Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/SirFozzie - Wikipedia


Article Images

The last year has been a rough one for the Arbitration Committee. Several tough cases have come before ArbCom, and they'll be the first to admit that missteps have been made. There need to be new blood and new ideas on the Arbitration Committee, and I think that I am a good candidate to bring both to Wikipedia's last step in dispute resolution.

First, I must make a preemptive pledge. The Arbitration Committee has had a high percentage of burnout, since its inception. It takes a lot out of anyone who has to necessarily be knee deep in every major conflict on the encyclopedia. There are items being proposed that would revamp the number of users on the Arbitration Committee, as well as the length of time in a term. I have made a proposal that seemed to get good community support, that would limit ArbCom terms to two years. I will hold myself to those terms: If elected, I will inform Jimbo that I wish my "tranche" to end in December 2010, and will either finish my post at that time, or run for re-election at that time.

The Arbitration Commitee has generally served Wikipedia well, but as more and more "old-hands" on the committee have succumbed to burnout and battle fatigue, there's been stutters, a sense that sometimes, the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. There's also been a sense that ArbCom has become a bit more like a deity sitting on high, taking pleadings from petitioners, and then issuing proclamations from above. In several cases I've been in front of ArbCom, there was a sense of the community that they wished ArbCom would help provide guidance in a case, on what evidence that they wanted to see, which was not forthcoming.

I see a more open Arbitration Committee coming. One more accountable to its users that elect it. One making wiser decisions.

Due to pure turnover, the Arbitration Committee IS changing. Now we, the users of Wikipedia have our own charge. The arbitrators that we elect, over the next two or three years, will greatly influence how ArbCom in turn influences the encyclopedia. It's in your hands. Elect the candidates that you think will be able to influence the encyclopedia the best way.

 Voting in this election is now closed.
Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.
  1. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HiDrNick! 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Black Kite 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ouststanding contributions including being a key player in pushing for a resolution of the Mantanmoreland fiasco. Cla68 (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Mantanmoreland case... sounds familiar. Good work there. Cool Hand Luke 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 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. DurovaCharge! 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ priyanath talk 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Weakly, per rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  11. Support GTD 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Tom B (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. iridescent 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. kurykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. krimpet✽ 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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)[reply]
  18. 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)[reply]
  19. Protonk (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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 meMy work 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. We need more critical thinkers like him. Mike H. Fierce! 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. User has great judgement skills and is highly outspoken, basically what's needed from an arbitrator ..--Cometstyles 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. iMatthew 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, Durova sums it up. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Sir Strawberry. All you need is the Quixote lance. SBHarris 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. --MPerel 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. CIreland (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Synchronism (talk) 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support for the same reasons as given by Durova (above). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. 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)[reply]
  36. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support لennavecia 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support. Cirt (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - would be an excellent addition to the Committee Fritzpoll (talk) 09:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Stifle (talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Horologium (talk) 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Absoloutely per Durova. ViridaeTalk 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Support. Jehochman Talk 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. [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)[reply]
  51. --Kbdank71 17:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. --A NobodyMy talk 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 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)[reply]
  54. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  55. Synergy 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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)[reply]
  57. I think so, yes. Support. AGK 20:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Yup--Scott Mac (Doc) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - Seems to have some mediatorial (<-- new word) experience; that's nice. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Goods answers just outweigh concerns. Davewild (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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)[reply]
  63. Support - Ya betcha. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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)[reply]
  66. Support...Modernist (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. The Mantanmoreland case clinched it for me. Dr. eXtreme 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support--Caspian blue 01:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I trust this user. AniMate 01:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. I trust his judgment. Rockpocket 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support per Durova. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support I trust this user and agree with his proposals, for the most part. Enigma message 04:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support ៛ Bielle (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. east718 07:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support Hardyplants (talk) 08:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. I wasn't sure about SirFozzie, but after further thought and review, he has my support. Acalamari 16:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support reform of ArbCom --Cameron* 16:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. 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)[reply]
  84. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. — Ѕandahl ♥ 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. support - per the opposes (which are uncompelling) and mantanmoreland. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support Good, outspoken, thoughtful user.  Marlith (Talk)  03:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - of course! Durova puts it better than I could - Alison ❤ 04:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Kusma (talk) 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support - --Narson ~ Talk • 15:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support TimidGuy (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support Go Foz! :) ~Eliz81(C) 20:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Michael Snow (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support - User has displayed qualities necessary for ArbCom IMO.--Zereshk (talk) 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Achromatic (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Joe Nutter 01:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support--Node (talk) 02:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. 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)[reply]
  101. 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)[reply]
  102. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. HaeB (talk) 09:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. support. He has a great judgment. --Wayiran (talk) 11:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. --NikoSilver 12:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. A man in space (talk) 14:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, admirable work in the Mantanmoreland case; displayed good sense elsewhere -- Noroton (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support. Has displayed a cool head and a willingness to hear out various opinions. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 00:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Wronkiew (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Terence (talk) 10:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. 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)[reply]
  112. Support. Would do well.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support, - Shyam (T/C) 09:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. 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)[reply]
  116. Support for judgement shown MikeHobday (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. 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)[reply]
  118. Support - Biruitorul Talk 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support--Iamawesome800 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support —CComMack (t–c) 19:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. 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)[reply]
  123. Support ww2censor (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Giano (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Willing to keep a cool head in tackling very tough situations. Choess (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Tex (talk) 19:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. GRBerry 20:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Works hard and has taken some good courageous actions. We haven't always agreed... Ty 08:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. 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)[reply]
  130. Support good sense of judgment. --Raayen (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support --maclean 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - why? blast me! ++Lar: t/c 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. 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)[reply]
  137. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 01:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Snappy (talk) 02:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 21:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support -Dureo (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support A rare voice of reason, and trustworthy. --Rodhullandemu 23:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. 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)[reply]
  144. 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)[reply]
  145. 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)[reply]
  146. Support Switzpaw (talk) 22:08, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Per my reasons. MBisanz talk 03:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support. Gregg (talk) 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - sound judgement on what I have seen. Caulde 14:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. SQLQuery me! 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support AlexiusHoratius 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152.   jj137 (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support EJF (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. 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)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose because.... wakka wakka wakka Ottava Rima (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Steven Walling (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Majorly talk 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose - immature. Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Mixwell!Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. A little too much drama history for my taste. AgneCheese/Wine 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Atmoz (talk) 02:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. RockManQReview me 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 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)[reply]
  17. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Prodego talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
  20. 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)[reply]
  21. Keeps his finger on the trigger much too often. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sarah 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Rebecca (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    TorstenGuise (talk) 10:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  25. 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)[reply]
  26. Too wikipolitical --B (talk) 13:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 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)[reply]
  28. Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Strong opposeOrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. Strong oppose Does not have a level head. --Patrick (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Pcap ping 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Tiptoety talk 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. 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)[reply]
  35. Oppose Kernel Saunters (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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)[reply]
  37. Alexfusco5 02:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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)[reply]
  39. Khoikhoi 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
    "Strong oppose - incites drama, stirs up trouble, picks fights." - Look who's talking! ViridaeTalk 07:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  42. 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)[reply]
  43. Oppose Does not have a judicial temperament. Cardamon (talk) 08:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose --Rockybiggs (talk) 10:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose --Tikiwont (talk) 13:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Verbal chat 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 20:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. oppose unsound William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 21:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. IronDuke 00:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak Oppose per John Vandenberg.Nrswanson (talk) 00:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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 DissidentTalk 05:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Gentgeen (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Kauffner (talk) 14:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Sultec (talk) 16:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. R. Baley (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 07:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose deeceevoice (talk) 12:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose BigDuncTalk 16:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. opposeSlrubenstein | Talk 20:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Oppose - "Would I make a decision based on confidential information without making it public? Yes" Cynical (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. TS 00:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose--MONGO 02:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Too many issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Lucian Sunday (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Too conservative. -- Evertype·✆ 13:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Tim! (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. 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)[reply]
  78. Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 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)[reply]
  80. Oppose --VS talk 01:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. 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)[reply]
  83. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. 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)[reply]
  85. 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)[reply]
  86. Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 18:53, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose tgies (talk) 05:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed to Abstain Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 16:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Fred Talk 20:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Amalthea 04:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 11:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. 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)
  94. 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)[reply]
  95. Oppose. JBsupreme (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 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)[reply]
    Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. You do not have 150 main-namespace edits on or before 01 November 2008, you only had 36....--Cometstyles 10:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find I have over 14000. But I shan't push the issue. DrKay (talk) 10:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 :) ..--Cometstyles 10:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. 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)[reply]
  99. 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)[reply]
  100. 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)[reply]
  101. Oppose --Stux (talk) 21:48, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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)[reply]
  103. 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)[reply]