to continue the work. The answers to the questions show a person who learns from mistakes, and who considers matters. There are some tough questions about past activities and I am impressed by the willingness to admit where things went wrong, and reveal honestly why they went wrong, and to learn from these matters. Such reflection and learning is valuable and commendable. I see someone willing and able to negotiate and be flexible. And through all the tough questioning I see a person who is able to handle themselves well. The explanations satisfy me, and the firm, polite and lucid manner in which those explanations are given are also notable. SilkTork *^YES! 20:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jc37 10:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I am voting for a team of candidates that will bring a mix of voices to the committee. This is my chosen "stay the course" candidate. Grika Ⓣ 16:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I think the user is sincere in wanting to work hard and has done a fairly satisfactory job answering questions from the wiki community.Ottawa4ever (talk) 23:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
The RfC others complain about seems typically sane and well reasoned to me. TS 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—outstanding contributor, done more for Wiki than most could ever dream of doing, thanks for everything, keep it coming. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - He was been a valuable member of Wikipedia for quite some time. selfworm^Talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I'm a bit muddled as to why you think you should be elected, but I see the general direction, which is great. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support - a good track record in a thankless post. HeartofaDog (talk) 03:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A useful and sane voice on the Committee. —CComMack (t–c) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Demonstrated incompetence in prior service has proven his suitability for the ArbCom. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support. On balance has done more good than harm. Though perhaps SandyGeorgia's suggestion to take a year off is not a bad idea. Jd2718 (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Experience seems good. I'm not sure why so many opposed. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, experience is important. Fangfufu (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Like it or not, any candidate with a reputable background in academia has earned the ability to fairly adjudicate disputes. The non sequitur continuity vs change bullshit below is all the more proof of that we need an arbitrator able to apply an established and rigorous analytic method. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good track record. Knows what is involved. Fred Talk 02:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -ClemRutter (talk) 12:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dave Golland (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Charles is a sound candidate who has, for the most part, exercised good judgement in the role. I don't always agree with him, but I think he has been a very good presence on the committee. This is a tough and often thankless job - and I like the devil we've got. Rje (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support the better of the two incumbents in this election Wkdewey (talk) 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
—Ruud 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support While I agree with many opposers that a new direction and change is needed for ArbCom, a complete disregard of previous arbitrators is not the way to achieve that. Charles has done great work and still brings lots to the committee. Lost Kiwi^(talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 17:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - sometimes change is necessary but I'm far from convinced we need complete change as with others, or that all the change offered is necessarily for the better Nil Einne (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, based on the argument that it's good to have some experience and continuity on ArbCom as well as change. Charles has made some controversial decisions in his time as an arbitrator, but overall his judgement's been more good than bad - and his answers to questions were honest and sensible. It would be a shame if we lost a good arbitrator due to a misguided desire to 'throw the bastards out'. Terraxos (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support He edits many important articles in mathematics and is a fine contributer to Wikipedia. Topology Expert (talk) 15:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Throwawayhack (talk) 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. Gimmetrow 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sam Blacketer (talk) 00:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Caspian blue 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Time for a well-deserved break. Mathsci (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
new blood is needed on the Committee Steven Walling (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We need to improve arbcom. Crum375 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too punitive. Also, per Friday.[5] ElinorD (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of suitable candidates, and fresh perspectives are desirable; thanks for being willing to serve another term. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) User:Heimstern/ACE2008 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We need new blood. Nothing personal. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Continuity? The way things are going now? Obama was all about change, and so am I. This vote reflects it. Mike H. Fierce! 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes we can. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia's Arbvote page sums up my views perfectly. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please forgive me if I accidentally double voted (though I don't think it will matter) - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work}
~ Riana ⁂ 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for CM for his hard work. Time for fresh blood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Additionally, your abuse of power as an Arb is outstanding for it's abuse. I am glad we are voting you out with a boot in your bottom. Bstone (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
S B H arris 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thank you for your service, but it's time for new ideas and ways to do things. The sitting arbs to this point and their unwillingness to brush aside personalities and politics in favor of the collective, greater good are part of the problem which has become ingrained on the present AC. rootology (C)(T) 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Charlie™ — CharlotteWebb 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor judgement, and apparent case of overgrown vanity. The recent RFC was not the action of a reasonable editor. Friday (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Toffile (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Continuity is not what we're looking for. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, your conduct in the Matthew Hoffman case is inexcusable. --B (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing at all personal against Charles Matthews, who is a great guy, but he's been on the ArbCom for too long, plus I don't have the thorough faith in his judgement that I would hope for in supporting somebody for ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MER-C 04:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It's painful to see such a pile-on, but IMO the ArbCom has too much rather than too little continuity, and I would be doubtful about supporting any "continuity candidate". Also some specific concerns with Charles, most recently his failure to recuse in the motion to desysop SlimVirgin. Bishonen | talk 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
Oppose - thanks for your service and offering to serve another term, but new blood not continuity is what the community is looking for. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I think a lot of what's above is too harsh but we desperately need new blood on this committee--not sure how likely I'd be to support the re-election of any non-Brad arb. --JayHenry (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. JayHenry immediately above says what I would have said.-gadfium 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, but only on the basis of ArbCom needing new blood. I think Charles is doing a fine job on the site, but I think it's time to allow some others to work on ArbCom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Been on ArbCom long enough now, and some recent decisions (e.g. the Giano and SlimVirgin desysop) have been poor. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Brilliantine (talk) 08:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia. لenna vecia 08:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Too much contoversy, not least his dealings in the recent Slim Virgin de-sysoping fiasco. Giano (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, voted for WP:BLPSE, an entirely unacceptable attempt for ArbCom to create and mandate policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - time for a change, nothing personal Fritzpoll (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Echoing above; change > continuity. //roux editor review09:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - more of the same is not what we need. Nancy ^talk 09:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - my perception is that your activity in ArbCom cases has been very low; ArbCom cases are lasting too long and inactive Arbs contributes to that. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not happy with his behaviour in some past cases, most notably the infamous Arbcom case against VanishedUser, also the more recent issue with Slrubenstein. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to conduct unbecoming an admin and arbitrator. Skinwalker (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No arbiter sitting on the C68-FM-SV case would ever get my support. Viridae ^Talk 11:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Based on recent experiance with this Arbiter and his behaviour, although I have no doubt that he is well intentioned. I also agree that ArbCom has lost its way and that it is time for a change. Verbal chat 12:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
strongest oppose we don't need the current arbcom again, and CM is one of its more controversial members, per the SlRubenstein RfC etc. Sticky Parkin 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose new blood needed, too much drama lately. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. To say your work on the Arbcom was subpar and unacceptable would be lenient. SashaNein (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per the recent Slr RFC. Which was very odd. Moreschi (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pour encourager les autres --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As usual, I agree with User:Friday. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. Tex (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem, not the solution. RMHED (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Time for a change. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to replace old members when their terms expire. >Radiant< 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose The slrubenstein RfC was enough for me. Time to go.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Marginally Davewild (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose; I felt pretty strongly about this, but his thoughtful responses to the ArbCom questions and equanimity in the face of outright hostility there were impressive. Still, I have to oppose, weakly, for a variety of reasons including a need for new blood. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose - judgement seems skewed from community norms. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Xavexgoem (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose NVO (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - your lack of involvement even when you were an arbitrator ...--Comet styles 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns of above opposers and the fact that we seriously need some new faces. GlassCobra 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your frankness but three years is enough really. New ideas are needed I feel. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose' BrianY (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I see you as the continuity candidate. Skomorokh 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The current ArbCom is a disaster. We don't need more of the same. A ni Mate 01:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose sitting arbcom member --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Let's have some fresh faces. --Wetman (talk) 02:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It's a change election. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Friday. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Change is coming. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 04:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - CHANGE!!! (Thank God Its Friday!)--Cerejota (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No. No. Just no way... Guettarda (talk) 06:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Grace Note (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Cardamon (talk) 07:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
We should thank Charles for his good work and participation, but we need fresh blood in the ArbCom. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Jossi. --Kbdank71 19:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, we need less back room and more out in the open. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Time for change. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Pass. Badger Drink (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Nothing personal against somebody who's far from being the worst of the old bunch, but we need some new blood here. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Three years, especially in Internet terms, is FOREVER. Burnout is inevitable. Another three? That's just too much. Dr. e X treme 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Marlith (Talk) 03:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Out with the old, in with the new. --DeLarge (talk) 10:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — Satori Son 15:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Slrubenstein | Talk 18:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I have the greatest respect for the work that Charles has done on the ArbCom to date, but I agree with the general sentiment that fresh blood is required. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Splash - tk 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Achromatic (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Mww113 (talk) 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
R. Baley (talk) 02:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I read the RfC everyone is referring to, and... Yipes. We need some Change We Can (try to) Believe In. Grand master ka 05:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
New blood. Nothing personal. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Friday and the pointless RFC. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ramdrake (talk) 17:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --gdaly7 (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, shewed a lack of imagination and an inability to engage with the community in some of the recent arbcom failures. DuncanHill (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbcom needs new views. Kosebamse (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbcom has gone from being a last-resort means of solving disputes, to an activist mess that is dragging the project down and attempting to take away the community's ability to decide what is and is not policy. Since he is one of the current arbcom members I can't help but hold the candidate partially responsible for that. That aside, anyone who wholeheartedly endorses the existing Arbcom's practice of secret trials is not suitable for this position of responsibility. Cynical (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per the rest. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
What you should have disclosed, Peter, is that you're sitebanned. Whether you and I agree or not, you have no standing to post here. Please stop socking and begone. Durova^Charge! 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Restoring vote. [6] Bishonen | talk 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Recent vote to desysop SlimVirgin was a travesty of justice.--MONGO 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose [7] --Poeticbent talk 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the slrubenstein RFC. Behavior described therein is an almost textbook case of a capricious and careless use of authority, and said description came from the user's own mouth. RayAYang (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Step hen 20:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too inactive, uncommunicative and status quo...sorry, Charlie, but you gotz to go. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No way. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In every way a candidate unworthy of the slot. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lar and GRBerry, with whom I do not often find myself at oods, are right to observe that one ought not to oppose a continuity candidate solely to express displeasure with the status quo where prospective replacements can be expected to be worse, and I resist here the temptation to cast a "throw the bums out" vote (I don't expect that I need say that I'm not calling Charles a "bum", but neither do I suppose that it can hurt to make that explicit) and undertake even to reexamine my reflexive opposition. On reconsideration, though, I am not persuaded that the candidate, even as he has, pace some supra, done a few really fine things as an arbitrator (I am, in fact, it happens, inclined, in consideration of CM's record on ArbCom, to think that some of the objections that led me, in spite of my sympathy with some of his views, to oppose his candidacy for the Board of Trustees two years ago were unfounded), is amongst those whom I should most like to see on the Committee going forward; BLPSE represents, as Seraphim says, a pernicious expansion of the role of the ArbCom, and a vote therefor cannot, in the end, be overlooked or overcome (in this my opposition to his BoT candidacy was right; I feared that qua trustee he'd advance at the Foundation level a BLP absolutism that did not enjoy the support of the communities [readers and editors] of the Foundation's projects or of the Foundation's donors and was inconsistent with the Foundation's mission, and Charles, I regret to say, went down that road as an arbitrator [in good part passively, I concede]). Joe 03:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 08:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd like to see new editors on the Committee. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
While thanking him for his work on ArbCom, it's best that ArbCom have new people and new ideas. —kur ykh 02:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, with great thanks for his many years of service already. -- Samir 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - many concerns, fundamentally would be a liability rather than asset to ArbCom. Wily D 15:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I share many of the above concerns. Dougie WII (talk) 03:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seems like a nice guy but evidently has a bit of a history. tgies (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose I went back and forth on this one for days. I'm ultimately opposing because I feel he was too economical in his answers to many questions (in which he'd often make a comment that was relevant to the question without in any way actually answering it) and because I agree with SandyGeorgia that there's no need for him to hang on to Arb Comm when it would probably be best for him and the community to recharge with some more content work. I want to explicitly reject both the notion that we should keep him around for continuity (there are going to be eight continuing Arbs after this election without Charles Matthews) and that we should punt him for new blood (even if we kept Charles Matthews, there'd still be six spots for new blood). My thanks for doing a tough job for three years and for volunteering to do it again. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in the strongest possible way. After being forced to out myself due to incompetence of an arb using the checkuser function, and after waiting 3 months for a response, this candidate seems to think that receiving an answer from Arbcom on an important matter is not required. Arbcom members are not above the rest of us users, and his response on his talk page is indicative of everything that is wrong with the present Arbcom. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 13:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing personal, but I think we need a fresh Arbcom. Hús önd 21:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Regrettably I was shocked and saddened by your actions in the Matthew Hoffman case and the Slrubenstein RfC and the committee generally in their handling of the SV-Lar and C68-SV-FM cases and their mismanagement of the whole Giano situation which allowed it to develop to the stage it has and so I am unable to support this candidacy. I also reject the notion of "continuity candidates" and I feel the community desperately needs new people on the committee (and preferably arbitrators who are open, transparent, communicative and in touch with the community). Thank you most sincerely for your time and effort over the years. Sarah 01:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The candidate is even-tempered and presents many commendable qualities. Time committments have proven difficult for him in the past, though, and I fear these may recur. Xoloz (talk) 05:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Shenme (talk) 05:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for misunderstanding WP:NPOV and applying double standard in the cold fusion case. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Inclusionist (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
regretfully, fresh blood is required. E104421 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy editing though! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Ev (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Matthew Hoffman RfAr and the Slrubenstein RfC raise some major concerns about judgement which lead to this oppose. In many other cases, however, this candidate's input to discussions and decisions has been thoughtful and useful and I believe that deserves recognition. Orderinchaos 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Time for a change. Willking1979 (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tom B (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

~~Steven Walling (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Yes. krimpet ✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was impressed with his analytical ability in the Mantanmoreland case, if not entirely impressed with his temperament. I'm hoping the temperament issue was transient and a result of his involvement in the case, and the strong analytical skill will bear out on the committee. Avruch^T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Tenacious, analytical yet humane. Generally does what he says he's going to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
– Toon ^(talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, but it would be nice to add in more content to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much ditto Giggy and Ottava. Gimmetrow 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}~~_{My work} 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

~~--PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Strong Support. Luke's campaign promises are extremely impressive. Worthy of our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Amended: I have reviewed Ryan's concerns and find them to be baseless. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I also strongly support CHL per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Giggity! Great user! --Mixwell!^Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have faith that his head and temperament are in the right place to actually deliver on those campaign promises. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wrote a little endorsement on my blog. Good luck! David Shankbone 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support S B H arris 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gets it. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support John254 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Burner0718 ^Wutsapnin? 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Toffile (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support GRBerry 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) revised text I've read the talk page thread regarding Ryan's concerns, and those links that anyone can read. Ryan's concerns are vastly overblown and do not merit the opposition that they are generating. GRBerry 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Bold candidacy, no doubletalk. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A good old-fashioned Wikipedian with the project's best interests in mind. A straight-shooter who'll bring a unique perspective to ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone old bringing something new. This is the definition of someone who gets it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. MER-C 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Very straightforward and willing to get in and work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Enigma ^message 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Many of the clearest-thinking answers and boldest, yet feasible, ideas in his statement and campaign pledges. If only half of this translates into action, I think we'll have an excellent Arb. --JayHenry (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Updating to note that I have evaluated Ryan Postlethwaite's and find it to be either misinformed or misleading. Whichever it is, my support for CHL stands--everyone please read NYB's statement on the talk page. This was effectively a well-poisoning from Ryan. --JayHenry (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Great admin. Will make a great Arb. bd2412 T 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Highly sensible, excellent candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Another candidate who I often disagree with but trust to do nothing egregious. Should bring some fresh ideas by the looks of things. Brilliantine (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ لenna vecia 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
STRONG support upgrade for this. لenna vecia 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, generally clueful. Not concerned at all about the WR account. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What we've got here... is failure... to arbitrate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. Viridae ^Talk 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A very helpful and experienced editor who I believe is certainly up to the task of arbitration. Blue Danube (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - if we don't want Wikipedia Review members, then we better kick NewYorkBrad out while we're at it. GTD 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support -- level-headed and fair. ATren (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support This is an exceedingly sane and conscientious user. His work on Mantanmoreland was superb, we need someone on arbcom that has the analytical skills to make sense of some of the more tangled cases that surely lay ahead of us. Those opposing because he has a WR membership ought to actually review his contribs there. He is wheat in the vast sea of chaff, and what's more, he is the voice of reason when the more extreme voices are advocating new kinds of foolishness. Cool Hand Luke will bring change to arbcom, and it is the change we need. I have every confidence he will keep his promises. Absolutely endorse. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I liked most of your answers. RMHED (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was highly impressed with his work on the Mantanmoreland arbcom. His posts on WR, if that is him, seem reasonable to me on the whole, and actually seem in-part responsible, along with NYBrad's, for elevating the critical discourse there and making that site less of a lunatic operation. In short, I have complete confidence in CHL's ability and maturity for ArbCom. I think he is one of the few candidates capable of substantially reforming WP's dispute resolution processes. Amerique^dialectics 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Cool Hand Luke has the necessary judgment for ArbCom. Acalamari 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to restate my support in light of recent events. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
support have not seen him around much on wiki, which means he dislikes excessive AN/I drama etc.:) This person is also very intelligent and rational. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. AGK 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. After reviewing the issues brought up by Ryan, I am able to support him as the issue is not as they are described below. spryde | talk 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant wikipedia-space admin - he's got a ton of clue and knows his stuff. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support User has commendable tenure, and answers to the questions impressed me. GlassCobra 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Easy. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical vote, despite uneasiness with stance on BLP. Skomorokh 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Outstanding and hard working Wikipedian, just remember that if somethings true, we ought to say it regardless if it hurts the subject.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I accept Luke's assurances that he didn't out someone, and that the editor in question had already been open about his identity. I'm supporting because I feel it's time for change. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. His work on the Mantanmoreland RFAR impressed me to no end, and he's always had a cool head under pressure from what I've seen. Dr. e X treme 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongly. — Dan | talk 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Bucketsofg 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Because he has a cool hand. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan, this is ridiculous. When someone has their homepage linked from their userpage, discussing the contents of that homepage should never be regarded as a "privacy violation". --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support on the basis of his reforming zeal and his call for transparency. --Wetman (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.Nrswanson (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Z gin der 2008-12-02T03:22Z (UTC)
OK. Icy // ♫ 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporting change, transparency, and CHL is even easier than yo momma. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
STRONG SUPPORT Charts. DO YOU NEED MORE REASON?. Can't wait for a data projections and statistical analysis to become part of ArbCom discourse. It will be a new age!--Cerejota (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Cool head -- Noroton (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have made a very lengthy statement on the talk page, so I won't say anything else other than that the whole problem was not Luke's fault. He gave me quite a bit of praise and support following my rather hasty decision to retire, and the whole matter about my outing was settled a long time ago on a fairly positive note. I'm going to further show that this wasn't his fault by voting for him. --Coredesat (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Definitely a good candidate, has handled the witchhunt perpetrated by certain opposers with dignity and grace; excellent work on the difficult Mantanmoreland case, as others have noted. Minkythecat (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I orginally meant to support the candidate before I found out that he was One in WR. Yes there is the pros and cons of this candidate, but nobody can't ignore his contribtions towards the Mantanmoreland RFAr. His WR participation isn't as bad as most people and myself thought, and there are other admins that does worse. Yes he agree sometimes with the banned users there, but just because they are banned, that doesn't mean that you can't ignore them. I sometimes agree with them as well. And while there is some responses to questions that I disagree with, it's more opinion based. The only major concern I have is about BLP though, but that doesn't mean that he will bring a bad presence in ArbCom Secret ^account 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I originally wasn't planning to vote here at all as I've had no interaction with the candidate AFAIK (either here or on WR), but I'm convinced after reading the "oppose" section; of all those opposes not a single one other than Prodego appear to have actually managed to dig up a credible reason to oppose. Since when is "talked to someone I don't agree with" been any kind of offense? That seems to be all that the accusations boil down to. And (to Ryan in particular, and the "per Ryan"s in general) why are you not also opposing Casliber, Jehochman, SirFozzie etc? Not to mention current Arbs Deskana, FT2, Newyorkbrad and thebainer, all of whom have participated in WR attack threads (although obviously not in the attacks themselves), as have you and I. – iridescent 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Iridescent. JavaTenor (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yes he was very vocal during some of the complex cases of the past year but he had legitimate reasons to express frustration at ArbCom's inability to defend its positions. He's actually a good candidate to smack some sense into the committee. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, see User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, will bring needed balance and experience to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support MrMurph101 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
While I do have some issues, the option of Arbitrator Recall really seems great to me. It's always nice to know that the community has some control over elected officials after they've won (Unlike US Presidents, especially in their second term). Joe Nu tter 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Solid on BLP, ethically sound.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support - per ryan's concerns, and the very good work for the project on the mantanmoreland arb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
east718 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Still concerned about WR dealings, but was convinced by support of SandyGeorgia and candidate's strong defense of her on that despicable site. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I initially had some reservations, particularly due to the oppose concerns. The support of the supposedly wronged party, along with the support of Lar, SandyGeorgia and Secret, convinces me that the opposing concerns are insufficient to overcome the benefits of adding his perspective and voice to ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cri du canard (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) - WR stuff has me slightly concerned
–Outriggr § 02:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Supporting views beat the opposing ones (my view)--Raayen (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - sane and sensible. I remain unswayed by the opposition nor can I agree with Ryan's comments below - Alison ^❤ 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Minkythecat. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Straight to the point, interesting views, will be effective. - Fedayee (talk) 05:21, 3 DecembDevolutioner 2008 (UTC)
Spell4yr (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Your strong views on BLP earns you my support vote despite my disagreement with you about WR. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Max (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not eligible to vote as you have fewer than 150 mainspace edits Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aude (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Hal peridol (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, sensible ideas and excellent general attitude. ~ mazca ^t|c 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good editing history, strong answers to questions, will make a positive difference in ArbCom. Many of the "Oppose" votes seem to be based on guilt-by-association. *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Let's see about this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
Support Davo88 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Cirt (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support It's time some of us learned to drop the knee-jerk histronics, and it's time the rest of us stop jumping through hoops while bending over backwards to try and accomodate the knee-jerk reactions of the aforementioned small and far-too-vocal minority. Additionally, of the four candidates currently vying for two seats, Luke stands head and shoulders above the rest - far enough to easily overcome any minute concerns. Badger Drink (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ~~I don't think you'll be particularly good, and I'm unhappy over ther ramifications of Wikipedia Review editing.~~ My support is partly tactical to try and ensure other candidates at this election are kept out. Pedro : Chat 22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support is tactical but I now have less concern about offering it.Pedro : Chat 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I would feel comfortable enough with this user serving on ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, and WP >> WR, to the point of almost being able to engage in a "good engineering approximation". Splash - tk 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Belated but strong support. Having done some legwork, I really like your answers to the questions. But to be honest, the highly questionable "oppose" rationales alone would probably drive me into this column. I'm nervous about the recall thing - not because I doubt your integrity, but because I doubt the process - but having looked through everything, I'm confident you'd do a great job on ArbCom. MastCell ^Talk 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Achromatic (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very level-headed. Ryan's 'oppose' rationale doesn't make any sense (nor do the "per Ryan" votes, needless to say).--G-Dett (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. ...and looking forward to what he gets done. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Node (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Certainly. Excellent answers to questions I care about (and all questions answered shows that he cares).--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Classy support to other candidates.--Avg (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support in opposition to the BADSITES hysteria others seem to be showing. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has a good idea of how an efficient ArbCom should run. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Namsos (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
HaeB (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Wayiran (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Niko Silver 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Barberio (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--thoughtful answers Mccready (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
One of only two AC votes I’m making this year; I’ve got an overwhelming feeling of meh regarding the AC and this election. If I was voting for more, I’m not sure if CHL would make my top 7 or not (well, he probably would, I guess, but it's more dramatic to say it this way). But the fact that there are still so many pile-on opposes based on a discredited and half-retracted accusation offends my sense of justice enough to support here, just to do my small part to cancel one of them out. --barneca (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nancy ^talk 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
hbdragon88 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ryanjunk (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support The breath of fresh air that ArbCom really needs. This candidate offers hope for the future of Wikipedia. Poltair (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - Not normally one to divulge my reasoning in a pure vote (such a rare wikievent), nevertheless, here we go: insightful answers; emphatic commitment to greater transparency and clear communication with the community at large; principled commitment to recall (regardless that I believe the recall process is flawed); opposition to Jimbo appointment by fiat; support for a single term of office without re-election; and many more. I think CHL will be a shot in the arm for a flagging ArbCom. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support VartanM (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I don't agree with everything this candidate says, but I think he is fundamentally 'one of us'. Good luck. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support His work setting the story straight at WR is notable.--MONGO 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)\
Support Terence (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hectorian (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support QueenCake (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. One of the ArbComm's big problems is failure to communicate, I think you can help. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was neutral, leaning towards support, but the BADSITES opposes pushed me towards full support. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jim62sch^dissera! 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
@pple complain 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I've been thinking this one over, and I conclude that you would be a good voice for ArbCom.--Kubigula (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has an excellent history with respect to anti-disruption and would make a fine addition to the CU team on that basis alone. Generally knowledgeable, sane and thoughtful - qualities sorely needed, I think. BADSITES was rejected with good reason and guilt by association is not a valid reason to oppose this candidacy. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - my only concern with this candidate was the confidentiality issue, on which I actually misunderstood his views. Will make a fine arbitrator. Cynical (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—Tony (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Move to Support - Have read the election thread on Wikipedia Review, and believe that my initial concerns over CHLs involvement in WR were in error. Skinny87 (talk)
Support after following WR discussion, and editors I trust. Verbal chat 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Gives reasoned responses to even the most difficult of situations. Caulde 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Trödel 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- I liked his answers to Mailer Diablo's questions here, and his suggestion for improving our WP:SOCK policy (though I understand that Arbcom doesn't make policy). I also liked his very clear answer on whether Arbcom should take any notice of IRC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BigDunc^Talk 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporting CHL, as I've really appreciated his graceful response to the graceless attacks leveled at him throughout this process. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Change we can believe in. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
After discussions regarding specific concerns that I have, I am now much more confident in CHL's appropriateness for ArbCom. Thank you for the time. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Mantanmoreland analysis alone would be sufficient; that it's backed up by an extensive record is intensely reassuring. —CComMack (t–c) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thoughtful. Fair. I hope he will find his voice in the cttee. Jd2718 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent work on the Mantanmoreland arbcom case -Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ditto Pocopocopocopoco cojoco (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kafka Liz (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giano (talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clear headed, and most of all fair.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Per an excellent response to my question, indicating that he will try to cite diffs supporting statements. II | (t - c) 03:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support We need soemone like him in ArbCom. Leujohn ^(talk)
Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. SilkTork *^YES! 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support tgies (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I agree with the need for transparency in Arbitration, and welcome the idea of reform. ←Spidern → 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Given his statement and his answers to my question, I can't not vote for him! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Patrick (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Zaui (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I remember you being the "charts and graphs" guy during the Mantanmoreland and Poetlister issues at AN months back. From what I remember I was especially impressed with you. We NEED a charts and graphy guy on arbcom, especially a level-headed one. Wizardman 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Answers to the questions are very good. I think CHL's judgement is sound, fair and reasonable. Rje (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Still impressed. Shenme (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xoloz (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scray (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --- The Myotis (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — I'm a bit concerned about subservience to the community — Judicial activism can be a good thing — but like the overall picture I'm seeing and believe CHL to be a reasonable fellow who will be an asset to the AC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) chgd from weak oppose
Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per his helpful involvement in the Mantanmoreland case and his commitment to ArbCom transparency. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support in part, because of his openness and how he dealt with things at this discussionsDGG (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the openess. --Nate 14 81 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support because of user thinking about Arbcom--Rjecina (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for putting transparency ahead of winning. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Wikiwoohoo (talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Speed and transparency are just what the doctor ordered. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support a WR person is good to balance the committee Wkdewey (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: no concerns with timeliness and good answers to my questions (although they fell short in Questions 4d, outstanding answer to Q2). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 8. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Support, sound fellow with sound ideas. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Like the answers, like the way he's conducted his campaign, like that he's willing to engage with his and Wikipedia's critics in order to improve. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I've looked at WR before and found most of the stuff they say stupid. They do sometimes provide some useful commentary but the site is largely filled by somewhat wacky conspiracy theorists and others with shall I say odd views. And I understand why some editors are angry at the way they are treated on WR. But I do think we sometimes give them too much time and space, in the end, they are just a stupid site who the vast majority of the internet have never heard of and if CHL wants to do stuff there that's upto him provided he doesn't violate policy or misuse his powers. Also I think CHL views on BLP are close to what I expect and better agree with his views on the OM case and on private evidence and trials Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — xaosflux ^Talk 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good record, great admin. Will make a great Arb. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: I have some trepidation, since I fear sociability in anyone. I consider clubbishness our greatest danger at ArbCom, and I fear it in both its positive and negative formulations, but I also think we need to swing away from the foolhardy "what you do outside Wikipedia is part of Wikipedia" philosophy that has poisoned deliberations. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
support E104421 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Just saw Luke's vote for John, and the reasons. That's exactly the kind of statement I believe the community wants to hear from ArbCommers when big issues get into tight scrapes. Luke's insights into the role of ArbCom in serving content are the basis for any meaningful reform. His practical proposals seem ambitious to me, ArbCom members have enough pressures without demanding higher turnaround, perhaps we need to think of more ways non-ArbCommers can assist ArbCom with their work (perhaps "running mates" willing to clerk during a term of office). But enough. Support from me, Alastair Haines (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Banjeboi 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Voted for him last year, and what I read at Lar's page only reconfirms this. Moreover, I absolutely disagree with the opposition he gets for participating on Wikipedia Review. — Sebastian 10:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) Why, you ask? 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per David Shankbone ~ #30. THF (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --NE2 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Alison and MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, arbitrators can still provide evidence right? :) --Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BrianY (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Very strong oppose Although I originally oppose him for purely tactical reasons, Cool Hand Luke given more than enough reasons to make very, very, very scared if he was on arbcom. He has engaged in massive canvassing, by himself and through supporters. User:Alecmconroy engaged in a spree of canvassing on the night of December 3 (proven by checkuser) for CHL, and one of those users included me. Then CHL tried to convince Fish and karate into convincing me to change. How curious. I'm a target of a canvassing campaign that seeks pressure me to change my vote. I'm not particularly active in the meta side of things, and since I've become a target (of two emails--CHL said that he didn't ask to Alec to spam me, so it's pretty damn ironic both emails were related to Fish and karate), I truly wonder how many others have been targeted. CHL is using unfair means to try and win this election. Due to his extensive involvement in WR, plus his pressure campaign, I would be truly scared if CHL was on arbcom. Maxim_(talk) 13:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
El on ka 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per views on anonymity (see lar's questions). Protecting someone's privacy should always be done regardless of their actions. Prodego ^talk 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with Prodego. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The candidate has clarified his position respecting your objection here. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. No way. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - Luke is "One" on WR - he outed Coredesat (whatever his intentions were, that's what the effect was) over on the site leading to Coredesat leaving (See his post, much of it is now removed [8]). I don't want any editors doing things like that, let alone an arbitrator. 1051 posts on WR in the last year? You should have come over to WP to solve any problems you had rather than playing out the Wikipedian on WR. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, Coredesat did not leave because of this, as he himself indicated on two separate occasions: [9] [10]. In fact, he didn't even endorse blocking EricBarbour, who was the true aggressor here. Why is CHL getting blamed for something that was initiated by EricBarbour and which Coredesat himself denied was a factor in him leaving? ATren (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see the talkpage for this page for further information and comments from the candidate. Avruch^T 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Also note that Coredesat has voted for Cool Hand Luke for arbcom, along with giving him quite a ringing endorsement. Scroll up and see for yourself. At this point in time it's vote #105. ~ priyanath ^talk 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Some people are strongly against my opposition here, so I think it’s best to clarify things. Firstly, I was wrong in my belief that Coredesat left because of the incident – he’s now clarified things and it wasn’t down to that. Apologies to both CHL and Cord for that. Now, for the outing – I’ll try and explain the series of events first; EricBarbour got into a dispute with Coredesat and then went to find his details which he posted on WR. These details were not correct, and CHL then went and stated the correct details, which he found by looking at a link from coredesats wikia userpage to his own website. CHL's intentions were to remove the possibility of harassment to the random person Eric had posted to, but it still had the effect of outing Coredesat on Wikimedia projects, where he hadn't revealed his identity. The action that I find questionable is that Eric clearly had some beef with Coredesat, yet didn’t really know his real life identity. The information given by CHL was enough to reveal the identity to a person that was attempting to out him. If Eric had wanted to then harass Coredesat, he’d then have the information to do so. I respect that CHL was attempting to set the record straight and not put an innocent man under the spotlight, however there were far better ways of doing that than revealing Coredesats identity on WR to someone that would have been best without that information. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Let us still remember-- the user who was allegedly "outed against his will", Coredesat, has actually endorsed CHL above. Please read talk page before believing any allegations of "outing". --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Too pretentious and active WR poster. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per combination of WR account, loose views on protection of pseudonymity, and support for too much BLP and BLPSE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WR users seen to generate too much drama. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Prodego and Ryan Postlethwaite. ElinorD (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

~~per Ryan Postlethwaite. I don't care if people have accounts on WR as long as they do good work here but that crosses the line. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~

I was going to change to abstain but considering what is now being posted on the talk page about those who choose not to think Wikipedia should be run by a cabal on an external site... my oppose stands and even more so than before. You are no better yourselves. If that earns me another WP:DICK of the year nomination then so be it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

~~Abstaining. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~
per answer (and clarification) to Lar. Privacy concerns remain. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz ^talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per privacy concerns, per WR concerns (echoing EconomicsGuy that having an account or editing WR is one thing, but....) Pedro : Chat 13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Noted on reading all relevant discussion. Moving to support. Pedro : Chat 21:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The candidate has denied the accusation of outing on the talk page. Letting you know since he won't post to this page Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Supports and contributes to a hate site. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hell No. Severe privacy concerns. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Prodego and Ryan P - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Really sorry, but based on Ryan's evidence, I can't trust you with checkuser data and private correspondence. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Moved to support.
Oppose per the WR matter and Ryan's take on it. An arbcom member cannot have even the slightest whiff of controversy surrounding them in such matters, and this is much more than a whiff. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - ArbCom needs less drama, not more. Whether you create the drama or not is immaterial; it'll follow you. That's unfair, I admit, but the reality is that we need less controversy surrounding the committee. //roux editor review16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per answers to some of the questions. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. NVO (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Flat no per absolutist views on BLP. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It pains me to switch my vote, because I really like your candidacy statement. The accusations about outing and whatnot seem to be flimsy evidence of untrustworthiness, and I duly ignore them. But that said, I do not vote for people who participate actively in Wikipedia Review. WR creates drama on-wiki and fuels trolls. Rule #1: don't feed the trolls. Active and respected communities members like Cool Hand Luke do not need grungy backchannels to make their criticisms and concerns heard. There is simple no excuse. Steven Walling (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite is making some points which I do find very disturbing. One wouldn't believe an editor would act like that, certainly not somebody I would like to see on ArbCom. --Kanonkas : Talk 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Per talk page I think I'll stay neutral on this candidate. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
No. --B (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - whatever the details of the events on WR, it was a mess, and suggests to me a misjudgement, however well intentioned. Warofdreams talk 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--TS 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
per Ryan TimidGuy (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, do like you a lot, but I will not support any active member of Wikipedia Review for any post here or anywhere else. Grace Note (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too great an involvement in WR. DDStretch (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Save for one convincing exception, extensive contributions on WR is prima facie evidence of bad-faith.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support
Oppose Seddσn ^talk 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
>Radiant< 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Per WR concerns, no way. Tiptoety ^talk 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ryan and Prodego. The Helpful One 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I just saw what Ryan had said and I have to oppose. Sorry! iMatthew 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to WR activity. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
Oppose due to campaign promises. An arbitrator who is too quick to recuse or be recalled will not be effective. Chick Bowen 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Tex (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~WR posters do not get my support, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Oppose after further reflection on this candidate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose WR. ST47 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --maclean 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Has no clue what Wikipedia is for, disruptive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I am abstaining from voting on this candidacy. I don't really think yet another user corroborating false allegations is a good look, even if struck, so I have removed my oppose rationale entirely. It's in the history, anyway. Orderinchaos 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose the WR incident is disturbing. Dreadstar † 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
+O I've been asked to explain my Oppose. Before I begin: All lovers, supporters and defenders of WR, direct your remarks elsewhere. OK then. First, personal info is radioactive. If CHL did not divulge it, or did not divulge info that could be used to to divulge it, then CHL should set the record straight. If CHL did either divulge or help divulge, deliberately, but as a mistake, then CHL should say it was a mistake etc. Second: WR provides no benefit to Wikipedia. I only want Arbs who benefit Wikipedia. WR defenders please resist the urge. Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~User:Krator (t c) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~

~~E104421 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~ i've changed my mind. E104421 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
RxS (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - partly tactical, partly WR stuff (though I wouldn't know about the latter enough to really pass judgment) Xavexgoem (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Rethinking this vote.
WODUP 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Mostly because of his behaviour at WR. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Changed to Support.

Oppose due to Wikipedia Review involvement Skinny87 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Move to support after browsing Wikipedia Review and believing that CHL would indeed be a benefit to the community as an Arb.
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose WR and other concerns dougweller (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I like Cool Hand Luke, just not for arbcom. Also, I don't give a shit about him using WR. John Reaves 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak-ish Oppose. Generally seems like a good candidate, however attitude to secret evidence isn't acceptable. If the submitter of evidence can't or won't reveal it to the person it is being used against (NOT just the allegation that evidence supports) then the evidence must be discounted. Anything else is unfair and brings the entire project into disrepute. Cynical (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC). Vote changed, I misunderstood the candidate's views on this matter. Cynical (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
~~# -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 08:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Iamawesome800 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too good of a person to be put on ArbCom; besides, he might actually do some good. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Just to test what the bot says, because it's acting weird...will remove in a bit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I simply can't reconcile "ArbCom must behave as the community's servant", a candidate's recitation of any form of which usually leads me to support, with "ArbCom can (and perhaps should) go much farther by validating practices like 'default to delete' that some users have been courageous enough to implement", which suggests that the candidate would readily substitute his own judgment for that of the community in the community's construction (both creation and interpretation, that is) of community-created policy, and I think we've already a bit too much of that. (There is, I should say, a good deal that I like about Luke, and were I not convinced that he would be a profound problem with respect to BLP, I would probably support in order, as others, to provide a counterweight against WR-/outing-related opposition by which I am utterly unpersuaded.) Joe 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much drama and politics. Dmcdevit·t 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - overall quite respectable candidate, but openness to recall has to make this a non-starter. Wily D 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cannot support any candidate open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose drahmaz, recall, anonymity issues. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
My vote comment was too short, and left too much to guesswork and misinterpretation, for this I apologize. I should have taken the time to write a more transparent explanation, as this election is very important, and yourself and others have put in a lot of time, which I do appreciate. I did not mean to slight you or cast an insult your way; I personally dislike the Wikipedia Review, and believe it has been, and will continue to be a source of drama. This in my mind presents a conflict of interest for arbcom. I realize that NYB is on ARB, and I would not suggest he has had a COI, but I think with such a large spate of candidates available, that my support votes were better cast for some of the others. I also am reluctant to support anyone who is voluntarily subject to recall, and I believe that your position on BLP/anonynimity issues is contrary to that which should be protected by Wikipedia. Again sorry for the flippant short form of my initial vote comment. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)~~ chgd to support
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are not eligible to vote, as you did not have 150 mainspace edits on and before 1 November 2008. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I indented that vote before I saw the conversation at WT:ACE2008. If consensus determines that Mervyn should be allowed suffrage, please feel free to remove these comments and reinstate his vote without contacting me first. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The arbitration committee enforces Wikipedia policies, that is its prime directive. Fred Talk 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC))
Strong oppose - I just found an email from CHL in my inbox asking me to convince other users to make strategic votes on Luke's behalf. That a candidate for Arbcom - who should be aware of WP:CANVAS - might in any way think this is appropriate baffles me, and I am sadly forced to remove my support and strongly oppose Luke now. fish&karate 08:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you certain it came from him and not from some impostor? Stranger things have happened & the question does have to be asked .... - Alison ^❤ 08:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
It was done with the Special:Emailuser thing, so going by 'This e-mail was sent by user "Cool Hand Luke" on the English Wikipedia to user "Fish and karate"', I'm pretty certain, sadly, yeah. fish&karate 09:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
At my request, Fish and Karate forwarded the e-mail to me. My comments about it are on the talk page here, where I suggest that further discussion about this also take place. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
THE GROOVE 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too much drama. David in DC (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I can not support someone who regularly (3.2 posts per day, 1000+ total posts) contributes to a site like wikipediareview.com, and CHL has over 1,000 posts there. Additionally, Fish&Karate's comment above and the email related to it are disturbing to me. While it may not technically violate the canvass policy, it still indicates a level of "behind the scenes maneuvering" that is not in the spirit of transparency. His request should have been made on the person's talk page. I cannot in good conscience support this candidate. Ariel♥Gold 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Your position previously ranted against on the talk page, where the point is made that transparency and discreet messages both have their place -- Noroton (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I did no "ranting" anywhere. My opinions stand, regardless of what transpired by others on the talk page. Ariel♥Gold 04:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe Noroton is saying that he posted (what he characterises as) a rant against the reasoning you're using (but not against you per se), before you actually voted. I could be misinterpreting that, of course. But I do NOT think he was saying YOU were ranting. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I meant; thanks Lar. ArielGold, I only meant to point out to you a discussion at that spot on the talk page (and above it) where other editors (me especially) had thought about some of the same things and come to conclusions you might find interesting or useful. -- Noroton (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — while I remain neutral on the WR involvement, some other interpretations of practice worry me. I still have respect for a good editor, but I don't think that "Arbitrator" is an appropriate post at this time. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I largely stand by my earlier comments in support but I appear to have misunderstood CHL's views on need for discretion by the arbcom in some instances. Will elabourate further in my talk page soon. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sunray (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Agree with the gist of Steven Walling's comments above. While I am not against the use of outside sites like WR per se, CHL has put far too much energy into many postings there when he could have been openly posting here on Wikipedia to the community at large. Hence discussions have to take place during Arbcom elections over what was/was not stated on WR. Why go to WR to take stands on issues/editors when this could be done openly here? Why encourage backchannel communications? I don't think this editor has thought out the ramifications of this issue of inclusive/exclusive modes of communication, as it seems to contradict some of the principles he supports. Maybe this is an issue of lack of maturity. I do comment him for his post supportive of Jayvdb and have hopes for a future candidacy. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
seresin ( ¡? ) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
His past behavior, notably in the cases involving Dr Zen and THF, leave me convinced CHL shouldn't be an admin, let alone an arbitrator. Raul654 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose, mainly because of WR concerns. JGHowes ^talk 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Editor switched to Oppose, below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
҉ I support him. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support John254 03:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support (only in that I more strongly support other candidates) - Would be a net positive if elected, low drama factor and cool head and mature outlook in conflict situations. Orderinchaos 03:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, never had any problem with him as a collaborator and I have always been impressed by his admin work. Daniel Case (talk) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A good candidate to ascend to the post. Mike H. Fierce! 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. While I don't always agree with him, I think he will do a good job. I have not seen anything which makes me doubt this. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rockpocket 08:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Has large doses of WP:CLUE. //roux editor review09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Not necessarily familiar with him, but impressed by his ideas here. Rebecca (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, why not. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as part of a ticket. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure --B (talk) 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz ^talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: not a big fan of the Kmweber unblock, but after talking to him, I'm impressed by his sense of ethics. Good show. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, strongly. Completely the right attitude. AGK 18:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Seen good things from Coren. Acalamari 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Taprobanus (talk) 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No pressing concerns, and would rather have this user than some others. GlassCobra 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - lots of relevant experience, seems very competent. Warofdreams talk 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support This guy's actually got some clue... ST47 (talk) 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like that word. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Cardamon (talk) 07:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 14:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Tenmei (talk) 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - partly on reuptation, partly on statement/question. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Knows exactly what ails Wikipedia. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good administration. --Raayen (talk) 04:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Solid thoughtful guy that I suspect would make a solid thoughtful arb.--Kubigula (talk) 06:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Enforcement is needed. CIVIL is over-powering real policies & gaming has multiplied. PR^talk 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hiberniantears (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - User seems to know the tough intricacies of this type of work.--Zereshk (talk) 23:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Very competent admin. will make a great arbitrator. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A steady hand is needed here. And fairness. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible. — neuro^(talk) 01:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Node (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Wayiran (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support'' Happy‑melon 17:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I can't easily put my reasoning into words other than to say that I believe Coren has Clue, and Wikipedia should be a Cluocracy. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: I may not be a hardliner myself, but I know a good one when I see one. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 06:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:100 - Has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Agree with increasing transparency into the reasoning of the ArbCom's decisions. - Fedayee (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes! - @pple complain 00:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Seddσn ^talk 15:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support yay --Mardetanha ^talk 18:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jd2718 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support G4 poor but the rest seems OK William M. Connolley (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Thoughtful (and thought provoking) answers to the questions (*grumble* something needs to be done to reduce the number of questions *grumble*) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 03:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Since you are a clerk, you already know the ropes of ArbCom, its strengths, and its weaknesses, and should have an idea what you want it to improve. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support tgies (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Parishan (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clear appropriate priorities. Fred Talk 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 20:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Wayiran (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shenme (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I tend to agree with Fatso's points below, but Coren has good philosophies, a great campaign statement, good answers to the questions, and have been impressed by his responsiveness. And as far as content-oriented editors and ArbCom, while I wish Coren had a bit more experience in Main Space, I think these elections are already doing a sufficient job rebalancing toward WP:ENC. --JayHenry (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support His dedication speaks for itself. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporthe has identified the "biased civility" problem which interacts with the weakness of arbcom in making content decisions. Sooner or later someone has to make a content decision and it should be on a scientific basis. I don't undertand the opposers' objections to his BLP stance. Email me if you wish. Mccready (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I totally disagree with his view that sharply restricting our coverage of BLP would be beneficial, but I tend to agree with almost everything else he said.DGG (talk) 16:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - purely a balance vote for something that may well be in my head only. --Illythr (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- agree with DGG's hesistation above, but strongly support overall. --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Has shown reasonable grasp of policy, and sensible priorities.—Kww(talk) 15:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - feel from his/her statement that he/she has some good ideas particular on the need to take a hard line in some instances and viewson academic integrity and need to be careful on quoting people etc. Also decent views on BLP and on need for discretion by arbcom and on the OM case. Nil Einne (talk) 21:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ~SunDragon34 (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giants2008 (17-14) 03:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — xaosflux ^Talk 04:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Grand master ka 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 23:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Experience as a clerk will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 12:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Epbr123 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Willking1979 (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sfrandzi (talk) 20:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BrianY (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, I have found this candidate to not have the objectiveness to properly arbitrate important matters. Candidate is not interested in expanding encyclopedic knowledge--Pensil (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Talks tough, which is fine, but record suggest the user aspires to be the consummate insider, overly involved in wikipolitics/drama for its own sake; does not relate to content creators; far too many similarities to the busybody-admin model that has served so many users so poorly.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per His Fatness Steven Walling (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this was a tough one. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - too much of a enforcer mentality. I did a CU Sfacets once, which came back on opposite sides of the world, but Coren said it was him anyway. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note: Sfacets said that he frequently traveled between Australia and Europe. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not within 3-4 hours. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. That checkuser was appalling. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because I feel that his wikignome work, while an asset to the project, is no substitute for article work in terms of how to hand disputes. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) I AM AN IDIOT! Forgot that when you EC it shows the whole page.... L'Aquatique[talk]
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Supports 'strengthening' (read: making more complex) BLP, which is an overly bureaucratic mess of 'special authority'. Prodego ^talk 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A tad too prone for drama for my tastes. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Prodego, BLP needs simplification and reining in, not let further out of control. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Brilliantine (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ronnotel (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Far too prone to drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— CharlotteWebb 14:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moreschi (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~~ priyanath ^talk 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath ^talk 22:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Biophys (talk) 21:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Among other minor issues, not having his own archives properly linked until recently is a signal of insufficient attention to detail and caring about others that is required of an arbitrator. Franamax (talk) 22:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Caspian blue 01:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Has an us-vs-them mentality completely at odds with the goal of building an informational resource. Skomorokh 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Lack of intensive article-building experience is a concern. Also, from his answers to questions I get the impression that he will lean more towards using a cudgel than a scalpel. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as per User:SashaNein. Anyone proud of being closed-minded (ie "hardliner") lacks the change we need in arbcom.--Cerejota (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not the right temperament for the job. There's a difference between hard and firm. We need firm, not hard. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
More mainspace activity is needed, especially if you are going to handle disputes with BLP/3RR/and edit warring. miranda 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would have preferred more definite statements that IRC should not be used, and that using checkuser to investigate an editor on your own hunch is a breach of privacy. DrKiernan (talk) 09:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 17:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose RMHED (talk) 22:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Coren's views on BLP - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 00:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (judging from the candidate's statement) Needs diplomacy, patience and openness to all sides Nicolas1981 (talk) 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to answer to confidentiality question. Secret trials destroy the credibility of Arbcom and the project. Cynical (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not interested in building an encyclopedia. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Bad answers to almost every question. And Secret star chambers? Like I'm going to support that! OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Almost zero interest in actually contributing to content. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Content work doesn't have much to do with ArbCom, given the number of cases which deal with user's who aren't regular contributors - for this reason, I agree with The Fat Man Who Never Came Back. Caulde 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Iamawesome800 17:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
There is much to like, respect and admire in this candidate who clearly has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. I cannot support however as there seems too much of a desire to solve tricky problems by being firm rather than imaginative. I am also slightly concerned by answers to questions which indicate a willingness to block users who are critical and problematic but who haven't broken the community's own guidelines. SilkTork *^YES! 17:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It happens that I'm firmly with Silk on Coren's having much to offer—I have, in fact, never had a truly unhappy or disappointing experience with Coren)—and there are certain answers (most significantly, those with respect to why policy and process are important [or at least not always unimportant]) that please me, reflecting precisely the sentiments that I'd like a prospective arbitrator to hold. It is BLP (which has, after all, become, at least to those of us who recognize the primacy of the community, one of the two or three most important issues of this election), though, that gives me pause, and even as I think Coren well to understand that his personal views about what policy ought to be must be irrelevant to his construction of policy in his official capacity, I just don't know, finding as I do equally viable candidates with whom I am more comfortable, that I can take the chance, a conclusion I reach, I suppose I must say, with at least a little regret. Joe 05:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 19:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. ArbCom being creative or 'innovating' is the last thing we need. They need to be reigned in, not let loose. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Buster7 (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Some good points though. Hús önd 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Ceoil (talk) 19:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose prefer people with more content creation experience. Crum375 (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose..Modernist (talk) 00:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - I'm not generally a stickler for mainspace work as a prerequisite for admin-ish positions, but there's just too little here, even for me. I think Miranda said it well above. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance on our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with Coren's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. It's hard to envision this vote changing, but I am open to discussion. --SSBohio 19:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Two reasons: first, Coren turned up at an article in 2006 offering out of the blue to mediate a dispute for the mediation cabal. He had only 33 article edits at the time. When advised this wasn't enough for a mediator, he replied that those were his edits, "With this user yes," [11] which implied that the Coren account was a sockpuppet (and when challenged directly on that point, he didn't deny it). But during this election, he said he had never edited with another account. When I asked about the discrepancy, he said he hadn't really meant that he had another user when he implied he did in 2006. [12] Second reason: Coren has defended the use of IRC, denying that the medium lends itself well to misuse, and arguing that people should be allowed to speak candidly there, and that anyone who steps out of line (meaning, presumably, anyone on IRC) should be "bitch slapped." [13] I'm hoping the IRC "bitch slapping" mentality is one we're trying to move away from. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, "bitch slap"?! --MPerel 22:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose EJF (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per be kind to the newbies - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually strong support as his arguments that I have seen in discussions and even the rationale above are all reasonable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BrianY (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Xavexgoem (talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Wants the arbcom to respect community consensus rather than dictate it, realises that WP:NOT paper. What more do you want? Cynical (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
support for moral and tactical reasons «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support same as Promethean - Tactical and moral. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
per ST47 Enigma ^message 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite some reservations, I do not believe that the candidate deserves to finish so near the bottom as there is some evidence that this is an intelligent and principled editor. The same cannot be said about all candidates. --JayHenry (talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Dream Focus understands what ArbCom is intended to do.--chaser - t 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Communication issues; if you choose not to answer the majority of questions then you have no basis to stand. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --El on ka 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not ready for this role. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Candidate should understand the difference between content and conduct before running for ArbCom. —kur ykh 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Statements and answers to questions are generally unrelated to dispute resolution. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tsk no no no. Not ready. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing personal, just too little experience. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Statement shows a lack of understanding of what ArbCom does. Grand master ka 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Incompetence. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbComm is not AFD. GRBerry 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inexperience. MER-C 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal against this editor, but he lacks the experience needed for ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for change, but this isn't it. Mike H. Fierce! 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Reforms to deletion policy are not what ArbCom is about. Daniel Case (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per lack of understanding. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm not sure if you completely understand the purpose of ArbCom. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Enigma ^message 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and WP:DR areas, and run again. //roux editor review09:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This candidate's platform is of tangential relevance to arbcom at best. Brilliantine (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 and blocks. Sorry. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't mind that you aren't yet an admin, but I do want ARBcomm members to be more involved in Wikipedia and your 671 edits aren't enough to win my support this year. Get more involved especially in controversial areas and I'll happily reconsider in future years. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Grandmasterka and other general "you are not ready" statements. Dengero (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal; keep up the good work, but I don't think you're quite ready for this particular role. MastCell ^Talk 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not experienced enough yet, keep contributing though! Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not enough experience, sorry. The Helpful One 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Sarcasticidealist. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not enough general experience, seems to be a little too content-oriented; ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. GlassCobra 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - doesn't seem to fully understand the role of ArbCom, could more usefully contribute in areas of interest elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell above. If interested in Arbitration, it would probably be good to follow some cases this next year. If you're more interested in deletion policy, there are better places to get more involved, as ArbCom has fairly limited authority over the deletion process. --JayHenry (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Wetman (talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No way, no how, no you. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose per User:Chaser.--Cerejota (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. RGTraynor 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Too many questions unanswered, sorry. Badger Drink (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Statement and responses seem to make little sense. Joe Nu tter 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't have confidence in the candidate's understanding of what is happening here. SilkTork *^YES! 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Parts of his statement are not relevant to being an arbitrator. Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Great user with a sincere attituse toward this position. (at least you answered some of the questions) Maybe become an Admin before trying for ArbCom. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose: Seems totally unsuitable based on experience, and lacks depth in judgment (or was that a provocative joke?). Walkerma (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Terence (talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think article-length guidelines should be ignored entirely, for one thing. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not enough experience, hasn't answered most questions, and doesn't seem to have full understanding of ArbCom. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't seem to understand how this works tgies (talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Limited experience within the project. — Manti core 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not understand the job. Fred Talk 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not ready yet. Keep on contributing, the threshold is very high for roles such as this - the result of this nomination is not personal. Rje (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. less of 700 edits--Rjecina (talk) 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Supportive Oppose per SarcasticIdealist --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per statement Switzpaw (talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not currently accountable as an administrator, thus unlikely to be able to deal with potential issues that will crop up at ArbCom. Caulde 14:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
An editor with exemplary integrity and commitment to the project. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support GTD 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has the best interests of the project in mind. krimpet ✽ 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support L'Aquatique[talk] 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Willing to call a spade a spade and not play diplomatic niceties at times. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. GJC 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has been working on fixing ArbCom outside of this election, and he's got some good ideas. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Brilliantine (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support لenna vecia 07:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support likely to get things done. Pedro : Chat 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely! "Vast contributions to WR" don't exist. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Many sound ideas, clear commitment to project. Regarding WR, the contributions of his that I recall seeing there have been helpful. Martinp (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as my experiences have shown he is perfect for the job. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Colchicum (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good candidate. I'm sick of the "Everyone on WR is evil" attitude around here. ATren (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) changed to oppose. ATren (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Tikiwont (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that Fish and Karate will be great on ArbCom. Regarding his WR comments, I've only seen good posts from him there. Acalamari 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Enigma ^message 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Balls. Although he might have the worst username in recent living wiki history (what was wrong with neil ?). Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support, perplexed by the number of opposes for such an exemplary encyclopaedian. Skomorokh 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support based on good edits and kind personality, from the edits that I've seen. Chergles (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support good answers to most questions (are we supposed to read every answers - someone should make a cheat sheet!) and a general all round good vibe. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I tend to think Wikipedia Review is mostly lame, but WRophobia is an exceedingly unhelpful and tired meme now that it's almost 2009. Fish and karate (agree with Ceoil, what's with the redonk user name?) has primarily good judgment and has always been fair and thoughtful when I've seen him. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support faithless (^speak) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --DeLarge (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportRacepacket (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, has shewn greater integrity and commitment to improving arbitration procedures than any of the sitting arbitrators. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolute strongest possible support per Ryan Postlethwaite, Prodego, and Slrubenstein. The dude's a character. I need characters serving alongside me who are willing to shake things up and make people go "What the hell did he just do?" Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clear way of what you want to do in Arbcom. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support for the Kung Fu Piscine! Has good judgement, common sense, knows his way around the warped wastelands of Wikidom and has a keen sense of humor. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
@pple complain 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Based on answers, is likely to be ineffective, which may tend to hasten the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support This user seems to know their way around hideous Wikipedia pseudo-bureaucracy pretty well tgies (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A little mystified by all of the opposes, since I haven't found any of them compelling. I liked his answers to move questions, especially Thatcher's 1B - I haven't yet seen another candidate answer that one as well. I find his view of policy in general slightly troubling (believing that it's critical to the project that anyone be able to edit policy pages while simultaneously believing policy should be hard, fast, and prescriptive seems a little incongruous), but I think he's clearly one of the best seven candidates running. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I want to restate my support in light of recent events. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — xaosflux ^Talk 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support decent views on BLP and because of all the WR opposes Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Although this candidate wasn't one of the seven I originally decided to vote for based on candidate statements and Q&As, I've looked at his wider contributions to the project as a whole, and been so impressed that I want to support him as well. - Gregg (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I believe F&K was wrong to oppose CHL. Nevertheless I wish to go on record in support of his ideas, in general even if I do not agree with everything. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per vast contributions to WR, one of which led to removal of OTRS access. I want arbitrators who discuss problems with the community, not on an external site. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I do not trust this candidate with the right to access sensitive information. And making smutty insults about Tony Sidaway on WR, while keeping a "clean" record and handing out incivility blocks on Wikipedia is exactly what an arbitrator should not do. ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose civility is a very important requirement for arbitrators because people at RFAR are under a very stressful situation. Harsh words not needed. Caspian blue 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Captain panda 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per many, many troubling comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Can't be trusted. Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
El on ka 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too prone to explode. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Altough fish is healthy for us, it's not healthy for this user to be a arbcom. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per east's reasoning.--Koji† 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Removal of OTRS access makes me too uncomfortable about this candidate.--chaser - t 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, the answer to lar's "favorite color" question was not suitably mature. Prodego ^talk 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That would be because it was a joke question. Giggy (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is with some regret that I oppose this candidate, as he has displayed a lot of integrity in the past. But I find that, oftentimes, Neil has a tendency to take strong viewpoints much too far. Thank you for all of your outstanding contributions, however. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - the removal of OTRS access and behavior on WR leave serious doubts about the suitability of the candidate to the position. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd like to see some admin recall system implemented. I'm sure it can be made enforceable. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns raised by others above. I am not confident in this editor. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, nothing personal, but stating he would have done or supported BLPSE earns my oppose up front, and the questions regarding WR cement it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me}
Questionable judgement skills. —Dark ^talk 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per east718 and Postlethwaite. //roux editor review09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WR is bad, mmkay? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There still is no comment there, other than that you oppose. — Sebastian 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very weakly; lots of good characteristics and seems like a great guy, but an accumulation of fairly minor concerns tip the scales very weakly against. I'm sorry. MastCell ^Talk 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, marginally, for concerns over impartiality and per Ryan's comments. Does have some good ideas about Arbcom reform that I hope he will continue to pursue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. An administrator that removes userboxes without notification should not become an arbitrator.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ryan's comments are worrying.. The Helpful One 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tempted to support just because of the ridiculous removal of OTRS, but no. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per east718. GlassCobra 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Manipulator. Not suitable. --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose was going to support, but WR erases that possibility.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This editor has a history of instability. He tends to go too far when he gets passionate about something.Nrswanson (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose OTRS gone? Hiyah! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor judgement. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose For the same reasons as those given by Ryan Postlethwaite and ElinorD. DDStretch (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For the same reasons as Ryan at #3. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup, per Ryan ...--Comet styles 06:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Vigorously Strong Oppose Like many others, I share Ryan Postlethwaite and ElinorD's reasoning. I have to add that I am deeply disturbed by this candidates answer to EleanorD's second question. ElinorD asked if Neil has other accounts at WR. Given that Neil admits to having gone by different names, this is a reasonable question asked in good faith. Neil's response was "no" which would have sufficed for me ... except he went on to ask ElinorD if she uses multiple accounts. This is inappropriate: it is for us to ask candidates questions, not for them to ask us. It is childish: if Neil wants to accuse another user of sockpuppetry, s/he is free to but one would think that a candidate for ArbCom would use official channels and not do so in such a cavalier way - is neil playing "tit for tat?" I would expect this from a nine year old. I do not want a nine year old on ArbCom. It is abusive: it impugns ElinorD's character, is he really accusing her of sockpuppetry? Does he have any basis for asking this question? WR has been involved in outing and harassing wikipedia editors ... is this a sign of things to come? Can we trust Neil with any authority? It is especially abusive in this context: to what purpose does he ask this question? To discourage other people from asking frank questions? Isn't this process all about asking frank questions? Oughtn't we to ask frank and challenging questions before electing someone to ArbCom? Shouldn't we expect direct and courteous answers and not insinuations or accusations? I realize some people may think I am making a mountain over a molehill but given the role WR has played in outing and harassing Wikipedia editors, and just how seriously some of our editors have been harassed - and given ElinorD's fine standing in this community, where I think all agree she is a valuable editor, I think this stinks. Neil may consider it a "joke," perhaps that is part of his attachment to WR. But you know what, it is not funny, not when some of our best editors have been stalked in real life, meaning that many of us have to be especially guarded about our identities, and not when we ban people for sockpuppetry when it is used to abuse our rules. As far as I am concerned, Neil's snide little comeback at the very least shows a serious lack of judgment. The last thing we need in a member of ArbCom. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Someone how cannot respond to simple questions without making spiteful and vicious comments should not be n ArbCom, probably not even be an admin. Str1977 ^(talk) 09:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There's a shadow of concern over the candidate in relation to sound judgement which might impact upon reactions to any ArbCom decisions involving this candidate. SilkTork *^YES! 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Absolutely lacks the civility required to arbitrate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too involved in WR. We need arbitrators who are independent of the major cases of concerns like IRC, WR, etc, so that they can offer an impartial judgment. Some other concerns raised above enforces my oppose. Though I believe some propositions by Neil on the committee were interesting and valuable. Cenarium (Talk) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't believe in 'light touch' action when it comes to incivility; too many articles are completely scarred by this. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Uses Wikipedia Review to start threads in which he openly states that he thought that vandalism to my userspace was "childish but funny"...hardeharhar I guess.--MONGO 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite, I agree with his concerns. — E ↗ 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. As an admin he protects a page and then reverts it to his version after an edit war, therefore cannot be in any way trusted even with sysop tools let alone arbcom responsibilities. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Concerning history of at least the appearence of holding grudges. Would certainly be bad for the optics of how ArbCom is perceived by the community, making him a bad choices when bridges need to be built, not burnt. Wily D 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose = I don't share the same sentiments as those who have or are operating on WR. Caulde 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Poor judgement, I also have concerns about incivility and partiality. Rje (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Everyking (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I fear that this candidate's approach and judgement will cause further divide between ArbCom and community - the effects of which are undesirable and detrimental for this project. Strong oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I originally supported, but now have concerns about the way a recent private email conversation was handled. ATren (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wkdewey (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose My broad feelings about the candidate have been oddly mixed—I found Proto to a fine guy, wasn't too keen on a good bit of that that Neil did, and have a positive general feeling about F&k (he is, it happens, not the only name-changing user about whom I have felt similarly)—and so too are my feelings about his candidacy, such that this is, to be sure, a conflicted, if not regretful, vote (feels good not to say "!vote", no?), which explanation I bother to give only because I think some of my fellow opposers to have reacted too strongly to certain happenings and some to have opposed for things that would dispose me to support. I find ultimately, though, that the candidate is not someone whom I should like to see on ArbCom, and surely not amongst those candidates to whom it is useful that I should give my support. Joe 06:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose too many name changes. What has this user to hide? X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't have a problem with Wikipedia Review in principle, but someone who uses it to privately mock active editors isn't suitable for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't entirely agree with the platform, but answers were good. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Statement is a bit silly, but question answers were excellent. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. Not so much for the statement, but for the answers to the questions I (and others) posed. Why my vote? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Judging from George the Dragon's responses to the candidate questions posed, I hope this editor will step in sometimes as amicus curiae in ArbCom cases in the coming year, to demonstrate suitability for 2009 election.--Wetman (talk) 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I like the idea of a constitutional crises. Z gin der 2008-12-02T03:31Z (UTC)
Support As per User:Zginder... This is a WP:SNOW oppose win, so why not vote against the current when its safe?--Cerejota (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per answers to questions, particularly Lar's. MookieZ (talk) 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support - per Lar and the fact I hate opposes based on "this sure is not an admin". not reasonable enough...--Comet styles 06:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Of the "breath of fresh air" candidates this one is the most interesting. DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 22:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Would make a great arbitrator. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support for being the only candidate statement so far to make a straightforward suggestion to improve the project rather than being full of wikipolitician prose. Cynical (talk) 21:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Dezidor (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 08:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support for having a sensible straightfoward goal. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per Jimbo's recent toss up RE giano. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Revolution. Alun (talk) 14:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mensuur (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the Jimbo system.--chaser - t 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I cannot support a Molotov cocktail. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --El on ka 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with you about Jimbo, but I don't think we have a viable replacement yet. iride scent 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kuru ^talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Even the nom statement is chock-full of wikipolitics. Mr.Z-man 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, even-keeled temperament is an absolute requirement for any arbitrator in my view. Avruch^T 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
҉ Sorry :) --Mixwell!^Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JodyB_talk 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I think you have a really poor attitude; ArbCom requires magnanimity, an area in which I think you're lacking. --David Shankbone 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that Wikipedia has grown too large to be "governed" by Jimbo, but that doesn't make you qualified for ArbCom. On top of that, the answers you gave to Lar truly worry me. Oppose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Incompetence. Prodego ^talk 03:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While I agree with regard to Jimbo, I don't want this editor on the Arbitration committee. GRBerry 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wish we could speed up the Jimbo devolution too, but this sort of referendum candidacy is the wrong way to go about it. Other concerns as well. --JayHenry (talk) 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per JayHenry. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerned by this candidate's temperament. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Do not have a good impression of user. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Caspian blue
A lot of us want to see a lot less Jimmy (like the Queen of England, you see her in photo ops but never in an actual governing position where it matters), but voting for you won't be the way to go about it. It's too vague. Mike H. Fierce! 05:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns about attitude and temperament. I am not convinced this editor would be responsible in the position. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per Titoxd (#31). --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I didn't think the answers to questions were that bad but question the ability of this user to divorce their personal views from their on-wiki judgement. I have a couple of other concerns too. Brilliantine (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux editor review09:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, no real substance to candidacy, and supports BLPSE/on demand deletion. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I feel adminship is a necessary prerequisite to ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 13:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Personally, I can't bring myself to care about you one way oe the other, but this sort of pointy candidacy ought to leave as big a black mark as possible in order to discourage future pointy candidacies. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal; good answers to the questions, but I really think that some experience as an admin is necessary for this role. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Concern over conduct, plans if elected, and experience. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I support Jimbo.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not because I disagree or agree with your statement but because I cannot support a candidate who runs on such a basis. Davewild (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as making a grandstanding point - not a good starting pointing to be an Arb. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This sentence turned me away: One day, this project will be edited, administrated and governed by people with as much quality and ability as Giano. Until that day, why should anyone be surprised that Wikipedia has critics, has people prepared to attack it, has proof that it defames senior politicians so many times?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Helpful One 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - points about Jimbo are fair enough, but we need people whose focus is on improving the processes of ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - BrianY (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Drama seeker. Possible might have added some content at some stage, but wheather or not is now lost in the hot air and either. No thanks, very much. Ceoil (talk) 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Nice idea, and I'd support your ends - but single issues candidates will still have to do the job. --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not an admin, too political --Sultec (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - lack of answers to several questions bring a foreboding, C68-FM-SV sorta feeling. Badger Drink (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
While I have no problem with reducing Jimbo's role, needs to focus more on other issues as opposed to only this one, minor one, which is enacted (from what I understand) not very frequently. Joe Nu tter 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'd sooner vote for a random IP editor to ARBCOM. Too much drama, too little real contributions. Trusilver 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Poor answers and an overdramatic candidate statement devoid of facts. Marlith (Talk) 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose You voted oppose to some other candidates. The fact that you voted support to some others gives partial redemption but still opposing your fellow candidates is very poor.--Avg (talk) 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Never thought this Wikipedian had the right attitude to even be an admin. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
That's it? You're basing your whole candidacy on not letting Jimbo appoint ArbCom? He's always picked the top vote getters except for a small exception one year. I mean, I think the top vote-getters should just get in, too, but there are real issues the new ArbCom is going to have to deal with, and this is ridiculously trivial next to that. Grand master ka 08:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeI can find no information in the nomination that shows this user is qualified for the job. He statement clearly shows he is trying to prove something. Arbcom is not the place for agendas.--Adam in MO Talk 09:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate has little evidence of all round experience of building the project. Contributions appear to be mainly vandal reverts, and some minor comments on Admin noticeboards which add little to the discussions themselves. Lack of perception and insight. Lack of generating respect. Lack of conflict resolution experience. There's a lot lacking here for someone putting themselves forward for ArbCom. The candidate's statement in itself is not helpful. SilkTork *^YES! 19:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 06:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Shyam ^(T/C) 09:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
SashaNein (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Disliking Jimbo's role in the community doesn't make you qualified for ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Goofy melodramatic Wikipedia politics abound tgies (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I like this candidate's answers more than those of any other editor I'm opposing, but I don't believe that his record on the project is one that inspires confidence. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Appreciate the sentiment, but this isn't a serious nomination. — Manti core 07:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 17:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Grandstanding in his statement is enough to demonstrate his unsuitability for the role. Rje (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposee Wikipedia is not a democracy, or a theocracy or a monarchy. Computerjoe 's talk 22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, with some reluctance. I was ready to support the candidate strongly—he professes to appreciate well the nature of the project (as one in which, most notably, the community are sovereign [or, precisely, bound only by the official dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation] and that [almost] nothing here is immutable)—but his answers to Lar's questions reveal an astounding willingness to abandon his admirable elevation of the community where the decisions the community might make are inconsistent with those that he should like, at least with respect to BLP (as, e.g., in, "Given the seriousness of enforcing BLP policy, if the community fail to act strongly, I have no real problem with ArbCom stepping in for both the good of the project and, far more importantly, the subject of the BLP", which plainly suggests a willingness to substitute his judgment for that of the community, which would, after all, be entirely within its rights to jettison BLP tomorrow [or at least after some extended community-wide discussion] absent some intervention by the Board of Trustees or someone acting pursuant to a delegation of authority thereby). I like almost all of the candidate's answers, and I quite like the candidate qua person and editor, but the most pernicious thing the committee have done across the past year-plus is to usurp the role of the community in the formulation of BLP and the practices that follow, and I can take no chance on a candidate, even one who offers as much good as does George, of whose commitment to judicial restraint and deference to the community I cannot be certain. Joe 06:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. per Wikipedia:NOT. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – RyanCross (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - he's right about Jimbo, but I can't agree with him about anonymity. It's one of the key policies of Wikipedia, and forbidding anonymous editing, even on an area as important as BLPs, would cause more problems than it would solve. Terraxos (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Caulde 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
kur ykh 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JodyB_talk 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. It's telling that only one opposer thus far is really offering a rationale. Hemlock Martinis is an excellent editor with smart answers to the questions, a good track record, but apparently not a member of the "in-crowd" (which is a poor criteria for disqualifying arbs)--I urge people to reconsider this one. --JayHenry (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
fwiw Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Colchicum (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Disagree about the parliament but otherwise fine. Davewild (talk) 19:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Mr Accountable (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Would do a very good job, I think. AGK 20:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No pressing concerns, favorable statement, would rather have this user than some others. GlassCobra 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - This is a candidate I truly support above all others. He has demonstrated exemplary judgment and is innovative with his approach to handling issues that plague Wikipedia persistently. Mr. Wales, I petition you to add this man to the Arbitration Committee. --harej 00:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bold person with a good feel for policy and the ability to let consensus trump his/her own views. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ballsy answer to Lar's 2b - exactly what is required. CIreland (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as I think this editor would do a good job. I see nothing which would make me think this editor would do anything but an excellent job on ArbCom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any problems, and he seems to be a fine contributor. We could do much, much worse. Support.Dr. e X treme 02:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - per John Vandenberg ..--Comet styles 06:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I don't see why not. Dengero (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --DeLarge (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Evertype·✆ 13:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Didn't read through all the Q&A's, in fairness, but I agreed with the initial statement. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very likely to create drama; excellent choice for hastening the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 23:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Changing to support. Good luck! Tex (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: seems to be able to handle this. Alexius08 (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
A good contributor, some good ideas, has my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Raayen (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Saying the right things... Fred Talk 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporting with reservations - A lot of problematic answers (Thatcher's second question, Rschen's seventh question, Lar's fourth question and part A of his fifth question, Uninvited Company's second and fifth questions) mixed in with the excellent ones (Part B of Thatcher's first question, Mailer diablo's first question, Rschen's second, third, and ninth questions, Rootology's seventh question, Lar's third question, Kristen Eriksen's second question, RSpeer's question). Supporting on principle because I want to encourage a glorious mix of great and terrible rather than consistent mediocrity. That said, I do have concerns over the candidate's relatively low dispute resolution experience, and over his insistence and anonymity. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support You must have been hanging out at ArbCom to fish their apology out. You'll do fine. Leujohn ^(talk)
--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has some good ideas -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - think the candidate has decent views on the need to not to be overtly protect of good but problematic editors and the fact excessive namby-pambyness is not always a good thing. Also has decent views on the fact too much anarchy is not actually a good thing and structure isn't all bad. Also some decent views on BLP Nil Einne (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
After spending a lot of time on the fence: Support. Bishonen | talk 01:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC).
Support There is probably no one who feels more strongly than the inclination of the membership of the current committee to substitute their views about what policy ought to be for those of the community is the single grandest threat to our continued operation as a project in which the community are sovereign (or are bound only by the dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation) and in which there is nothing that a coterie of editors, and certainly not a group who are elected, can declare as immutable or beyond the scope of community discussion, and I have often undertaken to suggest that the ArbCom rediscover judicial restraint and to remind our arbitrators that their position is to be ministerial except in extreme circumstances (to be frank, I cannot conceive of any such circumstance, but I recognize that the body of the community feel, at least in a general sense, otherwise), viz., to interpret for what a consensus of the community exists and to effect actions consistent therewith; I was, then, as many of those who oppose (with whom I often find myself in agreement about how arbitration ought to operate [and more specifically how the committee ought to operate vis-à-vis BLP, with respect to which the committee are most willing to exceed their mandate]), profoundly scared by the candidate’s response to Lar’s question 2b, to which Seraphim rightly objected. I am convinced, though, that the candidate, well, didn’t really mean what he said, and even as I think the ArbCom of which he conceives is still more muscular than that I prefer, I trust and believe that he will respect the community and its prerogatives, and I am particularly heartened by his answers to Lar’s first question, which suggest that at the very least he won’t overstep in BLP-related matters, which is, at this moment, quite reassuring, and which, my being not much more than a single-issue voter in this election, leads me to support, my reservations, well expressed by my opposing friends and in part held by me when I voted against the candidate one year ago, notwithstanding. Joe 06:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - demonstrates exemplary judgement. Caulde 14:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BrianY (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yeah. DS (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Not a bad editor, and deserves at least 50% support. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 22:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Very good contributor :) PseudoOne (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't know much about your DR experience, but I like the statement, so WTHN. Wizardman 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sarah 23:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 23:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Lar. And Hemlock, please do more at RfAr? Offering uninvolved statements is an excellent way to get more experience in the process. --El on ka 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry :) --Mixwell!^Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While there isn't anything wrong with this particular candidate, there are more suitable people running. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with your answer to rootology's question 1, which seems at odds with your statement that arbcom needs to resolve matters quickly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per answer to Lar 2b, the community makes the policy, full stop, no exceptions. The ArbCom is there to enforce it, not to act as a tiebreaker or legislature, and if something is genuinely to the point of being a legal issue, the WMF can and will mandate it, the ArbCom does not and should not have such authority. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom is the judiciary, not the legislature. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 21:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unconvinced. Moreschi (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Caspian blue 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Skomorokh 03:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khoi khoi 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Moreschi. IronDuke 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I have seen nothing to convince me that you have improved at all from the previous election. SashaNein (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was leaning towards support but candidate's answer to Mailer Diablo's first question worries me so much that I feel compelled to oppose. I also agree with Seraphimblade's comment above. Brilliantine (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - concerned about talk of a parliament among other things dougweller (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because the candidate leans too much toward a desire for control and overseeing. There are views suggestive of creating ruling elites, such as the Wikipedia:Editorial Council. The strength of Wikipedia is that the community resolves content issues through consensus not through an arbitrary editorial authority. I would like an ArbCom that carries out the wishes of the community, not an ArbCom that carries out its own decisions and imposes them on the community. SilkTork *^YES! 20:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Decision to draw an overt contrast between "secret trials and confidential evidence" makes me doubt his commitment to eliminating the former. Cynical (talk) 21:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Dezidor (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Binding decisions is a dealbreaker. (contact me for details) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose - too little evidence of relevant activity William M. Connolley (talk) 17:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose per Seraphimblade. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 04:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
'Oppose' Giano (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Tex (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)~~ - Switching to support Tex (talk) 20:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I hasten to add my oppose vote, with the request that I not be contacted at my Talk page by this candidate, to justify my no vote, as was done at User talk:Giano II.--Wetman (talk) 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
per Seraphimblade, Brilliantine, and SilkTork. GRBerry 16:20, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Undifferentiable as a candidate and doesn't have the keenest grasp on what Arbcom does or how it works. Sorry. tgies (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose A great user, but I do not agree with some of his views. Hús önd 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Answers to Sarcasticidealist's first question and part b of Lar's second question are irreconcilable with my own opinions. Either Hemlock Martinis does not understand the role of ArbCom or he wishes to see its role develop well beyond its current scope - neither of which I find appealing in a candidate. Rje (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC) - Candidate's change of heart is encouraging. I still think he might struggle to enact much of his platform, but I don't think he'd be a bad arbitrator. Rje (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per Lar §2.b. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 01:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 02:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Change to Abstain. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Last time, I voted to support, but, while I do not think the candidate has anything but matured, I also do not think that ArbCom is best for him now. No animus or opposition to the person implied. Geogre (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Mr.Z-man 00:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
— Sebastian 09:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support--Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the idea for Arbom reform.--Caspian blue 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Durova^Charge! 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I also strongly support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Perfect for the job. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Pick of the bunch -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the best candidates for the job. krimpet ✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sam ^Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have some disagreements with this candidate, but feel that I can trust his integrity, and that any "wrong" (in my view) decisions will be based on what he thinks is best for the project, and not on petty revenge or covering up for a friend. ElinorD (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kuru ^talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - also, will you marry me? No, I'm just teasing. But still, swoon. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--mikeu ^talk 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The most qualified candidate in the whole election. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JodyB_talk 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
β^_command 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very solid candidate, will work for the good of the community and with the best of purposes and the highest of integrity, and has a mature outlook and a good understanding of community dynamics. I hope he makes it and that ArbCom will be the better for it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Thoughtful and fair. Exactly what we need on ArbCom. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
More qualified than the soon to be former arbitrator that told him to stop clerking. GRBerry 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have absolute confidence in his judgement, and believe John would be a superb arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - user shows excellent judgement. PseudoOne (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support As near ideal a temperament for the job as we could hope. A great deal of integrity and, per ElinorD, an allegiance primarily to what's best for the project. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Carnildo (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- penubag (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think he would do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, excellent editor who has shown great judgment, open minded and fair. Dreadstar † 07:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support لenna vecia 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support, temperament seems suited to arbcom and judgement generally appears worthy of confidence - I do have a few concerns but will keep these to myself for now. Brilliantine (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Dark ^talk 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
chaser - t 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support, exactly the kind of new blood we need, and I like the explicit promise not to make policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Changed to oppose.
Rebecca (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Able candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Weak support - excellent platform, especially limited patience for long & drawn-out cases. More speed (with due caution) is exactly what ArbCom needs. //roux editor review10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) ~~Changing to weak support; opposing fellow candidates, while allowed, is distasteful. May change to oppose. //roux editor review14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Stifle (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support 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 12:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not perfect, but John has sufficiently good judgment IMO. It is not my experience that "bias" on AA topics is at all substantial, and there's always recusal anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ATren (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) _{changed to oppose ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)}
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - On not answering questions: It is said if you want something done, give it to a busy person. I hear Jayvdb has been handling a LOT of the oversight-l work since being appointed. That might be more important than answering every question (yes, I wish he had answered mine first but hey...) On "power voting": I prefer someone who is willing to hold opinions and go on record about them to someone who won't say what they think. We need more plain speaking on ArbCom I think, so bully to Jayvdb for saying what he thinks, even if he's wrong where he disagrees with me! :). On the AA thing: There's actually nothing to this in my view, after you factor out ethnic POV pushers who don't like being called on things. Jayvdb said he'd recuse (in a case where I don't actually think he has to) See this post and the thread it's in for more. On contribs: Jayvdb is a large part of the reason that en:ws "doesn't suck". That shows he's not insular, and it shows he gets stuff done. WS is hugely important for a certain class of articles. In short: Jayvdb will bring us the change we need. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Tex (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Gavia immer (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - concur with much of what Lar said above. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do have some reservations, but I agree 200% with your platform - very clearly expressed and incisive - so I have to support. :) Please, please follow through if/when elected. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, strongly. Trustworthy and has some excellent ideas. Should be a good arbitrator. AGK 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Superb candidate statement. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, my top candidate. Has my trust in his decision making ability. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support---Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not exactly a content contributor, but very involved with the maintenance of this project. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JPG-GR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - strong experience. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Aramgar (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - good level of experience.--VS ^talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hurrah SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok, S. Jayvdb has impressed me with his attention to small detail and he seems like somebody who won't back off when he sees a right. Doesn't suffer fools. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Kubigula (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
m acy 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.Nrswanson (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant pick. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - his statement shows a deep respect for the community in taking time to structure his thoughts and not simply soapbox. After all, this not an election for political office, but to an administrative office. I want competence, too. This guy reeks it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ronnotel (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
—DerHexer (Talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Would be a fine arbitrator. I don't see how one can oppose on the grounds that he would be partial in an AA case when he has specifically said he would recuse himself. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-cabalist, sensible yet unequivocal answers to questions, refreshing stance on WP:BAN, experience in the relevant areas, has the guts to evaluate his potential colleagues (ArbCom is no place for thin skins or groupthink). Yes, yes, yes. Skomorokh 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Three thumbs up! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ankimai (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jonathunder (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kauffner (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. We need arbitrators who are willing to take tough but fair decisions. I see the Iranian-Azeri nationalist squad has turned out in force to oppose this nomination; this is in no way a disqualifying factor for John, and if anything it stands in his favour that he's willing to deal resolutely with disruptive nationalist editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support. E104421 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support to bump the numbers up; the current stream of opposition smells of off-wiki canvassing by the Armenian block. Hope this activity is looked into by those managing the election. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not my favorite candidate, but supporting per Sceptre. ST47 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Purely for tactical reasons in a bid to keep other vote percentages less than yours (nothing personal to your good self). Pedro : Chat 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Support tactical vote to balance out the clear canvessing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Reasonable, responsible individuals are needed as arbitrators. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. John's contributions to Wiki Foundation projects extend way beyond Wikipedia, the time he has given to the projects argues for a man who is committed to investing voluntarily in time consuming and complex processes. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cube lurker (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Was neutral, but switching in response to evidence of interest groups attempting a co-ordinated sabotage of your candidacy. Rockpocket 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I've seen nothing but good work from this user on all the projects with which he is involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) For the record, I should state that I am related to Aramgar (talk · contribs), but although we sometimes edit from the same computer, we maintain separate accounts and are happy to submit information to confirm that we are separate individuals, should the need arise.
As a CU who was asked to investigate these users (some time ago) and found technical correlation, I am confirming my belief that these two accounts are likely to be different users despite that correlation. (which you'll find if you look at me and my wife, too...), and giving thanks for the forthright disclaimer. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for his principled conduct in the omnibus case and for his general high amount of clue. Dr. e X treme 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have reservations, but this seems to be in the overall best interests of the project. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
He seems to be a decent user and gives decent answers. Though I have not have personal interactions; I'm also supporting to counteract what I believe is unfair bloc opposition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Suppport' --A ni Mate 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - The personal interactions I've had have all been positive. He has the good of the community at heart. Kylu (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Versa geek 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
It comes to something when you're ranked seventh. Christ! Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, I see no damning issue with his voicing opinions on other candidates, this is not a competition to see who is classiest, but most qualified. Likewise, while Azeri editors seem to be somehow connected to him...everybody has a niche, and I haven't seen any specific allegations to make me question my judgment in his resolution and arbitration skills. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Chapultepec (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
II | (t - c) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Even tone, positive interactions, and seems less into politicking than most. "
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - I was always planning to support John in this election - he and I have never interacted, but I've always admired a number of his abilities around the 'pedia. I then got thrown by the opposition below, which appeared to raise (on further inspection) some ideas that, as I described them, made me uneasy. It seems to me now, having looked at the AN thread, John's own explanation of these events, and allowing my gut instinct to play a part in my decision-making that he is still an excellent candidate. If the allegations below are true: I don't care in the context of this election, and trust John to recuse himself appropriately. If they are not true, then who am I to allow the well to be poisoned. Best of luck. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- billinghurst (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support dougweller (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. As I explain on the talk page this community should resist the coordinated off-site attacks on this candidate. I urge all tactical opposition to drop their oppose votes because Jayvdb has received more than enough. Vote for Jayvdb on his own merits. Cool Hand Luke 15:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Man, you must be doing something right. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Objectives and integrity are one of his strongest points. Baku87 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Supportthough disagree that arbcom can avoid "policy" Mccready (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support high clue levels -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporrt Justforasecond (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Kick his ass, C-BASS. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support hbent (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Protonk (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Evenhanded and has shown wisdom and an desire to act in the best interests of the community as a whole. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hiberniantears (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, I think. Statements make good sense. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support looks good. Hut 8.5 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very good. Grsz ¹¹ 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Mild Support Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Supportish - largely to keep numbers fair. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) numbers evened out; was worried.
Support win. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Could be a good balance to other voices on the committee, and the Armenia issue seems to be easy to work around through recusal on the rare occasions it comes up. Chick Bowen 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RayAYang (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Terence (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Tinu Cherian - 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I support this candidate as a safe pair of hands. Nothing daring or exciting in his question answers, but nothing of concern either. Poltair (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, everything I've seen from this candidate suggests a sensible, thoughtful contributor with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Good record, good candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Randomran (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - @pple complain 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support To me he seems level-headed, knowledgable, good-tempered, in possession of good judgment, and I like his ideas. He'd be even more of an asset to Wikipedia on the committee. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support without reservations. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - John is an open-minded guy, won't mess up. Good luck, mate! AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
--Rividian (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -reconsidering. Prodego ^talk 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
support desperately short of apostrophes but otherwise good: log; G4 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Skinwalker (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Anti-canvassing support. MER-C 06:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for a very experienced and able candidate. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Does good work all around the place and keep me on my toes. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jon513 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support- Can always recuse if a case comes up about AA or related issues, as we are all aware of them. Seems wise, mature, not overly sycophantic. Sticky Parkin 17:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm a little disappointed that some excellent questions have gone unanswered but, on the balance, might just make a good arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Appears to be highly likely to create drama if elected. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, despite the marks around his ankles. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support --Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support After deep consideration the user track is outstanding and track as an admin is good.After checking the user track the user who has been around since Sept 2004 find nothing wrong aleast did not see anything wrong.Now every editor has a POV whether it is in chemistry,music,politics,history and user may have his POV in the AA issue.But I do not find anything wrong the the user has done.Feel the user has came out unscathed from the minefield of editing in AA areas unscathed.Through I confess that I have had no interaction with this user prior to this Arbcom.Looking at the opposes I feel the user is being opposed for POV in the AA issue not for his edits or actions .Feel that Age as in a RFA I just voted in and POV should not be deciding factors in particular in votes atleast now seems to be heading to the wire. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awesome support :D --Mixwell!^Talk 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Serious and trustworthy editor. Yann (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit·t 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support abf /talk to me/ 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — E ↗ 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~. Second thoughts. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Impartiality is not really the forte of many administrators and arbitrators in Wiki. And John distinguished himself by his ability for neutral judgment and refusing to bow to attempts to turn Wikipedia into a single-sided propaganda machine. Atabəy (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Concerns, maybe, about ensuing lack of time for wikisource. But hardly enough to oppose. Interactions are uniformly positive. Wily D 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Conducts himself very well. My experiences with him on Wikisource have been very positive, so I am extremely confident that he will do well. But I do hesitate to vote on anything that will take even a second of his time away from Wikisource :). Psych less 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Biophys (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kwsn (Ni!) 01:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Iberieli (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support — See Lar's comments; see Yann's. John initially opposed my unblock, but has now supported it. We talked and he is open to discussion and reasoning. Those who are concerned about a perceived bias, should talk with him, and review the facts on the ground; he is not biased; he is pro-wiki, has clue, and can be trusted to do the right thing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. I know John since my active times in Wikipedia. In critical situations, he has an ability of staying calm - an ability that many admins lack - and making the most appropriate and neutral decisions. I am sure he will do great as an arbitrator. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support - I've been in agreement and disagreement with this user over the years, and he is - without any reservation - one of the best users I have encountered here. He is, in a word, awesome. In two words, he is Tre-Mendous. He does the right thing every time. He should hand out more cookies, though. ;)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Dacy69 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Changed to Oppose. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good statement and credentials. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a massive amount of respect for John. I have no doubt that he would bring a level head to ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Parishan (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 07:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Support and wish good luck! --Aynabend (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. He is supportive and a man of marked initiative --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support so far the answers to my questions are very insightful and convincing Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Patrick (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support: Having been the victim of bullet canvassing on Wikipedia, the same here must be challenged at every opportunity. RGTraynor 19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A safe pair of hands, his statement is very strong. I have never had reason to question his judgement. Rje (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dedicated user across Wikimedia, tempermental and very active. If there was one user I'd vote for, he would be it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Expresses himself clearly. His statements are principled and honest. He is not afraid of taking stands, but remains open to discussion. Flexible without being wishy-washy and non-committal. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I particularly like the promise to not edit/influence policy. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Worthy candidate--TimBits 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems to be erroneous - the editor has 206 mainspace edits prior to November 1. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake, I forgot to log in the first time. --TimBits 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I want that one. - Mark 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ateshi-Baghavan 06:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 08:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Balancing support. I don't like the fact that he has answered so few questions, but what I like even less is the fact that there are blocs of voters who are canvassing and voting along ethnic lines. The net effect of this canvassing has been to decrease his overall percentage, so in supporting I'm doing what I can to bring his percentage up to where it should be. rspeer 08:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BJ^Talk 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Brand спойт 12:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The man says it all for himself. Five Years 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- I like candidate's commitment to be open to consider reforms. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Deli nk (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - An excellent candidate and Commitment. --Anish (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - In my experience, one of the best people for this position. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportThat government is best that governs least...--75.2.250.79 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are not eligible to vote this year - you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Possibly he is one of the best people for this position. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per answers to my questions, and candidates integrity and value of the community Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

You have already voted above. ST47 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Buster7 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 00:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. My own personal experience with him proves he fits the position. --Kober^Talk 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — xaosflux ^Talk 05:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Change my vote due the response [14]. I'm not sure he has a conflict of interest, and when I can't be sure , I think that's wrong for me to advertise my suspicions here . I am hopeful he will be a fair admin.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. After the discussions and the answers of JavydB, now I am sure enough that he would remain impartial and be an equitable arbitator.--Raayen (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Experience as a clerk and with Oversight will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 12:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I do have some concerns, as expressed by others in the oppose section. But, there are seven slots to fill, and think you are a better choice than some of the alternatives. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I haven't time at the moment to set out fully my reasoning (Packers game is on), but I think it always appropriate to offer an explanation for one's vote, even if it's useful to (and read only by) one's self; my thoughts, then, will be available sometime soon at my views on Wikipedia page. Joe 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wkdewey (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I actually have no idea how effective you will be as an arbitrator, and so I've been very hesitant with regards to voting for you at all. However I trust you enough that you won't be that much of a disgrace should you be not good. --harej 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Suppport --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure. DS (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Voyaging^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Lack of impartiality on AA issues, which will undoubtedly be the subject of an AC case in the near future again. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Having witnessed obvious cases of taking sides to support his friends, I think the honor is still not quite there. We need real impartiality and transparency. Fedayee (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest oppose I would rather support White Cat. VartanM (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- See here for more information. VartanM (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And note how it was largely disproven, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- ~~Per terribly low response rate on the questions. This is all politics and vague promises, and no substance. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
- ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I think it's a slight to the community that he only answered about half of the questions he was asked. I like the answers I see, but what's the deal with the others? If he doesn't have time to answer them, he doesn't have time to be an arbitrator. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Striking my opposition to cancel out one of these untruthful, vindictive "Armenia/Azerbaijan" votes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Overly pretentious. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Severe lack of judgement by opposing the majority of his fellow candidates. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. Smacks of process wonk.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose. --hayk (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Sorry, user only has 118 mainspace edits. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ~~per~~ for his own early power vote. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC), rephrased 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per Ryan --B (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose -- Gazifikator (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Less than 150 mainspace edits before November Secret ^account 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Per support of Elonka and support from Elonka. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to concerns about ability to put in needed time and "insider" status; too much risk that his election would lead to continuation of the problems we have seen in the past year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Was considering proffering my question to consider supporting, but then noticed the whole "oppose the other candidates" issue, and I simply can not abide that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Striking my vote after discussion with Jayvdb.

~~oppose~~ --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerns were addressed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose ----Larno Man Larno (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Someone who quickly takes sides in disputes would not make a good arbitrator. In the instances that Jayvdb has intervened in Azerbaijan-Armenia issues, he has almost always blocked or reverted Armenian users ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], etc.). Only on rare occasions has he treated Azeri users similarly. I would not trust with him CheckUser, let alone allow him to get involved in any future Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration cases. Khoi khoi 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak but unshaken Oppose. I think that taking time is necessary for this sort of thing. I want to see a clearer commitment to more specific changes, not "get 'r dun quick" thinking. Still, I don't think you'd be BAD, just that there are better choices out there at this time. Best of luck to you if you get it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments of above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose : As by User:Khoikhoi, I browse the Pages created by Jayvdb, and find out creating some of the pages are only possible if the creator is professionally connected with a group that may not act neuter in especial cases .Some of the articles are Baku Polytechnicum,Arabian Gulf University,OACIS for the Middle East,Copyright Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan,List of Azerbaijan legislation,Saudi Gazette and six other articles .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reorienting my vote based on candidates response :[20] and the information from User:Arcayne.Now I think there is no clear conflict of interest.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose. AA issues, better to be over-cautious imho. Alæxis_¿question? 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Iraqi (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Hovic (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per strong impartiality concerns above. Niko Silver 10:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OPPOSE - see concerns above! Tājik (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Khoi had a good point, someone who takes sides in disputes, would not make a good arbitrator. --Kaaveh (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Gevorg89 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do not know him, but I read that he takes sides in disputes. Not a good idea!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose. User doesnt have a commitment to neutrality.--Zereshk (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposing other candidates so early in the election doesn't speak well for your impartiality; doing so because you wish to change the voting system doesn't speak well for your judgment. >Radiant< 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, as per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Lack of impartiality on AA (and perhaps not only) issues. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, based on answers to questions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Radiant. ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Striking my oppose to offset some of the negative offsite campaigning against this candidate (though still disagree with his oppose voting on other candidates). ATren (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Radiant.--Namsos (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - unwilling or unable to comment on imperfect cases, particularly the OrangeMarlin debacle, and has no thoughts regarding the ArbCom RFC. Too "entrenched" - ArbCom needs change, not more of the same. Badger Drink (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Agree with Radiant and Badger Drink. Best for candidates to vote on other candidates. And to oppose viable contenders when you say they should be on arbcom...crass. Should have at least only voted supports and abstained on the others.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Him voting oppose to other candidates shows utter lack of class.--Avg (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't trust his judgment or objectivity, since he appears to have shady connections with a group of Azerbaijani nationalist editors, all of whom are under ArbCom probation, and some of whom are paid lobbyists in real life. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Bucketsofg 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Haven't seen impartiality in some cases.--Raayen (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) After the discussions and the answers of JavydB, now I am sure enough that he would remain impartial and be an equitable arbitator. --Raayen (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Biased at times. Nokhodi (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose similar concerns to others -- Samir 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Khoikhoi. --MagneticFlux (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seddσn ^talk 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Xavexgoem (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Khoikhoi, user seems to have conflict of intrest in serious issues as mentioned above. Farmanesh (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, very disappointed over this. Dreadstar † 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, re strength of language used six months ago. More calmness needed. MikeHobday (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, Thenoflyzone (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per Khoikhoi. The user seems to have conflict of interest in serious issues as mentioned above.Armatura (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - these issues have made me uneasy. I will review again nearer the end of the election Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose - Sorry, I thought about it and feel that opposing other candidates just isn't right. Moral support otherwise. //roux editor review 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest oppose. Princeofpersia1 (Princeofpersia1) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --xvvx (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This kind of impartiality is one of the reasons that I have refrained from editing like I used to, won't bring anything new to the ArbCom. Davo88 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Astavats (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Kourosh ziabari (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose - Persian Magi (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops - thanks - I overlooked that it is total of main edits. I was short only 14 edits at 136. Anyhow, rules are rules - but if were able to vote here, I would have opposed him as mentioned. He is a great contributer but seems to have left an impression that he is not unbiased. Persian Magi (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose purely tactical. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - --Tom 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -Regretfully, per user:Nishkid64 and user:Khoikhoi. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Node (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Axamir (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not at this time. Gimmetrow 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per his several oppose votes for other candidates in this election. That didn't show good judgment in my opinion. I would definitely reconsider if that changed.~ priyanath ^talk 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath ^talk 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose partially politics, partially lack of responses to questions. Viridae ^Talk 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to a totality of factors none of which by itself would merit an oppose, but together they are just to much when compared to the other very fine candidates. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
~~The candidate has not answered questions to which I require an answer to support, assuming that the answer would be one with which I agreed.~~ Opposing other candidates, even though he doesn't believe in oppose votes, smacks of double standards. There is sufficient discussion, e.g.[21] and subsequent posts to that page, to convince me that his election would be controversial, which is clearly not ideal. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose switched vote after further consideration. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A man in space (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Has not bothered to answer all this questions. [later- oppose stricken after questions answered, but have decided to remain neutral after reading the answers. S B H arris 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. The ringing endorsement of secret trials in response to the confidentiality question. No. Cynical (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per arguments of above and he is friend with deniers of the Armenian Genocide which does not speak well for neutrality. (I work in Russian Wikipedia. My basic contribution to history and culture of Venice - Divot) Divot (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. 150 mainspace edits by November 1 are required. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Note that a whole 2 contributions were made by this editor. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note also the subject of the first and only previous edit. It's Armenia-Azerbaijan again. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that he's very active in Russian Wikipedia[22]. --VartanM (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Particularly on Armenia-Azerbaijan issues [23] - quelle surprise! (or whatever the Russian equivalent is). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
So is John. This vote would've been very weird if Divot wasn't involved. --VartanM (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per Ryan Postlethwaite ...--Comet styles 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Strict constructionism" and whatnot are irksome. Arbcom is a counterbalance to the mob and should be given full leaway to perform that function. --TS 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Arkon (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose vi5in^[talk] 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Oppose He is not neutral at all. --Wayiran (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Electing someone to Arbcom with public opposes to other candidates is a really bad idea Chrislintott (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lack of neutrality; Taking sides in advance. Enough reasons for opposing. --Hectorian (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
— CharlotteWebb 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Myotis (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Per Khoikhoi. Vacio (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sfrandzi (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, I am really but really not convinced. Politis (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jim62sch^dissera! 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
aye matthew ✡ 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Ariobarza (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Oppose --Rsage (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- concerns per Khoikhoi. Jd2718 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- concerns per Khoikhoi. 70.21.172.141 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you can't vote. aye matthew ✡ 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - looks like solid candidate, but worries about neutrality mean less than 100%. Feel free to contact me if you wish to reconsider. Note: I have returned after 1 month of inactivity simply to vote: I my 2 years experience but 60000 edits gives me this right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for neutrality issues. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Supporting other candidates.--Iamawesome800 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per SandyGeorgia's abstain here. Opposing most other candidates, perhaps to improve his own chances, is not what I want to see from an ArbCom candidate. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Ryan Postlethwaite. —kur ykh 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The candidate is not out of the doubt-in-neutrality shell: per Khoikhoi. Behaafarid (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed to oppose. If one group thinks that he's biased against them, his authority will be compromised. Voting against other candidates seems to suggest a willingness to 'game'. What's with not answering questions? Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per answer on Slrubenstein's question #3. Arbitrator should know policies and guidelines inside out. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose For the record, I don't think John was a proxy or anything like that nor do I believe that he has an axe to grind. Poor judgement is the key here. If he had actually addressed the concerns of one side of the dispute like he has been attempting to do now with all those sub-pages and so on maybe I would have abstained now. But alas, he didn't even bother to give the time of the day. Too little, too late now.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (tactical) I saw a tactical oppose vote on WJBScribe's vote page specifying that they are trying to boost Jayvdb; So I want to help level the playing field by cancelling them. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Note it's the same thing there, tactical supports for WJBscribe to try to sink Jayvdb candidancy Secret ^account 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — gaming galore Frongle (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Jayen466 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose tgies (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
~~At least for the time being.~~ ~~As time is running out and still no answer to my questions, it would appear this will be my final vote. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Oppose, just because some admin said "ethnics" shouldn't be voting against him. Watch me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hús önd 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Like the candidate, but think we need someone with more of a plan for reform. I just think others have better ideas than him, no offense meant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Ryan Postlethwaite.Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC))
Oppose - I have generally positive (though also quite vague) impressions of this editor, and I like a fair bit of what he's said in response to the questions, but I can't support a candidate who has left this many important questions unanswered for this long. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Weak oppose - The candidate has now answered most of the questions that he didn't before, and his answers to many of them are quite good (though he doesn't inspire at all with his understanding of the BLP problem). I'm also concerned that he has too limited a view of Arb Comm's appropriate authority - when you're herding cats, it won't do for the people with the lassos to preach restraint. Or something. As a final note, I have no problem at all with a candidate voting on his opponents, including voting oppose, and I haven't penalized John for that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose, Jayvdb said "IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "final" chance...*fingers crossed*" That pretty much says it all right there. Serial harassers/sockmasters don't need another friend on ArbCom. --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose changed from Support. I was very much in two minds about this, & would previously have abstained if it were not for the block opposes. But after further reading and consideration, the cons seems to outweigh the pros. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Despite some limited but pleasant interactions with this user, despite my belief that this candidate is likely to be a suitable candidate in the future, and despite my support for him in other roles (clerk & cu in particular), currently, I have a few concerns. Unfortunately, these concerns can only be resolved with time and more experience. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Off-wiki, I was asked about these concerns by another user - due to time constraints, both my response there, and here is this - there were a number of concerns and factors I took into consideration, but they included (1) this candidate's voting style; (2) his failure to answer my other questions in a timely fashion; (3) his failure to justify the lack of responses to my questions, despite these messages, and (4) his failure to indicate that he will not be responding to my further questions within that time. Note also that the other candidates who are still in the race were able to answer all questions within the timeframe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Catchpole (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I was going to abstain but unfortunately you opened old wounds when you justified once more my block yesterday for something you did not finish reading [24], [25]. I also find all this talk about "ethnic voting" by some Wikipedia users to be quite disturbing so here is one more ethnic vote. - Fedayee (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per the "vote against the opponents" incident, wishy-washy answer to Lar §1, and non-existent answer to Lar §6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, changing here per answer to Lar 5b. If you want "name-verified-only" editing, you're on the wrong project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per comments above -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - does not believe in the rights of the accused. [26] JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Abstain Oppose - like Badger Drink, note lack of comment on imperfect cases, good responses to some questions but have concerns about interactions. . dave souza, talk 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to abstain, I've looked over the more detailed comment, feel that John does a lot of good work and decision making but remain concerned about possible inference of civility being given priority over article content policies so abstain. . dave souza, talk 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per his opposition to most other candidates and also concerns about his potential lack of impartiality in AA issues (if he had recognised this as a problem and said he would abstain on such issues it wouldn't be such an issue but he didn't Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Can we have more of the same? This admin is part of the problem. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - another hard one. Decent views on BLP but after careful consideration of those editors who are currently borderline between getting on the committee or not, John is one of the ones that I least favour and so I have chosen to oppose in the small hope it will make a difference to the final outcome. I respect his views on the need for open governance and partipatory democracy, and while most of those currently winning or close to winning have expressed similar views I feel he goes further then a number of others, and I lean towards the view excessive openness and community participation can be unhelpful and therefore would rather support some other candidates. And there is no other 'must support' issue which makes me lean in favour of the candidate and a few nigling concerns. P.S. Forgot to add about the AA and ethnic line voting issue, I know some have struck their opposition or even supported based on this but it's difficult to me to conclude it's definitely had a negative effect since it's had effects both ways, and some of those, e.g. Nishikid, whether rightly or wrongly are clearly voting upon their experience with this editor so that's not a compelling reason for me to support. P.P.S. As emphasises elsewhere, I do find the oppose because he opposed ridiculous but thats up to the editors I guess Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Grand master ka 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--KureCewlik81 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Xasha (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I initially thought I would support, but after looking at the reasons and issues raised by Khoikhoi, Alborz Fallah, Ryan, Sumoeagle179, Dreadstar, Vision Thing, Pixelface, Fedayee and Nil Einne, all of that adds up and bothers me. Add into it the question that Jayvdb may have an issue with Armenian editors per his reverting/blocking history during disputes (see Khoikhoi's oppose, number 17 above), and I do not believe this candidate is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee. Ariel♥Gold 05:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--AAA765 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not strong enough in article space; answers to questions and remarks here raise questions about some interactions. Sunray (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - presence I have seen is not befitting of an arbitorial role. Caulde 14:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Have to agree with khoi, there's nothing I don't like to see here more than the blatant and consistent taking of a certain side in disputes from an editor. Vartan84 (talk)
Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance giving unqualified support to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and their support of abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with Jayvdb's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. That said, I am open to discussion about withdrawing or changing this vote, if the evidence warrants. As an aside, I debated whether to withhold my opposition to counter what seems to be a concerted effort at bloc voting; However, my vote is an expression of conscience, and their conduct should not impinge on my expression of conscience. --SSBohio 20:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose EJF (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - will probably make a good arbitrator, but I'm opposing on principle over his voting against other candidates (not appropriate in my view), and his position that certain BLP articles should be prevented from anonymous editing. Sorry. Terraxos (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

~~chaser - t 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Abstaining. Opposers make good points.--chaser - t 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JodyB_talk 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ironholds (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Experienced. —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good judgment during his work in ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Experienced. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
— Dan | talk 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Bucketsofg 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Peter cohen (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It's like the Obama transition (if you pay attention to US news): We need change, but also some experienced people to balance it out. Joe Nu tter 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. While changes are needed, his experience with the committee and general understanding of Wikipedia (having been here so long) indicates that he should probably stick around a bit longer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jc37 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Incumbency and experience are not slurs, and I don't see any sign of malfeasance or bad performance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - My last vote for arbcom, good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ArbCom is doing fine. I see no reason to kick him out. Leujohn ^(talk)
—Animum (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wise old man of the arbcom. One of the people who has always tried to make the arbcom (and wikipedia, and wikimedia in general) not suck ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Proven track record of incompetence mixed with arrogance makes this candidate a sure bet. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Cbrown1023 talk 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support James has done a most excellent job on ArbCom. TallMagic (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 08:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dave Golland (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fred Talk 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Supportsometimes change is necessary but I'm far from convinced we need complete change as with others, or that all the change offered is necessarily for the better Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I applaud his willingness to continue good work. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A failure to take any accountability for the issues with the IRC which he helps administer and a lack of content contributions. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Many reasons. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~~ priyanath ^talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath ^talk 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
IRC LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No more absentee landlords please. :/ krimpet ✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose, per SandyGeorgia's reasoning. In his last term, JDF described two parties as "valued contributors" while explicitly refusing to describe a third party as "valued". Unfortunately, the two parties James "valued" both went on to be desysopped for misuse of their tools, while the party James refused to value remains one of our top FA contributors. James had reasons, but obviously, his values and my values differ. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per reasons above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mostly concerns about level of activity, which makes it difficult to really draw a firm conclusion on him other than that I would like someone more actively and obviously involved. Avruch^T 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I will have to oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
New blood needed. Gimmetrow 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
IRC concerns have not been satisfied to the community's satisfaction, nor mine for that matter. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of suitable candidates, and fresh perspectives are desirable; thanks for being willing to serve another term. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but time for some new faces. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not above the fray. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but if you don't have the time, you shouldn't be running again. Mike H. Fierce! 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity is not what the committee needs. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry :( --Mixwell!^Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Bye Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for JF for his hard work. Time for fresh blood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not think all of his previous rulings have shown integrity. ElinorD (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thank you for your service. However, I feel that your general inactivity (your editing stats per Kate's Tool shows you barely contribute any content of value, for a scale of years, to the encyclopedia); your partisan nature (defense of IRC, "insider" status, attacks on valued content contributors); and your role as a "professional arbiter" are incompatible with what I feel an Arbiter should be. You have no major visible, measurable, or in-public quantifiable contributions of worth to English Wikpedia, and do not unfortunately merit a place on the Arbitration Committee. rootology (C)(T) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Friday (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Toffile (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Removing this editor from ArbComm will improve ArbComm. I can only hope the replacement is a net positive, but eliminating a net negative is a good step. GRBerry 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Arbitrators should have term limits. 5 years going on 8 is right out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - most of the current slate of sitting arbiters are part of the problem B (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. On the other hand: running IRC is more or less the opposite of a "valued contribution", and the candidate has done as little as humanly possible to control that situation. --JayHenry (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal at all against James F, but he's been on ArbCom for altogether too long, it's time for some new candidates to step up to the plate. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.-gadfium 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - It's time for a change of guard. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I think it's time for new blood on the committee. I applaud his willingness to continue, but I think others should be allowed to work in this position. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just not active enough, and often his decisions are questionable. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Need change. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I simply think this user is not aware enough to see the lack of integrity and balance in some of his own decisions to date. Brilliantine (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - SandyGeorgia and Alecmconroy pretty well sum it up. لenna vecia 08:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
James F./Jdforrester is one of four admins who hastily accepted the notorious C68-FM-SV case, a case which dragged on for more than four months and was only finally resolved when NewYorkBrad returned. The case was accepted against the advice of almost all those who commented on it, and in spite of the fact that the application was out of process - yet not one of the arbitrators involved chose to provide a single word of explanation as to why due process and the concerns of a majority of users should be ignored. The resulting fiasco only confirmed the folly of taking the case, which I believe did serious damage to the standing of the arbcom committee - damage for which I feel the arbs in question must be held responsible. Hence this oppose. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: for reasons widely known elsewhere. Giano (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, we need arbitrators who will actually arbitrate, and who when they do will not support misguided attempts to create policy such as WP:BLPSE. Time for some new faces. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Joke nomination? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
Oppose - per SandyGeorgia and rootology Nancy ^talk 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - thank you for all your hard work, but we desperately need fresh blood. //roux editor review10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oldelpaso (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your work. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to his abject failure to address IRC problems. Skinwalker (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A million times no per Alec and Rootology. Horrific performance as an arbiter, your votes/comments and actions were continually partisan, you have little to no involvement with the encyclopaedia, instead judging from your ivory tower you have been the epitome of what has been wrong with the arbitration committee. Viridae ^Talk 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose- current arb, we need something different. Sticky Parkin 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not satisfied with his performance as an arbitrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - do not approve of his IRC issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gatoclass puts it well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rootology has a point. New blood needed anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was never satisfied with the Cla68 incident and your refusal to consider him anything but a valued contributor. And even after putting that aside, I think five years is long enough Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Viridae puts it rather succinctly --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope. Tex (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Part of the problem, not the solution. RMHED (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to the Arbitration Committee, but I have concerns about your low level of encyclopedia-building activity. Arbcom needs editors more than it needs orators. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Time for a change. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, firstly for his refusal to acknowledge that a user who has shepherded multiple articles through FAC is a "valued contributor" (while supporting that wording for two others who has since been desysopped). Secondly, for his key involvement in IRC. Wikipedia should be governed on wikipedia, period. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protects the wrong people. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to replace old members when their terms expire. >Radiant< 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose - per Bishonen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Synergy 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose NVO (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose On prior performance. Catchpole (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The IRC mess alone warrants my oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Levy 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
E104421 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's good of you to offer your time again, but I think we need to change track. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - time for someone new, and per opposes above. BrianY (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Apologies; I have great respect for James, but we do need new faces. GlassCobra 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose on the basis that we need to have a change if its possible to find a good enough set of new people.--VS ^talk 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Irresponsible. Old school. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Unredeemed member of ArbCom '08. Skomorokh 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Things such as his "valued contributor" findings on the omnibus case fail to inspire confidence, and he's completely failed to use his connection with IRC to work towards any sort of conclusion regarding it. Dr. e X treme 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The current ArbCom is a disaster. We don't need more of the same. A ni Mate 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposing all members of current Arbcom --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Time to sit down and accumulate some Main Space credentials again. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
IRC. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose CHANGE! Time to go an join the rest of us in building an encyclopedia... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Delighted to have the opportunity to oppose him. Grace Note (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
IRC. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Change is good, and I'm also concerned about this. --Aude (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The double standard on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision is typical of ArbCom's shortcomings. I can't support an arbitrator who thinks that fairness is not an ArbCom objective. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. My first (and so far only) vote for Arbcom. I don't normally follow Arbcom politics very closely, but I've researched jdforrester enough to have no confidence in him as an arbitrator. Note that I could grudgingly respect somebody who takes hotly controversial views that I disagree with. That isn't the problem; the problem is that this candidate simply isn't a good arbitrator. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - from such an experienced arbiter I would have expected reasonable statements regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin fiasco and and constructive participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per inactivity inactivity inactivity (plus drama). Why you thought this was a good idea is beyond me, and shows poor judgment. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
miranda 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a bad sign when a candidate seems less dedicated to their candidacy (and less active) than multiple "gimmick" candidates. Badger Drink (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing personal, but it is time for change. Jonathunder (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Out with the old, in with the new. --DeLarge (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose: Per Bishonen, another "idiot" votes to oppose. James Forrester cannot be in any position to arbitrate in disputes between users, toward whom he has contempt, nor be trusted by volunteers, for whom he has scorn, nor to uphold the principles of the project, toward which he has anger. Geogre (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I think many of his judgments as an arbitrator have been highly questionable, and his management of disruptive IRC channels is another serious problem that he repeatedly refuses to address adequately. Also, I agree with the other users who said that he's just been on ArbCom too long (5 years is more than enough). He seems to have forgotten what it's like to be a regular user. *** Crotalus *** 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:27, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. As with Charles Matthews, I have the greatest respect for James' work on the ArbCom, but it's really time for new blood and new ideas. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Your performance has been beyond unacceptable. Your presence on the committee has only stagnated progress and deliberately ignited drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. You're not coming back for next season. SashaNein (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Serious problems have arisen this year with accountability, and a little too long in the tooth-ness, perhaps. Splash - tk 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Sandy and Alec well decribed the last nail in a coffin. Achromatic (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Plenty of good arguments in this column. Grand master ka 06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Voting for remedies that commended two administrators who were later desysopped whilst simultaneously refusing to commend one of our top FA contributors is completely unacceptable. You shouldn't even be editing, IMO. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - what more can I say?Mccready (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too many errors of judgment, particularly when it comes to IRC and related matters. Kosebamse (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per IRC. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

User is banned... although there's some talk about how banned he is. I'll revert the bunch of opposes later if something comes up ^^; Xavexgoem (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

User is unblocked, restoring vote.[27] Bishonen | talk 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC).
Oppose. Sees secret trials as a positive thing endorsed by the community. Cynical (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per IRC, serious lack of impartiality. Cenarium (Talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose too closely involved in recent fiascos, impossible to retain confidence in him as an arbitrator. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--MONGO 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Since I can't vote against FT2, you get my complete derision for providing explicit and tacit support to FT2's secret vendetta. I'm glad this isn't even close. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Terence (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too conservative. -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't know the details of what happened this summer with that secret case. The fact that it happened is, IMO, sufficient information to oppose all veteran arbitrators. Nothing personal, but accountability for such a disgraceful breach of all principles of fair play and collegiality has to start somewhere, and Wikipedia has many users who could do just as good a job at arbitration who aren't tainted by that mess. RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Step hen 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong put the boot in Oppose On behalf of all us idiotswho have helped make Wikipedia the 8th most visited site on the nets. Mr. F. is an arch exemplar of the arrogance of petty power[28]. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy Georgia. Knowing how to recognize "valued contributors" is key. Tiamut^talk 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. It's time for a change. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per IRC concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy. The "valued contributors" bit was just petty, demonstrating partisanship and lack of common sense. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose - hard to decide, but sloth in responding to current requests isn't good; I don't consider personal attacks against sysops to be generally actionable finally made me oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose need some fresh blood. «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Inactivity coupled with the general handling of the IRC situation is a good way to lose the confidence of the community. —CComMack (t–c) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Even before the IRC and Cla68 affairs, he was known to be soft on admin abuse. As shown in his rejection of the userbox case way back at the beginning of his term [29], which set a bad precedent for vigilante adminning and polarizing wheel wars. It's ancient history now but I couldn't help but notice the irony of "support" (if you can call it that) #41. Wkdewey (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Choess (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per C68-FM-SV, a precipitate if I ever saw one. Wily D 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. Nothing personal. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
While examining the candidate's answers, I couldn't help but catch a whiff of Machiavelli in the wide-eyed earnestness. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. tgies (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per failure to answer my questions four weeks after they were posted (which is somewhat ironic given their nature). Candidate is requested to contact me if he answers my questions between now and the close of voting, whereupon I will try to re-evaluate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Let me add that his activity levels over the past two years have not been anywhere near what I would expect of an Arb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Arbcom needs new blood. Hús önd 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Limited activity, some very questionable judgement calls and ongoing concerns about IRC. I also fear that Geogre may be right; I don't think James can see the wood for the trees anymore. Too long as a "professional arbitrator" has led to some undesirable attitudes. Rje (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Virtual Steve. I feel the community needs new arbitrators who are open, transparent, responsive, communicative and in touch with the community. Thank you for serving on the committee and giving your time and efforts for the project. Sarah 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose In my experience, the candidate is often incivil and unkind. The community will benefit from his removal; as will he, if the disapproval here causes him to re-evaluate his attitude and accept a dose of humility. Xoloz (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Like others, I question whether he is in touch with the actual work of this encyclopedia; since the beginning of 2006, he has just slightly more edits, grand total, than I managed this past month, and I'd wager that damn little of that's in article space. On an unknown racking up less than a hundred edits a month, we'd bounce on inexperience. RGTraynor 18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Time for a change generally, and involvement with IRC is worrisome. Nothing personal. --Rodhull andemu 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - New blood urgently needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Thank you for your hard work, hope to see you around editing. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Even as James hasn't been a strident, or even explicit, advocate for most of the ArbCom decisions to which I have had strong objections, he has acceded to those problematic results, and I cannot abide the return of anyone who has, even passively, been party to the madness (I should say that I can conceive of responses to certain of the questions, most significantly those posed by Lar, that might have disposed me to support [or at least made me rethink my opposition], but in the absence of the candidate's extended comments on the issues of import to me, I am left to judge him only on his record [and, more damningly, the record of the Committee across his term]). Joe 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per issues raised above, and because it's time for a change. I hope your (presumed) departure from ArbCom will not cause you to leave Wikipedia altogether, though - you'll still be welcome as an article editor. Terraxos (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - based on the candidate's record both before and during his time as an arbitrator. Gregg (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
per Lar. — Sebastian 10:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Really bad performance as an arbitrator. - Ev (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - did not perform well in the arbitorial role. Caulde 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --NE2 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Time for a change. Willking1979 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Although, I suggest you consider a name change before next year's elections. PhilKnight (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Everyone needs at least one support, and two is better. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inexperience and legalese, what could go wrong?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
America! FUCK YEAH! --harej 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Harej Xavexgoem (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
NYB comes from the law world and be makes a great arbitrator. Justice America comes from the law world. By the property of assumption, Justice America is...? You know the answer to that. Plus he seems like he actually wants to help. Wizardman 20:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support Durova^Charge! 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support, wonder if the others are for the same reason? Brilliantine (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support For only the third time in my thirty-five-and-a-half months here, I agree with Doc, only my appeal for inexperience and legalese is made without irony, sarcasm, or facetiousness (so we don't really agree, but it's a month for happiness and unity, so I'll take something positive wherever I might find it). As a believer in the importance of process (as, for one, a guarantor of the rights of the community), I have on more than one occasion expressed hope that we might someday have an ArbCom composed exclusively of lawyers or other individuals to have undergone training the law and logic, and we would do well, at the very least, to have on the committee another lawyer interested in the initial crafting of decisions, as I imagine the candidate to be; he or she who first sets out the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies largely controls the course and scope of a case, and so Brad (largely by virtue of his being a diligent and committed committee member and his being particularly skilled at the crafting of what are at their essence judicial opinions, which is, I should say explicitly, a great thing) has often been able to place a very strong imprint on the agenda and decisions of the ArbCom and to advance generally many of his beliefs, which beliefs, my personal affection for Brad aside, are quite at odds with mine, especially problematic because his conception of ArbCom is a bit broader than mine (as, most significantly, with respect to the appropriateness of members's substituting their own views about what policy ought to be for those of the community solely because the areas those policies surround are thorny); I perceive that Justice America might be an interesting, dynamic counterweight. My "support"s are longest, it seems, when they are late and useless, offered on hopeless cases, but I write at such length here ~~because I'm unable to say anything concisely~~ so that I might do my part to encourage the candidate to involve himself with arbitration and whatever reworking of ArbCom processes might soon be undertaken, not only in order that he might be a more viable candidate next year but in order that we might benefit from his input in the meanwhile. Joe 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Basically agree with everything Joe said. Many sighs. --JayHenry (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Sounds wonderful. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. --El on ka 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Communication problems, no response to questions does not inspire confidence in handling cases. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No answers to questions. We need to know what you intend to shake up. ;-) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per [non-existent] answers to questions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Chris! _ct 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
AMERICA FUCK YEAH! Oppose --Mixwell!^Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JodyB_talk 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
... Prodego ^talk 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope. MER-C 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Contributions and responses to questions gave me no reason to believe this editor is qualified. GRBerry 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not even a Q&A. What was the point? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for change, but at least fake like you were serious about this. Mike H. Fierce! 04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, but I really hope you stay on and work towards building the kind of experience that gets you there in the future! bd2412 T 07:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
'Oppose strongly. Does not appear to understand how the ArbCom elections work, let alone the ArbCom itself. Enigma ^message 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Editcount does not show sufficient experience in either policy or dispute resolution areas to inspire confidence that this candidate is familiar with how we settle problems, or is skilled at doing so. Lack of answers to questions indicates lack of an engagement in the ACE process, and a lack of interest in their own candidacy. Please do keep editing, learn more about how things works around here, and try again in a couple of years. //roux editor review08:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Who? --Folantin (talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very little experience, only a handful of edits; the candidate is not ready to be trusted in this sort of position. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose 168 edits is insufficient in my opinion to show you are sufficiently involved in this community to serve on Arbcomm this year. Get more involved in things like wp:fac or wherever else in wikipedia that you find enjoyable and I'll reconsider in a future year. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - insufficient experience. PseudoOne (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Dengero (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have nothing against new faces on the Committee, but more experience is needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Sarcasticdidealist; keep up the good work, but too little experience for this role at present. MastCell ^Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but this is a very high-level group in the Wikipedia community and requires strong familiarity with Wikipedia, which is somewhat lacking this case. Maybe later. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose More extensive experience required. GlassCobra 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a position that requires a time commitment, and that you've not edited since November 10 indicates you don't have the time. I really hope that if you find some free time you find ways to get more involved because we're always in need of more smart editors. --JayHenry (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. m acy 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Unserious.--Wetman (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Per so many reasons, they all have been summed up though. Not admin, not experienced etc. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose this candidacy which has the appearance (IMO) of a joke. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. I doubt the candidate, whatever his legal background, would want a judge trying a case of his with as little experience as he proposes bringing here. RGTraynor 20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - we need less legalese, not more. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Badger Drink (talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose first and foremost ARBCOM members must be willing to answer questions when asked. Gnan garra 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Too inactive. Joe Nu tter 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - this is not a game, stop making the other non-admin candidates look bad and if this is not a sock or good-hand account, please get more experience before even thinking about running for something as important as this ......--Comet styles 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~per Cometstyles. This isn't even a joke nom, it's just plain annoying and unfair to those non-admins who are making an effort. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Oppose I think you meant this in good faith, but ask the one lawyer on the ArbCom: that ain't enough. You need more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy before we can even consider this. Daniel Case (talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Also, I feel like you don't even care about your role here, per your questions. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose Username is somewhat unnerving. Not an admin -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the fact that his edit history shows he does not live at Wikipedia but far too few recent edits (almost none in October or November) so I oppose. Chergles (talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. If someone can convince me that this isn't a hoax nomination, I might be willing to reconsider. Cynical (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thankfully there was little to read (short statement, few contributions, and no answers to any questions) so not a lot of time was wasted researching this candidate. In order to register a serious oppose or support for a candidate requires at least some time is spent researching and considering that candidate. There are too many candidates entering this election who have no chance at all of being elected, taking up time. SilkTork *^YES! 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not seem to be taking the application seriously. LK (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose. Where is the experience???? Willking1979 (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not qualified. Shyam ^(T/C) 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not enough experience, and didn't answer any questions. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose check out THIS physical edit tgies (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Lack of experience or tenure on the project. — Manti core 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Your thesis is incorrect; you need to be connected. Fred Talk 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Do we need a wikilawyer? Computerjoe 's talk 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hard to assess a candidate if they do not bother to answer the questions. Rje (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No answeres to questions --Nate 14 81 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose small number of edits --Rjecina (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
One of my few oppose votes - not enough experience and did not answer the questions. 43 mainspace edits is just not enough. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Shy??? Consider also changing the name ;)--Michael X the White (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. What? Why on earth should anyone support this guy? Give us one, good reason. deeceevoice (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nil Einne (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
— Sebastian 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not an administrator, thus severely inexperienced with community at hand. Caulde 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Sultec (talk) 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support GTD 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as he has a sound inclusion criteria. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support for the idea that Arbcom, to be legitimate, must derive its authority from the community. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I know moral supports are bad, but someone has to. The April Fools stuff was classic. (In case of any doubt I meant the RfA nom in the April just gone, not any future plans.) Orderinchaos 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was serious and not trying to be uncivil or a jerk. Kurt had promised an AWESOME April Fool's Day prank for 2009, and this seemed to possibly fit the definition. Sorry that I distracted from your nom, Kurt. Royal broil 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is prima facie evidence of something good. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Why, most definitely. (if not for the fact that I appreciate his humour, most definitely for the fact that I want to avoid the likely pile-on that's coming down below...) Master&Expert (Talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support- because I always vote Kurt. He would be perfect for the Arbitrary Committee. Sticky Parkin 12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Catchpole (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WR cabal support! Viridae ^Talk 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~It's ridiculous that so many opposed. Obviously you people just look at the problematic characteristics. Kurt actually makes a great argument, so definitely support.~~ —Ceranthor 01:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed to abstain, not even !voting. Per the mailing list thing and the block thing. —Ceranthor 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. I actually disagree with Kurt's views on power needing to devolve from the community. However, a number of the opposes below jump on the "troll" bandwagon. To the extent Kurt has become a troll, it's because we created one by foolishly allergic responses to his early commentary, which was unquestionably legitimate and stated in quite benign a manner. Martinp (talk) 18:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No one has forced this behavior, or any other, on him - how do you fancy we could do that? - and one would think that WP:POINT would still apply, even to Kurt. Beyond that, the nature of consensus is that sometimes you're on the losing side of it, in which case it's incumbent either to get past it and pitch in or to shut up and get out of the way. Whether he just has a tin ear or is a genuine believer isn't really pertinent; that he is being a troll who neither respects consensus nor WP:POINT is. These are undesirable characteristics in any editor. They are unforgivable in an ArbCom candidate. RGTraynor 20:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Compassionate support - single issue candidacies are good for one thing - they can test the communities mood about single issues, so I support your attempt at shining light on it. Seems the community want to keep the concept of ArbCom if not the personnel. --Joopercoopers (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Have been a victim to the editor's 'power hunger' refrain. However, I subscribe to some of his views on Arbcom role. Also, I dont believe that his inclusion will be disruptive. It will bring in some diversity to Arbcom's decisions. Also, I am looking forward to his role as an Arbcom member, which may also bring about a 'change' in his 'apparently disruptive' and 'blanket opposition' attitude. Overall, Arbcom does not lose with his nom. Hence the vote. prashanthns (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Yes. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
His views on the committee are completely correct, which is probably why he's so hated for them. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'd snigger a little if you didn't finish last, so here's a wee +1 to your vote count. --DeLarge (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I am voting for a team of candidates that will bring a mix of voices to the committee. This is my chosen "find a better way" candidate. Grika Ⓣ 16:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 19:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support as I agree wholeheartedly with his opinions on arbcom and secret trials. Cynical (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Dezidor (talk) 00:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
It's just like voting for Nader, without feeling guilty about florida. Protonk (talk) 08:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per Elonka. Funniest answers around. And I hate secret hearings too. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Uh, you do realize that Elonka voted oppose? Daniel Case (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Smile Kurt, you're my sympathy vote this year. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support It doesn't get better than this. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I may not necessarily endorse his other views, his interpretation of ArbCom is relatively reasonable, for that, I support. Caulde 18:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Some sense is exactly what the Arbitration Committee needs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations you win a prize! Your cookie can be claimed in the reception area. lifebaka++ 20:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: I dont want to go to court! Ryan4314 (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I haven't time at the moment to set out fully my reasoning (Packers game is on), but I think it always appropriate to offer an explanation for one's vote, even if it's useful to (and read only by) one's self; my thoughts, then, will be available sometime soon at my Wikipedia views page (and in some form at Kurt's talk page, where I will be amongst those commiserating later today). Joe 18:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Yeah, right. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--chaser - t 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --El on ka 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose very, very, very, very, very, very, very, very strongly. Majorly ^talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mattinbgn\^talk 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Er.... nah! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kuru ^talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nope. Sam ^Blab 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. krimpet ✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too polarizing, and we obviously have enough of that already. Avruch^T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Destroying Arbcom will only result in the same messy disputes to be fought out everywhere else. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate that Kmweber has an interesting point, but we're here to choose arbitrators. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, RockManQ^{Review me} 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
prima....................--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think that if the community no longer wanted to recognize ArbCom, they would make that very clear on their own. Grand master ka 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You're joking.--Koji† 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He admits he's a troll. Need I say more? Mike H. Fierce! 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He should be arbitrated, not be an arbitrator ...--Comet styles 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The ArbCom needs reform, but this candidate is the equivalent of a pipe bomb against a bridge, and is as welcome and as needed as one. Strong oppose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
BIG FUCKING OPPOSE IN ALL CAPS. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
His habit of incivility, refusal to answer questions posed at this election, and lack of forthcomingness gives me no respect and trust in this user. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't going to add rationales here since they van be viewed from my user page but this has got to be one of the best reasons ever to oppose a candidate. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.[30] ElinorD (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hate to pile on but nooo.... L'Aquatique[talk] 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For the record, this user is contacting his oppose voters on IRC (myself and at least one other) asking why we 'hate wikipedia', because he is 'entitled to know'. Par for the course, but... ST47 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ooooh, the irony! IT BURNS! --Deskana (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JodyB_talk 02:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because I hate Wikipedia. But not the Colts. --NE2 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Um, no. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Anyone who says "you voted against me in the ArbCom elections...ergo, you hate Wikipedia" and considers anyone who votes against him one of a group of "miscreants [who] must be brought out in public to be shunned and shamed" (quotes from the #wikimedia-social and PM timestamped around 2:15 1 December 2008 UTC) doesn't deserve to hold this kind of leverage in the community. Using tactics like these is shameful to yourself and the community as a whole. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose S B H arris 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate Wikipedia, so I'm going to have to oppose. (Note: This is a reference to his W-R post in which he says that there were "49 people" that hated Wikipedia) hbdragon88 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Randian politics (a troll's manifesto, if ever there was) are worse than our current politics, so no. rootology (C)(T) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per self-nomination. John254 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Emphatic no. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose He opposes power hungry people - so does he oppose himself? ~~Is this his April Fool's Day prank?~~ Royal broil 03:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because I hate wikipedia. Prodego ^talk 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Nope.~~ Changing toStrongest possible oppose, triple-underlined and in 90-pt boldface. I would not support even if I would be ritually immolated for opposing. Per Crum's link (oppose #110). Sickening. GJC 04:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. MER-C 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think it's utterly illegitimate: nuf said... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I can't support a half baked reform proposal. Find a decent replacement before killing the current semi-functional system. GRBerry 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see the obvious joke has already been made. Sigh, I guess I am too late. --B (talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hate Kmweber's Wikipedia too. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
QED. It's possible to repeat yourself endlessly and still be incoherent and unprincipled. --JayHenry (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, self-nom is prima facie evidence of power hunger, even if he promises not to use it. Seriously, if you want to reform ArbCom then reform ArbCom. Don't run as a protest candidate. Daniel Case (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: The other oppose votes suggesting Kurt is making a joke out of this aren't going far enough. This candidacy, to me, is no longer a joke. It is a classic example of disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Now, by making his "Why do you hate Wikipedia"? IRC spam, he is not only making me glad I don't use IRC, he is coming close to harassment. He nearly made a joke of RFA; we ought not to let him make a joke of ArbCom elections, whatever we think of the committee as a whole. I think we need to snowball-close this, then consider banning him as much for his sake as for ours. Daniel Case (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Kurt is a troll that this community does not need. I shudder to think what would happen if he was successful. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Note that I never actually wanted to support this candidate, and thought his ArbCom candidacy statement was intended to gauge the dramatic rejection of the community (and it is). While I wanted to keep my comment in the support section to avoid adding to this column, I have to ensure that everyone understands that I am not kidding around with regards to who I select for ArbCom appointments. Kurt isn't just attempting to make a point - he just wants to see how many people are going to pile-on, and takes pleasure in causing trouble. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose.Genisock2 (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I want ArbCom to succeed. Kingturtle (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I admire the great Russian novelists. But it doesn't bode well for a candidate that one of his favorite authors is still a redlink. Kurt, you talk about mandates from the community. Well here you have one. Please entertain the possibility that when others disagree with you, they may speak from experience that you haven't gained. Roll up your sleeves and edit. Build an article past C class. As they say in the Navy, you need to follow before you can lead. Durova^Charge! 05:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not to borrow tired nationalist rhetoric, but if you hate it here so much, then please, do leave. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose PseudoOne (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to pile on but I think Kurt needs to see that the community does not support or endorse his disruptive methods. Sarah 06:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose and wholly agree with RyanGerbil. Enigma ^message 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose per the platform. Icewedge (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Arbcom has it's problem, but disrupting to make a point isn't the way to go. Skinny87 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No thanks. Pedro : Chat 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Dismantling ArbCom is something I can support, but Kmweber is not the person to do it. (Too confrontational.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
And don't contact me off-wiki. Seraphim ♥ 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per: announced intention to disrupt ArbCom at every opportunity; refusal to answer most questions posed to him; user has repeatedly opposed admins in the past for self-nominations and I fail to see how self-nominating for ArbCom is any different. //roux editor review08:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A serial attention seeker who is just wasting the community's time again with this frivolous nom. Gatoclass (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, if the community did want ArbCom gone, they could and would make it so. The correct response to "There are problems" is "Fix them", not "Scrap the whole thing". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but trying to disrupt ArbCom won't help it improve. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
– sgeureka ^t•c 10:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Your heart is in the right place, but your head... Viriditas (talk) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WP:POINT applies. Horologium (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - Per RyanGerbil and the fact that Kurt has no control over his actions. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I came here to Support as it's a self nom, and I thought you'd be an interesting gadfly despite your support for revolutionary as opposed to evolutionary change to Arbcomm; But the IRC thing sways me into this camp. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All the witty things that I came up with have already been said. Dangit. Sometimes, when I've got nothing better to do, I wonder if Kurt really believes all the things that he says. --Conti|✉ 12:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Speedy Oppose Should be banned. 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 12:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Disgusting.[31] Crum375 (talk) 14:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not sure if your batshit crazy behavior started because of an RFA gone wrong or witnessing too much BS from current admins/arbs, but your presence on the committee would not be a net gain at all. At least you're more open about your biases, though, unlike our passive aggressive (to the fucking extreme) arbs. Style points for that. SashaNein (talk) 14:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm a Wikipedia-hater now, right? MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Voting for you would be like electing a pedophile to the PTA. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That could be fun to watch, but I'm not sure we're shooting a disaster movie here. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: I view self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger. seicer | talk | contribs 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You're too late; I did that one already. But at least you got the wording right. Daniel Case (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While I agree the current arbcom is a joke, this is not the way to improve things. Tex (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for Kurt being obsessed with wikipower to a point that I worry about his general state of well being. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose. Sorry (actually, I'm not), but I don't even consider this nomination legitimate. From my own experience, Kurt is very smart but very narcissistic and does not have the personality for interpersonal relationships. The problem is, instead of utilising his brain for good, he's an insufferable troll who will pontificate and stalk and harass people. And no, this is not a personal attack. He's admitted to trolling, and has a history of stalking and harassing dating back to twelve hours ago. I'm actually amazed he isn't banned now, given that he has used IRC and Special:Emailuser to harass differing admins (AC have the facts and they're voting "yes"), but I can suppose it's the institutional POV of "Oh, it's Kurt, let him rant and rave". I'm very disappointed at the (currently) nine who have chosen to support him, even morally. I've been on the worse end of his harassment which caused me to snap and bite back at him. I can safely say that I would never ever ever trust him in any position of trust or power. I could go on, but I think this is damning enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the candidate's well-known opinions on anything you care to name, as well as his point-making nomination statement. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 17:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose The Candidate is contesting for Arbcom with a negative rather than positive agenda also feel it is point making nomination.While I do respect the user's right to his/her opinion.But feel electing the user will cause disruption rather than anything positive need a uniter rather than extreme divider. Sorry to write to this.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While your goal, to reform arbitration, may be laudable, this is not the way to do it. >Radiant< 17:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Helpful One 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Piling on because Kurt can take it. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kurt has some good ideas, but is incapable of making them a reality, instead keeping them radical and impossible. kmccoy (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The arbitration committee is both legitimate and necessary, even if it doesn't always make the right decision. I cannot support someone who wants to destroy it. Hut 8.5 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Conduct and plans if elected are highly concerning. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Michael X the White (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not to pile on, but I feel a need to register my opposition here. MastCell ^Talk 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose so long as Viktor Muravin remains a redlink, per Durova. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He just recreated it. Enigma ^message 22:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I normally ignore trolls, but I suppose this is as good a place as any to register my amazement that this user is not currently banned from editing in all Wikimedia projects. Sandstein 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I cannot support a candidate who runs on such a candidate statement. Davewild (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If you think there are a few problems with a system, the appropriate response is to go to the drawing board and think up ways to improve it—not to pour gasoline on the entire thing and watch it burn. I cannot support a candidate who plans to wreck a system that isn't perfect but works a lot of the time without any real backup plan. Intelligent man whose willingness to speak out has in the past been an asset; also unsuitable to be an Arbitrator, and lacking any community trust by the looks of it. Oppose. AGK 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Same reasoning by AGK above. If you think something is broken, then fix it, don't destroy it, in the end, you'll do more harm than good. I would not vote someone into place who's only purpose is disruption, which is what this would be.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Arbcom should at least be functional. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose No. GlassCobra 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
NO, no, no and no. I'm not going to support someone who trolls at the wiki and at IRC. m acy 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because the Colts suck. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, for the same reasons why I don't vote anarchists into office. haz (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I'll argue all day for Kurt's right to express contrarian views, then I'll argue all night why that is just plain incompatible with ArbCom. Bonus points for the RFA self-nom last April Fools though. :) Franamax (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbcom has shown that it's (usually) useful when other ways have failed, no need to destroy it --Enric Naval (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
^S._D.D.J.Jameson 23:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pah. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aramgar (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Franamax et al. Excellent editor, a person I respect, but not right for ArbCom. Bearian (talk) 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - lots of structures in Wikipedia were created without real community consent. That may well mean we want to change them; we might want to abolish them. But it doesn't mean that we should automatically, unthinkingly abolish them. ArbCom is useful and can work, and we need candidates who want to make it work. Warofdreams talk 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not the right temperament for ArbCom. --VS ^talk 00:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Temperament issues.--Danaman5 (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per <insert many, many diffs here>. X clamation point 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I appreciate the work you've been doing, but I don't want your hand on the red button. --harej 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I respect Kurt's integrity and agree with much of his metapedian perspective, he seems unable to collaborate effectively with others and is not averse to drama-stirring. Skomorokh 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Where to begin? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose لenna vecia 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose; Kurt's talents better employed elsewhere. Antandrus (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest oppose possible Alexfusco⁵ 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.--Wetman (talk) 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Yamakiri ^T_C § 12-2-2008 • 03:02:34
Oppose As much as I hate to pile-on oppose, I must say that your idea to decline every single ArbCom case makes me question why you even want to throw your hat into the ring! I was shocked to see that; I don't know if you're only kidding or if you are being disruptive. Sorry. Glacier Wolf 03:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose- No. No way. Not a chance. This user has no respect for policy or consensus, and regards anything he personally disapproves of as illegitimate. Giving any sort of power or authority to a person who vows to automatically obstruct everything just to make a WP:POINT would be the dumbest thing the Wikipedia community could do. Fortunately there's no chance of this happening. Reyk _YO! 04:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Eff no. I don't care that there are already so many opposes this one isn't needed; I'm putting my name here anyway. --Cyde Weys 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hell no, worst candidate ever. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
20-Mule Team Oppose: To be honest, I can't think of a single user more disruptive and destructive to this project than Kurt Weber. It can't even be claimed that he has the courage of his convictions: for someone so militantly and reflexively opposed to self-nomination to posts of power, for instance, he seems to do so himself often enough. RGTraynor 06:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Beyond that, Kurt's very premise is breathtakingly flawed. This is not some crackpot anarchist collective. The "community" doesn't own Wikipedia; the Wikipedia Foundation does, and it can delegate authority to whomever or whatever it wants, to whichever degree it finds good. Those who can't handle that an incorporated organization can manage its own private website to its own liking ... well, no doubt you can find some encyclopedia out there where you don't have to honor any rules or authority you find distasteful. Good luck with that. RGTraynor 22:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose no way — Possum (talk) 10:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for most of the various reasons given by others. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I find him hilarious, but I'd prefer to see him gain a record on number of opposes. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
The record is still some 90 oppose votes away. EconomicsGuy (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Voting's only been open a day or two. :P GlassCobra 08:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:POINT EyeSerene^talk 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not open minded enough for such a position. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose [32]. Nsk92 (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Candidate hates Wikipedia and is at odds with reality. Alio The Fool 18:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This is just a pointy nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeWhy is he running? --Stormbay (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not that it seems to matter... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose User should probably be banned. I am not kidding at all. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose An attention seeker who's only real purpose here is to scream "look at me! look at me!" --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
miranda 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No, based on candidate's own statements and conduct. JGHowes ^talk 00:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not open-minded enough for such a task. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Every single action he takes is the epitome of WP:POINT... but I can't even seem to see what point he tries to make. IRC shenanigans, RFA shenanigans, AN/I shenanigans... the list goes on. Dr. e X treme 02:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.--Maxim_(talk) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I would have to say that every one of the candidates is a good editor. Whether or not they'd be good arbitrators is another story. Marlith (Talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I'll complete the WP:200. A no-brainer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Even if you disagree with how things are run, this candidates methods are not the way to fix. Sticking one's head in the sand and refusing to hear any cases only gets your head sandy and leaves problems existent. -- Marcsin |^Talk 16:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gizza^Discuss ^© 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
'Oppose Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - only made a stub from that redlink! *grumble* Xavexgoem (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose per opposes 14,33,34,46,47,48,56,60,65,75,76,82,,93,110,120,123,135,166,189 and 191. Also per Kurt's comments here and here. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Because I want to. Brilliantine (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ok, I completely and totally morally support that ArbCom needs to derive it's authority from the community. However, nominating yourself for ArbCom and saying that you will vote to decline every case is not the way to accomplish this. A proposal to disband ArbCom should be done on a community wide basis and announced at RFC. I think kicking out all the current arbitrators and polling the community to see if it even wants to continue ArbCom is a great idea. This is not the way to accomplish that. I know you are not a troll, I can see that plainly. But what you are doing is trolling. You being on the committee would only worsen it's current condition. I agree with you that arbcom needs to either get support from the community or get lost but I just cannot see how having you on the committee would help accomplish this. Maybe there is still some hope for arbcom. Cheers! and best of luck! Mww113 (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose cmelbye (^t/_c) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 04:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This nomination seems particularly in bad faith; to nominate yourself to a body when your sole purpose in serving would be to disrupt it seems like a particularly bad idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - a bit young for the job. Racepacket (talk) 14:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not only not a serious candidate, but an outright damaging one. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose hbent (talk) 19:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Snowball time. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Cenarium (Talk) 22:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Prima Facie oppose I view disruption as prima facie evidence of unsuitability for arbcom. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. No insult or mocking here, but I just strongly disagree with your opinions on WP, and don't feel your approach to WP's problems would produce the desired results, even if many others went along with it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, disruptive candidate. Terraxos (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Challenges to existing convention are best done by discussion in appropriate places rather than engaging in pointy behaviour. SilkTork *^YES! 08:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I think his appearance in ArbCom will ignite a Civil War in Wikipedia. Leujohn ^(talk)
Exactly. That's the only way to save Wikipedia at this point. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
See WP:BATTLEGROUND, Kurt. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm...not entirely sure you have grasped the meaning of that. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
"Save" Wikipedia? Save it from what, exactly? Having rules and guidelines that are actually, occasionally, enforced? RGTraynor 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Seeing yourself as a "hero" who will "save wikipedia" in some kind of a war paints the picture of a narcissist.--Koji† 23:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Trying to start a revolution by infiltrating a key element of what keeps Wikipedia a stable entity is simply not the way. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 05:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Hilarious. --24.160.240.252 (talk) 07:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
anons can't vote ...--Comet styles 08:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, don't be ridiculous ➥the Epopt (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SwatJester. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
– RyanCross (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wkdewey (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose —Animum (talk) 22:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This has got to be a joke. Landon1980 (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, no way. - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Surprised candidate is not yet community-banned. —CComMack (t–c) 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This candidate is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point here. Not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to get through. Stwalkerster [ talk ] 19:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. If I could suggest to Kurt to step away from Wikipedia for a while. You clearly have many talents. Why don't you focus your talents on something that will make you millions? I'm quite serious on this. You could have your own show in Vegas. I'd pay to see that. -- Samir 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 00:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Er...what?! --Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Choess (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
nneonneo ^talk 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Talk about delicious irony. Tool2Die4 (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- I don't think Arbcom needs obstructionists. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe throwing some sand in the machine can be useful to shake things up, but your answer to Stifle's question ("I'm not actually going to be doing anything except running interference") is too simple an approach. That's not sand, that's a brick. ~~SIS~~ 23:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - the candidate does not elucidate what measures will replace the obstructed processes of ARBCOM if elected. The entire platform presented basically amounts to chaos and anarchy in place of supposed inefficiency. That I can not support. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that Kurt's even aware of the points he's trying to make most of the time. Sorry. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Eerily enough, I tend to agree with a couple of things that Kurt has pointed out in his nomination statement; the distinction, however, is that I have more faith in the process than he does. Gotta say that he's got a massive pair of stones just for running, though. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — Let's not. Jack Merridew 11:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 13:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not for any reasons suggested by Naerii, not because I hate Wikipedia, not for any sinister reason or ulterior motive. In this election and his entire Wikipedia career, this candidate has not put forth a single reason why I should !vote in favour of him being given any position of authority on this project. The rhetoric of "I'm the messiah, I'm the only one who's able and willing to free the community of the tyrannical rule of Jimbo Wales" is thinner than paper-thin seeing that that same community has zero confidence in you being able to help anyone with anything. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose What is the community saying here, then? Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not support Wikipedia's decision making process. Fred Talk 19:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose His contempt for the ArbCom is matched only by his contempt for the encyclopedia. I still don't understand why he wasn't banned last September. —An gr 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose For the obvious reasons. Rje (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I wish I could apologize for this. Shenme (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the user's goals and opinions. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No Way. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
No. why? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Your vote just broke the record for all time ArbCom opposes, Lar. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Do we have a barnstar for that? Hiberniantears (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
(did I just beat the record?!) Martinp23 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose . Bfigura's puppy (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ariel♥Gold 01:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose nope Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 03:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Extensive block log rife with issues of incivility. Not the sort of user I want on ArbCom. — Manti core 03:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 08:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Holds a much too shallow view of the Wikipedia community. Deli nk (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose unfortunately despite your lack of faith in the 'power' of the wikipedia community, we do have the power to reject you and it looks like we are Nil Einne (talk) 22:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not No grasp of Macchiavellian power politics in the slightest. --Rodhull andemu 23:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, basically due to all the very good reasons to oppose this candidate enumerated above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC).
Oppose Kurt, you're meant for greater things. X MarX the Spot (talk) 10:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Statement is nutty. Switzpaw (talk) 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — the statement seems to contradict the candidacy, on top of all the other good reasons… {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 19:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – RyanCross (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

You have already voted. ST47 (talk) 03:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Quotes like "As a member, I will vote to decline any and all cases submitted to it, politely suggesting instead that the involved parties go to a legitimate form of dispute resolution, such as RfC, mediation, or any other mechanism that may be created by the community (and therefore has legitimate authority)." have me seriously concerned. (In other words, you'd join Arbcom just to derail the whole dang thing?) Kurt has done good for the project, but at the seame time he has a track record of doing things his way to the point of utter disruption, and sometimes flat out arguing with those that go against him. ~~That, and threatening to take opposers to court?! Just because you couldn't get your way at arbcom?!~~ (Never mind, I trust his assertation that it was a joke.) I think the snow is beginning to fall on this discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
"Beginning to fall" = understatement of the year. ;) We all do realize what we're doing by piling on. We're just playing into his little pointy play. It was obvious this page would get a massive pile-on before the election even went on-air - Kurt knew it would, and that's what he wanted. He loves aggravating the community, and watching the vehement outcry that ensues. He does it time and time again, no matter what "sanction" we impose. And every time the community comes to its senses, somebody convinces us all to play the "but he's only as disruptive as we let him to be, let's <insert solution here> so we can end this discussion" trump card. Thus, he withstands with such longevity for one whom many would ban in an instant were they given the opportunity to do so. The fact of the matter is, he really is only as disruptive as we let him to be. And in this election, we let him grow into an unpleasant presence that set out to make an absurd point, and apparantly we're here to stop him from climbing the reichstag. It seems silly how utterly routine this has become. Kurt is very much like acne - harmless if ignored, yet it seems hard to do so; and the more attention we give to him, the worse everything will get, the more drama will be provoked, and the more we're going to frustrate ourselves dealing with something you'd think would be pretty easy to deal with. We musn't give him more reasons to piss us off. Master&Expert (Talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the above assessment. It seems to me that Kurt continues to believe his 'enemies' are a small group concentrated in priviliged positions, and the majority of Wikipedia editors as a whole support his actions. His record-breaking number of opposes here is therefore a good thing, insofar as it will convince him to revise that view - if the community as a whole can be said to have a consensus on Kurt, it's very much against him. Terraxos (talk) 08:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I think letting him feed his ego with being the most Opposed Candidate ever is worth it for the community to be able to say that we straight up denied him, wiki-style. And damn the consequences.--Koji† 16:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. And if he is screwing with us, which of course is entirely possible, the scenario puts me in mind of a rebellious child seeking to piss his parents off, where the more the parents genially ignore the child's behavior, the harder the frustrated tyke tries to get their goats. I'd rather presume he's sincere (after all, that is what WP:AGF is all about) and act accordingly. We didn't let him do anything, after all - like any other qualifying editor, he exercised his privilege to run for ArbCom, and it isn't as if he's the only fringe or snowball worthy candidate - and like any other qualifying editor, we exercised ours to vote and comment on his candidacy. This is only an "unpleasant presence" in the election in so far as we allow ourselves to get angry about it. RGTraynor 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Kurt appears to believe he will be the savior of Wikipedia. I do not. Raven4x4x (talk) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
— Sebastian 09:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 14:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
BrianY (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Throwawayhack (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Kurt's well-established inability to separate his fantasies from reality. Wikipedia is not therapy. Raul654 (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattinbgn\^talk 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Committee members need extensive experience with Wikipedia to ensure they've "seen it all" and can make informed decisions on the issues. This experience might be obtained from long service as an admin or bureaucrat, and it might also come through years of good editing and calm, consistent contributions to articles and policy discussions. Arbcom needs a balance of both, and Lankiveil amply meets this second criteria. S/he would be an asset as part of the Arbcom team. Euryalus (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very much what Euryalus said. Orderinchaos 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I approve! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 05:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per insightful answers to questions and long contribution history. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 09:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, good length of history, thoughtful answers to questions, and quite importantly seems averse to ArbCom making policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Passes the clue test. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Nancy ^talk 11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hereby support this user. — E ↗ 12:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good answers to my questions, I feel that this candidate has done their howework and would be a good change to Arbcomm Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fine (apart from your opinion on making notability a firm policy which should not affect your performance on arbcom if elected). Davewild (talk) 19:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - keen, with solid contributions. Gives every reason to inspire confidence. Warofdreams talk 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Impressive track record. Would certainly prefer this candidate to some others running. GlassCobra 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I can trust ~~him~~ ~~her~~ it this candidate.--Koji† 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per thoughtful answers and statement, as well as excellent contrib history. I think this editor would do a fine job on ArbCom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No major concerns. Acalamari 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A bit of fresh perspective would be valuable. Lankiveil seems thoughtful, aware of personal limitations and open to feedback, which allays any concerns I may have in common with opposing voters. Vassyana (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per User:Cometstyles/ACE2008...oh wait, I don't have one :S ...--Comet styles 06:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes from me --VS ^talk 06:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 17:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Good record, can be trusted. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Solid sensible and trustworthy Peripitus (Talk) 11:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Says the right things. Fred Talk 19:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Has all the right qualities. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 21:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good guy who needs much more experience but I feel he would be a very fair, fine arbitrator. Sarah 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I'm torn here, but based on your thoughtful answers, I'll give this one to ya. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support He needs some experience? no place better than Arb. Five Years 16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Several people I respect seem to have found reason to oppose, but I'm just not seeing it. Also per Giggy. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 07:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support My few encounters with the candidate and his answers to the questions (most especially Lar's first and second questions, the two on which, concerned as I am about the committee's overreaching—substituting its judgment about what policy ought to be for that of the community and failing to recall that the community are [basically] sovereign [that only the Wikimedia Foundation may set off an issue as beyond the community's control]—particularly on BLP-related issues, I focus most in this election) convince me that he properly understands the narrow role of the ArbCom and that he possesses the sound judgment, deliberative temperament, and civil demeanor that serve any arbitrator well (and the presence of which in an arbitrator well serves the community). Joe 06:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, due to lack of experience. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just due to a lack of experience--Caspian blue 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Due to lack of experience. Great editor and admin, though, so I think if you return next year I will be able to support. Avruch^T 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too inexperienced. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Just not this year. Too much is at stake. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While my impression of Lankiveil is very positive, he lacks the experience to be an arbitrator, and there are better candidates running. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not this year; we need more experience. I'll be very interested to see you run next year, though. //roux editor review10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - but please take your experience here, add more experience as an administrator, and consider running in the next election. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weakly oppose; has done good work as an editor and admin, but an accumulation of minor concerns barely tip the balance. Nothing personal, and best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how to evaluate deletion work and determine what sort of Arb you'd be. I think you have some very good answers and instincts, and would certainly reconsider in future, particularly with some foray into producing top-quality content and some more project-space participation to review. --JayHenry (talk) 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Clean sheets do not qualify one to arbitrate encyclopaedic disputes. Skomorokh 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Experience of another year may increase your support. --Stormbay (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, man, I just don't feel that you're ready just yet. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to endorsement of secret trials. Cynical (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 05:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Good answers to the questions, but we need a bit more evidence of ability, and there's little in the contributions to reveal the candidate's ability. I had expected a bit of involvement in article creation, policy making, consensus building, conflict resolution, and being a part of the wider community. I was frankly disappointed that the past year appears to have mainly consisted of leaving single comments on AfD and RfA, and some simple vandal reverting - that is not high level stuff. I'd like to see a couple of good years involvement in the tough end of Wikipedia before the candidate offers to stand again. SilkTork *^YES! 19:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 10:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - An intelligent, good faith, even-keel editor who I just don't think has enough immersion in Wikipolitics (which isn't a bad thing in general, just as it applies to an Arb Comm candidacy). His answers don't indicate the depth of knowledge and familiarity with the issues facing Wikipedia that I would hope for. I suspect if he was thrown on to the committee he's probably wind up making a good go of it, and I might favour that course if we were short of good candidates, but in this case telling him to wait a year is a luxury that we can afford. As a final note, since he's not fiercely guarding his pseudonymity, I'd encourage him to consider divulging his real life identity, which is my preference for editors in positions of authority. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I fear that this candidate's judgement (and insufficient experience) will cause further divide between ArbCom and community - the effects of which are undesirable and detrimental for this project. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose sorry we need a candidate who can hit the ground running and you're not it Nil Einne (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - lack of experience. Caulde 14:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Not a usual suspect, but in a good way. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This user responds quickly to requests for help in a variety of areas (for example, he helped me solve a problem with {{DYKsuggestion}}, and I think his being an outsider will allow him to bring diversity to the committee. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the very best! Ecoleetage (talk) 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
DRV disputes are very different than ArbComm disputes. I know his DRV work and support, but think this editor would be a stronger candidate if they spent some time working WP:AE or other dispute resolution fora first. GRBerry 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Realizing you're an outsider is great. Dispute resolution background is also nice to see, although you should take the first month or so to learn how to apply your skills to this position should you be elected. Mike H. Fierce! 04:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support What we need in arbcom. I also find myself agreeing with much of Lifebaka's views on BLPs. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support While I disagree with some of Lifebaka's views on the precise role of arbcom and its position in the community, my general impression is very positive and my gut feeling is a good one. Answers could be slightly better worded at times, but they do get the point across in a nicely concise way. Brilliantine (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, seems to have a good idea of what's going on and what needs to happen, doesn't seem likely to expand BLP or make policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Clue is important. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as we need fresh ideas. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I nominated you for RFA and stick by my nomination there. Davewild (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Positive and thoughtful in decision making. -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Unusual, but will support. Icy // ♫ 03:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 04:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Competence is underrated and I see Lifebaka doing all sorts of things for the community. Time to reward that and give this deserving editor a shot to make serious changes to WP. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 19:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support one of the regulars who seems to never piss people off, and maintains a cool head. I trust this candidate implicitly, and believe the committee (and the community) will be well served to have Lifebaka on it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerry (talk • contribs)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Liked your answers to the questions, and feel you have a lot of to offer as an outsider to most of the disputes here. If you don't make it this year, I strongly suggest trying again the next. Tiamut^talk 13:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 01:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support An outside may be good for ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 15:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support An outsider with a clue of what really happens on Wikipedia would be a healthy infusion to ArbCom; in this case, the lack of experience is a huge positive for me. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good answers to questions asked, BigDunc^Talk 22:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Good new blood with a good history. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Excellent admin, good judgment, and we need new faces on ArbCom. --MCB (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Deb (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seraphim and Ned, as often they do, have it quite right. Joe 06:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Lar. :) --El on ka 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose, due to lack of experience. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
krimpet ✽ 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No No No. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There's a lot of diversity in the candidates this year actually, and I'm concerned about your ability to evaluate editors if you've concluded otherwise. I don't really see any articulated vision whatsoever of how you'd be different. --JayHenry (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal against this candidate, but there are more qualified candidates running. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Given current problems facing ArbCom, this is not the best time for an outsider (although I would in any other circumstances support a complete outsider, my other opposes re:lack of experience notwithstanding). Next year? //roux editor review10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hopeless on BLP --Scott Mac (Doc) 14:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For this, which prompted a following-up comment from Lar. Acalamari 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with GRBerry's rationale, though it led him to support and me to oppose... :) Deletion policy is an important and sadly uncommon skill set, but it's not great preparation for the Committee, and you're just a little too much of an unknown quantity for me to support this year. Keep up the good work, and nothing personal. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 21:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Not the time for a complete outsider; we need new faces, but proper experience is still required. GlassCobra 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per GlassCobra (conveiniently right above me :D ).--Koji† 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
When asked to name an Arb decision they disagreed with or would have handled differently, the candidate responded "Give me a day or two for research, pwetty pwease?". That was over a week ago. An apt reflection of the candidacy. Skomorokh 03:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal or specific, I just don't think you're quite seasoned enough for ArbCom. In particular, I would like to see more ... surprise surprise ... ArbCom involvement, or at least mediation of disputes. --Cyde Weys 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose More experience required. --Stormbay (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose More experience is needed. I don't feel he's ready at this time. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to willingness to sanction on the basis of evidence that the person being sanctioned hasn't seen. Cynical (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems a nice enough person, but lacks depth and breadth of experience. Answers to questions don't reveal much insight into the nature of the beast, or of how to deal with the post being applied for. SilkTork *^YES! 20:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose and a tip: Your assertion that the other candidates aren't "diverse" enough should ideally be backed up by some token effort to differentiate yourself from them. tgies (talk) 04:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No history of involvement in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Fred Talk 20:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per JayHenry, Skomorokh, failure to grasp the BLP problem, general knowledge gaps and lack of experience, and misuse of the word "fiat" in his answer to my questions. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not sure that I really buy any admin as a "complete outsider". I, too, have had no involvement with ArbCom, but I would still consider myself part of the same prevailing superstructure. Taking this candidacy on its own merits, I feel that the answers to the questions are pretty good but they don't convince me that Lifebaka is better qualified or currently more able than several other candidates. If Lifebaka were to run again next year, having gained more experience, I may well vote the other way. Rje (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose "No diversity" among candidates? They have a lot of diversity! Maybe you should try looking deeper. (PS. I hinted my reason already) Leujohn ^(talk)
Per MastCell. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in part b/c of his answer to Mailer Diablo's questions. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry I'm a BLP hawk and I can't in good conscience accept a candidate who I feel doesn't get the BLP problem without good reason otherwise. While I actually partially agree about some of the potential problems with BLP, it seems we are on opposite ends here whereas I'm more concerned about the people harmed by our articles, lifebaka appears to me to be more concerned about our editors which I feel is the wrong approach. While he has decent views on change, it's not enough to make me support or abstain Nil Einne (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I haven't seen lifebaka invest must interest in past ArbCom cases, therefore inexperienced. Caulde 14:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. 'tis not to be, PM-- but much of what you've said was a valuable contribution to the dialogue. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We so desperately need some new blood. Thinking out of the box should be encouraged at this point. Mike H. Fierce! 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Paradigm breaking/Outside the box thinking is an understatement for PM. He would nuke the whole box and build a dodecahedron. Seddσn ^talk 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. I do believe you'd make an excellent member of arbcom. Alas your past means you're not popular, which means you won't get elected. Sorry buddy. Bstone (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
There's always next time, but I think you could have made some great changes this time. Could yet turn around...? L'Aquatique[talk] 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My Giano support this year. If there's someone who might lead the Committee in a different direction without causing a massive clusterfuck, it would be PM. Your only problem is that you tend to get too much into trouble unnecessarily, but the ArbCom desperately needs new blood. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep thinking. S B H arris 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Although you are sanctioned by arbcom until 2008-12-10. Z gin der 2008-12-01T02:55Z (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because no one else would do any better. Prodego ^talk 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, would make great member :) PseudoOne (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Full and total support Thoughtful, logical, honest, and fair. Thinks far outside the box. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolute Support - Per everything above. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Clever and some interesting ideas. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems like a lot of history going on but this time I am willing to chance thinking outside the box and try to get an editor only on the committee for us regular editors. I think the time for change requires this kind of change. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - we cannot solve the problems the ArbCom has by electing more generic suits to fill the seats. Privamusings is certainly an "outside the box" candidate, and that's no bad thing at all. GTD 16:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Drives me crazy, but I am confident would make changes (good and bad) to Arbcom. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's a good thing not to be an administrator in this.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Because content is king. --Moni3 (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Removing comment after reading privatemusings' reasoning to oppose the inclusion of the image in Virgin Killer. All content is king, even if it makes us uncomfortable. --Moni3 (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. My "wildcard" vote. NTWW is what swayed me, you obviously care about the success of this place (but sometimes have the damnednest time showing it). Also, strongly believe that arbcomm should require a non-admin member. Keeper ǀ 76 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I'm not knowledgeable on the drama; seems fine. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) moving to oppose
Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support; has done great work for Not The Wikipedia Weekly, and will bring much-needed new ideas as a breath of fresh air to Arbcom. At least some of his opposition seems to be the same old tired BADSITES hysteria. *Dan T.* (talk) 23:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Someone who still has the original purpose of Wikipedia in mind. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—PM has great ideas, energy ... and originality! He'd be working in a team, where diversity often helps. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Seriously have no idea what it is that people have against privatemusings. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I am voting for a team of candidates that will bring a mix of voices to the committee. This is my chosen "voice of the people" (non-admin) candidate. Grika Ⓣ 16:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support due to a clear understanding of how bad secret trials are for the project. Cynical (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I approve. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I believe that communication and transparency are two areas that need work. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I support this candidate because he thinks openly; something that is sadly lacking at present. Poltair (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. I like the good Private's work on NTWW and the Chapters' Council. I REALLY like his 5 big ideas and the fact he is a non-admin and an outspoken outsider. And I'm impressed that he still loves and believes in Wikipedia after all these years. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
(moral) Support, there's some odd things in the candidate's history, but he has really cleaned up recently. Not only that, but he promises to do some very basic commonsense things (like ... promising to actually communicate? ;-) ... ) that already put him ahead of several of the sitting arbitrators, in my mind. Would be very interesting to see him on arbcom, though I can see from the opposes that it won't work out this time. Too bad! We'll have to give Privatemusings more time to dazzle us, and who knows, maybe next year. :-) In the mean time, Privatemusings does set a kind of baseline. Don't accept less! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The ArbCom needs different voices. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome levels of support I changed ideas, but hey, i do support him... screw the opposes.... Read this only :D --Mixwell!^Talk 02:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support This candidate would add a valuable and useful insight and perspective to Arbcom discussions. He thinks well. Giano (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I trust Privatemusings, and think that the minor drama he was involved in makes him likely to provide a much-needed viewpoint that most of Arbcom lacks. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has a lot of good ideas and would bring a very different point of view to the committee. Rje (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
support per your 5 big ideas. You've got my vote, and that's something I haven't given in quite some time. ILovePlankton (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A non-admin perspective could be useful. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 08:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
50 supports. aye matthew ✡ 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Still have concerns about experience and other factors but decided to give chance due to BLP views Nil Einne (talk) 13:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: He has seen some of the problems with the status quo and has reform ideas. Geogre (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, although not unqualified. I am not without worries, but on the whole I should quite like to see PM on the committee, largely consistent with the "wild card" reasoning set forth supra. I am, I should say, quite pleased to find myself situated on the same side as many users for whom, and for whose judgment, I have great respect, and I am very happy that many of us have undertaken to avoid the reflexive opposition (or, at the very least, deep concern) that any editor might have at the sight of the candidate's name (most of the opposition, to be sure, is principled and reasonable, but the tenor of a few "oppose"s disconcerts one and suggests an unwillingness to engage in a more-than-cursory analysis; in voting one is [and should be] permitted, of course, to be as capricious as he or she might like, but I'd have been especially heartened were the community to have shown itself to be willing to take a flyer on this candidate). Joe 06:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see the discussion page for my rationale Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --El on ka 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mattinbgn\^talk 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kuru ^talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful oppose The general difficulties in managing this candidates editing (which I support, FWIW) provide no confidence in them working within the ArbCom. Sorry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Butterfly. No interest in content. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Sorry. Avruch^T 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~

Abstain. Avruch^T 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Sorry, but i had to do this. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't think this user would be of any benefit to ArbCom. A "net negative" if you will.--Koji† 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate your candidacy for its humor value. David Shankbone 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Troubling history. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --B (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very much creative thinking in the candidate statement, which I hope the arbitrators consider. With more time passed from the past drama I'd be open to reconsidering. --JayHenry (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not now. Sorry. MER-C 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings has become a great editor, but it's just too soon after being banned by ArbCom himself. Altogether too controversial for a position like this. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. You still have many bridges to mend first. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Grsz ¹¹ 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I know little about this editor, but somehow it seems to me that anyone currently the subject of an active RFC should not be a candidate for ArbCom. Daniel Case (talk) 05:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - user has a track record of not listening to consensus or what other people have to say. This is not a good quality in an arbitrator. //roux editor review08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No, but thanks for standing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - you have some interesting ideas in your "big five" and I considered supporting. However, you continued, and apparently unprompted, appeals to Arbcom on behalf of a user who had accepted a lenient block of a few months have made me question whether or not you're actually capable of listening to arguments. Unfortunately, nothing I have read recently has dissuaded me of this opinion - maybe next time? Fritzpoll (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, not as strongly as I'd expected, I like the five ideas, but you're under ArbCom restrictions yourself (and for good reason), and want to expand BLP far, far too much. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Judgement concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong 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 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose too much of a sense of humour to be an arb.:) What I mean is he lacks that auctoritas.:) Sticky Parkin 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I do not trust in your abilities for this position. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Although it directly answers the classic of Quis Custodiet, it strikes me as not such a great idea to have an arbiter who is, or recently was, under mentorship. >Radiant< 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Affectionate oppose. I don't think he's demonstrated the consistently sound judgment that I'd expect from an Arb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like an interesting and good-natured fellow, but I can't support him for this particular role. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Same thinking as MastCell: can't support him for this role. Great guy and very knowledgeable in a number of Wiki-related subject areas. Not this year, though. AGK 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not. Serious past drama, and current behavior does not inspire confidence. GlassCobra 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well, sorry man, but I have to oppose because you need more experience handling issues. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
opposeI don't really want a political arbcom.Genisock2 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
not an admin. Synergy 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I see some really interesting ideas in the ACE2008 statement, but the statements by Lar and Durova at the Request for Comment make me come down on the side of opposing. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - The proposal of Wikipedia:Sexual content turned me off big time. --harej 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Too scary. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose means well but not suited to the job. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cheeky.--Wetman (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I've always thought that Privatemusings was a single-purpose account of another user. Even if this isn't true, the appearance of being so utterly disqualifies someone from being on ArbCom. --Cyde Weys 04:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I would never support an active member of Wikipedia Review for any post on Wikipedia or anywhere else for that matter. Grace Note (talk) 06:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Awful behaviour. –Moondyne 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Can't support someone who has been banned and subject to major ArbCom restrictions in the last year. Hut 8.5 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
RelHistBuff (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wider scope of activity necessary for the job. --Stormbay (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Throwawayhack (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose You're a nice guy, but... you have a long history of just not getting it. I am trying to be nice here, but this shows seriously terrible judgment. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"Please make me your only oppose vote" sort of comes across as an attempt to make opposition a false dilemma. Badger Drink (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- not IMHO an editor of/with good judgement. Gnan garra 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I think that Privatemusings is one of those dissenters which any community needs as a balance, but I don't think that his judgment is trustworthy or consistent enough, nor do I feel his experience is sufficient for the task. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Privatemusings has been banned before and could possibly be untrustworthy. Need to contribute more to Wikipedia. Math Cool 10 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Don't get me wrong. I do want a non-admin arbitrators. But you don't have the participation needed to take the job. Marlith (Talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - sorry, but your block log really isn't what I'd expect from an arbitrator or anyone would lose respect in the system, not that it already is on the low....--Comet styles 07:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was going to abstain, but your edit to the arbcom results page was pretty much it for me. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't perceive that this candidate appreciates the inherently thankless nature of the job, nor has the temperament necessary for it. --Orlady (talk) 05:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I would definatly support you if this was WP:RFA because of your 5 big ideas, but your edit to the results page dropped the nuke on this vote. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thoroughly nice chap but with a history of questionable judgement and a lack of necessary self-criticism. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Dramaqueens not needed.--MONGO 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Hasn't displayed sound judgement. utcursch | talk 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Carnildo (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppse - Garion96 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because previous blocks and current RFC show that the candidate does not listen to reason. SilkTork *^YES! 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Some good ideas, but history concerns me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - concerned about block evasions, etc Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Choess (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose apparently pro-censorship and knee-jerk policy formulation. Would have supported otherwise. Verbal chat 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. People with a fascination for drama are not the best people for dealing with it. ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have good intentions, but previous history with ArbCom doesn't sit right with me. I have concerns over his censorship of the Virgin Killer article, also. — Manti core 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: His current continuing spamming of his failed proposal for a sexual content policy makes it clear to me that he doesn't have the impartiality and respect for consensus and standard practices that I would expect in an arbcom member. Fram (talk) 07:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Seems to have a hard time listening to people. multichill (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hobartimus (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Not confident that the user has the necessary good judgement to be on the ArbCom. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose in order to avoid injecting more drama into ArbCom than necessary (or already present). --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not satisfied candidate has enough experience. Also while I wouldn't consider being an admin a prerequisite if the candidate genuinely never wanted to be an admin for whatever reason I'm not convinced this is the case here Nil Einne (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per User:Lar/ACE2008. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (not my only oppose either--not ready to throw that monkey wrench around). — xaosflux ^Talk 05:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
There were some good statements by some supporters, but what Fritzpoll wrote tipped my scale. — Sebastian 09:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - decent views on BLP but views on discretion by the arbcom tipped the balance (see my talk) Nil Einne (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - inconsistent judgement; not enough experience. Caulde 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I like your 'Five Ideas', but your history doesn't give me confidence in your judgement. Neither does your failure to accept consensus on Wikipedia talk:Sexual content. Terraxos (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. DS (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Needs to stick to articlespace. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Strong support. Cool Hand Luke 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Only (Considered) Support Again, I shall be supporting only one candidate and, despite some other very worthy candidates, this is the one I feel is the best. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
upgrade to Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Support Willking1979 (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, and personal trust. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - smart, ethical candidate with good tracing records of dispute resolutions Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support but only if you promise to keep up the amazing effort. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Most definitely. :) krimpet ✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Experienced, trustworthy and chock-full of good old common sense. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not always in agreement with Risker on various things, but agreeing with me on everything is only one characteristic of a great arbitrator. There are others, and Risker has them. Avruch^T 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Wise, fair, does not play people against each other, etc etc. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Consistently impressive. Ceoil (talk) 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong strong support, great candidate and no fool. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Tenmei (talk) 19:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good content editor with the encyclopedia's best interest at heart. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Yes, definitely. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Will make an excellent Arb. GJC 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per content contributions and answers to User:MBisanz/ACE2008/Guide/Risker. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Smart, calming, incisive, really cares. All-around super.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 03:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Have had a strong positive opinion of this editor since before they became an admin, and nothing I have seen from them has shaken my impression that they are intelligent, mature and capable, good people skills, and will manage well in the sort of difficult multi-faceted situations ArbCom has to deal with. Orderinchaos 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The fact that she was essentially drafted into running for ArbCom gives me confidence. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Risker has a lot of experience at ArbCom. She is level-headed and sensible and I believe she would make a great arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Outriggr § 05:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Eusebeus (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Although I disagree with Risker on a lot of issues, I trust this user to be fair - and you can't ask for more than that in an arb. Brilliantine (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support لenna vecia 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: good brain, good editor and a safe pair of hands. Giano (talk) 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Avenue (talk) 10:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oldelpaso (talk) 10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Clueful, insightful, intelligent. Yes please. //roux editor review10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, seems levelheaded and likely to come up with useful ideas, and doesn't seem likely to exceed ArbCom's scope or try to create policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Nancy ^talk 10:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Woody (talk) 12:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Verbal chat 12:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very solid candidate. Moreschi (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ATren (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RxS (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support -I have significant points of disagreement with her at present but I am confident that after she is elected, she'll come around just fine. But more importantly, Risker knows where her towel is. And then some. Thank goodness ArbCom in its infinite wisdom recently passed over making her a CU so the workload didn't scare her off. why my vote? blast me for it! ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I trust Risker's judgement. Karanacs (talk) 16:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. From her honesty and high-class contributions over time, Risker is the perfect candidate, even though the Utopian rhetoric of her election statement makes me feel old and cynical. Bishonen | talk 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC).
Support. She gets it. That's all. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Alæxis_¿question? 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my questions: good answers. Acalamari 17:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 17:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support I opposed her RfA, don't know what I was thinking. She'll be the token hockey loving representative to the ArbCom. Enough for me. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support- Allegedly is female. We need more female arbs, so women can approach about problems with sexual predators on wiki etc. One is not enough as there would be cases where anyone is friends with someone and should recuse (speaking generally, not about any specific case.) Sticky Parkin 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
support - Yay, Risker! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have the sense we frequently don't agree about various issues, but I have to respect and support the mature and thoughtful attitude on display here. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Close decision. Davewild (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If I could support only one candidate, Risker is who it would be. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support on the balance, she will, I think, be a reasonable arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clearly a net benefit to the project. spryde | talk 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support MikeHobday (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as I suckered her into her RfA, how could I not subject her to more torture...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the soundest, calmest, most sensible contributors I've seen, and a real asset to the project. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Franamax (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Forgive me, I think you're a suitable candidate. Support, and may God have mercy on your soul. DS (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He handled wonderfully a BLP where I was implied. Very good judgement. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ...Modernist (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Best of luck. GlassCobra 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - seems level-headed, with good answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 00:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
User is very qualified, but I might have chosen more than 7. I am glad he will get in without this vote. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Apparently I can vote for more than 7 and I am glad I am voting for the right candidate.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dr. e X treme 01:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A ni Mate 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Moni3 (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Khoi khoi 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Keeper ǀ 76 03:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was impressed with Risker's responses to the questions.Nrswanson (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems to have clue, and Arbcom needs more women. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Everyking (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Too smart to pass up. I wince at "education levels", "social skills" and "English usage" in the candidate statement because I get tired of seeing cultural "explanations" used as a mendacious cloak for blatant, counterproductive attacks and time-wasting. On the whole, though, Risker clearly has the purpose of the project in mind in her thinking. --JayHenry (talk) 06:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as I think Risker would do well on ArbCom. I agree with many of the comments above as well. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tikiwont (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Bucketsofg 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jayen466 14:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aude (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Novickas (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for her stated commitment to ask questions and gather information, rather than relying on the flawed evidence system. I hope she follows through with this idea. Chick Bowen 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes! ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support MOOOOOPS (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—m acy 02:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support knowledgeable, clever. --Raayen (talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - of course! She's a super admin - I've seen her at work many, many time. Does a tough job with minimum drama - Alison ^❤ 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 05:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
DrKiernan (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Careful, considerate, diplomatic, and committed to the principles and policies of Wikipedia. Geogre (talk) 10:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Natcong (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support Outstanding track,civil,impartial ,diplomatic and yet firm after careful consideration of track.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Clueful, level-headed and highly experienced - exactly what we need on the ArbCom. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yes! ~Eliz81^(C) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tony Fox (arf!) 22:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support vi5in^[talk] 23:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jo, --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. R. Baley (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support per comments by PMAnderson below. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The ability to remain neutral in disputes while remaining warm and courteous is quite important. Risker manages to embody this, in my view. Kylu (talk) 05:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support:^Law_shoot! 06:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly don't see why not. Grand master ka 06:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Versa geek 07:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Chapultepec (talk) 08:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - answers to the questions look generally very good, and I'd be lying if I claimed not to be influenced by the number of names above mine on this list belonging to users I highly respect. Mild reservations, that I hope will be taken under advisement: i. I would much prefer that all arbitrators divulge their identities to the community; ii. I'm not sure Risker demonstrates a full appreciation of the dysfunction of Wikipedia's current governance model (though she hits some of the points); and iii. I'd encourage Risker to do some reading into the BLP problem (Wikipedia Review and User:Doc glasgow/The BLP problem are both excellent resources in this regard), as her answers in this regard are somewhat lacking. I've fully reviewed the opposers' rationales and do not find them persuasive. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support dougweller (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A man in space (talk) 14:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tony (talk) 16:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Tinu Cherian - 18:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. BuddingJournalist 18:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I have been unable to support any candidate so far, due to either not knowing who they are (neutral, no vote), or knowing exactly who they are (oppose!) from their actions and constant entanglements in drama over the past year. I've seen your name quite a few times over the past year in several messy 'warzones', but I am putting my faith on you not becoming a drama queen like several of the other candidates and sitting arbs. Please don't make me regret this. SashaNein (talk) 19:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A voice of sanity. Support. Kosebamse (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A very decent candidate. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Solid, long-term, stable and decent Wikipedian. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A first-class Wikipedian. Poltair (talk) 22:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Supporting both a good candidate, and to counteract the ridiculous opposes. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 02:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for someone who sees more than "science" in their world view. Julia Rossi (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Hans Adler (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. One of the best candidate options. --Hectorian (talk) 14:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support N p holmes (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't too familiar with you in regards to arbcom matters, and as a result I actually read your answers to some of the questions, as well as looked through some of your DR participation. What I found is a user who makes a lot of sense and knows what they are bringing to the table. The second place standing almsot surprised me at first, but after reading up on you I find you deserving of it and my support. Wizardman 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cactus.man ✍ 20:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support: looks like a very thoughtful candidate. We need someone who is ready to take responsibility, but also give every issue a thoughtful analysis. Randomran (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Was intrigued by Sandy Georgia's comments, but it was really something that touched me in the statement above that did it for me. Tiamut^talk 00:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Kubigula (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Has the right attitude to me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - AdjustShift (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a good person though at this point I'm not sure that an ArbCom is even a useful thing to have. Haukur (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Jd2718 (talk) 19:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - The very first candidate I've voted for. Nandesuka (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Pointillist (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 00:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
Support --VS ^talk 01:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Michael X the White (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Iamawesome800 16:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Highly qualified candidate, no concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Great, trustworthy editor. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Most definitely.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
—Dark ^talk 06:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support talks to the little guy ;-) cojoco (talk) 10:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Knows clearly who ArbCom is, what it does, and what he will do should he be in it. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support Seems to know when to drop the hammer, and when to let the little things pass.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Strong Candidate. Risker did once imply she'd help me out with a copyedit that she never delivered - but that's hardly sufficient to sink an otherwise outstanding candidate. Wily D 21:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gives every evidence of both being able to keep track of a towel and point others towards the linens closet. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support; I am very impressed by candidate's opening statement and my review of candidate's contributions. I belive that this candidate's big picture view is a guiding light that can assist in performance of arb duties, and can help provide needed leadership on the committee. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per excellent answers. I believe she'll bring good things to the table. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the better candidates tgies (talk) 05:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — clue detected. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 06:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Parishan (talk) 07:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Aynabend (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Thought I already had. Clearly not. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Although I am reluctant to put Risker on the receiving end of my vitriol when the Arbcom makes bad decisions, I expect these occasions will become less likely with her on board. Amerique^dialectics 17:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hús önd 22:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Fred Bauder and Elonka. Skinwalker (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Just what we need on the committee - a strong, intelligent, assertive woman. :) Sarah 00:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A reasonable and level-headed candidate. Certainly wouldn't hurt to get another woman on the committee either. Rje (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Dacy69 (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Vintagekits (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, not only on basis of good statement, but the fact that some folks I respect also favor the candidate. Having had no interactions myself w/ the editor, that seems like a fair metric. --Jim Butler (t) 17:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --- The Myotis (talk) 21:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bikasuishin (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: no concerns on timeliness, keen willingness to learn, and outstanding answers to my questions (although they fell a little short in Questions 1a and 2). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 3. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as overall very impressive, good analysis on civility, slight caution that a neutrally-worded description of pseudoscience is liable to be unacceptable to its adherents unless it's weaselly enough to give credence to their claims. Answers to "what is it?" should really be verified from third party expert views rather than from proponents. dave souza, talk 13:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Banjeboi 14:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
miranda 16:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 22:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support For various reasons, in particular the opposes don't convince me and I liked your answer to my questions - you've clearly done your homework before standing. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 22:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Arbcom needs more clueful women. --Kaaveh (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support she seems a decent candidate with a good view on BLP and okay views on need for privacy and discretion Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ruslik (talk) 19:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
support E104421 (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JavaTenor (talk) 05:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sarcasticidealist puts it as would I, only more concisely and persuasively. Bonus points, by the way, for objecting to the breadth of the the "footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision, which, for the reasons I set forth, amongst other places, here, reflects all that is wrong with the committee. Joe 06:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, per Kelly Martin. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wkdewey (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Stux (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Alf ^melmac 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Have witnessed her inflaming conflict rather than resolving it. Epbr123 (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a reflection of your judgment nor activity; but you've only been an admin since May. I'd prefer the candidates be more experienced in this area before becoming arbitrators. Good luck, anyhow. Rjd0060 (talk) 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not ready at all. Prodego ^talk 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't really see anything groundbreaking or anything that shows how ArbCom needs to change from its current state. I can't support a candidate who even gives off the impression that they'll bring more of the same. Mike H. Fierce! 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Caspian blue 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I believe her judgement is clouded on too many issues - mostly involving civility and vested contributors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Has no clue about the purpose of Wikipedia, escalates conflicts. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — Sorry, but this candidate;s support and enabling of vested editors at the expense of those who have only been here a few years encourages conflict; also this candidate's refused to answer questions regarding a very recent instance of this. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really a fan of people who achieve so much in so little time, you became an admin just in May this year and though I'm opposing now, and if this doesn't pass, and you apply next year, I will certainly support..--Comet styles 07:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Am uneasy about this candidate. At RfA that would probably earn a neutral. For this position, it's an oppose. Sorry. --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Vocally supported by some of our worst editors, the sort ArbCom should restrain. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - wikipedia needs an unabashedly scientific viewpoint. you failed to support this when given the opportunity. Mccready (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - either evidence is shown to the person it is being used against, or it is ignored. That should be non-negotiable in any project based on fairness. Cynical (talk) 22:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose A decent person, however one who has a tendency to be dogmatic. As a result this individual fails to sufficiently investigate the issues and seems prone to arbitrary and arrogant actions. Haiduc (talk) 11:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too likely to be reasonable. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Ryan and Matisse. Sorry. —kur ykh 02:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not support enforcement of Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 20:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, has shown the kind of partisan politicking that I hate to see in any administrator, muchless an ARBCom member. suggesting the images that show "bodies of [American soldiers" should be deleted from the project] without explaining how it's any different than the countless images of dead Germans, Bosnians and Jews that we host. Arguing that "any" image taken by Afghan militants should be deleted as "propaganda", removing a short .ogg video clip of a watch being taken off a body from [[w:Looting article because it showed an American soldier, when coming across a content dispute, simply deleting the freely-licensed image of three dead American soldiers and suggesting that the user who removed the image, breaking WP:3RR, should not be punished, after his/her attempt to simply remove it from the article was reverted. Not a good sign for an admin, even worse sign for ARBCom to have someone clearly "voice their opinion through the autonomous use of admin tools to silence opposition", deleting files they don't want listed on certain articles instead of using talk pages or user talk pages. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. My single interaction with that user, where he criticized an admin who warned an uncivil user, didn't leave the best impression on me.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 06:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. S B H arris 02:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Caulde 14:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
-- lucasbfr ^talk 21:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

It's time we get somebody like Rlevse on the ArbCom. Civil he is, great featured article work. I'm also impressed over his work on Scouting here on Wikipedia. Unlike most of the other people fielding candidacies, I believe that Rlevse is running solely to better the project, not for power. Rlevse has also served as an ArbCom clerk which in my view he has been pretty fine and it is good experience for an ArbCom candidate. I've also had the honour to work with Rlevse, interactions with him were quite tremendously positive. He is really helpful and abuse isn't even possible, however we all make small mistakes. The candidate has also answered their questions thoroughly and good. --Kanonkas : Talk 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course!--Caspian blue 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support - Shot info (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Rethinking my support. Moving to ~~neutral at the moment~~ oppose. Shot info (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support based on personal trust. Jehochman ^Talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support One of the finest and most trustworthy editors around. Dreadstar † 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Will help fix the committee. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Banime (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Kuru ^talk 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I couldn't think of something witty. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support bahamut0013 ♠♣ 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A very competent user who has demonstrated his ability to mix bureaucracy and article writing. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very competent, very trustworthy. He will help fix the currently horrid process of arbitration. The type of person we need on arbcom. _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gimmetrow 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Compotent and trustworthy, more so than most.--Koji† 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RockManQ^{Review me} 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He definitively got mine. And screw you know who... ;) --Mixwell!^Talk 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible ever Support iMatthew 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support--Terrillja _talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Hanging back for now, though I'm sure it doesn't particularly matter either way. ~ Riana ⁂ 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Excellent editor who puts the encyclopedia first over drama. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, though I'd be a tad worried [seriously] his contribution record would give some of his more fool-like colleagues dignity. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely L'Aquatique[talk] 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll miss you as a clerk, but you were always too good for us :) Daniel (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(o_O I edit-conflicted posting this??!) Über STRONG Support (at risk of being slightly ridiculous). If I had to choose just one to support, it would be a toss-up between Rlevse and Wizardman. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JodyB_talk 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I worked with Rlevse at a couple of his FACs, and was immediately impressed with his dedication to quality content as well as his respect for other users, even those he disagreed with. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Quality and what we need. rootology (C)(T) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the names I hoped to find here. GJC 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
David Shankbone 03:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Strong candidate, hard worker, almost no drama, has a mature outlook and even temperament, unquestionably part of the community - all things ArbCom needs right now. Orderinchaos 03:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
CIreland (talk) 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ethnic wars need a strong hand. Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Obviously the right pick for the job. —Mizu onna sango15^Hello! 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BJ^Talk 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. Eusebeus (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rational, level-headed, intelligent, well-rounded, and mature. A prime example of the kind of temperament suitable for the committee. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
B (talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Great all-around user, effective as an admin and 'crat. What's not to like? Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 05:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. I have ultimate confidence that he would be fair and do an excellent job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support لenna vecia 07:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. So Why 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support; my daily read through of WP:AN and WP:ANI has left me with the strong impression that Rlevse has all the skills (intelligence, maturity and whatnot) required for this role. Steve ^{T • C} 08:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.-gadfium 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Smart, civil, level-headed, excellent bullshit detector and concomitant refusal to be taken in by the bullshit detected. Precisely what ArbCom needs. //roux editor review09:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No real conflict between crat and arb duties I think. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Absolutely no reservations. Ronnotel (talk) 10:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support My only regret in posting this is that we will lose a valuable clerk. - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Woody (talk) 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support My workings with him in WP:SLR convinces me to do so. Taprobanus (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support easy choice, good editor, handles the heat fine, likely to remain objective. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very fair, keeps a cool head, good skills when dealing with difficult people. First hand experience watching Rlevse untangle some real messes. 100% support here. Montanabw^(talk) 15:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC))
Support Karanacs (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: yes. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful Support I think losing him from Arbitration enforcement to become an arbitrator will be a net negative for the project. I've not seen any better arbitration enforcement admins this past year when I've been watching and participating, and doubt there are any waiting in the wings. But he would undoubtedly be an improvement to the committee, so I must support. GRBerry 17:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support The user has been incredible in every role .He has been involved and hence if he wishes to take further responsibility .I feel I can trust him and trust totally.He is a very cool head ,good skills dealing with difficult people and further is prepared to take calls in close sitution. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I supported Rlevse's RfB, despite believing he'd be better on ArbCom. If he performs ArbCom duties the way he's performed bureaucrat tasks (very well, in my opinion), he'll be excellent. Acalamari 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust him. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I do share the concerns in the oppose section: too many hats, and concentrating offices in one person has turned out poorly in the past - but I'd feel petty opposing on those grounds given the significant positives that Rlevse brings to the table - especially his strong work on WP:AE, which is the single most difficult testing ground for any admin. Best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Mathsci (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse cares more about content than politics, which is important to me. I also liked the answer to my question. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. If he was elected as a plain administrator, he would be granted many of the powers he now has. Good answers as well. spryde | talk 20:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support At least I know I can trust this user, this admin, you have so far that I have seen, not let this community down. In my opinion, you've shown that you're trustworthy, and that you can change your opinion on a situation given new info. Not only that, but you follow through with what you say, unlike some of the past arbcom members I've seen, who have said something, then, when the prerequisites are met, have done nothing different. I hope you can turn this boat around.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
The Helpful One 21:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Suntag ☼ 21:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Strong editor, strong admin, and would be a strong member of ArbCom. --Patrick (talk) 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I opposed Casliber who is probably still going to pass for content contribution, I think that you deal with a ton of maintenance too as a crat.—Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Philly jawn (talk) 22:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support As a rule, I don't like crat to be arbcom as well, but IMO Rlevse is one of the top five wikipedians out there. I am probably biased by the fact that he was one of the first people I met and helped me get my bearings here at WP. But I will go against my concern about 'crats and arbcom and give him a support.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kafka Liz (talk) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. I can think of no-one better to take up the role. haz (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Respectful, great contributor, never abuses power. Bearian (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - strong experience, good statement. Warofdreams talk 23:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. R's got a great head on his shoulders, and ArbCom clerk experience is invaluable. Best of luck, buddy! GlassCobra 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have been following Rlevse ever since his beginning here and have watched him grow in his capacities. I have faith in him.--Rockero (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Great guy and a great Wikipedian. Deserves to be there. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Rlevse is one of the users I trust the most. X clamation point 00:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tend to find myself agreeing with user v often. Ceoil (talk) 01:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. An excellent clerk, admin, and all the rest. Dr. e X treme 01:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- an excellent admin, with a clear sense of rectitude. TimidGuy (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Only crossed paths with him once. He was diligent, willing to support an unknown user with a nasty socks problem and, eventually, helpful. Not every administrator with a similar wikiworkload out there behaves the same way. That, to me, suffices. Mountolive _{le déluge} 02:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Alexfusco⁵ 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Of all the candidates I am most impressed with Rlevse. His answers were fair and insightful, and his experience will be invaluable at arbcom.Nrswanson (talk) 03:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, great candidate. Khoi khoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Keeper ǀ 76 04:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Irreplaceble at Commons. I hope Rlevse will be able to remain active there, time permitting, after he joins this ArbCom which he will. Somebody's got to close Image:Maria-Kotarba-Auschwitz.jpg boondoggle there. --Poeticbent talk 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
+S⁺⁺ Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support a good user with common sense. I trust in your judging. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 10:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
RelHistBuff (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Outstanding Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has consistently displayed objectiveness.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
—DerHexer (Talk) 13:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aude (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm worried that the candidate will be too busy and something suffers. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 15:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Always been impressed with this editor's common sense.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. An exemplary Wikipedian who can be relied upon to exercise sound, mature judgment. Obviously, I have worked closely with Rlevse for the past two years and, to me, he is a role model of all that we expect from an editor/sysop/crat/arbcom, etal. JGHowes ^talk 20:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I got to know him through his selfless commitment to conflict resolution at WP:SLR and can vouch for him. The concerns his opponents raise seem to me to stem from occasional rash decisions, which I don't think would be a problem for ArbCom, since he will be working in a team. As a matter of fact, I am entirely confident that he will push the rest of the team far more often forward than they will have to hold him back. — Sebastian 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. A bit to boring. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Effective admin and clerk, hopefully will bring positive change to the ArbCom. - Fedayee (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have some reservations similar to concerns raised by other users, particularly with regards to Rlvese's stance on the role of ArbCom in relation to policy. Regardless, I believe he will add valuable experience and a needed perspective to the mix. Vassyana (talk) 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support faithless (^speak) 03:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Alison ^❤ 04:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the better candidates. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Quality candidate. — Satori Son 15:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:41, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
Support. Highly experienced as an Arbcom clerk, so he knows the business already; I can't think of a better candidate for this election. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Renee (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yes! ~Eliz81^(C) 20:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support vi5in^[talk] 23:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A steady, fair hand is needed here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. R. Baley (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Strong that is.--Avg (talk) 02:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Trust his decision making ability 100%. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I have had a consistently favorable view of Rlevse's contributions as an administrator, and I believe he has the good judgment, personal commitment, courage, and consistency that the arbitration committee requires. Additionally, his answers to questions indicate the right qualities and insights. --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Already trusted immensely by the community, we would not be overwhelming him with responsibilities as much as giving them to someone who is both already experienced and trusted with them. Kylu (talk) 05:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Good guy for the job. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jc37 10:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support My positive encounters with him have been very pleasant. He is a civil user that is willing to discuss edits. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support Walkerma (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support dougweller (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support hbent (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, decent and honest. Guy (Help!) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BigDunc^Talk 22:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Unpronouncable, but very good refs.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind. Sorry. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 15:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
II | (t - c) 04:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Excellent record and contributions as an admin, clerk, and 'crat, along with very sound judgment. --MCB (talk) 07:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Grandmaster (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sharp-minded member of the community with decent past. --Hectorian (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A trustworthy individual, who I'm delighted to be able to support. His opinions regarding Arbcom reform and our current accomodation of problem users seem to correlate closely with mine. Leithp 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, probably my top choice of all the candidates. Exemplary wikipedian with good ideas for the future. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
With his wide-ranging work and responsibilities, he is a role-model. Shiva (Visnu) 19:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support Randomran (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RLevse is a balanced person, and I believe he knows how to combine his ArbCom duties from his other duties without creating any conflict of interest. — Edokter • Talk • 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support \ / (⁂) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—Tony (talk) 09:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xenus (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Knows how to be civil and objective even when he is dealing with those who hold a different point of view. Haiduc (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I would not treat it as prudent for me to cast a vote in his favour, given my inter-communication links, but considering the more-than-decent knowledge of the wiki, its systems and his practical solutions to problems, I support Rlevse. Caulde 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Vacio (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Seddσn ^talk 14:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support without reservations. --RexxS (talk) 15:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Yep! AdjustShift (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bencherlite ^Talk 16:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Capasitor (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote as you did not have over 150 mainspace edits by November 1st. — neuro^(talk) 16:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Domer48_'fenian' 16:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support yes :) --Mardetanha ^talk 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Jd2718 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Obvious choice. MaxPont (talk) 21:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Animum (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 01:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. An experienced steady hand and just what we need fir Arbcom. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Justin talk 15:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Iamawesome800 16:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - good candidate. John Carter (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Absolutely. Trusilver 18:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - trustworthy candidate.VR _talk 19:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Willful disregard of own conflicts of interest indicates that this candidate has the arrogance and chutzpah to be nearly as bad as James Forrester in the role. Kelly Martin 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giants2008 (17-14) 00:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support abf /talk to me/ 13:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as nom. Seriously though, to be blunt, I trust him, he knows what he's doing, and he'll make a great arbcom addition. Plus he was already trusted with the checkuser tool, there's a big plus. Wizardman 15:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Truly one of this site's great assets and more than worthy of the job. GIve 'em hell! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Rlevse has shown he can be very capable and fair. -- btphelps ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:33, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very dedicated to the project, and does lots of heavy lifting. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support--Dwaipayan (talk) 19:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The clerking experience will serve well, and I trust Rlevse's judgement. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Rlevse's contributions to Wikipedia are entirely beneficial, not to mention diverse. The only thing that tempers my support for him is the fact that I do have some concerns about editors wearing "too many hats," but my trust and faith in Rlevse extends to the belief that he will be able to juggle it all just fine. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 07:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aynabend (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
→Na ·gy 09:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 16:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support — I have no issue with "too many hats". I think that experience in a broad range of Wikipedia areas can be very beneficial. Rlevse is in the best position to assess his ability to fulfill a commitment to ArbCom, should he be selected. His many strong contributions in a wide variety of roles is the reason for this support vote. — ERcheck (talk) 16:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Rlevse has shown he can be very capable and fair.-Phips (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Another log on the fire. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Knows what the issues are. Fred Talk 20:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rgood erm ote 00:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shenme (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- The Myotis (talk) 05:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, a consistently strong editor, and one with more experience working with ARB than most candidates have even being administrators. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support An excellent content contributor. Though I hope he will moderate some of his opinions if elected to ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Vintagekits (talk) 16:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Rjecina (talk) 19:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I absolutely support Rlevse for ArbCom. Rlevse is fair, he listens to all viewpoints, does not allow his feelings to affect decisions, and he is respectful of others. He has 15 Featured Articles, one Featured Portal, and a Featured List that he's assisted with, and he continues this work despite working in multiple areas, showing his deep dedication to the continued building of the encyclopedia. While I would agree this would add another "hat", so to speak, Rlevse has shown his ability to balance his Wikipedia contributions without any problems, and arguments that people shouldn't have "too many hats" seem silly to me. We need all the help we can get here, as Wikipedia grows ever larger and has ever more editors working on it. ArbCom takes a special type of highly dedicated person; Rlevse has proven he is more than able to devote the time and energy it takes to work in multiple areas, and his experience in clerking at ArbCom make him highly qualified to join the committee. The claims of "power hunger", likewise I find silly. Being a member of ArbCom does nothing to increase an editor's "power", since ArbCom is a group, not a single person, they are resolving disputes, not wielding policy power like a dictator. I think that Wikipedia would benefit greatly from the addition of Rlevse to the Arbitration Committee. Ariel♥Gold 00:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - He was one of the admins who helped resolve many issues which concerned Sri Lankan articles. Rlevse always acted civil and neutral in these conflict related areas. I believe that he will be a great addition to Arbcom members. Watchdogb (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --daniel folsom 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
miranda 09:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bikasuishin (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. How embarassing that Wikipedia handles voting like this publicly, but I endorse this candidate anyhow. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the first candidates who have said they feel there needs to be change who I've felt confident supporting. Change always sounds good, but we need to know a change to what and why? This candidate appears to understand well that it's not just the arbitrators fault for whatever problems the AC have Nil Einne (talk) 22:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 23:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Great editor. ~SunDragon34 (talk) 01:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support: Too much "power" concentration is not applicable in his case -- Tinu Cherian - 03:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems to be dedicated to doing the right thing. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Exceptional work, per SandyGeorgia.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wiki Raja (talk) 01:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Banjeboi 03:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --AAA765 (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Experience as a clerk and with CheckUser will serve ArbCom well. — Manti core 12:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. -- Menti sock 13:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolute support - Much of the right criteria for ArbCom.Mitch32^{(Go Syracuse)} 14:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Undying Support - Brilliant, level-headed and trustworthy member of the community. Would be an excellent addition to Arbcom. Mattie ^TK 16:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Tony the Marine (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Stux (talk) 22:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jj137 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 22:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, even though the elections are almost over! SchfiftyThree ^(talk!) 23:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes. ++Lar: t/c 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Per his role in the "footnoted quotes" dog and pony show, which features Rlevse edit-warring against solid facts over a two-year period. Once again, see evidence page. — CharlotteWebb 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose GTD 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"Earlier this year, I had no intention whatsoever of running for ArbCom, ever" does not an active arbiter make. Prodego ^talk 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A well-respected bureaucrat, but I'm not a fan of "hat collecting". rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - he is a great worker but he already got too many hats also I find he too block-happy whan I have worked with him Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too much power concerntration is unhealthy. Pedro : Chat 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't believe this user's temperament is quite right for arbcom, sorry. Brilliantine (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Lar 2b, ArbCom should not be making policy, full stop, especially in less established areas like BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Great guy, will do well, but not in my list of seven. (Can we have more seats please??) John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak 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 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but too many hats IMO. Otherwise nothing wrong here, though. Moreschi (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose same reason as Pedro. RMHED (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose- too much like the current arbs. Sticky Parkin 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose This would be a step backwards I'm afraid. RxS (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Many concerns in answers to questions. Davewild (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Biophys (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BrianY (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's the "too many hats" thing again. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
seresin ( ¡? ) 06:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Cardamon (talk) 08:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 14:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Busy enough as it is. --Folantin (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Great job as a clerk, but not comfortable as per answers to questions. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that this candidate would bring anything unique to the Committee, and their MMORPGish stance on contributions from banned users is a blatant elevation of personalities over encyclopaedia content. Skomorokh 18:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ecoleetage (talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose His stance on fair use aside (which fails to understand core policy), his insulting behavior towards another user is completely unacceptable ([33] "crusade" comment). Further, if you want to join ArbCom, step down as bureaucrat. I agree with hat collecting comments above. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
While "completely unacceptable" is obviously over the top, this comment is an interesting reminder that we're all on a "crusade" in some way; I mean, we're participating not for money of for personal worldly gain, but for some higher goal. We must persistently respect each other's goals and keep in mind that we need people who work towards conflict resolution as well as people who work on image copyright issues. — Sebastian 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe this is the appropriate venue to discuss the merits of his insulting behavior. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I was trying to point out the merits of your message. I have for a long time here tried to see the merits of both sides' arguments, regardless how they are worded. Please assume good faith. — Sebastian 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I've gone through his responses to questions twice now, and I just don't think they're indicative of the depth of thought you'd hope to see from an Arb Comm member. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Step hen 00:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Has no clue about the purpose of Wikipedia, escalates. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised to be opposing an editor I greatly respect but your use of IRC and support for checkuser fishing in some cases is sufficiently concerning for me to regretfully oppose. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Achromatic (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too many hats. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Racepacket (talk) 14:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose stance on science unacceptableMccready (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully oppose Per the rest. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. "Evidence submitted privately that is in fact private should stay with arbcom." - no it shouldn't. Cynical (talk) 22:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think there are better candidates around, sorry. --Conti|✉ 22:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Arbcom doesn't need another civility nanny. Skinwalker (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose hats, too many. Arkon (talk) 01:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Stance on science per this response is unacceptable. Either candidate does not understand NPOV in science articles or has an anti-science agenda. Either way, this is bad for Wikipedia. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Per CharlotteWebb and OrangeMarlin. Either might be enough for me to put aside but the combination is too much. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose based on Rlevse's actions in preventing the addition of reliably sources content to the George Thomas Coker and for his role in the "footnoted quotes" debacle that led to the "BLP Special Enforcement" process. As Arbcom clerk, Rlevse appears to have pushed Arbcom into accepting a case on "footnoted quotes" in which it refused to deal with the subject at hand, inclusion of brief quotations in references. The end results of the case he pushed for: 1) After months of stonewalling, the content he so actively opposed was added to the Coker article, where it remains without issue. 2) User:RedSpruce, the instigator of the "Footnoted Quotes" RfAr, self destructed after several blocks due to edit warring, mostly over footnoted quotes; and 3) "BLP Special Enforcement" turned into an Arbcom decision that was rejected by the community. The failure to properly deal with a clear conflict of interest in the article in question and as Arbcom clerk where he had an active conflict demonstrates qualities that ought to disqualify Rlevse from consideration. Alansohn (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose RayAYang (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SashaNein (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this is at best an evasive answer, which is enough for me to vote no; it may be a dangerous answer. Articles on such scientific topics as evolution and race raise very complex issues concerning NPOV. So far Wikipedia has handled these cases nicely - but only because of special sensitivity to scientific topics. It is not enough for Rlevse simply to refer to NPOV, the whole issue is how NPOV is interpreted and applied in these kinds of cases. If Rlevse cannot provide a thoughtful answer about this, I cannot trust this candidate to mediate or arbitrate disputes. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV simply means that every article includes all pertinent and rational views. This does not mean we include every view. I think the core of a science article should be the consensus of current scientific thinking. For something like physics, this is easy. For something like psychology, it’s not so clear cut but should reflect the mainstream scientific view. As an editor, I would look towards what sort of representative viewpoint is being taught to college students as the major representative viewpoint and what is plastered on poorly copied flyers stuck on street lights as the fringe content. As an arb though, I cannot judge content, because while the viewpoint of science is fairly clear, in other fields like ethnic disputes, there is no controlling expert opinion, even in the halls of academia, there is great divide. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
NPOV does not mean /every/ POV, it means the neutral POV. Let’s use the old example that you don't really need to mention the present day flat earth society in the article on Earth since the neutral POV is so large as to exclude that fringe topic to its own article. The thrust of an article should be its core and not get too sidetracked to other things, though linking to them is sometimes okay. The core thrust of a science article should be the mainstream scientific consensus and view. On a subject like math this would not be disputed much but subjects like social science are less straightforward and then there are fringe theories that aren’t even worth mentioning in a main article. I think this issue has to be handled case by case, some alternate theories are worth mentioning, some aren’t. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I still have some qualms and do not feel comfortable changing my vote. In some ethnic disputes it may be that there is no relevant prevailing scholarly opinion, for example, but I think that social science knowledge is systematically deprecated at least in English speaking countries, and at Wikipedia - when people are the object of study, sometimes everyone thinks that simply because they are people they are experts. Or a linguist thinks that he has the qualifications to judge the work of an sociologist, or a chemist thinks he has the authority to make claims about psychology ... Wikipedia needs to accord to the social sciences the same status it accords to physics and biology, and the more conflict there is surrounding an issue, the greater the need for informed judgment. I am sure you agree with much of what I said in principle, but I am still not comfortable enough to change my vote. That said, I really appreciate the time you took to respond to my concerns, and I think your responses were very thoughtful. It appears to be certain that you will win, and whether or not I change my vote will not make a difference. I know what I am about to say will sound like a cop-out, but if the vote on your candidacy were very close I would probably strike out my "oppose" and abstain, because I do not think you are a bad candidate, I just have lingering concerns. Since the vote is not close, it doesn't matter. Moreover, I strongly believe that one of the greatest thing about Wikipedia is that it provides frameworks for people who even passionately disagree (i.e. far, far beyond any concerns I have about your candidacy) to work together. I am taking the time to write all of this because I respect you enough to provide this explanation, for what it is worth, and also to hope you know that, despite my vote, I am sincere in wishing you well. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Per SLR. That answer worries me. Guettarda (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Pls see response to Slrubenstein — Rlevse • Talk • 03:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jim62sch^dissera! 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
@pple complain 00:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose is too strong a word. Best of luck to Rlevse. I was a bit uncomfortable with his answers. Chergles (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 08:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Slrubenstein above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose S B H arris 22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for anti-science stance. Verbal chat 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - The "too many hats/consolidation of power" argument is very persuasive. Additionally, historical elections of editors to ArbCom who were, in effect, popular through inoffensiveness has worked out poorly. Wily D 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Huldra (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per opening statement. Appreciate your efforts and contributions, but not convinced you are dedicated to this commitment. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Icewedge (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hats/Science/intolerant --Buster7 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Doesn't understand what NPOV is; too much power; seems kind of wrapped up in Wikipedia drama tgies (talk) 05:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seems like a nice guy, but too soft for Arbcom. Amerique^dialectics 17:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I'm particularly worried that the candidate supports civility restrictions while saying, in the same breath, that he sees "no workable solution" to the problem of different editors having differing definitions of incivility. Seems genuinely confused on the notion of impartiality. Confusing answer on science. Rlevse may well be a nice enough guy, but, to cop a phrase I just used elsewhere, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Badger Drink (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Science intolerant. Facts matter. DepartedUser (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing personal about Rlevse himself, I just think we need far less "power" concentration not more and I feel this is especially so for something high level like the committee. Sarah 00:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The answers just don't inspire me, particularly given that this user already has a lot of responsibility. I think we should share these jobs out, there are more than enough willing candidates - and candidates who offer more progressive platforms. Rje (talk) 02:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Xoloz (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Catchpole (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too inclined to act on the side of civility and keeping peace, not enough evaluation of actual impact of editors on the encyclopedia. Per the bad blocks documented here, he has been over aggressive in blocking in the name of Arbcom, doing so without respect to simple arithmetic (blocking for two weeks because of a sanction that specified "up to one week"), and exceedingly poor judgement about interpreting the meaning of the sanction in the first place.—Kww(talk) 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - it really isn't anything personal, but I think the concentration of many roles for a single editor is not only bad for the community but bad for the editor as well, whose work is subsequently spread too thinly Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose problematic priorities . . dave souza, talk 14:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 22:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with no animus at all. I believe this is a pleasant person with good principles, but RFA issues and too great a desire to be amenable do not show sufficient independence for ArbCom. Geogre (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - I've been hesitating whether to express my view here. I see this person as relying too much on "rules" to solve some human issues that can't always be addressed by the letter of the law. More subtlety is needed for arb issues than I believe this person has. Concerned about his lack of a firm stance on the treatment of scientific issues. Additionally, I agree with Gatoclass's view below. Rlevse's interjection of support for a rigid process on DYK "rules" with seemingly no understanding of the underlying issues was extremely jarring and seemed to come out of nowhere. —Mattisse (Talk) 04:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - per this edit a few minutes ago where Rlevse leapt into a discussion in support of an editor who has been disrupting DYK by wikilawyering against strong consensus for days, and for the policy-wonkish proposal made by Rlevse in that same post that every change to DYK should be put before "the community" as a whole rather than decided upon by DYK regulars (does he support the same extreme view for changes to, say, policy pages?) Given the fact that Rlevse also has exactly five edits to Template talk:Did you know in the entire history of the page, this is a disturbingly rash jump into an area of the encyclopedia he clearly has very little familiarity with. Gatoclass (talk) 04:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
And BTW, my explanation for why I think Rlevse's support for the proposal made by another user at the DYK discussion page is so wrongheaded can be found here. Gatoclass (talk) 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Changing my vote from "strong oppose" to "oppose" since I was upset when I made the initial vote, which may have coloured my perceptions. However, I am still sufficiently concerned by what Mattisse termed Rlevse's "jarring" intervention on the page in question, along with his policy proposal, to have doubts about this user's judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 08:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely not Inasmuch as I regard the "footnoted quotes" decision as the most pernicious and worrisome thing to have happened here in some time (the decision, for reasons I set forth here led me, in fact, to scale back my participation here), representing as it does the substitution by the committee of the judgment of its members as to what policy ought to be for the judgment of the community and the failure of the committee to recognize that its scope is limited and that the community remain sovereign (or, at the very least, bounded only by the dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation), such that non-Foundation issues cannot rightly be said to be beyond the bailiwick of the community, it should not surprise that, my liking the candidate qua person notwithstanding, Rlevse is amongst my three last choices in this cycle. Joe 07:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for same reasons as Mattisse and Gatoclass above. No offense to this editor, but when he first jumped in to the conversation I thought from the tone and content of his remark that he was a newbie; it wasn't until later I realized he was up for ArbCom election. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 15:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Too many hats. Sunray (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose EJF (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Though Rlevse is an excellent editor, I would strongly prefer that bureaucrats not serve as arbitrators. Superusers as an institution (not as individuals necessarily) are a cultural problem at Wikipedia. I don't believe a SysopCratCheckArb will understand that or take steps to address it. --JayHenry (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I mistakenly included oversight and medcom emeritus in my initial comment. Rlevse did not have these roles. My apology for the error. 'Crat is the big sticking point for me, however. --JayHenry (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support - Shot info (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and doing the right thing isn't always popular. He is exactly who we need at ArbCom, and I completely trust his ability to put Wikipedia's interests over all else. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Willing to take bold steps and an independent thinker. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support Durova^Charge! 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - good humour is sadly lacking in Wikipedia these days. Cynical (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support Obviously you're an independent thinker. We could use some. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I have to say that I was impressed by your answers to the questions. Leujohn ^(talk)
Enigma ^message 20:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Quite an interesting candidate. Shares my concern on BLP's, is incredibly honest, and I want to see shit hit the fan :) It might be what we need to reform Arbcom. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie. -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- PseudoOne (talk)
Support Sarah 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --El on ka 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Trashing Ironholds RfA format with a temper tantrum was not a demonstration of the sort of behavior I'd like to see from an arbitrator. Avruch^T 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Major oppose, especially over wanting to oppose a nom that was transcribed literally one minute late. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~No way. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ _{Moved to Support}
Bad judgement is a quality I see in this candidate 24/7. I wish I could say otherwise, honestly.--Koji† 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Chill... --Mixwell!^Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good ideas, poor execution. CIreland (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per misunderstanding of WP:OFFICE Prodego ^talk 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Per Koji, basically. --JayHenry (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This candidate, while a good overall contributor, lacks the temperament to be an arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Unacceptable disposition. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If I wanted some lulz, I would have nominated Natalie J:-DD to the ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lacks objectivity and prudence.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per objectivity and temperament concerns raised above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per the answers to UninvitedCompany's questions (what the hell has a cheap potshot on the Beeb have to do with anything?) and the whole "one minute late" incident. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux editor review09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. You could at least tell us what type of beer you like. That's probably good for 20 or so votes... Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For preference Jack or sometimes Jim followed by Beck's. RMHED (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong 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 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per your statement above --B (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Not a serious candidate. What's worse though is that considering your recent attempts to enforce BLP I would have expected something more constructive. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Pcap ping 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not that I particularly like to see the shit hit the fan, it nevertheless strikes me that feces strikes the centrifuge on a regular basis on Wikipedia, and I fail to see how voting for you would adjust this steady flow in either direction. >Radiant< 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose- candidate is random. Sticky Parkin 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
How very true, much like the universe really. Though some cosmologists and those of a religious persuasion may disagree. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per recent block for disruptive editing. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For what it is worth, I am the one who initiated the action that resulted in his block, and I am supporting him. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Even so, the reasons behind the block are not what I would like to see. We don't need an arbitrator who can't distinguish what falls under WP:BLP and what doesn't, sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Judgement concerns. Sorry, oppose. AGK 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust this candidate to do what he thinks is right. I do not trust this candidate to actually know what is right. As such, I must strenuously oppose. DS (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Only a dangerous zealot knows what is right. The rest of us just have to use our best judgement. RMHED (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
m acy 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
He does bring up many valid points however many of his actions, such as going around blanking all unsourced BLPs, are just a bit too pointy. Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
What?! Icy // ♫ 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: Without extensive debate on his style - take a look at his most recent RfA and judge for yourself - I vividly recall the deletion review he filed in which he questioned my rationale and motives for AfDing an article, without troubling himself to notify me of the review. My quote from the RfA was "I also would prefer admins not to publicly question the motives behind a decision in reviews where they pointedly exclude the decisionmakers from the process." For ArbCom, that imperative is ten times as strong. RGTraynor 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about those Maltese Aristocracy articles? If so they were prodded by yourself not AfD'd. The prods were incorrect because the articles had survived a previous bundled AfD, I removed your prods and informed you of the reason why. An admin then deleted the articles anyway, I discussed this with the deleting admin, he wouldn't restore them so I went to DRV and informed the admin of this. So I followed the DRV process exactly as it should be done. RMHED (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
As it happens, the prods survived deletion review, and your rationale shot down for reasons given in that review, but that's not the point. The point was that you asked specifically for the rationale in prodding of a user whom you failed to notify of the review. That lack of communication should be avoided anywhere in Wikipedia; in an ArbCom candidate, it is completely unacceptable. RGTraynor 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
No my rationale wasn't shot down, the DRV was pretty evenly split. I didn't ask for your rationale as it was obvious from your prod reason. I was under no obligation to tell you I'd removed your prods but did so anyway as a courtesy. How is that a lack of communication? RMHED (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
(1) The DRV was closed as Endorsed; that's shooting down your rationale; (2) The following are your quotes: "These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?" (3) As I've said twice now, you did not inform me of the DRV; kindly show the diff where you did and I'll be happy to retract my Oppose. RGTraynor 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
The DRV could just as easily have been closed as restore, it was very much down to the closer's discretion. All those questions I asked were genuinely aimed at the deleting admin and not you. The deleting admin was informed by myself of the DRV. Maybe I was remiss to not also inform you, but the DRV instructions just say to inform the relevant admin. If my not informing you caused offence, then I apologize wholeheartedly. RMHED (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose with weak, subjective answers. Marlith (Talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - This user's worthless posturing over users deleting their own talk pages is made even more incredible by the fact that he actively tries to hide his own. When confronted, he explains with oozing condescension that he shouldn't be held to the same standards as he holds other people. Hell no. TGH1970 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User is ineligible to vote. DARTH PANDA ^duel 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Votes oppose to other candidates pages = Lack of class. --Avg (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC0
Pointing out my "lack of class" is in itself indicative of a lack of class, oh the irony. RMHED (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Great, don't vote support for me then. Oh wait, I'm not standing for election, you are.--Avg (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Nope, the perpendicular is just far too challenging, I'm sitting for election. RMHED (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose لenna vecia 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Due to arguing, above, with people voting oppose. That's not what I look for in an arbitrator, sorry. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Dark and stormy knight (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Wrong attitude for a arbitrator. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - [message redacted under BLP concerns] --Toffile (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hiberniantears (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, for voting for Kurt Weber. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't see evidence of ability to be fair and balanced. Nor of particularly strong analytical skills. And I'm concerned at general lack of effort and clue displayed both here and at own RfA. Candidates statement here and at own RfA is an invite for unwelcome drama. SilkTork *^YES! 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I am not convinced the user is ready for the position. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Bad judgement is precedent over supposed humorous aspects. Caulde 12:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't want to see the shit hit the fan. Martin 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - apologies for pile-on; judgment is less than 100%: see recent RfA. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - The article blankings don't give me a positive feeling, and neither does the behavior demonstrated in other opposes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While this particular candidate has answered my individual questions in the way that I was hoping they'd be answered, this wasn't candidate I was hoping for them from; I can't support someone with the views that they have with regards to BLP. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I definately do not want to see any shit hit a fan. Not with me downstream, anyway; and the winds tend to shift around. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose what tgies (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - There's a lot to like about this candidate (vigour in his approach to the BLP problem, sense of humour, etc.), but just too much to dislike (apparent inability to work collegially being a big one) for me to support. I had to think hard on this one, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Joke candidacy. — Manti core 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — would be messy, too messy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I guess he's not the only candidate running on that platform, but still... Rje (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I haven't had any interaction with the candidate, but my first impression is based solely on this attitude – a condescending approach to others does not suit ArbCom. These are also concerning. haz (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose per Haza-w. --Dylan 620 _Contribs ^Sign! 11:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. JBsupreme (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Candidate statement and several responses to answers indicate he isn't taking this seriously. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose sorry but the shit hit the fan and got on you and you stink. I can't in good conscience vote on anyone that stinks (yes this is a joke, but when you have a statement like that, what do you expect?) Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Far too prickly and not enough conciliatory; unsuitable material for ArbCom. --Rodhull andemu 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't want to see it hit the fan. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose - I agree with him in principle, but not in practice: relatively recently he caused severe disruption by mass-nominating and blanking unsourced BLPs (and got a 24-hour block for it). He gets credit for drawing attention to the problem, but that's not the right attitude for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No That one might imagine that the committee have not gone far enough in substituting their views about what policy ought to be for those of the community boggles the mind. Joe 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Banime (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sam ^Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support bahamut0013 ♠♣ 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Great user, intelligent, not crooked, doesn't mess other people around. Hard worker. YellowMonkey (click here to choose Australia's next top model) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--ragesoss (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Reasonable approaches to most positions. Gimmetrow 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A sound, level headed voice for the community. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
From what I've seen of him, he seems to be a good editor. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We need some fresh voices in ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - excellent grasp of policy, phenomenal at both discussion and conflict resolution, level-headed. In short, exactly what ArbCom needs. Cam ^(Chat) 04:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 04:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Among his many excellent qualities, Roger understands that the role of Arbitrator is much more than what's written down at WP:ARBPOL. There is no doubt he'd be an excellent arbitrator. --JayHenry (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Everyking (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Intelligent, experienced, and keeps a cool head - all useful attributes for this job! Walkerma (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Roger has been the Lead Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject for some time; he has wlays been kind, courteous and helpful, excellent wualities for an Arbcom candidate. Skinny87 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - From what I can tell, he understands policy and understands the need for reform in ArbCom. He gets my support. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Roger has an outstanding ability to work with other editors to resolve disputes and excellent leadership skills. Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has lots of clue, stays calm in disagreements with the most vociferous of opponents. Woody (talk) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support لenna vecia 08:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Dark ^talk 09:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hell yes. Rebecca (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 09:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC). I was only going to support seven candidates, but I'm impressed enough to make an exception.
Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. - much clue, devoted to transparency. Yes please. //roux editor review10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support G.A.S ^talk 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Bellhalla (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support You have always acted with gallantry and with the best of intentions. --Narson ~ Talk • 12:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 14:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support PseudoOne (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Patton 123 16:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I tossed a coin to decide whether to vote for you or Jay, for my seventh (and final) support vote. I trust you both and would like to see you on the committee, but making eight or more would be counterintuitive. So, congratulations on winning my coin toss, although I doubt either of you two actually need the support :P Sceptre ^(talk) 17:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I have been very impressed with Roger in all of my dealings with him. He is level-headed and infailingly polite. I trust his judgement. Karanacs (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Parsecboy (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support on the basis of overall cluefulness and experience as a content contributor. I like the insight evidenced by requesting a one-year slot. I'll admit I found your answers to the questions a bit vague, and the one on NPOV/scientific consensus mildly concerning, but the overall package looks deserving of support. Best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep, few concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Yeah. Ceoil (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
AGK 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. NVO (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~On balance, some concerns in questions but not quite enough to prevent me from supporting. Davewild (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Support Mathsci (talk) 20:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Taprobanus (talk) 20:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support He is always very professional, calm, and a good person to work with on MILHIST stuff.Joe Nu tter 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support per his excellent work within WP:MILHIST. —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good experience, good understandign of policy. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support United Statesman (talk) 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Incredibly hard worker. Deserves it. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - has good track record and relevant experience for ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I voted more than 7, but I am glad user will be elected hopefully. He is more than qualified. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Apparently I can vote for more than 7 and I am glad I am voting for the right candidate.--Nepaheshgar (talk) 07:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Would prefer this user over others running. GlassCobra 00:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support hard working and sans drama. definitely a wikiperson. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
With apologies to Prodrego, Arbcom's first and last job is the protection of the encyclopedia. Everything else is an optional extra. Mackensen (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - very cool, carm, collected and experienced editor who always goes "above and beyond the call of duty" to assist in any way possible. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per above. Khoi khoi 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Aramgar (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, although nearly swayed by Durova below. Your article work and MILHIST experience are skillsets that will serve you well. Keeper ǀ 76 04:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 05:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
+S⁺⁺ Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 08:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
RelHistBuff (talk) 11:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. I absolutely trust Roger; in the time I've known him he's demonstrated great personal integrity and sound judgement, and would be a valuable asset to ArbCom. EyeSerene^talk 13:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Aude (talk) 15:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Looks like a sound Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support --dab (𒁳) 18:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Level-headed, well-respected but not a cabalist, co-ordinator of one of the project's finest projects, understanding of high-end content and how arbitration can best serve content rather than contributors. Skomorokh 18:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
qp10qp (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.Denverjeffrey (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Moni3 (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support See the problems beyond the rules (the spirit of the law) --Raayen (talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Though I think you may later regret being appointed. DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
TimidGuy (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Outstanding track after close review and the user is diplomatic and truly with no axe to grind.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support vi5in^[talk] 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I believe he would serve dutifully and with dedication during his term. He would be an asset to Arbcom.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
You strike me as very similar to the current Arbitrator Kirill Lokshin. If you are cut from the same mold, then you will definitely be an asset to arbcom, and I will gladly support you as a fellow candidate. Wizardman 02:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Someone with the ability to deal with all users fairly and calmly is what we need at Arbcomm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiamut (talk • contribs) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I believe he will do good for wikipedia and is more than capable. Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk | _Sign 16:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Baku87 (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support But please don't let Arbcom prevent you from producing/editing/helping create/maintain quality articles. BuddingJournalist 18:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good head on his shoulders, and a great--and succinct (which I like very much)--answer to my question. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 19:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per the rest. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful support as I fear election will harm the MilHist project, but I have my fingers crossed. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Novickas (talk) 01:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Hectorian (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. If he doesn't get in this time, I hope he stands again next year. Pointillist (talk) 15:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Intelligent, supportive, responsive, well organized. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. In my interactions, I have found the user as quite dedicated and thoughtful.Bless sins (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support. But I warn you as I warned, Casliber earlier- Don't allow the ArbComm's corrupt political culture to change you, instead change it, for the better! R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Randomran (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. —m acy 03:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Emphatic Support. Candidate has expanded his position on confidentiality to such an extent that I now wholeheartedly agree with him Cynical (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—Tony (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. There are those whom I see opposing because they don't believe Roger has the "stones" to make the difficult decisions, to make waves by stepping on the wrong editors' toes. For me, ArbCom should be a good mix of types, so I see no problem with Roger's apparent preference for calm and considered dispute resolution. That he has only made eleven blocks since his becoming an administrator is to my mind a good thing. While often a block is inevitable, we are sometimes too quick to do so instead of making at least a couple of attempts to engage with a difficult user. Oh, and also due to a good answer to the "BLP question"; too often I think we forget that this is just a (well-read) website that doesn't a God-given right to do what it wants. Steve ^{T • C} 09:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
An independent thinker who has dealt with cases extraordinarily in the past. Caulde 12:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Has gained my trust, a good candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jd2718 (talk) 20:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Eurocopter (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- EdJohnston (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support To offset "The Uninvited"'s garbage oppose reason. Very telling of how reliable and competent the current arbcom is. Really sucks that we have to put up with that one past this election, as he has proven time and time again that he's completely unfit to serve. SashaNein (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Appears likely to be ineffectual, a positive characteristic. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Suppport Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - In addition to being a fine editor, his platform of more tranparency and quicker decisions will be greatly beneficial for ArbCom. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Awadewit (talk) 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Canglesea (talk) 18:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Sure. Tex (talk) 19:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
One more. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Great goals in ArbCom. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support Per my reasons. MBisanz ^talk 13:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support and wish my best! --Aynabend (talk) 08:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Read enough, has clue and made the list. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fred Talk 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hús önd 22:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xoloz (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seems to be a good candidate for ArbCom. Ruslik (talk) 10:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, very good answers to my questions (although they fell short in the last parts of Question 4), and timeliness is ok. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 6. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Banjeboi 15:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC))
Support Grandmaster 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
SUPPORT Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kyriakos (talk) 00:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 05:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'v no doubt he'd be an excellent Arb. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've changed my vote to support after Roger convinced me that he's an excellent candidate. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 10:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, changed after discussing matters with the candidate. If there's one thing I'd love to see on ArbCom, it's the ability to engage in calm and well-reasoned dialogue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (rationale) rspεεr (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 02:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ariel♥Gold 04:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, per the answers to Lar's questions (although I'm iffy about the very last one...) Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Although this candidate wasn't one of the seven I originally decided to vote for based on candidate statements and Q&As, I've looked at his wider contributions to the project as a whole, and been so impressed that I want to support him as well. - Gregg (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
No major issues. Acalamari 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support jj137 (talk) 22:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sarah 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Very concerned this editor doesn't have the experience with our "rougher" areas but willing to take the chance. ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I've been impressed with what I've seen of this candidate, and I feel he would be a valuable addition to ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) One of the candidates I initially supported withdrew. Switch to support. Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, but I picked a group that I want to win. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose "ArbCom has a duty to protect the project from harm" mmm, read WP:ARBPOL I don't see that on there. Prodego ^talk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It's implicit in Rules 1 & 2 and explicit in the policy those rules refer to. (See examples here.) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Switched to support. rspεεr (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Answers to questions say nothing - either he doesn't know what he thinks, or he's not saying. Naive on BLP.--Scott Mac (Doc) 12:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not impressed with the conflict around Mrg3105. I don't want such things from an Arb. Colchicum (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hugely Strong Oppose. Franamax (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed from simple oppose to strongest possible oppose based on the candidate's incredibly arrogant pursuit of Durova's oppose on the talk page. Two qualities I look for in any person are good-nature and humility. I see neither here. Simply unacceptable, here goes another disastrous year for ArbCom. Franamax (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 08:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Resolved to my satisfaction, striking oppose vote. Franamax (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The bane of our election process is that it favors people who work hard and don't step on any toes. These people may be great Wikipedians, but are they really equipped to handle the site's toughest disputes? The 2008 ArbCom has been plagued with too many milquetoast pass-the-buck remedies. Remedies that address serious administrative misconduct by asking people to play nicely together; remedies that delegate authority to WP:AE in the form of general sanctions. And as we've seen many times including very recently, those discretionary sanctions can cause more trouble than they solve. It's time to elect arbitrators who have a track record of solving conflict, not sidestepping it. Roger Davies has blocked only 11 people during his tenure as an administrator--which has only been since February of this year. Those blocks were easy calls. You're a wonderful Wikipedian, Roger. But you're too green for the position you're seeking. Come back in 2009. Durova^Charge! 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments ...--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova pretty much sums it up. I think you do a fantastic job on Wikipedia, but while your "when to listen, and when to tell people to shut up" balance is right for Wikipedia as a whole, I don't think it's the right mix for Arbcom. – iridescent 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While I think of you highly as an editor I too have concerns about your current level of experience for an arbcom post. I definitely think you could make an excellent arbitrator in future. I suggest you build up some more experience in conflict resolution this year and reapply in 2009.Nrswanson (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I find the candidate's answers to my questions evasive and am concerned about the effects of a spirit of reform with an absence of specific proposals. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It's unfair to call flatly refusing to reveal personal information "evasive". I am surprised you asked them when you yourself "have discontinued active daily participation in Wikipedia" [because of] ... "growing risk of personal and professional harassment". Also, I outlined priorities for reform in my candidate statement. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
If anyone is interested, I've expanded Questions 1, 2, 3 and 6.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose Pertinent questions asked in good faith have been dismissed, as unimportant. That does not bode well... I would expect ArbCom members to be more transparent. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While the questions may have been asked in good faith, they should not have been put in the first place. Revealing that much personal information would enable a proficient googler to identify me and my home/professional address in no time. A few years ago, an internet nutter whom I had crossed did get my home address (by collating snippets), posted it on forums (where it probably still is), and threatened to fire bomb my house and kill my dogs. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 21:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
<Sarcasm>oh that's not disturbing at all....</Sarcasm> Cam ^(Chat) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I told the dogs all about it immediately, of course. They went and wrote last letters, looked wistfully at bars of chocolate, sharpened their teeth etc :)) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 00:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't have the stones.--Koji† 21:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 23:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~
kur ykh 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - I liked a fair bit of what I read, but I'm chiefly concerned by i. vague answers to many questions, ii. lack of grasp of the BLP problem, and iii. never having heard of Wikipedia Review, which I can't help but to think is sympomatic of a lack of awareness of critique of Wikipedia. My recommendation would be that if he really wants to be an arbitrator, he should spend the next year involving himself in Wikipolitics in all of their unseemiliness and then, if he still thought Arb Comm was a worthwhile use of his time, run next year. Of course, current vote counts suggest that my advice is likely to be moot. Best of luck! Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
At the candidate's request, I have reviewed his recent additions to his answers. I'm considerably more impressed now with his understanding of the BLP problem, but I remain concerned that he's too much a novice to Wikipedia "political" issues (and there is emphatically no shame in not being immersed in Wikipolitics) to be ready for Arb Comm at this state. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk)22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote. Cynical (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Dezidor (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sarcasticidealist Arkon (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose per Durova. Also concerns about answer to Rspeer's question. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per this terrible answer to a critical question. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ per Durova, and because I felt that some of the answers were a bit evasive. (To avoid misunderstandings: I am not talking about personal details, and I can't really point the finger on it.) --Hans Adler (talk) 12:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC) — Now strongly oppose based on completely unacceptable reactions to oppose votes. Another Arbcom member with a huge ego problem? No thanks. This kind of attitude usually leads to candidates failing even RFA. There is no way I can trust this user to be impartial. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I have nothing whatsoever against the candidate but don't know them well enough to support and would prefer to see others in the top 7. If Roger gets in I would wish him luck and have no real problems supporting his judgement based on what I've seen, but I'm not sure that a support would be a vote for the kind of change we need to see up there. I'm also sympathetic to Durova's viewpoint as expressed above. Orderinchaos 08:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposePer all concerns above.--Iamawesome800 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per Durova above. Reading through the answers to the candidate's questions reminds me of the American political philosophy of using a lot of words to say absolutely nothing at all. Every answer is tailor made to offend nobody and keep as neutral a position as possible. Sorry, but I want Arbcom members who are actually willing to make a stand on issues and get bloodied up a little bit, rather than political weasels who are going to create an Arbcom that is going to be every bit as useless as the current incarnation. Trusilver 18:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Comments --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 04:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Durova and (especially) Trusilver, I would want answers that actually take a position, not that have a lot of words but still say nothing at all. Also seems to want to expand BLP, when we need to do the exact opposite. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to support.
Oppose per Durova --Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Trusilver and the general impression I have about the high volume of replies the candidate has for oppose votes, which frankly read as obstinence. I think the candidate would be inflexible as an arb, and resistant to listen first/ decide later mentality that I think is needed on ARB. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switched from support, more recent comments give me a deep fear of what you will support on ARBCOM. Davewild (talk) 08:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose tgies (talk) 05:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
"Oversighting should be limited to removing identifying data (street address, school name, date of birth etc) rather than real names" ← Well no, a real name is often identifying data by itself. Not everyone's name is common to the point of being stereotypically British . Also your responses on BLP seem to endorse the use of double standards and overemphasize the role of "notability", and I'm not seeing much if any prior involvement with the arbitration process. More bluntly I'll admit having never heard of you until a month ago. — CharlotteWebb 19:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Roger has clarified his comment [34] but I still disagree. Some people will accidentally or cluelessly out themselves, but that's no excuse to disregard an otherwise legitimate privacy concern. If you're not willing remove a user's real name from the view of remarkably unwelcome stalkers, what point would there be to remove other information (especially that which any Joe Six-Pack can figure out once they have the name)? Vote stands. — CharlotteWebb 15:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. I came here intending to support, because Roger's obviously a good editor, and I want to see active content contributors on ArbCom. But having read through everything, two things concern me. First, people should be allowed to oppose without being challenged; I feel some of the responses above were too aggressive. Secondly, the answers to most of the candidate questions lack substance and detail. I'd worry that Roger would become too much like some of the ArbCom members we have already. Sorry, Roger, but we need change. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 06:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Roger has convinced me that he's got what it takes. Switching to support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 10:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as concerns about understanding of due weight on science issues, and about inexperience. . dave souza, talk 13:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this time around. Undoubtedly a good QP editor. Perhaps would be a more suitable arbcomm member upon gaining a better understanding of how WP:UNDUE squares with WP:NPOV. Answers to questions also a bit of a concern, as they were somewhat lacking in explanation of his reasoning. .. Kenosis (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Oppose due to the unfortunate intersection of his BLP views and his views on the role of ArbCom in creating policy --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Good views on BLP and decent enough in other ways but unfortunately I feel his views on privacy and discretion by arbcom are a bridge too far into the everything must be public camp for me. For reasons of privacy and others, discretion is sometimes necessari and although it should be used with extreme care but for better or worse and due to the nature of the arbcom sometimes things including trials can and should be kept private. One of the more difficult decisions of those I really looked in to (the current top 10 or so) Nil Einne (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. S B H arris 02:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --B (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Philosopher says it beautifully. Joe 07:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn: I mis-read his Q&A. - Gregg (talk) 10:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sunray (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate because of their strong argument in favor of transparent processes, given the stonewalling I've encountered in trying to get information out of ArbCom regarding the summary expulsions of editors without any public process. However, that was until I read their stance giving unqualified support to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy and even supporting more Draconian measures. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy's grasp would only serve to make things worse, and their support of abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with this editor's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. That said, I am open to discussion about withdrawing or changing this vote, if the evidence warrants. --SSBohio 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
-- lucasbfr ^talk 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ѕandahl ♥ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Michelle would be a great addition to ArbCom. Level-headed in my experience and loves to talk about issues and process them critically. Mike H. Fierce! 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As long as you promise to be more careful with your e-mail? [<-account creation team in-joke] L'Aquatique[talk] 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - intelligent and fair. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Experienced in mediation. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Could do a very good job. AGK 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm surprised to see myself saying this, considering that she just article banned me for a week, and I strongly disagree with her decision there. But overall, I think she's got the best interests of the project in mind, and therefore I must Support. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A very fair minded and savvy admin who seems to have the wisdom needed to be a referee, judge, and juror in the Committee. -- Fyslee / talk 05:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Given the candidate's lengthy history in dispute resolution I'd expect to see more opposers taking issue with Shell's performance as a dispute mediator. The lack of criticism on these grounds, on top of her thoughtful answers, suggests to me she'd make a good and pretty impartial Arbitrator. --JayHenry (talk) 06:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah 09:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Aye ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I don't see anything in the oppose section which can hinder my vote...--Comet styles 06:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter cohen (talk) 10:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A steady, experienced hand is needed here. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 04:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Good candidate and I approve. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
@pple complain 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support based on existing work with the Mediation Committee; candidate has experience, appears to handle conflict resolution well, encouraging with praise, and supporting people to work toward a solution. I believe and trust the candidate's statement that she has a desire to help people and to help move the project forward. SilkTork *^YES! 01:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Has experience and dedication, and my trust. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Dreadstar † 06:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust Shell's judgment, and have used her as a go to person to take over OTRS tickets. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t00:51z
Indeed Ecoleetage (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, seems levelheaded and unlikely to try to create policy. Like the response that footnoted quotes overstepped, not so much that we should "ramp up" default to delete, but does not seem prepared to force such a measure. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. An excellent mediator; I have no doubt that the user will make an equally excellent member on the ArbCom.Bless sins (talk) 15:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like their clue and forthrightness. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I've had nothing but positive experiences with this editor. Dougie WII (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I liked most of the answers to the questions (though I hope she'll take another, more critical, look at how consensus is working on this site, because I think she's mistaken in her belief that it's scaled well). I didn't find any of the opposes persuasive, especially in light of her specific commitments with regards to recusal. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Rivertorch (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 07:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support views on BLP. Also some decent idea on protecting confidentiality. And we do sometimes need less touchy-feelyness Nil Einne (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --AAA765 (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shell was amongst those about whose candidacies I did not take a voting position last year; my ambivalence persists this year, but I guess that I am persuaded that the candidate would prove a nice addition to the committee. Joe 07:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Shell's no nonsense style, her knowledge of WP and her experience—especially her mediation experience—make her an excellent choice for ArbCom. Sunray (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - perfect candidate for committee. Caulde 14:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Epbr123 (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Has some imteresting ideas. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mathsci (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose extremely troubling conduct from this user makes me believe that this is the worse possible candidate listed. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Disappointed with some of her handling of OTRS tickets. krimpet ✽ 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I came to support, but have reconsidered, and now I feel there are better candidates for the committee. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Was aggressive towards me in the past while trying to defend a friend of hers on the wiki. Definitely not suited for AC. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Don't trust candidate's judgement. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - there are better candidates; not enough experience in content. Maybe next year? //roux editor review10:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Less drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to concerns about impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 12:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This was bizarre. Moreschi (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
On balance. Davewild (talk) 20:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 00:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per User:SandyGeorgia. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Maybe next time. I am really on the fence with this one but not totally comfortable yet to vote for. Want to see her stand on her own more and not back her friends, sorry, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Excessive favoritism.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not entrely comfortable with her judgement of situations Gnan garra 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Questionable past judgments that were not neutral. - Fedayee (talk) 04:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lacks judgment in matters involving allies.--G-Dett (talk) 00:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
opposeSlrubenstein | Talk 19:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Law courts have secret discussions before handing down the vertidict. How different is it with ArbCom? (I'm not saying ArbCom is a wikiLaw-Court, but it functions a little like a law court) Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, simply put, there are more qualified candidates out there. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — xaosflux ^Talk 05:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose although with no animus. Geogre (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ouststanding contributions including being a key player in pushing for a resolution of the Mantanmoreland fiasco. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mantanmoreland case... sounds familiar. Good work there. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Among many excellent candidates SirFozzie stands out. Through two years of interaction he has demonstrated consistent integrity and willingness to handle tough situations. Only one candidate this year earns my strong support and Fozzie's it. We need more people on the Committee who take the bull by the horns. Durova^Charge! 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weakly, per rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Change to oppose, based exclusively on election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support GTD 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tom B (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sam ^Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support: User has just great judgment and a fine ability to reach across opposing view points and pull people together. Fossie is exactly the type of person I would like to see on arbcom. In general I trust his judgement, but in particular his input to the troubles about the troubles was exempalary. This is an approachable, considered and balanced editor. Ceoil (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I like Fozzie and I think he does great work. Some temperament issues in the past give me pause, but hopefully he will keep a tight rein on himself while serving on the committee. Avruch^T 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We need more critical thinkers like him. Mike H. Fierce! 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
User has great judgement skills and is highly outspoken, basically what's needed from an arbitrator ..--Comet styles 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Durova sums it up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sir Strawberry. All you need is the Quixote lance. S B H arris 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Willingness to stick by his principles and call bullshit as needed is needed. This would be a great fit for Wikipedia. rootology (C)(T) 03:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
CIreland (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Burner0718 ^Wutsapnin? 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for the same reasons as given by Durova (above). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, especially for his work in making The Troubles less troublesome. This is exactly the kind of WP experience that will benefit him as an arb. General good judgement IMO. Brilliantine (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support لenna vecia 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - would be an excellent addition to the Committee Fritzpoll (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absoloutely per Durova. Viridae ^Talk 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
[http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?act=ST&f=82&t=21083&hl=&view=findpost&p=143319 I'm a man of my word. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
weak support I like some things he's suggested at WP:AE, such as in a dispute between User:HighKing and User:TharkunColl,he was very even-handed. However, I will strongly want to see recusals or ruthless attempts at impartiality if any cases or requests for arbitration involved wikifriends of his or other Wikipedia Review contributors. We don't need the backing up of friends/the politically favoured that's been suspected of the current arbcom. Sticky Parkin 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has done good work in tough areas. Here's my major concern: too willing to see (ID)cabalism not only where it does exist, but also where it clearly doesn't exist and is simply employed as a thought-terminating cliche. You're a critical thinker - just be sure to apply that across the board. I'd also suggest, if elected, that you carefully and prospectively define a scope of recusal, given involvement in some previous disputes. All of that said, I think SirFozzie's qualities outweigh the negatives, and so I'll support - not without reservations, but on balance I think you'd be good for the Committee. MastCell ^Talk 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think so, yes. Support. AGK 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Seems to have some mediatorial (<-- new word) experience; that's nice. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Goods answers just outweigh concerns. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - but only because he blocked me indefinitely without any justification and never apologised. I admire chutzpah. (In moderation). Sarah777 (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ya betcha. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical !vote, no strong feelings on candidate although their participation at Wikipedia Review shows an ability for critical thinking, and is a virtue rather than the crime the kool-aid drinkers below make it out to be. Skomorokh 23:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Mantanmoreland case clinched it for me. Dr. e X treme 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Caspian blue 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust this user. A ni Mate 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I trust his judgment. Rockpocket 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Durova. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I trust this user and agree with his proposals, for the most part. Enigma ^message 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
east718 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hardyplants (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about SirFozzie, but after further thought and review, he has my support. Acalamari 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support reform of ArbCom --Cameron * 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Always a voice of reason. Always a voice actively building community. Always a voice of humor and good humor. A voice ArbCom needs. David in DC (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
— Ѕandahl ♥ 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support - per the opposes (which are uncompelling) and mantanmoreland. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good, outspoken, thoughtful user. Marlith (Talk) 03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - of course! Durova puts it better than I could - Alison ^❤ 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Narson ~ Talk • 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support TimidGuy (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Go Foz! :) ~Eliz81^(C) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - User has displayed qualities necessary for ArbCom IMO.--Zereshk (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Achromatic (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Node (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Was on the fence, but he generally has the support of other users whose opinions I greatly respect. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I feel SirFozzie has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. He has my trust in this. Kylu (talk) 05:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
HaeB (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
support. He has a great judgment. --Wayiran (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A man in space (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, admirable work in the Mantanmoreland case; displayed good sense elsewhere -- Noroton (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has displayed a cool head and a willingness to hear out various opinions. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I am happy with this users experience and attitude. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Would do well.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Shown good judgement and the ability to work with difficult editors in various Troubles-related situations. —ras52 (talk) 12:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for judgement shown MikeHobday (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support For being brave enough to mediate and help out in controverisal issues, many of which other admins politely ignore and pretend don't need help. Needs to be more precise and exacting in judgement, but for bravery and a willingness to help, you should be supported. --HighKing (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Iamawesome800 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —CComMack (t–c) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I've observed SirFozzie handling some very difficult issues and always been impressed with the cool headed way he has handled them; despite severe provocation. He has been exceptionally brave in taking on some very controversial issues but has always handled them impartially. Justin talk 23:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giano (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Willing to keep a cool head in tackling very tough situations. Choess (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Works hard and has taken some good courageous actions. We haven't always agreed... Ty 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't have much direct interaction with SirFozzie to draw upon, but I have an overall positive opinion of him. I think some (some) of his ideas about ArbCom changes are a good idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support good sense of judgment. --Raayen (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - why? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Some misgivings along the lines of Rspeer and MastCell, and not thrilled with the Joe the Plumber thing, or lack of article work. Still, on balance I'm willing to go with Ceoil on this, and to trust my gut that Fozzie would be an independent voice who would keep things shaken up. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kafka Liz (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Snappy (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A rare voice of reason, and trustworthy. --Rodhull andemu 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Arbitration Committee needs new blood. I think some of his ideas on change are good ideas. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Has shown even handed approach on contentious pages around Irish issues and the ability to act when necessary. --Snowded TALK 10:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good views on BLP and overall seems to have what it takes particularly re the MartinMoore case Nil Einne (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Switzpaw (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Per my reasons. MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Gregg (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - sound judgement on what I have seen. Caulde 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose because.... wakka wakka wakka Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - immature. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mixwell!^Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A little too much drama history for my taste. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Immature, too interested in wikipolitics, and somewhat lacking in sympathy and kindness towards those who are not in his own group of friends. ElinorD (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Talking about "SPOV versus NPOV wars" is the wrong idea of the role of science on Wikipedia. Treating it as a "war" undermines neutral science, and therefore Wikipedia's educational purpose. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was on the fence, several of the opposers here concern me, and while I can agree with reducing the term to 24 months, with a maximum of one additional term maybe, ... "Elections every six or eight months" is major turn off. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Keeps his finger on the trigger much too often. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarah 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
TorstenGuise (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I hand-counted exactly 150 mainspace edits as of 10/31/2008; Since I live in Ohio, I did a recount; I got the same result. Could you recheck this evaluation? --SSBohio 19:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - this was a tough one for me. I think it boils down to: there are other people who would be much better suited. Maybe next year. //roux editor review10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too wikipolitical --B (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too involved in drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong opposeOrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per SandyGeorgia's analysis, three times as many edits at AN as to the top five articles edited. Also too prone to initiating conflict; concerns over partiality (per ElinorD above). Finally, Wikipedia policy and enforcement should be determined openly on-Wikipedia, rather than being determined at Wikipedia Review and then ported here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Does not have a level head. --Patrick (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. ArbCom people should grasp the nettle. I don't like the way he fudged Rspeer's question "re scientific consensus."Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per John Vandenberg. Decent positions and level-headed enough, but elections that often would be an extreme waste of time. GlassCobra 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. I find myself agreeing with much of what you say, but I think you have a tendency to get overly embroiled.--Kubigula (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Khoi khoi 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - incites drama, stirs up trouble, picks fights. And does so after he makes appeals off-wiki to de-escalate a conflict. When I did as he asked, he turned around and whipped the issue into a frenzy. Guettarda (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
"Strong oppose - incites drama, stirs up trouble, picks fights." - Look who's talking! Viridae ^Talk 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Snide personal attacks aren't helpful -- or even on-point here, Viridae. Your above comment is wholly gratuitous. Try to exercise some self-control. ;) deeceevoice (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
On absolutely no account. I'm astonished at some of the people supporting this guy. I'd be blocked if I gave the reasons but let's just say that the arbcom is already enough of a circus. Grace Note (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Does not have a judicial temperament. Cardamon (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose unsound William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per John Vandenberg.Nrswanson (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, your past actions seem indicative of a desire to further engage in drama than work towards solving it. In particular, certain comments I have seen you make at various forums (most of which are, incidentally, always drama-ridden) are not comments that I would like to see from an Arbitrator striving for a model of neutrality and calm perspective. Sorry. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
R. Baley (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Strong~~ Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose deeceevoice (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BigDunc^Talk 16:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
opposeSlrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - "Would I make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Yes" Cynical (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jim62sch^dissera! 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--MONGO 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too many issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too conservative. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Tim! (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Like as an editor and respect their point of view, but not every editor makes a good arbitrator. Orderinchaos 10:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Tried to delete Joe the Plumber (through DRV) based on an overly expansive view of BLP. Wkdewey (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with apologies, as I greatly admire the openness in which you have pulled together people of polar viewpoints; but your response to Rspeer's question raised a red flag for me -- Samir 22:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to support elevating pseudoscience to the same level as science in the answer to Rspeer and support additional BLP measures (possibly created by ArbCom, called the BLPSE fiasco a "good first step"), both of which earn my oppose. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Might be too quick to jump into a fray rather than sit back, de-escalate, and dig to the root of the issue. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose tgies (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Changed to Abstain Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I would disagree with you on matters of shortening your term, since, In my opinion, two years is not enough to acheive the goals in your candidate statement. Leujohn ^(talk)
Strong oppose response on scientific consensus fails weight, pseudoscience and fringe, have noticed unhelpful interventions on science related disputes. . dave souza, talk 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. I think you're even-handed on the Ireland articles but I'm concerned by your actions at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names/Evidence#Evidence presented by SirFozzie. You're the only editor so far who's contributed evidence against another editor. I don't see any evidence that this is a case about poor editor behaviour. I don't really see any. I just see alot of tired, exhausted editors struggling to find consensus, and failing not though want of trying but because it is an intractable and apparently irresolvable content dispute based on an honest difference of opinion. DrKay (talk) 10:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. You do not have 150 main-namespace edits on or before 01 November 2008, you only had 36....--Comet styles 10:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll find I have over 14000. But I shan't push the issue. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. but a bot told me to do it :p ..it will be nice if you use this account instead of the doppelganger to sign the oppose thus making it legitimate :) ..--Comet styles 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I simply can't be sure that the candidate, his admirable and surely sincere professions of his appreciation of the limited role of the committee and of the community's being sovereign (or, at the very least, bound only by the dictates of the Wikimedia Foundation) notwithstanding, will not undertake to substitute his own judgment about how BLP ought to be constructed for that of the community; such judicial activism is, to my mind, the most troublesome thing to have occurred here in the past year-and-a-half and so earns an automatic oppose (even as Fozzie is not without qualities that might serve the committee [and thus the community] well). Joe 07:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose - While I have great respect for this candidate's work on Mantanmoreland (I think he's actually the only person running to whom I've awarded a barnstar) and Troubles-related nonsense, I think he's left too many questions unanswered in this election. I also didn't care for his answer to Rspeer (though I think others are being a little too hard on him over it), and am concerned that he might be too prone to drama and burnout. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I like SirFozzie's answers, but actions speak louder than words, and I've found this editor to be willing to make decisions based on moral panic and appeal to emotion rather than core policies in my experience of him. While he's supported by editors I admire, I can't in good conscience, have his candidacy stand unopposed. My decision is not cast in stone, however; I am open to discussing it. --SSBohio 18:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected. I personally supported SirFozzie but agree his appointment would be inappropriate given election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, (ec) while there's much to like, I can't support because of his 6–8 months elections advocacy and answer to Rspeer. Also, WR activity is not to my taste for a person to be on Arbcom. JGHowes ^talk 00:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

HiDrNick! 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You see, this is what the Arbcom needs. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Earnest Support. It may be tilting at windmills, but I actually think his would be a valuable voice to have on the committee. There are fifteen or more Arbs on the committee. I think having one single voice out of the fifteen be a bit of a gadfly would actually be of enormous benefit to the project. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Change to oppose based only on election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Jehochman ^Talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I feel TFMWNCB offers the best chance of bringing real change to the ArbCom, and he's a darn nice fellow with it! GTD 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, aftr a lot of thought. I don't agree with most of what he says, but I think it would be good to have someone opposed to the current setup but willing to engage in dialogue, and of the "outsiders" TFMWNCB seems the most credible – iride scent 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I would offer you cake in addition if I could. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - This edit says it all. That not only shows TFM's serious side, but a philosopy which will benefit ArbCom. Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What Kablammo said. Seriously. Steven Walling (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Gets it. TFM has huge clue, and has just great judgment. Widely respected by the content people. After Bishz and Catherine bit the dust, this is the man we we want to stand up for us. We are supposed to be here to write an encylopdia; not play pathetic power games, and I think TFM has a good grasp of that fact. This is no joke nom, its a serious bid to return the encylopdia back to the people who write the encylopdia. The days of power brokers like D Gerard and T sidaway are long gone, and frankly anybody who doenst realsie that shouldn't be here; instead should be just at home with their MORPG, or however its spelt. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— CharlotteWebb 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support Extremely level headed user who has not been "sucked into" the vacuum of Wiki politics and drama. TFM is here to work for the better of the encyclopedia and its users, not for an ego trip or a power grab. While I'm sure that most Arbs start out with the best of the intention, the sad truth is that the the politics and drama of wiki-admin life corrupt and distort even the best of folks. We truly need a breath of fresh air in the Arbitration Committee and someone like TFM. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support S B H arris 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support, would bring genuine wisdom and the right focus to the committee. --MPerel 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Sandahl. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I think you're right - the list of famous Chihuahuas should probably go. It's becoming a monster. --David Shankbone 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support per SandyGeorgia's excellent, detailed analysis. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Humane, sane and somewhat inane. RMHED (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Toffile (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- A good number of the people who have chosen to project a strong online personality into wiki-space in matters administrative, frankly, give me a creepy feeling [just allow me that, ok?]. The Fat Man has also chosen this path, and is one of the few to do so in a humanistic way. Beyond the frivolity and humour he projects (which I often find quite entertaining), there is a serious and independent analyst who understands what is good for Wikipedia and will not be sullied by political games. To redesign an oppose: "Principled dissent and criticism are extremely valuable in any community and collaborative project - but dissenters who want to join the power structure need to be able to work with people in the environment they seek to join, and arbitrators need to have a cool temperament. I see that in this candidate." TFM communicates well in formal venues and is the epitome of cool temperament; why would we assume his addition to the arbcom would reduce its cohesiveness? (Which, from this distant view, would seem to be no mean feat.) –Outriggr § 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As only one voice of fifteen I can't see how his occasional foray into satire would be detrimental to the committee. I hope everyone read his answers because they're quite thoughtful, and his sharp mind would quickly flag the committee's forays into the ridiculous and add a welcome new dimension to ArbCom's thinking (if, that is, the ticking aneurysm time-bomb of his cholesterol-laden arteries don't deprive us of his clear thinking). --JayHenry (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. I think this would do the committee some good. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per everybody else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Well meaning candidiate who clearly wants what is best for the project. Giano (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oldelpaso (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has to be the most on the ball, clued in person on WP. The jolly corpulent exterior hides it well. Viridae ^Talk 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. More clue than 90% of our current arbs. Tex (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Some say this is a joke candidacy. No. Cut through the vast layers of blubber (sorry!) and get to the meat of this candidate's views and you will find someone who is exceedingly clued about what needs to be done, and knows how to get the change we need. Last year I supported Giano because I feel ArbCom needs a contrary voice, a gadfly. FatMan is that voice this year, and this may be my most controversial support, but I could do no less than to weigh in (sorry!) in support. Laugh at my puns but think about my words, and his. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Leatherstocking (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Fat Man understands why we are supposed to be here - to build an encyclopedia! Although he does not have the number of contributions I would normally look for in a candidate, from my experience working with him I see that he is willing to go above and beyond to make sure his edits are really meaningful. I highly doubt that he would ever be corrupted by power, and I think he has boatloads of clue. His would be an interesting, and I think highly insightful, voice on the committee. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Think outside the box. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— Deor (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Change is good. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Great attitude for an encyclopaedian, just what ArbCom needs. Skomorokh 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A ni Mate 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Rividian (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like the cut of his jib! Seriously, though, he's a very good critical thinker. Arbcom needs more of those. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.Nrswanson (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Some people will be surprised to see me support TFM, given his comments about me in various places (which I think are due to a misunderstanding). Be that as it may, the direction of the encyclopedia needs to be returned to the hands of the people who write it, and I think TFM will help to do that. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. BrownHornet2 says it very well. I disagree with his comments on the badlydrawnjeff case, in particular his apparent assumption of moral deficiency towards those who disagree with the outcome of that case. However, he'd perhaps be the kind of fresh air that the committee needs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
+S. Humor brings people back to reality. Besides (and more importantly) he Very Has Clue. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 09:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — After a lot of thought, I agree that this candidate may be exactly what Arbcom needs. I also see him as humanistic, sane, and a good critical thinker. He maintains an independent and unique outlook that is sophisticated yet respectful of wikipedia's original idealistic values. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- while some may think of him as a "joke candidate", what we need is new and different ideas and not the "same old stuff". (I'm voting on the same side as SlimVirgin on something? Weird!) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Fat Man. Because you are you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xavexgoem (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Extremely hopeful support. He's just what we need... sense of humor, perspective, and a keen eye for what's wrong with the wiki. Dr. e X treme 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good answers with a good track record of participation on ANI and related. But I don't like fat people, but it works for ArbCom. Marlith (Talk) 04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --DeLarge (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I think the voters calling this a joke don't understand the candidate—his sense of humour, his insightfulness, his honesty. I think The Fat Man could do much excellent work on the committee. Marskell (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - with delight! I've never come across this user before but, based on answers to the questions, he will be the perfect arbitrator. (Anyhow, if a fat guy from Brooklyn can't cut through the crap, no one can!) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Achromatic (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - although I'd prefer the experience of an admin, I also like the idea of you not being an admin too.. gives some balance at ArbCom and maybe you can smack a few of them down a peg or 27. I'll consider my vote for you as my vote for an ArbCom "at LARGE" member.. one that isn't in cahoots with the system (cabal?). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Namsos (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support but largely as a protest -- if it looks like you could win, I'll switch to oppose because, while making Arbcom members a little uncomfortable with the looming threat of your being seated, the prospect of the years of torture and ultimate doom I expect you'd inflict on them is something that would just pull too much on my heartstrings (on the other hand, if you were blocked during your arbitratorship, it would set a good precedent; plus, you'd also be two for the price of one and I always like a good volume discount) -- Noroton (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Krusty the Clown. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Saw too much drama somewhere, but Moral Support for what was said. SashaNein (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support A super candidate; bright, articulate, and brimming with common sense. Poltair (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent communication skills. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
hell of a platform Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support I echo Poltair's assessment. Superlative candidate for the challenges facing ArbCom and the community as a whole. His responses to the General Questions bear re-reading. Lulletc (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. He gets my wafer thin mint ...could add a lot of value. Where's the risk? Pointillist (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cube lurker (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support—Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support I would not normally support a candidate like this but I have seen enough that I like to warrant doing so, as have some others who I highly respect. Orderinchaos 10:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Good interactions in the past, with reasoned responses to situations give me the impression he's a good candidate. Caulde 15:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --VS ^talk 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Ashley Y 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sense of humor is not a disqualification, if he knows when to turn it off, and I believe he does. Insightful and articulate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - he can't do worse than the previous lot. Give him a go. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Not an admin. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. One down, six to go. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Iamawesome800 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Elbutler (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Because Ceoil says so! Oh ... And because I like nice "jokes"!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support because of his light touch and sense of humour. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - try as I might, I can't bring myself to oppose. Too reasonable. Fails to grok the problems with comestic but nonfunction solutions (i. e. OPTOUT, AOR) fully, but almost everyone does. Not deal breaking. Wily D 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
What the hay. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Dougie WII (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to present this humble offering in great anticipation of your triumphant appointment. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Suport mdavies 965 (talk

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-groupthink support 138.162.0.41 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this election. You must have an account. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cautious support. ~~I probably have more reservations about this candidate than about any other who I'm supporting,~~ and I probably wouldn't want an Arb Comm consisting in its entirety of Fat Men. But I like most of his answers, he's got a good record as an in-house satirist, and an Arb Comm where he makes up 6.7% of the membership (more, if we're measuring total tonnage) just might be better than one where he doesn't. Besides that, this can be considered a bit of a protest support against the opposers who argue that candidates should be de facto robbed of suffrage (or should be allowed to use it only to support). Godspeed, you corpulent reformer. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Inconsistency - The IRC bot "ACEVoterNazi" says that Eoin is ineligible to vote, but Pathoschild's script says otherwise. Please do not indent any vote by this user. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support For improvements. --Raayen (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Lithoderm 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanLesch (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support THE GROOVE 07:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
strong support sumal (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Great answers to questions •CHILLDOUBT• 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I read some of his postings other supporters linked to above, & as Ceoil & Lar point about above, he gets it. The fact that our absent fat one is not an Admin is irrelevant -- especially AFAICS he never asked to be one. Adminship is only a request to use certain tools, & if he doesn't want them he shouldn't be penalized for his lack of desire. -- llywrch (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - It would be a good thing to have an "outsider" on the ArbCom, for balance. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Will bring needed fresh outlook to ARBCOM. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongly Support - Any enemy of betacommandbot is a friend of mine. I think he would be a startlingly fresh voice and would do a wonderful job, and if betacommand opposes him, he must be ABSOLUTELY GREAT!!!!!!!!139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I'm somewhat concerned that an outside doesn't fully comprehend how difficult a job being arbcom is but I feel in balance there is enough good things ton support. Also feel he has right views on BLP and role of arbcom and concur with view on need to support expert contributors Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Intelligent, considerate and beholden to nobody. Precisely what we need right now. --Rodhull andemu 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Il Grasso your insight is what ArbCom and the 'pedia need right now and into the shapely future. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ateshi-Baghavan 11:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Had I not been aware of the Fat Man's delightful demeanour and mature common sense before, his refreshing answers to the questions would have been enough to convince me.
For all the fun that playing Wikipedia may entail, this project is after all an integral part of what is often segregated as "real life"; and to fulfill its stated goal of building an encyclopedia it needs to follow the laws and mores of the land. I think that the Fat Man will greatly contribute to remind the Arbitration Committee of this fact. - Ev (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Bop --NE2 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Though if you take a break, please do come back. :) Acalamari 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 22:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Come on back :) jj137 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sarah 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Waltham, The Duke of 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. Gimmetrow 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Unsportsmanlike conduct toward fellow candidates. Durova^Charge! 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Serious concern about judgement given his comments and opposition toward other candidates. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Appears to be a joke nom by a non-admin and self-proclaimed "parasite" on Wikipedia. Further comments and diffs available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He's a funny and thought-provoking guy, but I don't think ArbCom is right for him. krimpet ✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Principled dissent and criticism are extremely valuable in any community and collaborative project - but dissenters who want to join the power structure need to be able to work with people in the environment they seek to join, and arbitrators need to have a cool temperament. I don't see that in this candidate. Avruch^T 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per Avruch - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Repeated trolling at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision. ElinorD (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I would no sooner vote for TFM than I would for myself.--Koji† 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mixwell!^Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much of a loose cannon. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Far too trollish. John Reaves 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Can I say no fucking way under any condition should this user be an admin let alone ArbCom member, refuses to maintain a reasonable size for his talk page among other issues. β^_command 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
All users should please maintain reasonable standards of civility on the ArbCom voting pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-admin, not enough experience and has been a bit pointy. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Although much of what Fat Man has to say is true, I think he would be better off on the sidelines pointing out problems rather than trying to solve them. Captain panda 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"My candidate statement says I will use my immense girth to promote policy reform from my lofty ArbCom throne, and I stand by that statement" ... Prodego ^talk 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose per trolling mentioned above [35], [36]. --B (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for new blood, but sorry, honey, you ain't it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ralph Nader was a great whistleblower. After that, he was a bad political candidate. Just saying. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While my impression of The Fat Man is a positive one, from what I've seen in his comments at various discussions, he is not properly tempered for ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Unsuited for the job. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. You are very helpful and useful in some regards, but you are not what I look for in an Arbitrator. Kingturtle (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Thanks, B and the diffs just make me acknowledge that Lar is a very open-minded and generous man.--Caspian blue
-- Avi (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much bad faith --Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Although I don't really know the candidate, it seems like someone who is quick with messages like this without double-checking the facts first is probably not going to be able to sort through the evidence in the ArbCom cases well. This is on the assumption that The Fat Man Who Left but Returned a Short While Later isn't his own bad hand account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely not. Seems to be at lengths with Wikipedia policy in his comments. —Dark ^talk 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While I think your goals are good, and I've agreed with many comments you've made here and elsewhere, the community hasn't placed trust in you via RFA/you haven't requested that trust. Please RFA and run again next year. //roux editor review10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose User indulges in trollish behaviour, inserts images to replace text causing disruption, uses wikipedia as a forum on his talk page, very low number of mainspace edits. DFS454 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
User has only 22 edits ..--Comet styles 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this year. Maybe next, absent any negative developments. (Election then would be unlikely if your current track record continues.) Sorry, AGK 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Need to gain support from community by RfA first, then demonstrate balance and judgement as an admin before coming here. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A weak and conflicted oppose. A fascinating character; the answers to the questions show real insight and thoughtfulness, and this was genuinely one of the finest moments I've seen on Wikipedia in a while - it speaks very highly of you. Still, the realist/cynic in me says that this editor and this role (Arbitrator) are not particularly well-matched. Best of luck, in any case. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Krimpet, Rspeer and Captain Panda, to name but a few. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Echoing MastCell here; highly torn on this one. I've seen TFMWNCB around quite often, and have been impressed with his loquacity. I'll be reviewing the answers to the questions more closely and may revisit my vote here. I also would like to express my extreme disappointment with votes from people like Elonka and ElinorD above; accusations of joke noms and trolling are highly unwarranted and inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per concerns above. Khoi khoi 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I love the guy, but I can't support someone who's supporting further letting BLP run amok and having ArbCom make policy (including that) by fiat, even though, as usual, I'm not sure if he's joking or not. Besides, I think he's much better for the community in his current role. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Krimpet summed it up. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful oppose I would have liked to, but some explanations did not agree with me. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful Oppose Generally a nice platform but I think BLP should be made less of a Sword of Damocles hanging over articles before it is further strengthened. I also don't feel this candidate is quite ready yet. Unlike others I don't view adminship as a prerequisite for arbcom, but I feel this year is just too soon in this particular instance. Brilliantine (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Dark and stormy knight (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
My encounters with him have suggested he's not the consistently cool contributor we need on ArbCom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors who better reflect my views and who otherwise would be better suited. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for good reason.Eric Barbour (talk) 10:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 12:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Not ready for the position in my opinion, previous conduct concerns me. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
No. SilkTork *^YES! 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BrianY (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too reasonable for ArbCom. Does not take Wikipedia seriously enough, either. Kelly Martin 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Garion96 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Poor attitude tgies (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't think he has the right attitude for this, but I do think some of his suggestions are interesting. Rje (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
OpposeGeni 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Hobartimus (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Not an admin. — Manti core 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose despite admirable drollery and some good answers, the cavalier attitude to others and failure to engage with science question is troubling. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose deeceevoice (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — xaosflux ^Talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Xasha (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The candidate's conception of the proper role of the committee is far greater than mine (and than that of the community, at least as previously expressed, a failure to appreciate which [see, e.g., the reply to Mailer Diablo's second question: "In my view, the ArbCom has a community mandate to propose specific and meaningful reforms, and once declared, should work hand-in-hand with the community to engender support and implement them"] is itself worrisome), and inasmuch as ArbCom overreach, particularly in the context of BLP issues, relative to which the committee are ever eager to substitute their judgment about what policy ought to be for that of the community and to exceed their mandate, is one of the biggest internal problems facing Wikipedia, I can't support. Joe 07:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - doesn't have the right attitude for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, despite SandyGeorgia's delightful statement of support. JGHowes ^talk 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected. I personally supported TFM, but agree his appointment would be inappropriate given election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--A Nobody^{My talk} 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. ST47 (talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support. EconomicsGuy (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good opening statement. Xavexgoem (talk) 01:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - really nice guy. --harej 02:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical Support, I would have preferred to see more answers to questions though. Wonder if the other tactical supports were for the same reason as mine? Brilliantine (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical Support - You all know why. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Tactical support - this user isn't suitable for arbcom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Despite some reservations, this is by no means the least intelligent candidate, and does not deserve such a low finish. --JayHenry (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Candidate statement might be full of lies. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 18:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin. --El on ka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, some demonstration of competence is required for the job. —kur ykh 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per answers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per [nonexistent] answers to questions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
lol wut? --Mixwell!^Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Joke? RockManQ^{Review me} 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
At least some measure of knowledge in Dispute Resolution should be shown prior to ArbCom.--Koji† 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MER-C 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the candidate's good-faith in running, but (s)he lacks the experience needd to be an arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you are a nice guy! :) Mike H. Fierce! 05:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to being a nice guy with no other real qualifications. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Also no dispute resolution experience. Please RFA, gain experience in WP:DR, and run again. //roux editor review09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose165 edits is insufficient in my opinion to show you are sufficiently involved in this community to serve on Arbcomm this year. Get more involved in things like wp:fac or wherever else in wikipedia that you find enjoyable and I'll reconsider in a future year. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Being nice is great, but more experience is needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Possible joke candidacy without a great deal of humour. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inadequate activity level. GRBerry 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not experienced enough yet, but thanks for volunteering. :) I feel it's important for the arbcom to be administrators, as they will deal with things that require the admin flag (such as deleted revisions). Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
AGK 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not enough experience, not active enough. The Helpful One 21:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. m acy 02:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Nrswanson (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seriously, is this a joke? ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose nowhere near enough experience or commitment. Hut 8.5 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. RGTraynor 20:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Badger Drink (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Without answers to questions, and a one-sentence, ethos-filled statesment. It looks like this candidate isn't even trying. Marlith (Talk) 04:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lacks experience and just over 140 edits, seriously..we should have a nomination criteria next year !!..--Comet styles 06:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Not a serious candidate. Looks to me like you're trying to make a joke of this election and you even fail at doing that. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Michael Snow (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose After looking at your answers, I'm thinking if you even care about this job. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose - Not a serious candidate. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too little involvement with the project. SilkTork *^YES! 09:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't like nice guys!--Michael X the White (talk) 12:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, just being a nice guy doesn't work. - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure you're a nice guy, but... Tex (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose candidates should fulfill the requirements for voting before being allowed to run. Also, this candidate has not put in sufficient effort into this process, which I would suggest is indicative of their interest, and predictive of their likely effectiveness in the position if elected, which I belive would be sadly lacking. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This ain't no disco! --Buster7 (talk) 19:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose This ain't no foolin' around tgies (talk) 05:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Didn't even bother with a statement. — Manti core 07:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not with the program. Fred Talk 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Horses are the only four-legged candidates I would support... Rje (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Less of 200 edits in total--Rjecina (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 04:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose sorry I'm not a nice guy Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — xaosflux ^Talk 04:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - So you can apply to be an Arbitrator with 143 edits but you have to have >150 to vote? Score one for Wikipedia. Switzpaw (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
per Switzpaw. — Sebastian 09:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too inexperienced; unable to deal with difficult issues at ArbCom as demonstrated by sporadic answering of questions. Caulde 14:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seddσn ^talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~El on ka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Switching to neutral. --El on ka 00:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Honey, i support. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Intelligent and NPOV mediating with Prem Rawat articles. Momento (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike H. Fierce! 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Effective mediator, no concerns. Will make a fine arbitrator if elected. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
support Kingturtle (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, fair-minded, intelligent, hard working editor. Dreadstar † 07:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, insightful answers to questions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was impressed with the answers to questions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong candidate. —Dark ^talk 09:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. - Good mediator. Am concerned with responses regarding my questions on civility, but hope it will become better explained when V has a seat. //roux editor review09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Jayen466 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott Mac (Doc) 11:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Folantin (talk) 13:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Useful voice at FTN now and again. Oppose concerns are unimpressive. Moreschi (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Verbal chat 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Colchicum (talk) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~. Changed vote to Abstain. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Since Mervyn Emrys's eligibility was incorrectly rated by a bug in the software (which bug has since been fixed), a discussion about whether his votes should be counted or not is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --El on ka 02:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar CU confirms Mervyn Emrys' eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 16:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has a degree of humility that would help to make a fine arb. ElinorD (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xavexgoem (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support NVO (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I guess you could call this a "strategic support". — CharlotteWebb 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Most absolutely support. AGK 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good answer to Mailer Diablo's second question. Davewild (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good answers to my questions. Acalamari 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good answers, and I have always been impressed in our few interactions. I think he has exactly the right attitude.--Kubigula (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support iMatthew 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes; I've been favorably impressed on a number of levels. I think his judgement and experience would make him an excellent Arbitrator. If elected, I'd suggest consideration of recusal parameters per some of the "opposes" below. MastCell ^Talk 22:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not afraid to take strong stances, platform is distinctive, to-the-point and compelling. Skomorokh 23:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Every time I encountered him, he had sound judgement on issues. Feet firmly planted on ground. Good answers to candidate questions. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 00:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support GlassCobra 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Intelligent, able to resolve disputes, good judgment, steady, even handed, educated. TimidGuy (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportNrswanson (talk) 03:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per above. Khoi khoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 03:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Moving to oppose. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A fine, upstanding editor who will make a good Arb. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Mastcell. Bucketsofg 13:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, excellent candidate, with valuable and extensive experience in WP:DR ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ^Khukri 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC))
Ecoleetage (talk) 18:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
east718 23:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. The main candidate statement is vague as has been stated, but Vassyana has explained elsewhere what he means by the distinction between policy and principles, and it's a reasonable one. Chick Bowen 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Good experience in mediation, will make a useful arbitrator. - Fedayee (talk) 04:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 08:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Kind, balanced and willing to make hard calls. Renee (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Node (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Vassyana has worked with MedCab as a coordinator after I stepped down from that the position, and I feel he has done a fine job of it. Kylu (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Namsos (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote, if you are truly Naerii, log in. — neuro^(talk) 07:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion on IRC took place, looks like it is ok to let them vote. — neuro^(talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Not querying the decision, so much as the methodology. If IRC is not apppropriate for admin decisions, when is it appropriate to validate votes MikeHobday (talk) 09:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support dougweller (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support What some below have seen as a bias, I see only as a bias towards neutrality, and an impressively scholarly neutrality at that. Rumiton (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 17:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 21:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Calm rational user = what we need Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support outstanding impartial contributor to discussion, gives right priorities to content, people and processes. Alastair Haines (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Neutrality and clear thought is above all needed in Wikipedia. --Hectorian (talk) 15:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Slightly concerned about issues raised regarding the Prem Rawat fiasco but overall a solid track record.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cactus.man ✍ 20:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Randomran (talk) 23:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Definitely My experience with Vassyana is that he possesses qualities needed to be a highly competent ArbComm member. ... Kenosis (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support Weak answer to the science question and support from certain anti-science admins and editors cause me pause. However, I'm willing to overlook a slightly anti-science attitude in the hopes of improving Arbcom. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 02:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
A rare person you see in life, an outstanding mediator. Caulde 12:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Good experience as a mediator, good attitude, good record, should be a good arbitrator. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I read through the oppose camp's rationales, related pages, and conversation, but I'm not persuaded by them. Rather, I believes the candidate's profound knowledge of religion (impressive FA works) would be a great asset for ArbCom since politics, religion, geographic disputes are our favorite subjects there.--Caspian blue 01:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, deserves. Shyam ^(T/C) 10:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good answers on recusal questions and I have seen few of his mediations/RFC (last is Sveta Gera) . Vassyana question is clear and simple to solve this nationalistic dispute.--Rjecina (talk) 11:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Slam Dunk. Of course no one is entirely perfect, and people who actually do work also make mistakes (hence the irony of REALLY good candidates getting more opposes than the merely adequate ones)... but that said, if there's anyone I'd love to see on arbcom, it would be Vassyana. He has a good head on his shoulders! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Iamawesome800 17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 05:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support There is no doubt about it. Vassyana is one the best Person, wikipedian and Admin around and Arbcom will be better with him.--Anish (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Ashley Y 09:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit·t 11:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - While I haven't always agreed with Vassyana, my interactions with them have convinced me that I'll always have cause to respect Vassyana's opinion - and that's exactly the sort of person I'd like on ArbCom. - Bilby (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, Bless sins (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tends towards fairness and detailed well-reasoned explanations. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, fair and ethical user. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I hope ArbCom would be like what you said in your Candidate statement. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support 138.162.0.41 (talk) 15:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, as an IP you are not eligible to vote. If you have an account that has had 150 mainspace edits by November 1, please log in. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I think he would be a strong asset to Arbcom, and he "gets" the role of the community. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - better than others. Pedro : Chat 08:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Alun (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ RMHED (talk) 15:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Patrick (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Based on your work at MedCab, I think you would definitely put in the necessary time to be an effective arbcom member. Wizardman 19:33, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Rockpocket 22:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support despite concerns over devolution. POV pushers and vested contributors make the community unable to deal effectively with complex issues like pseudoscience and conflict of interest, despite (or perhaps because of) Arbcom's useless and counterproductive discretionary sanctions. Still, I believe that the candidate is level-headed, wikipolitically independent, and will help drain the swamp of the current Arbcom. Skinwalker (talk) 23:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, In my view he is a fair user. --Wayiran (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A sound candidate. I like the opening statement and answers to the questions are thorough and well-reasoned. Rje (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was impressed by his opening statement and that he believes that "arbitrators should be open to elaborating on decisions to clear up any lack of understanding in the community."—Sandahl 04:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Neutral.—Sandahl 06:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- The Myotis (talk) 06:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Sensible, proactive: traits that will serve ArbCom well. --Jim Butler (t) 17:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: No negative experience, seems sensible. --Illythr (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giants2008 (17-14) 04:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Excellent background here as a mediator, patient, sensible, and effective. DGG (talk) 04:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --daniel folsom 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 05:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 08:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
DrKiernan (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: keen willingness to learn, outstanding answers to my questions, and a good sense of timeliness (although Questions 4b c and d took a little more time). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 3. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sounds like a plan. Haukur (talk) 11:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hardyplants (talk) 12:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 00:35, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Very good answers to candidate questions. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:20, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - views on BLP are good. Views on sometimes need for discretion by the arbcom are more akin to mine Nil Einne (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly ^hi! 16:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 08:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
He has done mediations for a long time, and I respect his honest and modest reply to my question. — Sebastian 09:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sunray (talk) 09:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support MaxPont (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I do have some concerns, as expressed by others in the oppose section. But, there are seven slots to fill, and think you are a better choice than some of the alternatives. --Aude (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Willking1979 (talk) 19:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
seresin ( ¡? ) 22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sandy and Jayvdb seem to have confidence in you, so I don't see why it would hurt. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ..Modernist (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support PseudoOne (talk) 22:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I have some concerns but I have more concerns about other candidates. Orderinchaos 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, strategically. Maxim_(talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Kablammo (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sarah 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support As per SebastianHelm and Ottava Rima.Feel you will a good arb particurly with your mediation experience. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – Waltham, The Duke of 23:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
' Support. Gimmetrow 23:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to support Maxim_(talk) 23:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. In his longterm mediation of Prem Rawat he appeared to favor one side of the dispute, participated in writing a draft of the article, and then defended that draft. Because of the many disputes related to new religious movements that the ArbCom deals with, a user who cannot remain neutral on these matters could cause problems. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I happened to observe a portion of that Mediation in the course of a third party invitation for scrutiny of the events therein. I seen no evidence of Vassyana unduly favouring either side in the mediation. AGK 18:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Further discussion at User talk:AGK#Prem Rawat mediation. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Your core beliefs are rather complicated and confusing. Sorry. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Will Beback (talk · contribs) raises some valid concerns. Cirt (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 05:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak 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 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fritzpoll (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Pcap ping 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
I'm striking out my vote to counterbalance one below that I think was cast for the wrong (stated) reason. Vassyana tried to add to the sources policy the idea that secondary sources can sometimes be just as unreliable, and sometimes more so than primary sources. His effort failed. Unfortunately, the absolute classification employed in Wikipedia today has enabled a number of POV pushers, like those acting in the Cold Fusion article, where review papers from obscure journals have been pushed as more reliable than other primary sources. I still don't find his statement or answers to questions convincing enough for me to support. Pcap ping 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics Viridae ^Talk 20:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No anonymous arbitrators, please, especially if they have only 11,000 edits (2,000 mainspace edits).Biophys (talk) 21:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Will Beback above --B (talk) 22:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but I have concerns about your neutrality, per the example given by Will Beback. Having looked through your edit history, I don't believe you have the breadth of topic experience necessary to make a good arb member. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 06:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --Klein zach 08:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Like Will, I was worried about Vassyana's editing of Prem Rawat, which didn't seem neutral. Secondly, I had an encounter with him on WP:NOR a year ago, when he tried to make various changes, which included implying that secondary sources are more likely to be biased than primary sources (e.g. here), which is simply false. In trying to defend his changes, I felt he became a little abusive (he accused me of lying at one point) and obsessive — during the five months or so that he tried to change the policy, he posted 493 times to the talk page, insisting that, if we didn't respond to him, it meant we didn't object to his proposals, at which point he'd add them to the policy. It has left me uneasy about seeing him on the committee. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 13:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, with apologies. Your candidate statement reads like empty political blather, and I shudder that I might wake up to arbcom decisions reading like this. --dab (𒁳) 18:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Maxim basically. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
+O As per SlimVirgin, neutrality concerns. Just not where I want to go. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 02:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 18:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per "he posted 493 times to the talk page, insisting that, if we didn't respond to him, it meant we didn't object to his proposals, at which point he'd add them to the policy." We've seen this before with other admins, and where did that get us? SashaNein (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose RMHED (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 07:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - as per Will Beback Mccready (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - due to suggestion of partiality in the NRM field (brought up by Will Beback (talk · contribs · logs), which is potentially a major concern for any potential Arbitrator. ←Spidern → 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Not only endorsing the secret evidence and non-public email lists that have destroyed Arbcom's credibility, but actually participating in it? Cynical (talk) 22:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose II | (t - c) 04:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jim62sch^dissera! 23:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Orderinchaos 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Changed to support. Orderinchaos 23:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Will Beback. AdjustShift (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose MikeHobday (talk) 00:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I believe that your "devolution" principle is unsuited to ArbCom. Editors end up at ArbCom because the community has failed in resolving their particular disputes - asking the community to take on the responsibility of resolving disputes it has already admitted it cannot resolve is not a viable solution. Awadewit (talk) 05:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per answer to Lar 1B and 2B, no more BLP please, especially not imposed by ArbCom. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 19:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Various concerns - all niggling, I guess. Wily D 20:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I have great respect for this user but I also have great concern that devolution is a step backwards, for reasons similar to what Awadewit says. I will expand on this thought at some point but my concern is essentially that, while nice in theory, in practice devolution tends to put all the power in the hands of the admins who are the most tendentious. --JayHenry (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my reasons. MBisanz ^talk 13:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Per SlimVirgin. Manxruler (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Devolution would be a disaster. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 10:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Quite weak oppose. I think Vassyana could be a good arb-- but I don't see the zeal for improving & reforming the project that some other candidates exhibit. The first step to improving a system is to recognize there is room for improvement, and my vague impression after reading V.'s statements is that is some other candidates may have a firmer grasp on the fact that there is some room to improve Arbitration. --Alecmconroy (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Change to Strong Support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Gazi moff 14:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I don't find the general statement of principles in your statement a convincing manifesto for actually changing things on a committee where you'll be one of many voices. Chrislintott (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Will Beback. Crum375 (talk) 20:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose but generally like what he says. Fred Talk 20:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ per devolution only. Disputes reach the Arbcom precisely because they have been discussed ad nauseam by the community and it's time for them to come to an end. Hús önd 22:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - nothing personal, but I have chosen a group of 7 (now five) editors who I want to win. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 02:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Will be back. Xoloz (talk) 05:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose on responses to science / NPOV and NOR concerns. . dave souza, talk 12:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- billinghurst (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing personal; purely an attempt to redress the % rankings closer to the net rankings (which I believe to be a better metric) --RexxS (talk) 06:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing wrong with you except running ahead of somebody I like better. S B H arris 02:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Will Beback's concerns, and neutrality concerns of my own after reading through that issue. Ariel♥Gold 04:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose mostly tactical Wkdewey (talk) 07:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC) never mind Wkdewey (talk) 19:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I share the significant worries held by Seraphim and Cynical. Joe 08:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
NW's Public Sock (talk) 19:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I found the reasons to oppose cited by MBisanz compelling enough to move me into opposition. Additionally, the support of Wikipedians whose approach to this project are diametrically opposed to mine (Ryan Postlethwaite and Phil Sandifer) would be enough to give me pause about supporting this candidate. If they think this candidate will move the project in their direction, that would chill any nascent support on my part. I could overcome that concern, just as I overcame my concern about voting in concert with Will Beback (whose rationale to oppose I don't find factually supported) to oppose due to Mbisanz's cogent statement of concern. --SSBohio 19:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
For reasons too idiosyncratic to elaborate on here. Mackensen (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Purely tactical. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per support of 'devolution' from ArbCom - I'm of the opinion that ArbCom is doing too little work at the moment, not too much. It's unhelpful to take the position that more cases be handled by the community, since the reason cases come to ArbCom in the first place is because the community can't resolve them. Terraxos (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Grand master ka 21:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe that he has too much faith in Wikipedia's community consensus-based DR resolutions, as evidenced by his description of arbitrators being ideally unnecessary and by his enthusiasm for devolution. As well, as with all candidates I view pseudonymity as a strike against, though not a mortal one. The combination of these concerns means that I can oppose without investigating the concerns expressed about Prem Rawat mediation, which I otherwise would. As a final note, though, I saw nothing wrong with his answers to Rspeer's question, and am confused by those who are opposing on that basis. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Seems to be a good editor, but not what I think ArbCom needs right now. لenna vecia 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, I favor other candidates to this one. --Pixelface (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Not really a big fan of oppose votes, or of tactical voting in general, but this election is close enough that I have to make some hard choices about those "on the bubble". I don't think we would be completely ill served by Vassyana on arbcom (although I can't be sure, this editor is somewhat of a cipher to me, and the Prem Rawat stuff makes me a bit unsure) but there are candidates that I strongly feel that we really need on arbcom that are too close, marginally, to Vassyana for me not to oppose. So, with regret and with no offense intended, Oppose ++Lar: t/c 22:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Tactical vote - Carcharoth has a greater number of supporters so I am attempting to reflect the views of a greater percentage of the editorship. I shouldn't be disappointed if this candidate still succeeds. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose EJF (talk) 23:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Absolutely. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I like your ideas... L'Aquatique[talk] 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Catchpole (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - per Elonka. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
(wildcard) support for perseverance in rooting out a sockpuppet in the face of harassment and ridicule. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Strange to me why not many support for White Cat. --Raayen (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - sadly, the most qualified non-admin....--Comet styles 06:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
moral support E104421 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Full support Experience of the service is a good way to find out how to fix it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Full support Excellent ideas. FinFangFoom (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support How better to deal with nationalistic edit warriors, but to put one on the ArbCom? Kelly Martin 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support for someone who gets rather more crap thrown at them than they deserve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Nice guy, I like him. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Can see reasoning for his decisions, therefore explainable and therefore accountable. Good candidate. Caulde 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --El on ka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Some good ideas; I think you need to develop them a bit by participating in some arbcom cases where you are not "involved" in the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You mean well, but you are easily provoked. ArbCom is a position of extremely high stress, so I don't think it is a good fit for you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It always needs moar catz. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per history of unreasonable behavior. Friday (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GJC 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MER-C 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --B (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eusebeus (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You tend to use double-speak with people when you know perfectly well what the other person means. It's distressing and not a quality that suits such a position. Mike H. Fierce! 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. We need more of an even keel for the arbitration committee. --JayHenry (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a somewhat regretful opposition - his ideas are really good and I share many of his stances on Wikipedia. But his temperament is unsuitable for this position. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Do not forsee satisfactory performance by this candidate. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per tendency to be involved as an involved party in cases. While this may give some unique insight into working with ArbCom, it doesn't bode well for your qualifications. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I respect your reasons for running, but I don't think that someone who has been involved in so many AC cases is necessarily the best candidate at this time. Maybe next year? //roux editor review08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I can't think of anyone less qualified to be an arbitrator. --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Really not a good idea yet - give it a year of impeccable conduct and we'll see how things are then. Brilliantine (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per previous behavior, the risk of wikidrama is too high. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You are a great guy on IRC and on-Wiki, but I don't think you have the temperament. Sorry. — neuro^(talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose You are far too easily provoked, frequently ignore consensus when it doesn't suit you, and get extremely defensive and combative when others disagree with you. (example) These are not quality that an arbitrator should have. --Farix (Talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong 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 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Far too prone to drama and confrontations. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
What? Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerns over history. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This user needs to learn civility first. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm simply not of the opinion that this user is trusted enough by the en:wiki community to justify our electing him onto a seat. I can substantiate that point if necessary, but I doubt that would be necessary. Oppose. AGK 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thinks nothing of exploiting process and wasting countless users' time for trivial personal gain. —David Levy 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Helpful One 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitration is so not your thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
lol, I'm tempted to support just to see the arbcom implode --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yikes. GlassCobra 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - too entrenched in own drama. --harej 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Rividian (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
m acy 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hrmmm ... trying to choose a single reason out of many for this oppose for brevity's sake ... shakes Magic 8-Ball ... I'll go with the lunacy surrounding the account renaming, along with the edit warring over adjusting all of the old talk page signatures. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ^Khukri 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose - White Cat has nowhere near the levelheadedness needed for this position, as evidenced again and again on multiple wikis. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Highly disruptive, unfriendly, unable to be neutral. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. No way. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Marlith (Talk) 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but the whole drama around the account renaming and sig-modification disposes me unfavorably as to the candidate's suitability as an arbitrator. --MCB (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral support, but factual oppose: A good guy, but not qualified for the position. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. What exactly is the openness value of making evidence public after the case is over and after someone has been sanctioned on the basis of evidence they have yet to see? Aside from my disagreement with the candidate's answer, it seems unique among those I've read so far in not actually making sense. Cynical (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note - changed to Strong Oppose on 7th December 2008 as usertalk interactions leave me with little confidence in the candidate's temperament. Cynical (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Not just no, but hell no. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Terence (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Individual question 4 blew it for me. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose. Has demonstrated that more than one Wiki community on more than one occasion has not trusted the candidate. That is not a good basis for securing confidence in an ArbCom decision involving this candidate. SilkTork *^YES! 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - drama-queen, jaw dropping WP:SPIDER issues. Strong takes on certain issues; together makes a very poor arbcom candidate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 10:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Too tied up in own drama. — Manti core 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t00:20z
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as unsuitable. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per SilkTork --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Enigma ^message 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Not the right person for the job -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I've thought "why did you do that?" to poorly thought-out actions far too many times to support for ArbCom. Sorry, but no. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fred Talk 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Clearly unsuited to the role. Rje (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose There are some candidates who should know enough not to stand for election. Too erratic. Xoloz (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 04:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose yet I did read but no I can't support. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not for arbcom.. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Not convinced that candidate understands Wikipedia policies. Switzpaw (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for all the obvious reasons. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - good answers to questions, but judging from his previous background, he doesn't have the right character to be on ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Joe 08:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
— Sebastian 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
You need to show the community that you can maintain an even temperament for an extended period of time before you'll ever be able to gain a position of trust. Grand master ka 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
jj137 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Not suited to task, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

Support

Support. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --maclean 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Durova^Charge! 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good work at WP:RFC. Jehochman ^Talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A really dedicated and level-headed guy. krimpet ✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
– Toon ^(talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
– A no brainer. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Protonk (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support A quick glance of his editing history shows that he is indeed active. Declaring a Wikibreak doesn't make one inactive nor does not declaring one mean that one is active. He is a lot more active than the vast majority of arbitrators and candidates. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
the name says it all. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - will make great Arbcom member :) RockManQ^{Review me} 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Great! Support! --Mixwell!^Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
β^_command 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Über STRONG Support (again at risk of being slightly ridiculous). If I had to choose just one to support, it would be a toss-up between Rlevse and Wizardman. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yup, yup. Not part of the problem. --David Shankbone 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support..--Comet styles 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Chris! _ct 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BJ^Talk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because I dislike all the other options more. Prodego ^talk 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust this editor's judgement, and his ability to mediate disputes. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
B (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dewelar (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - an excellent candidate. PseudoOne (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support لenna vecia 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support Needs to work on communication skills but I reckon the basics are there. Brilliantine (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. - High levels of clue and willingness to cut through crap to reach the heart of the matter. I have a strong feeling that Wizardman would get ArbCom moving faster, which at this point is an extremely good thing. //roux editor review09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Net positive. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Contributions and discussions as administrator and member of the Mediation Committee leads me support Wizardman. seicer | talk | contribs 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Dr.K. (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Head screwed on right. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seddσn ^talk 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I supported Wizardman last year and am very pleased to support again. Wizardman has excellent judgment. Acalamari 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good experience, good judgement. Nothing from the opposes has yet to change my mind. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Helpful One 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Unsure how likely you are to be elected, but I think you can do a decent job. If you get in, think for yourself, though. Support. AGK 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tentative support. — CharlotteWebb 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - His good judgment will come in handy at arbcom. -- Suntag ☼ 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Came here thinking you were a 'crat and was ready to oppose for that reason, but will support instead.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support BrianY (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Maxim_(talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sort of a WTHN support here, but I like Wizardman and I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. Would prefer over some other candidates running. GlassCobra 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - user has not just checked out the enclosed instruction book, but has also paused awkwardly while waiting for the music to stop. --harej 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Branson03 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Chensiyuan (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
m acy 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Royal broil 03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Khoi khoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Keeper ǀ 76 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very level-headed. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (swiched from oppose) Thinking about it, yes Wizardman messed up on the NPOV science question, but I believe that he will learn from that mistake. Other than that there wasn't really a strong reason to oppose his candidatcy. I interacted with him plenty of times and he has a great knowledge of the project. Glad to support. Secret ^account 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
—DerHexer (Talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Fedayee (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ^Khukri 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ElinorD (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~
SupportDavid in DC (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
— Ѕandahl ♥ 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Will bring great strength to Arbcom, as is evident from his outstanding record. JGHowes ^talk 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xavexgoem (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Chris (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I have always been impressed with Wizardman's maturity and competence level for his comparably low age. Trusilver 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
+S Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yup, I really like this guy. He will do a fine job. He knows and understands the intricasies of our "rules and no rules" system, and will be both effective and fair in administering justice under that system. No reservations in giving my full support. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support One of the better candidates. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
(all apologies, I somehow managed to vote on the wrong page!) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gets to the root of tha matter. --Raayen (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, while I could probably list a number of discussions he closed that I wouldn't have agreed with, he did unblock me and that carries a lot of weight! :) Anyway, more positive than negative, so, since there's no neutral or anything, I might as well support. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Xavexgoem (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Yellowmonkey. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —Borgarde^talk 07:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)h
Support--BozMo talk 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Pedro : Chat 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Max (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not eligible to vote as you have fewer than 150 mainspace edits Fritzpoll (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Alexf^(talk) 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
--Sultec (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support TimidGuy (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:33, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
Support Davo88 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support prashanthns (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Renee (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support vi5in^[talk] 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Trustworthy qualities for ArbCom are very important. I think this user has that.--Zereshk (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC). However, your answer to the science-NPOV question is obviously incompatible with credible arbitration, and unless the promised recantation appears promptly, I will have to switch to oppose. Splash - tk 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Node (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support He's seen his opposes based on the "science vs. NPOV" question, and he understands the concern. There's really no reason to oppose. Kylu (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support VartanM (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A better choice than other people who have the same chance as you at winning. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note The Groove former accounts, he's eligible. Secret ^account 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Because really there is no reason to oppose. --Wayiran (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Dark and stormy knight (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A man in space (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. VegaDark (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Samir 04:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes happy to --VS ^talk 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hectorian (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 16:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - as I said in my original oppose (between #53 and #54 below), this is mostly due to the expanded science answer. A candidate who got it right the first time would be ideal, but Wizardman has at least managed to show grace under pressure. I don't believe he'll interfere with the ArbCom process - worst case, he'll be a participating non-entity. Likely case, probably much better than that. Badger Drink (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Politis (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Randomran (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Learns from mistakes admirably well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 13:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bencherlite ^Talk 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Mardetanha ^talk 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I am uncomfortable with the science/fringe responses, this is mostly a tactical vote. Skinwalker (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, - Shyam ^(T/C) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Yip. Sure. --➨Candlewicke ^{:) Sign/Talk} 11:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Iamawesome800 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support seems ok. Sticky Parkin 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I think this Science Question Issue is being blown out of proportion. I am sure our wizard will not disappoint us. Good editor, good admin, good mediator and will make a nice arbitrator Behaafarid (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support abf /talk to me/ 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as better than near competitors. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Michael X the White (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC))
Marlith (Talk) 05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --IvoShandor (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support With experience in MedCom, I think you will be able to learn the ropes of ArbCom quickly. Leujohn ^(talk)
SupportNokhodi (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 07:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support RMHED (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 'Excessively long statements by people bore me. It's not that difficult to be pithy.' Computerjoe 's talk 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Due to WJBscribe's unfortunate withdrawal, Wizardman is my seventh support. Majorly ^talk 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, He is an ethical user. --Wayiran (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sarah 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportGenisock2 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Very open user and dedicated. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, strategic... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Giants2008 (17-14) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --daniel folsom 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
miranda 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 09:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I've strongly criticised this candidate for failing to give advance-notice of his exams interference in his ability to answer my questions promptly, I trust he will ensure that he will take greater care in the future. His response times are usually satisfactory - as his answers to my questions have been. Even if he has different personal views on certain matters, he will listen to relevant legitimate community concerns and support measures that adequately attempt to resolve those concerns. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 8. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. If I could support only one candidate this year, Wizardman would be the one. JBsupreme (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -Dureo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I like your stance on BLP and feel your otherwise a decent candidate Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Good record, leaves me no choice but to trust the user. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Xasha (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Sunray (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has good judgement. -- Menti sock 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Frank | talk 20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - jj137 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support EJF (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Keep working hard, maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
--MPerel 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Orderinchaos 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Finally made up my mind. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) One of original seven candidates that I support has withdrawn; Wizardman is (was?) first on my list of candidates I would support in the case of a candidate that I supported withdrawing/doing something that merited a reconsideration of my support.--Maxim_(talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, due to time issues. Further comments are at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Partially strategic voting, see also other comments. May change mind. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~

Time concerns were the major issue here. When NYB was forced to take a wikibreak, ArbCom essentially stopped. I don't want to see that happen again. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretably.--Koji† 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I remember one fairly recent situation involving you that really shocked me at the time and stuck very negatively in my mind, namely this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennis Daniels. You were the nominator and the original nom read: "Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:BLP1E and our policy on criminal acts." This was an article about a dead person so BLP1E was not clearly applicable and "our policy on criminal acts" pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which is not a policy, not a guideline, not even a proposed policy but a proposed guideline. You had later corrected WP:BLP1E to WP:ONEEVENT, which is actually a shortcut to the same section of WP:BLP, still a policy about living people and not the right policy to cite here. But the "our policy on criminal acts" bit was never corrected. Sorry, but this sort of thing is pretty bad for an admin, and not acceptable for someone who wants to be an ArbCom member. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose partly due to concerns over communication skills. Arbcom decisions must be clearly stated if they are to be effective. Further rationale here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very regretful oppose -- Unfortunately I'm just too profoundly concerned by Wizardman's answer about science. Science-related Arb cases are frequent enough that we need Arbs who have clearer understanding of these issues. --JayHenry (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Gave the worst answer to my question on science. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've read his new answer, and I stand by this oppose. He tries not to come across as relativist this time, but it's still not a good answer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. per rspeer. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry! I'm going with my gut on this one. I'm not fully reassured that voting you into the ArbCom would be the best choice, not necessarily for the ArbCom, but for yourself. Your answer to the science question didn't have much conviction either way, which sat worse with me than it not being a great answer at all. I'd tell you if this vote was personal, and this one isn't. Mike H. Fierce! 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Unimpressed with the answers. Everyone wants to make the committee run more smoothly and be more effective, but the devil is in the detail. Rebecca (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Oppose that hurts me the most. 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 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Overly bland. Moreschi (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per nsk92 SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Some of your answers were too soft and seemingly politically motivated. Oppose Dengero (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RxS (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per views on NPOV "vs science". Verbal chat 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - sorry, I don't know enough about you to really have confidence in your abilities at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Came here determined to strong oppose, answers to questions moderated my opposition but still cannot support. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Answer to rspeer is particularly worrying.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Would prefer someone a bit older and more mature. Some answers too slapdash for my liking. Jayen466 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Although I respect you highly for your work as an editor, administrator, and member of the Mediation Committee I am not convinced that you will be able to bring about the necessary changes at arbcom. I hope you will continue your excellent work at the MC.Nrswanson (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing compelling about this candidate. Skomorokh 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I find Nsk92's anecdote above to be disturbing. Someone who brings an article to AfD based on a remarkably poor interpretation of content policies, particularly one as important as BLP, is likely to also bring poor interpretations to Arbcom decisions. The AfD reasoning also fails to consider why having the article may be in the public interest: Perhaps the public has a right to know who their society is executing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose. Time issues are a concern, and while I have nothing against him, I'm just not sure Wizardman would bring the change Arbcom needs right now. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Also oppose based on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Folantin (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Seems to have a poor understanding of the issues affecting scientific articles, and I feel that there are stronger candidates. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose - switched from support, which I made early based on your BLP "default to delete" stance, but I can't overlook Nsk's concerns at your citing a proposed guideline as a policy Fritzpoll (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weakly. Bunch of minor concerns that add up: the "NPOV vs. science" thing, iffy answers to the questions, but mostly I think you have good ideas but the communication is problematic. That's not good; we already have some issues with Arbs being able to clearly and concisely articulate their reasoning, and communication is an essential part of the skill set. I'm sorry - you do good work, and I have a very positive overall opinion of you, but I can't support for this particular role. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose partly per weak answer to science question, partly because I just think there are stronger candidates around. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, as per Giggy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose re science answer. MikeHobday (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Cri du canard (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Strong oppose - "if science conflicts with [NPOV], then it may not be the right way to establish an article"? Seriously? Holy moley. Intellectual relativism belongs on Conservapedia or in a high school philosophy class, not here, nor on anything that proports to be an "encyclopedia". Candidate insists that his statement is being mis-interpreted and will clarify. I'm not sure there's a right way of interpreting this scary statement. Would prefer a candidate who can get it right the first time. Badger Drink (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, from "strong oppose" to "support" in the span of two days. Mostly due to expanded answer on science (an expansion that I urge anybody opposing for "anti-science" reasons to read and digest), with a small pinch of strategic support thrown in to get over the hump of my own flip-flopping Badger Drink (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose with regret. The science answer is a deal-breaker and, more generally, I think Wizardman is unprepared for the job. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I've been concerned about Wizardman's comments in some RFCs about a rather vague definition of civility, and a conflation of that concept with personal attacks. Chick Bowen 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Partially infamiliarity with the Candidate, partially answers and some other opposition reasons, partially preferring others. GRBerry 17:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak opposeI Generally think he's a level headed guy, but his fumbling through the science question has left be doubting his suitability for ArbCom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics (and I am a scientist) Viridae ^Talk 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Opposeas per rspeer. And naivety of Wizardman shocked me (though at least it wasn't larded with the BS of some other candidates). Mccready (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Just to point out (this is a note for those voting in general, rather than a response to cactus) I clarified the science question, namely providing a clearer answer of my views and explaining why i misinterpreted the q and why I was probably misinterpreted). It probably doesn't matter since i should have been clear the first time, just letting you all know though. Wizardman 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose due to willingness to make decisions on the basis of evidence the person being sanctioned hasn't seen. "Weak" because of the demonstrated reluctance, but an oppose nonetheless. Cynical (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Naive and immature.--MONGO 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Wow. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. Manipulative, power grubbing games player. The community found him too untrustworthy to be a b-crat, even yet an Arb. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jim62sch^dissera! 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose this time. Good editor, but needs a little more seasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
(Indented vote - now neutral. Orderinchaos 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)) ~~Not a strong oppose but~~ just feel this user's philosophy from an ArbCom point of view differs from mine too markedly that I cannot support - I have absolutely no problems with their editing or admin work, which is of a good standard, and I would trust them. I think some of the other oppose votes are a bit over the top. Orderinchaos 10:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I suppose it's a series of minor objections, each on its own barely worth mentioning, but taken together make for me a weak but clear oppose. Jd2718 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per science answer, Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Too timid. Kelly Martin 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose pending answers like here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Tex (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I know I am not always the best at explaining my reasoning in clear, careful, concise, and accessible prose, but neither am I likely to sit ArbCom in the foreseeable future. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Per salient points above. –Outriggr § 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. - jc37 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, you are not eligible to vote, as you did not have 150 mainspace edits on and before 1 November 2008. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I indented that vote before I saw the conversation at WT:ACE2008. If consensus determines that Mervyn should be allowed suffrage, please feel free to remove these comments and reinstate his vote without contacting me first. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Can not be anticipated to enforce Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppost. Lots of little things, but the idea of him repeating his battle with Rspeer's question in an ArbCom decision takes me over the edge. We need arbitrators who can assess a problem, discuss it clearly and provide an articulate, reasoned solution; I do not believe Wizardman is the most able candidate in this regard. Rje (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose The confusion evident in his views on science and NPOV is alarming. Arbitrators must be able to communicate their views clearly; candidate seems to lack this skill in an important area. Xoloz (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: nothing personal; simply that other candidates are better suited at this time. Jonathunder (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I share the concerns of those above, plus I wonder if you are too nice to deal decisively with the rough, unpopular issues an Arb must confront. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Experienced at dispute resolution, but takes frequent wiki-breaks which does not bode well for speedy resolution of cases. Answer to Question B from Thatcher and views on science are concerning. IRC user. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose though the answer on science / npov has been revisited, it still shows a lack of understanding of npov and weight in particular as well as the various pseudoscience and fringe provisions. Candidates need to be familiar with this commonly contentious area, and able to comment clearly and decisively. . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose "Twelve months after an election that I was not yet ready for" are just the kind of words I did not want to read. As an experienced Wikipedian you know well that, apart from the enthusiastic newbie on RFA, losing an election on Wikipedia has very often little to do with readiness. You know these corners well. So why pretending that you are naïve to the point of believing that rejection means unpreparedness? You were prepared twelve months ago, just as you are prepared now. But this kind of attitude hints at cynicism, the opposite of what we need in the Arbcom - fresh air. Hús önd 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose not at this time. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose excellent admin. But I have some concerns about your past actions. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose while I like your stanceon BLP and you appear to be a decent candidate I feel private cases or withheld evidence need to be minimised and handled with utmost care, they may sometimes be better and/or necessary Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose No longer are some of the concerns that led me to oppose one year ago present, but I remain unconvinced that the candidate would not substitute his views about what policy ought to be for those of the community, particularly in the context of BLP, where committee overreach has been the most acute, spectacular, and troublesome across 2007 and 2008. Joe 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I admired his boldness with the Ginger Jolie close, his answers as a whole are not indicative of the depth of thought I'd expect to see from an arbitrator. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

100% right attitude. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely. Strong support. Would be an excellent ArbCom member.--chaser - t 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No problem at all, he will make a good abrcom member.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Durova^Charge! 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- filelake shoe 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, level-headed, intelligent and hard working editor. Dreadstar † 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sam ^Blab 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Majorly ^talk 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Best of all the candidates. Avruch^T 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
– Toon ^(talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Certainly qualified. Steven Walling (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
One of the more suitable editors on Wikipedia. Fair and logical.--Koji† 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. The issue with Peter Damian makes me go "eh", but I have not heard his story of you being involved echoed in any other place. I'd be fine with you on ArbCom. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Will be a great addition, good luck! RockManQ^{Review me} 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - fair and level-headed. His experience as a crat will help too. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Support - One of the most qualified to serve on the committee; a well-trusted, well-liked member of the community with ample experience in disputes resolution, given that he is chair of the mediation committee. I am making one vote these elections and it goes to WJB. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tom B (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Support: I have my doubts, but you can do. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good God, yes! One of the greats. --David Shankbone 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
L'Aquatique[talk] 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Second best candidate behind Jayvdb. Good luck! Daniel (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JodyB_talk 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I suppose... J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Extra Strong Support. A man willing to stand by his principles in the face of oncoming wrongdoing is what we need more of. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Yep. Definitely has the right temperament. GJC 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support In my view, the best candidate for nomination this time (with no offence to several other very worthy candidates running). Orderinchaos 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Epbr123 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Burner0718 ^Wutsapnin? 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support most definitely. – RyanCross (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Because I dislike the rest more. Prodego ^talk 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
WJB is as level-headed as you can possibly find, and I trust his judgement thoroughly. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
B (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support, outstanding candidate. Everyking (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Even though I'm no fan of "hat collecting", he is trustworthy and he earns my support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Asset to the project. Andre (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. An excellent candidate. Sarah 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. bd2412 T 07:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support – absolutely. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ironholds (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Shows a welcome awareness of the perceived mistakes and problems with ArbCom, and a willingness to work to rectify them. Steve ^{T • C} 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support. I like your stance, and your history shows a general tendency towards fairness and clarity. I am concerned, however, with how much time you spend on other 'backstage' WP things, and am worried that either those or ArbCom will suffer. //roux editor review09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Obvious choice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - would make a fine arbitrator, and hopefully knows that he can put the requisite amount of time in Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Of course. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Now Strong support for helping to uphold the ArbCom's motion, even though I neither agree with it nor with the special treatment certain users get. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - have only ever seen sensible actions from this user. Ronnotel (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Conti|✉ 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 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 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Experience as a bureaucrat, chair of the Mediation Committee and administrator leaves me to wholly support WJBscribe. seicer | talk | contribs 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Lots of hats, yes, but I'm confident you can manage your time, or you wouldn't be running on a "speed" platform. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kbdank71 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For excellent judgment, and my personal interactions with WJBscribe. Acalamari 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I trust this candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
'Support Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has proven time and time again that he has the right skills and approach to be an Arb. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — -- Suntag ☼ 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Helpful One 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Too much on his platter but a worthy candidate ....--Comet styles 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No particular qualms, not inherently against "hat collecting." GlassCobra 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A cool head and clear intentions. The best of luck. haz (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For courage. Jehochman ^Talk 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unclear if he has enough time for this job. Jehochman ^Talk 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. The best. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, even if it were only for speaking up with ethical reservations at the latest Giano II controversy. Intended as a vote for balanced ethical behavior and transparency.--Wetman (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is breaking my "only seven supports" rule, but I feel that, for his show of solidarity in unblocking Giano (as someone who got annoyed at him breaking parole, this time he actually didn't) and reminding fellow Arbs of the rules they've set... Luxembourg, deux points. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Whether we agree with him or not, unblocking Giano in the middle of his own running for ArbCom, in light of what happened to SlimVirgin, shows courage and conviction. We want arbs who won't be afraid to go against the others if they believe something is right. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Sceptre and ElinorD. Having the balls to do something unpopular if you think it's necessary is A Good Thing. – iridescent 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - strong experience, very active in a number of areas but good performance in all of them. Very good statement. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - fair-minded, willing to act. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
— Deor (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to have some sense. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Unblocking Giano while running for ArbCom shows a dedication to doing what's right despite political backlash. A ni Mate 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Branson03 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Alexfusco⁵ 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportNrswanson (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Honestly, if I was in your position of Adminship, Cratship, administrating both Commons and Meta, and assisting with both OTRS and the Mediation Committee, I would have cracked by now. And, you want to do more? Whatever floats your boat... Glacier Wolf 03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yes. Icy // ♫ 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
— Dan | talk 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Hesperian 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
You are a very hard working, suitable candidate. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Has more sense than I thought. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
John Reaves 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Willingness to stand up to bullying of Giano a plus in my book and as usual, support and opposition are a good guide to whether you'd be a good choice. Grace Note (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
For having big, hairy brass ones. My previous concerns remain, but we need someone willing to take correct, decisive actions. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I was ambivalent about this candidate but his conduct in the latest drama has moved me to support. Nancy ^talk 08:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Possum (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Outstanding Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for all the good work he's done for Wikipedia, including his unblock of Giano and the reasoning behind it — he told PrivateMusings on the NTWW podcast he hoped the unblock would prevent arbitrators feeling they're becoming a class of user unto their own. That's the kind of person we need on the committee. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - As per User:Glacier Wolf. Also: Someone opposed as "career Wikipedian", that is precisely why I support, we need people in ArbCom like that. Plus this is continuity with change. Having it both is possible. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
—DerHexer (Talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support for being willing to stand up to TPTB --Peter cohen (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ^Khukri 16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I liked just about everything I've seen from him, but was a little concerned with the "too many hats" thing. But the Giano unblock was spot on and showed he can stand up to the man when the man is wrong. Great job. Just please don't "toe the line" once you're on arbcom. Tex (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Tenmei (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ecoleetage (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. User impresses me with his independence. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Has been significantly more level-headed on several occasions than those of the current ArbCom members who I have taken note of. I see no issue here with respect to separation of powers. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support re Giano unblock - for doing so, and for doing it so magnanimously MikeHobday (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Pour encourager les autres. Giano (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I was uncertain, but some of the arguments "against" have convinced me to vote "for". 6SJ7 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have the same impression 6SJ7, but I was inclined to support anyway. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Yes. ST47 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
IronDuke 00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. One of our finest. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gnan garra 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support faithless (^speak) 02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jonathunder (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weakly. I trust WJBscribe's judgment, but I do agree with the opposes to some extent. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible support the obvious choice. WJBscribe will fix the problems and do a super job. There is no concern with separation of powers from a user who has so consistently shown he is trustworthy in the past. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Alison ^❤ 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
— Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Jerry. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
He's demonstrated his commitment, and I like his prospect as an Arbitrator better than most of the others. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I don't know him personally, but I trust his judgement. Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support (I should just have gone for a straight mediator ticket...) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support Max (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You are not eligible to vote this year, I'm afraid as you had insufficient mainspace contributions before 1st November Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kafka Liz (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Alexf^(talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Per his bold actions recently regarding an ill-conceived block by an arbitrator. Anyone who can take such actions in the middle of an Arbcom run has my respect, and my vote. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
support Crum375 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The Giano unblock demonstrates the calibre and integrity of this candidate; arbcom could do with such a member. --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Chick Bowen 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Ucucha 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hiberniantears (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Charitwo ^(talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - - Philippe 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
User:Krator (t c) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Tājik (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Supportprashanthns (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Renee (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I think the user has shown trustworthy qualities for ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support A fair, steady hand is needed here. Acting in good faith, I used the account checker on the Elections page and it told me I was eligible to vote in this election. Apparently it malfunctioned, and probably not just for me. It seems fundamentally unfair to trick people into believing they are eligible to do something and then yank the rug out from under them when they do it. This is not an effective way to encourage more participation in Wikipedia. Persons who relied on the malfunctioning account checker who voted should have their votes count. It's a fundamental fairness issue, not a personal issue, although in this environment, every principle seems to get reduced to personalities pretty quickly. So I cast my votes, even if they will be summarily invalidated, therby undermining the credibility of the entire election. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Vote reinstated for historical purposes after this candidate withdrew.
Support -Node (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support The clincher for me was his idea about block reviews and transparency. He has a strong understanding of how ArbCom is supposed to operate.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support From all that I've seen, WjBscribe has the patience, commitment, fundamental sanity, and good judgment that this assignment demands. --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
WODUP 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Acts according to his conscience: If only more of us did. Kylu (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Eusebeus (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support VartanM (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good candidate. --Namsos (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
HaeB (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support. He is an excellent candidate. --Wayiran (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Kennedy ^(talk) 11:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Niko Silver 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Just to make sure that I don't miss the deadline at all. This is the only candidate who I can support without a lot of further research, and that's something I decided several weeks ago. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Very strong Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Cactus.man ✍ 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per ElinorD Slrubenstein | Talk 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. This will come as a surprise to many I am sure. My questions to him were honestly answered and I believe that, while he has made mistakes in the past, there is evidence of care and thought and integrity in his approach to decision making. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Joe Nu tter 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
TS 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ☺Coppertwig(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Marlith (Talk) 02:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--MONGO 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per all of the above. Khoi khoi 04:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
I have some reservations about power concentration, and the candidate has not answered User:Mailer Diablo's IRC question, but he does say, "I do think it important that decisions concerning Wikipedia are discussed on Wikipedia" and has opposed the creation of a bureaucrat IRC channel. The oppose votes based on his unblock of Giano, which was implementing an ArbCom decision and which the blocking admin has accepted, irritate me. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Hectorian (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Bucketsofg 15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Politis (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. But I respectfully request that if elected, the candidate would remove some of his other hats so that he can better focus on the job of Arb. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Awesome 'crat, awesome sysop. Long deserved. —Ceranthor 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ...reconsidered my initial vote.....Modernist (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Has shown integrity and good judgment, and that's what the arbcom needs. Support. Kosebamse (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong support - Civil, dedicated, committed, and friendly. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Bencherlite ^Talk 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Comments on Footnoted quotes case spot on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Supportsure --Mardetanha ^talk 18:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
—Animum (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportLisatwo (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes most definitely --VS ^talk 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - experience universally positive. Note: I have returned after 1 month of inactivity simply to vote; I have 2 years of experience and 60000 edits over two usernames. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support — BillC ^talk 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Has brains, and I have the feeling his election would help redress the balance between thoughtful decision makers and thoughtless networking pontificators in favour of the former. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, - Shyam ^(T/C) 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Proven track record in medcom. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Good, sensible decisions. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportJon513 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Iamawesome800 17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
support «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l» (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I have been sitting on this one for a while. I see and understand the concerns that this candidate has too much on his plate. On the other hand, I have never seen him as anything but fair and dedicated to the project, so if he feels that he is capable of managing his time around being in Arbcom, I'm going to assume good faith and support him. Trusilver 18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
Support 100000% yes, Ive seen this user all over wikipedia. Hereford 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ariobarza (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
Support' -- Samir 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support' -- Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Ecoleetage (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Duplicate vote; Ecoleetage already voted "support" above, at no. 141 Jayen466 01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I hope you can deliver what you are promising. Behaafarid (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support abf /talk to me/ 13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support as better than some others. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
ONe more. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Have experienced him to be fair. --Buster7 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Support 110% of the positive kind of attitude. Leujohn ^(talk)
Support NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportNokhodi (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
WJBscribe has my total support, though I will take this opportunity to point out that I think concerns about editors wearing "too many hats" is a valid one. However, I also have faith in WJBscribe's ability to balance the all duties he currently has with the obligations that come with being an Arbitrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Raayen (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Seddσn ^talk 05:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ←Spidern → 07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
→Na ·gy 09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - BusterD (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Gazi moff 14:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, 'cause he reminds me of someone I know. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Support This blood we need. Hús önd 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
As I have collected evaluations from people, there are evident concerns on WJBscribe's candidacy; Elonka related matters, possible hat collecting, unpunctuality and current activity regarding an overturn of a fellow 'crat's enforcement. The concerns seriously challenge to his own three pledges: "Transparency, Appropriate sanctions, Speed" as well as "neutrality", "discretion", and "judgment". Besides, he has been very slow and less than enthusiastic to answer to given questions, but the community want "new faces" to change our sluggish Arbcom. Also, after he has gotten the b'crat title, his activity to MEDCAB has been hugely decreased; he is currently almost inactive for it. However, ArbCom requires a sincere devotion. Therefore, I oppose.Caspian blue 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This is a tough one. I consider you to be completely qualified to be a member of the committee, but I am afraid that the time sink ArbCom is will adversely affect your excellent performance as a bureaucrat. I'd rather have you run for steward instead. I'll keep thinking about this one, but for now, weak oppose. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has shown poor judgement as a crat. I have no confidence that arbcom activity would be impartial. Friday (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nearly complete abandonment of mainspace work = he's got too much on his plate. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Separation of powers and plate is too full. We have more important things for him to do like 'crat and admin functions. It's better to keep 'crats separate from arbitrators. Will is certainly his is more than qualified and capable to do the role and he has my complete support in all other situations. Royal broil 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You need a breather for a year. Mike H. Fierce! 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppse: He was very aggressive towards me while defending a friend of his on the wiki and he took the wrong side of the issue. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Outriggr § 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I think the plate is too full. I also think that anyone working on Wikipedia should participate regularly in the upkeep and expansion of mainspace articles in order to keep grounded in the whole purpose of the site. Adding another responsibility on top of the pile of others will only make this more difficult. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose I personally believe that WJB is simply a hat collector, edits Wikipedia solely for his own advantage in real life or for the end result of perceived power, and will manipulate and abuse any further powers (as he allegedly already has done) for his own self serving ends. The candidate is no longer trustworthy IMO and should stand down from both this election and other "positions" on this website. Pedro : Chat 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose لenna vecia 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Fear he may not be able to shake off preconceptions when looking at cases. Also, too many hats could lead to burnout. Brilliantine (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to concerns about impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrator requires fairness. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose- too like the current arbs. He also allowed things he decided not to deem important, about an (at the time) politically popular wiki-individual, to be whitewashed- just like the current lot. (To clarify- I don't mean anything against the wiki-individual concerned, who has answered well and in full, and everything said about him may well be completely unfounded- what I dislike is WJB's seeming dismissiveness at the time and assistance or complacence over a possible cover up, especially surrounding election time.) Sticky Parkin 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose'''•CHILLDOUBT•' 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Overly bland. Something of a career Wikipedian. Moreschi (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He's got too much shit on his plate. I will not take a chance on an editor, crat or no, that can potentially drag down the already crap productivity of the committee. SashaNein (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Verbal chat 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~GRBerry 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~ reconsidering - see below GRBerry

~~RMHED (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~
I'm afraid I agree with the separation of powers issue brought up above. Since we have no shortage of volunteers, I don't think piling up functions on one person is such a great idea, in terms of potential burnout if nothing else. >Radiant< 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Serious concerns about favoritism; too many other demands on his time; too much of an insider to effect the reform Arbcom desperately needs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose with one exception, I am opposing all 'crats for ArbCom, don't like the idea of having a few people with that much power.---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: when I wrote this, I thought there were 3 other 'crats running as well. Guess my memory of who is a 'crat isn't what I thought---but it's still the principle. I generally don't like the idea of 'crats being arbcom members. :(---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mandarin, never seen sticking his neck out for anything, seems to believe Wikipedia is a community rather that an encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully Oppose While I respect Will's work, this strikes me as having a full plate of dinner in front of you and already asking for seconds. JPG-GR (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Was sitting on the fence here, but wheel-warring with an arb on a Giano block the type of drama-seeker we need[37]--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Threaded discussion moved to talk. HiDrNick! 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Patrick (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~...~~Modernist (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)~~ Changing to support...the unblock took character...Modernist (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
I was going to say more or less what JPG-GR said, but why do that when it's been said already? Too many hats. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Just NO. Per Elonka, or rather, because of. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rockpocket 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Rividian (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - judgment is questionable, per recent events. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - convinced by the reasons for opposes above and by example provided by Scott Mac (Doc). —Mattisse (Talk) 04:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
It really pains me to do this, because I do like WJBscribe in many respects, but the recent decision to overturn an ArbCom member's block on Giano less than a week after the exact same thing happened less than a week ago and resulted in the desysopping of SlimVirgin and an explicit ruling against overturning of said blocks strikes me as lacking in judgment. The only thing more disruptive than yet another Giano block is yet another Giano unblock. Why keep the cycle going? --Cyde Weys 04:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose Enigma ^message 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
This was a tough one for me, as I think the Scribe has been an excellent bureaucrat, but the candidate field is strong enough that concern about balance of powers is an important consideration. I'm worried about getting a repeat of this and ending up with another overextended mandarin, wearing too many hats and none of them well, and forgetting where he came from or why he's here--as Nish says there may be too much on the plate already. --JayHenry (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Collection of individually minor concerns: hat collecting and concentrating our bits in a small number of hands has not worked out especially well in the past; a distressing lack of discernment on some high-profile issues (e.g. [38], and this) concerns me regarding his judgement on the sort of complex matters that come before the Committee. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Users who are unable or unwilling to answer questions as candidates, or who do not have time to do so, are unlikely to do better are members of the committee. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose I find myself disagreeing with him too much William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Nish and Jay. miranda 22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Step hen 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - ridiculous amount of unanswered questions harkens back to the slipshod communication and lethargic case-pace of the recent past. Badger Drink (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Cri du canard (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose pending answers to questions. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
+O Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Politics Viridae ^Talk 07:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Switching from support as I have been convinced of the arguments regarding the concentration of power Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose per Caspian Blue. I do think WJBscribe could be a good Arb... But I also think this past year has shown that the current Arbcom, although filled with good Arbs, still isn't good enough. I think Arbcom needs to take a step forward, and I worry WJBscribe might just turn out to be more of the same. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully Oppose Close one, I believe that WJBscribe would be a decent ArbCom member, but he'll be more useful as a b-crat. Last year I opposed Deskana for the same reason, and he burned out. Also there are two other candidates in the same vote range that I'm more willing to support, and I think WJBscribe would be too lenient on controversial users and ArbCom doesn't need that. Secret ^account 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not entirely accurate. I burned out due to serious illness, and that would have been no different if I had been elected to ArbCom or not. Deskana (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Synchronism (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)~~
Partially tactical, partially due to hat collection/per JayHenry. Giggy (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
R. Baley (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Career mandarin. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Far too many issues to list here. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Note on my talk page. THE GROOVE 06:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal, purely politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Justforasecond (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose It's important to have arbs who are aware of the political inner workings of the project. But WJBscribe is very involved in these things and, voluntarily or not, he'd be part of ArbCom's image problem. Independence from the apparatchiks is already problematic. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. - jc37 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Eóin (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Partly tactical, and partly because of the concentration of power; I'm willing to overlook that, but only for candidates from whom I've personally seen fantastic things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs)
Oppose. Jim62sch^dissera! 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. @pple complain 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. Tony (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian-blue puts it well. Caulde 12:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but no. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose —Ashley Y 05:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose pending answers. Unreasonable lack of timeliness in responses suggests this candidate has too much on his plate - nearly 2 weeks since I posted question 1, and still no answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose and it pains me to do so, because WJBScribe really cut through some nonsense on my behalf once [39] which I really appreciate. SandyGeorgia and others, however, have brought up some concerns [40] that I can't ignore. Otherwise, I really appreciate his contributions and work with helping the project. Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, but I think that others will be better. Captain panda 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, editors blocked for this type of gross misbehavior [41] need to stay blocked. Also seems to want to allow more BLP. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctant oppose. Clearly a good WPian. I agree with his unblock of Giano. My vote is the sum of a series of small doubts, combined with the Hats/Extended thing (I opposed Deskana last year, similar idea) rather than a single major objection. Jd2718 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Extremely reluctant oppose I really hate to do this. He's a good wikipedian. I didn't agree generally with his unblock of Giano but it was the fair and proper thing to do. He has been helpful and consistent wherever I have seen him. But I am inclined to vote tactically to support Jayvdb's candidacy. I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Marginal call, but I think this is the best position for me to be on record. GRBerry 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I am a fan of Scribe, but concern over concentration of power combined with desire to see certain voices on ArbCom pushes me to narrowly oppose.--Kubigula (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Splash - tk 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I read the statements of the 2 people in 7th place. I decided I had to make a decision based on just that, lest I spend an entire evening reading questions and diffs. The other candidate's statement was more impressive. Nothing personal. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sandy the Kingmaker, and despite his unblock of Giano, which was right. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think Crats should be Arbs. RMHED (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Seems unlikely to resolve our ongoing dilemmas. Fred Talk 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Elonka. DepartedUser (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The following voting is preserved as an archive of when the candidate withdrew. Please do not modify it. No further votes should be added to this page.

Support

— CharlotteWebb 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Switzpaw (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The AC doesn't know how to kick ass when it's needed, and therefore needs an ass kicker. rootology (C)(T) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Reluctantly support In nearly every instance I've seen her on ANI, Gwen seems to have no hesitation in cutting through crap and issuing blocks while others dither. I'd hate to see her devote less time to Admin tasks in favor of ArbCom work, but if that's where she thinks her talents are most helpful, then more power to her.Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synchronism (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to some interaction that makes me doubt her abilities as on arb comm. While I think Gwen is a good editor, I don't think she has the best skil set to listen and discuss, which is needed as an arb. Note: I'm not watchlisting this and do not want to show diffs as it links to my old username, which I'd prefer not to do. Will provide them if neeeded. StarM 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think this user is ready for arbcom yet.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You seem like a good editor, but having an editing restriction in the past makes me queezy. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - While I respect you as an admin, I think that the Arbcom needs editors who will take action after carefully considered thought, rather than vice-versa. – Toon ^(talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good admin, arbitrator requires other talents. Avruch^T 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Gwen Gale wasn't even on my radar, positively or negatively, until this week, and then I was involved in an incident with her and her judgment gave me such pause. So for that, I oppose, and suggest she looks into how she deals with disputes. Like it or not, this is the highest community "court" or what have you that we have here, and after what I saw, I don't want her on it, probably ever. Mike H. Fierce! 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry :)҉ --Mixwell!^Talk 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you really sunk it for me on Talk:Rush Limbaugh. I found your arguments and sources on there to be a disgrace, frankly. Or, User:Avruch said, "I think some of your arguments have been disingenuous, and beneath what I believe your intelligence and perceptive ability to be." David Shankbone 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"As for transparency worries, I haven't even been on the admin IRC channel" ? IRC is not evil, as with all things it can be misused. (and per answers to questions) Prodego ^talk 03:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
GRBerry 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Too soon after some quite significant concerns. --JayHenry (talk) 04:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My overall impression of Gwen is positive, but I can't say I thoroughly trust her judgement for this position. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. While I agree that ArbCom decisions are many times made slowly, most seem to be made in a reasonable amount of time. ArbCom does require a more gently touch when making decisions, though, and while swift action is often necessary for an admin, it's not usually a good thing (or required) with ArbCom issues. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The above voting is preserved as an archive of when the candidate withdrew. Please do not modify it. No further votes should be added to this page.

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

--Kanonkas : Talk 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
HiDrNick! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Black Kite 00:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ priyanath ^talk 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Switching to oppose, due to the concerns about inactivity. --El on ka 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was impressed with what I saw of Sam a while back. More recently, I would have liked to see more signs of coming forward to do the right thing, but having seen no signs of doing the wrong thing, I'll trust my early impressions. ElinorD (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
NoCal100 (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Euryalus (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moving to oppose, per inactivity concerns. iMatthew 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Graham87 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Generally clueful, and per the Sam Korn solution. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Reaves 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
sure. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I am strongly inclined to oppose the current, or former sitting Arbs, but not in this case. I think this is what is needed. rootology (C)(T) 03:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Captain panda 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak support only in that I support other candidates more, but I believe you would be an asset to the community as an arbitrator, and are approachable, clueful and level-headed. Orderinchaos 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. (rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
It is to my knowledge that Sam has already served on the arbitration committee, which would almost immediately lead me to oppose in preference of new perspectives. However, his reputation as an effective mediator, as well as sound judgement and level-headedness, have convinced me to make this an exception. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He isn't exactly new blood or anything, but he knows what needs to be fixed. Mike H. Fierce! 06:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Carnildo (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
–Moondyne 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support لenna vecia 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No problems apart from inactivity... which can be addressed. —Dark ^talk 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Stifle (talk) 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I'm for throwing all current members (other than NYB) out, but Sam was off of the committee since 2006 and not party to its recent ineptitude, so I'll support him. --B (talk) 13:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Agree with above comments by Master&Expert (talk · contribs) and Rootology (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose concerns are not especially serious. A good CU with fine judgment. Moreschi (talk) 15:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Verbal chat 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 19:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I like the methodologies Sam uses in the course of his ArbCom work. I am inclined to say he's unlikely to be a clone of the current Committee, also, despite his previously holding a seat. Support. AGK 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: The reason Sam has been an inactive Arb of late is because he has not been an Arb for some time! When he was and Arb he was OK. He's young and keen and knows his way about the place - so give him a chance. Giano (talk) 21:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose (further reasoning here) Majorly ^talk 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry Ottava Rima (talk) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Pcap ping 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity Everyone complains about ArbCom being slow, I'm wondering historically why so many people can make 100 edits per month and still do well in elections. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Per YellowMonkey. I hadn't made up my mind on this candidacy, but to see a sitting arb oppose for inactivity is very worrisome. Taking heed. Durova^Charge! 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per Majorly. Durova's concerns are also significant. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sam's (non-)answers suggest to me that he's still married to the ArbCom's unneeded and harmful culture of secrecy, as well as general concerns about incumbency, Mantanmoreland, etc. --JayHenry (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity is a big issue. I have seen the same inactivity on oversight-l, which concerns me more as I specifically asked for ex-arbs to help with the workload until more were appointed. i.e. checking requests were all actioned and giving second opinions on the more complicated cases. A few ex-arbs are doing this but it is rare. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There's no reason to believe he'll be a better arbitrator now than he was in the past. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. This candidate is part of that old, entrenched, shadowy club. Represents a step backward.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.-gadfium 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose due to inactivity, as well as other concerns raised above. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}07:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Durova. A nice person though. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Was going to support but I had not considered the inactivity element until now, and this is indeed an issue. Pedro : Chat 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity and Mantanmoreland. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
No confidence in judgement. Brilliantine (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretful oppose. My interactions with him have always shown him to be civil, insightful, and clueful. Unfortunately, one of the major issues with ArbCom is its glacial pace, and general inactivity is not a good way to redress this. // roux editor review09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose, based on concerns expressed by YellowMonkey, FatMan. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - forwards, not back. Sorry Fritzpoll (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Inactivity. SashaNein (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Switched from support, because of concerns about inactivity. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 16:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Alæxis_¿question? 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to gain new members, rather than put back old members. >Radiant< 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
For this, lack of answers to both my and several other users' questions, and inactivity. Acalamari 17:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Due to inactivity concerns. --Kbdank71 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
strongest oppose ex-arb, we don't need ex-arbs, but change. Was under eighteen when he served on arbcom (this now isn't allowed.) Is still only nineteen years old. No offense but he won't be as able to empathize with some older editors due to having been through less life circumstances and having a smaller range of experiences. Sticky Parkin 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weakly; I've definitely been impressed with Sam's work since his return to Wikipedia. Still, Wikipedia has changed a lot, and I'd like to see a little more current work in the trenches before supporting - anything that lowers the already dismal in-touchness of the Committee is bad. I can see supporting next year, but not this year, for that reason. Keep up the good work, and best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per inactivity concerns. iMatthew 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Sticky Parkin GTD 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
If a sitting arb isn't supporting because of inactivity issues... Viridae ^Talk 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose.Biophys (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Agree with Fritzpoll, forward, not backward. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sam Korn has badly misunderstood policy and engaged in uncivil conduct to a startling extent (including during his run as an arbitrator). —David Levy 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
We need new blood, not a re-tread. Sorry. Tex (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support due to no memorable negative interactions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Seems to have a good head, actually does have experience (despite a few oppose notes to the contrary), and being an admin isn't a requirement for being on ArbCom. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Contributions show that the candidate has been a sensible voice on some seriously contentious pages, and in my view would be an asset to ArbComm. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support because I agree with the statement and the view on contributors and editors.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
support - per Elonka. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
support--Severino (talk) 08:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, since candidate is not even an admin yet. --El on ka 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Avruch^T 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
—Locke Cole • t • c 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mixwell!^Talk 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Koji† 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not yet experienced. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - not enough experience. Sorry. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 03:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
MER-C 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just too vague for me. Questions are left unanswered. Mike H. Fierce! 05:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 05:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per lack of experience. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not an administrator, simplistic answers to questions, no indication of any particular aptitude for the job. Sandstein 06:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Davewild (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, little experience, and those questions which are answered indicate he would weaken nonfree content rules which need strengthening instead. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't convinced by the answers to certain questions. Brilliantine (talk) 08:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose, wIshy-washy answers to questions, and then the whole experience thing. Maybe next time. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux editor review09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 and blocks. Sorry. --Mark Chung (talk) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 10:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Regretfully, since I generally think you're a good user, who has the best interests of the project at heart. However, your views of arbcom as the "highest court" on WP give me great pause. AC is definitely not a "court", and someone who would treat it that way need not be elected to the post. Best regards, ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Needs more experience, administrator maybe in the future? --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 16:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal; you seem like a great editor, but I really think that experience as an admin is necessary experience for this role. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Good contributor, but more experience needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Sorry, more experience needed. The Helpful One 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
Synergy 19:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
While adminship is no requirement for arbcom, the level of trust is significant. Remember that arbcom is an authority above and beyond the community, and with the work they involved in, access to admin tools will probably become necessary. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ...Modernist (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Due to inexperience. Joe Nu tter 22:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Has the right idea and seems to be serious, but I'd like to see more experience. GlassCobra 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Bearian (talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just because of your lack of experience.--Caspian blue 01:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Questions vague or unanswered, not admin. Sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Trix is for Kids, ArbCom is for Admins!--Cerejota (talk) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. 1100 edits over three years is relatively paltry. RGTraynor 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Out to lunch on the OrangeMarlin case. Candidate either does not have much background knowledge of previous ArbCom cases, or does not elect to display that knowledge. Badger Drink (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose User has been around for a long time. But he has edited very, very sporadically. Marlith (Talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lacks experience as an editor..--Comet styles 07:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 07:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

Support, impressed by platform.--Maxim_(talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Privatemusings (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Has shown great judgment in a number of situations I've encountered him in. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. The "always sanction" platform looks odd at first, but I think it means he'll try to avoid accepting cases where sanctions are not needed. Previous judgment has been sound in my opinion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - I concur with the interpretation given above. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support an early mentor of mine ---Taprobanus (talk) 20:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Have severe misgivings about your candidate statement but answers to questions look quite good. Davewild (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mostly a moral support at this point. When it comes to dealing with administrators, at least, it's true that ArbCom mostly gives out "hugs and handjobs". This has unfortunately perpetuated our caste system between admins and non-admins and Wily's hatchet, though a cruder instrument than ideal, would give these cases a valuable tilt. --JayHenry (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I supported your RfA 19 months ago, no reason to stop supporting you today ...--Comet styles 06:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Answers to old Arbs on Arbcom mailing list and OrangeMarlin case were specific and dead on correct. May be a too enthusiastic about punishment of arbitration cases but I'll risk it. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

HiDrNick! 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
El on ka 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Very strong oppose. The last thing we need is more ban/block drama from Arbcom. – iride scent 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
kur ykh 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Candidate has made it clear that he accepts hypocritical double standards and the objectifying of users as long as it is done by one of his associates. In addition, user lacks a clear understanding of civil and uses the policy to threaten behavior that questions the judgment of his associates. This is extremely troubling and disqualifies him immediately for ArbCom. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per "hugs and handjobs". Good joke, but this is (relatively speaking) serious business. No one wants a hatchet job. They want considered improvement in the way ArbCom operates and its responsiveness to the community. Steven Walling (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sanctions for every case, regardless of the background? That is like a judge saying "Every time someone is charged, at least one person is going to jail - I don't care who!" It doesn't make any sense. Avruch^T 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Avurch, for one, and for two: We do not need even more block drama anywhere on the wiki, let alone arbcom... _David ^WS _(contribs) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 02:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Blocked MZMcBride for doing the right thing. — CharlotteWebb 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
--Mixwell!^Talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. GJC 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
In so far I agree that the current arbcom is to lenient, a hanging judge is an extreme we do not need. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
"Because the ArbCom is too lenient" O_O! Nooooo it isn't. Prodego ^talk 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per the FCC. BJ^Talk 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Far too punitive. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was really not a huge fan of the answer he made to the anonymity question. I'd prefer that in this higher position, that the community at least has a vague idea of who the person is, yes, including their name. Mike H. Fierce! 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose, per hatchets. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
He keeps his finger on the trigger too often. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Caspian blue 05:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-- Avi (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - moar dramahz not necessary; incivility is a concern; I am concerned (due to his interactions with me) that this user is not as capable of remaining impartial as others are. // roux editor review08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PeterSymonds (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems like this user would generate more heat than light. Stifle (talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong 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 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Is this a joke? I hope so. Viriditas (talk) 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Just remembered this quote and it made me think of WilyD: "I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail."[42] Viriditas (talk) 09:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
This is not a joke entry, as I have witnessed him take extreme action with this odd behavior before. It's already scary enough that he's an administrator, but the least I can do is put in my STRONG OPPOSE vote to help stop this person from being put in a position to severely damage Wikipedia. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I would seriously consider supporting if you ran under a platform of structured review and redevelopment. I oppose such a heavy-handed candidacy, however. Hope to see you next year sans the giant banhammer. AGK 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - cases should be judged on the evidence. We cannot be sure what remedies may be most appropriate in a case until the evidence is presented. Even if we have an idea that harsh remedies may be required, we should remain open-minded until we see the evidence. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
GlassCobra 00:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Seddσn ^talk 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose' Knife play migth have its place, ArbCom ain't one of 'em. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I like your style, and you've always impressed me as sensible and clueful. I'd support you as a serious candidate, but I get the feeling this isn't a totally serious candidacy, so for now I have to oppose. Keep up the good work, though, and best of luck. MastCell ^Talk 19:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Ditto Keep up the good work. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. MookieZ (talk) 21:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I'm all for blood on the floor but your admin log says otherwise William M. Connolley (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom is about what happens in the Wikipedia namespace. His lack of participation there is alarming. Marlith (Talk) 04:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 18:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 08:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
While less leniency might be good, categorically stating that you will always impose some kind of restriction for every case at ArbCom is not flexible enough. Joe Nu tter 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. If evidence is too 'personal' to be given to the person it is being used against, then it can't be used. End of. Cynical (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ArbCom is not the Police. --Michael X the White (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Very Strong Oppose I simply cannot stand a regular Wikipedian that does not uphold WP:AGF, let alone an abriter. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose. I actually liked the answers to the questions and was drifting toward a support. However, when examining the candidates contributions I was disturbed by a tendency to strong opinions, and the need to keep pushing that opinion rather than considering the alternative viewpoints. I think this sums up the candidate's position quite well. The repeated assertions that the candidate is right rather than considering what other people are saying does not give me confidence that this candidate would be a useful member of a committee. Stubborn and strong opinions are not useful ArbCom qualities. SilkTork *^YES! 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BigDunc^Talk 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Nominations are now closed.
Candidate questions are now closed.
Voting has now closed. See vote tallies.
Jimbo Wales has appointed the new members (20 December 2008).

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/ACECascade2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Support

An editor with integrity, openness, and commitment to the ideals of what this project is supposed to be about. Cla68 (talk) 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Shot info (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ~~per Durova. I think we less secrecy and more openness in Arbcom decisions and~~ Jehochman is a right guy Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oren0 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support simply because you have the experience and have been about 50/50, which is better than what most people would be. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
PhilKnight (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
per OR. Giggy (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I had made a list of people who I would be fine with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Arbiters that would be unfraid to in public diverge strongly from any inappropriate AC "party line" are needed. Wikipedia is more important than the AC, and someone who seems to think that way has my vote. Drama? Maybe, but sometimes you need the fire of public drama to keep back-channel operators in line and from dealing inappropriately. rootology (C)(T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support John254 03:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Prodego ^talk 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
You go, Jehochman! Ecoleetage (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Strikes me as opinionated, principled, clear-spoken, and beholden to no one. Would make a strong arb.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Shows that he understands the many kinds of editors that make up Wikipedia, not just the highly visible cliques. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support, I dont agree with many of his answers, but I do like them. Diversity is good. He has a very strong experience in the frustrations of arbitration, and a different approach to dealing with matters. I think he would be a good addition to a committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Jehochman seems to me to be a deep thinking editor who sincerely wants the best for the encyclopedia, and consistently does what he believes to be best. Unfortunately, such actions seldom earn friends and support from the masses, which is a great pity, as Wikipedia needs some gentle reforms and Jehochman is one of the few I would trust to help bring them about. The Arbitration committee needs a better mix of editors, and it needs such as Hochman. Giano (talk) 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Futile Support. Brilliantine (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Avenue (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Support - Jehochman is thoughtful and widely experience in a number of areas relevant to Arbitration. Fritzpoll (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I am personally voting for Jehochman from the positive behaviors I have experienced with him. He does dip into the drama areas but I see him trying to add more light than fire to them. Good luck! --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Horologium (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support - Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 11:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support •CHILLDOUBT• 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support better than what we have! Verbal chat 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Support~~ My change, withdrawing my support Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, the account checker on the ArbCom Elections page says I AM eligible to vote in this election. What is going on here? I protest this seemingly arbitrary decision. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 03:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
According to wannabe_kate this user has 167 edits before November 1st. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
An ongoing discussion about this user's votes, and whether they should be allowed or not, is ongoing at WT:ACE2008#Eligibility. --El on ka 02:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Apologies. My bad. (For missing the 'mainspace edits' constraint.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 18:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the discussion is over and noone is really advocating that we change the rules. Either way, the rules say the vote doesn't count, so until consensus to the contrary is developed, the vote should remain stricken. ST47 (talk) 03:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support I don't agree on everything he does, but he's a fast improvement over most of the gang.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I think Jehochman would be an excellent Arbitrator, and he's been willing to get his hands dirty, which sets him apart from nearly all of the other candidates. I'd like to see a day where active involvement in the project's controversial issues is not automatic certain doom for an ArbCom candidate; it should be a requirement. MastCell ^Talk 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Weaker than expected support. Some time ago, I contacted Jehochman privately to ask that he consider running for Arb Comm. Since then, I've come to share some of the concerns from opposers about drama-mongery, and I hope that he'll take these concerns under advisement if elected. On the whole, however, he remains one of the more courageous and level-headed candidates. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
On balance. Davewild (talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Orangemarlin: I don't agree with everything Jehochman does, but I trust his judgment overall. My own interactions with him have been fine, and he has the necessary experience for the role. Acalamari 19:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tiptoety ^talk 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hut 8.5 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Per his answer to my question, and a general sense that he has sense. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 21:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)~~Nothing personal, just strategy.

Support Sensible and fair.Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Have always held this editor in high regard for his integrity and good sence. Ceoil (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Moral Support. I admire Jehochman's diligence and forthrightness. I was also impressed with the clear-headed answers to questions. The tendency to drama and promotion of issues into arbitration cases is a concern. Jeh's steady progression bodes well for next year though. Franamax (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support...Modernist (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Long-standing user, and though I acknowledge the concerns of the opposers, I feel that previous ArbCom case experience is relevant, and this candidate is more suitable than some others that are running. GlassCobra 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. A brave and wise admin who has gotten his hands dirty, made some mistakes, and learned from them. Overall a positive learning curve. -- Fyslee / talk 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Alexfusco⁵ 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. not afraid of messes. (basically, per Mastcell/Orangemarlin above) Keeper ǀ 76 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Although his contributions have caused some waves at AN/I, I personally believe that Jehochman is one of the few candidates who has the capacity to handle some of the difficult choices and changes ahead at arbcom.Nrswanson (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
--Michael White^T·C 07:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Although I have disagreed with some of Jehochman's actions and comments in the past, I believe that he is an administrator that has integrity and motive, and is willing to lead the charge for changes at ArbCom. Good luck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ankimai (talk) 22:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Not one to bend under pressure. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Tries to speak the truth. The poor sod. S B H arris 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I've always felt that jehochman was a bit hasty in the things that he does as an admin and was planning on not voting, but, on reading the answers to the questions (well, the ones I'm interested in anyway) I changed my mind. Tersely expressed perhaps, but very reasonable and focused around content and quality, the two things that are perhaps the most important for wikipedia. Perhaps a plain speaking arbitrator, if a tetchy one, will be a useful addition to the committee. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. --BozMo talk 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Jehochman is a kind editor that gives other users advice. I will support you. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. I don't see a problem with his nomination. -- Alexf^(talk) 12:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support He listens. Is reasonable. Shows good judgement. --HighKing (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Support. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Happy‑melon 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Terence (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support per Cla68.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support because candidate has appropriate experience, willingness and a good deal of clue and right attitude. The ability to be flexible and learn from experience is a major positive and I'm concerned that some oppose votes see this as a negative. As this candidate has operated in some tricky areas and has made the bold decisions it is not surprising that some users do not agree with his actions. I have examined the links provided in the oppose section and on the whole they actually show Jehochman in a positive light - reflecting on his actions, offering explanations, standing up for the project, etc. SilkTork *^YES! 13:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Support: Although, early on, Jehochman fell a bit toward the social side of Wikipedia, he was always aiming for proper practice and principles, and he is now clear eyed about the situation and wary of clubs and factions. That is what makes him appropriate for ArbCom, and not merely being an administrator. Geogre (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim_(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest possible oppose Jehochman has a long history of what could be termed dispute enhancement: passing out pitchforks and lighting torches. Most recently he did that with the banned sockpuppet that was spreading rumors about FT2, Giano, and Oversight. Jehochman even cross posted the troll’s claims to AE under the subthread heading ‘Conspiracy?’. A couple of weeks earlier Jehochman was the sole certifier for the unpopular RFC initiated by Charles Matthews on Slrubenstein. Jehochman was the one who initiated the controversial Elonka recall drive. In the leadup to the unfortunate Zeraeph arbitration he started a community ban proposal on her while other editors were seeking to deescalate. This is pattern behavior that Jehochman has demonstrated in a lot of other situations also: turning up the heat when it isn’t necessary, then after dozens of other people make the difficult decision to come down on one side or another he acts conciliatory and bows out of the resulting mess. Few administrators could be less suitable for arbitration than someone who does this habitually. Durova^Charge! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion removed to talk. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Concerned oppose. Perhaps a minor thing, but edit warring against consensus a day before voting begins??? If someone can't avoid problematic behavior even when the eyes of the project are on them, god help us if they got a three-year tenure as an arb. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Dlabtot (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Voyaging^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Durova. Mathsci (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iride scent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
6SJ7 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
krimpet ✽ 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Majorly ^talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Upgraded to strong oppose, per petty edit warring on the questions page. Majorly ^talk 15:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. I concur with Durova's assessment, and would add IRC admin-shopping and a history of on-wiki harassment to the list of concerns about Jehochman's behavior. He is absolutely not someone who should be on the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee. Further comments and diffs, as well as Jehochman's rebuttal, are available at my ACE2008 notes page. --El on ka 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion moved to talk page. I'd invite Elonka to respond there. AGK 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Steven Walling (talk) 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Needs to learn how to reduce drama rather than increase it. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Not a bad guy, but he has some ongoing disputes with other admins and long term contributors that I think demonstrate the sort of battleground positioning which has been detrimental to Wikipedia. Avruch^T 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
RockManQ^{Review me} 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
A little too much politics, not enough encyclopedia building. Agne ^Cheese/^Wine 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Atmoz (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose at the strongest point ever. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
҉ Sorry :) --Mixwell!^Talk 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you can't vote twice. miranda 02:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I was going to be one of his strongest supporters, but oppose over his recent actions which show he's quick to give excessive credence to what certain people say and spread it in some of the most public venues on wiki, prolonging a dispute/contratemps. (to clarify, I mean the "conspiracy?" (against Giano) allegations, essentially Durova's point. I didn't even realise he was part of the SlRubenstein RfC- that puts extra icing on the cake that wasn't even needed. Sticky Parkin 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I've seen this user "resolving" disputes - I don't want to see them as an Arbitrator. GRBerry 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Captain panda 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose BJ^Talk 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Someone who was involved one of the biggest dramas of the past year should not be running for a position of power this soon. People still remember this and it sits absolutely horribly with me. Mike H. Fierce! 04:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
My overall impression of Jehochman is positive - he strikes me as a mature and capable administrator. But he's altogether too prone to drama, and more importantly, his positive qualities are better suited for other areas of Wikipedia. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose: For serious past judgement mistakes. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Like Master Expert, and some others here, I have a generally positive experience of him as a fellow admin. But in the past I have felt he was too close, too protective of some other editors and admins I wound up enmeshed in drama with. So I feel, and these oppose votes bear this feeling out, that enough of the community cannot see him as adequately impartial for me to feel comfortable putting him in an Arbitrator's chair. Daniel Case (talk) 05:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. While I think he means well (and generally does a good job), I don't think he has the temperament for ArbCom work. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose For various reasons stated by others. لenna vecia 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Rebecca (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, wrong temperament, wrong views on BLP and ArbCom making policy, wrong candidate for the position. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - we need fire extinguishers, not more fuel. // roux editor review10:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Durova. Less drama, please. Stifle (talk) 10:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
— neuro^(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - I like Jehochman, but he seems far too willing to tolerate disruption from established users for me to support. Ronnotel (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
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 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Per Durova and Cla68 --B (talk) 13:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 14:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Absolutely Not By far one of the biggest drama mongers running for the committee. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose per Alecmconroy. Dengero (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - too quick to judge. I was involved in a misunderstanding with another editor and Jehochman said I "very well might be a troll" based solely on the word of that other editor. After I calmly explained the situation he did concede my position, but an arbitrator needs to reserve judgement until he knows all the facts. ATren (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 15:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Poor attitude re BLP--Scott Mac (Doc) 17:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Catchpole (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose When I asked Jehochman to remove a derogatory comment about me from an other editors page he told me to ignore it, when the mediator who was dealing with my mediation removed it he warned him about removing it and went on to protect the page with offending comment still on it. Jehochman removed it after getting approval from the editor who had placed the comments 15 mins after PP. Also his lack of good faith in my reason saying that I set out to purposly decieve here is troubling. BigDunc^Talk 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Synergy 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Strongest Possible Oppose for the complete lack of objectivity, judgment, reason, and especially wisdom that arbitrators desperately need, and for the abuse of administrator privileges. An example: this "harassment" accusation by Jehochman was a response to objection to this. Examples are numerous, but have no energy to point to them all. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry that you made me login, but this matter is important so I did it. Lakinekaki (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I object to arbiters who want to increase the amount of secrecy surrounding the committee. >Radiant< 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
~~Oppose~~ Strong Oppose Adjusted to strong oppose following this pursuit of Sarah after her oppose !vote, and which I assume is also referred to in Orderinchaos' !vote below. This is definitely not the type of behaviour I would expect from any potential ArbCom member. --VS ^talk 00:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - His recent actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement#Science Apologist and Pseudoscience show lack of judgment, poor conflict management and possibly even lack of impartiality. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose, many issues, Durova's assessment is right on target and including support of edit warring, uncivil editors per the above. Dreadstar † 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, per Durova -- TimidGuy (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, unqualified and vindictive. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Martintg (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Even ignoring all the issues with administrative action, the candidates' platform shows no real indication of original thought; "let's do everything we're supposed to be doing, but better" is not a particularly compelling message when one is running to join an institution this discredited. Skomorokh 03:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Sorry, but I looked into your recent edit history and the nature of your involvement in various issues mentioned above. Although I don't necessarily support the positions of others in some of these situations, I am very uneasy with the tenor of your behavior and feel I must oppose. —Mattisse (Talk) 05:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 05:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for unhelpful involvement in several recent conflagrations. Chick Bowen 05:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have serious concerns about Jehochman's behaviour over the last year and I do not believe having him serve on the committee is in the project's best interests. Sarah 09:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Saw a comment a few months ago, made me scared of him. Willing to reconsider. Chergles (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, sorry. I think he tries for the best, but I don't see him as an efficient arbiter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
miranda 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
oppose ARBCOM should be about resolving problems not creating them, Jehochman recent activity doesnt make that likely Gnan garra 01:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose, --CreazySuit (talk) 01:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- auburnpilot talk 06:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Gentgeen (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I was on the fence with this as you do some really good work. The concerns voiced here, from so many editors I respect and admire are just too great to ignore. Are they all wrong, or are they saying something you should take into consideration? Viriditas (talk) 10:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Kusma (talk) 12:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Rockpocket 17:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose Jehochman is smart, but flip-flops too quickly in conflicts; the effect is to stir up fires rather than calm things down. too political. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Strong oppose. Having seen Jehochman's history, I do not believe his arbitrage would be useful to the project in any meaningful sense. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 18:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Michael Snow (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --maclean 03:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Weak oppose. Would have supported in the past, but the recent involvement in the Giano case has made me question his judgement. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Nothing personal; I have preferences. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman has done some good stuff lately but I am still uneasy about his history. Sorry. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for drama enhancement and questionable comments here. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Concerns with flip flopping of judgment and consequently a seeming lack of conviction on stances he takes (irrespective of whether I agree with the stance or not).Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC))
Oppose Per display of very poor judgement.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. You "might" have to disregard evidence if it can't be shared with the person it will potentially be used to sanction? In this context, to paraphrase Yoda, there is no "might". Cynical (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
A pitchfork-and-torch merchant, as Durova says. --TS 00:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 20:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Wronkiew (talk) 06:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Some conduct concerns. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Jehochman wikilawyers his way around the noticeboard and I've seen inappropriate conduct on too many occasions - most of those are metioned in Durova's oppose above. Caulde 12:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Was going to abstain on the basis of my high regard for the candidate on a personal level, but some recent displays of high-handed and impetuous behaviour [43] [44] together with a total consideration of some other issues, including the initiation of several ArbCom requests in a rather hasty fashion earlier in the year, the execution-before-trial approach highlighted by other people here, and some comments made by him on the IRC en-admins channel, leads me to conclude that there is a real risk of a blood rush to the head if this candidate were to be elected. I find it particularly sad as I had very good dealings with the candidate in 2007 and voted support on his RfA based on substantially different exhibited behaviour. At least the candidate cannot accuse *me* of insufficient content contributions in recent months. Orderinchaos 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.