Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Xavexgoem (talk | contribs) at 01:45, 3 December 2008 (→Support: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:45, 3 December 2008 by Xavexgoem (talk | contribs) (→Support: +)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Shortcuts

2008 Arbitration Committee Election status

Cool Hand Luke

Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Misplaced Pages is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Misplaced Pages's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.
Thank you. Cool Hand Luke
Voting in this election is now closed.
Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

Support

  1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. Durova 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Support Captain panda 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Caspian blue 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. ~ priyanath  00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  10. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Support - Tom B (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Support. Jehochman 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    Steven Walling (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Yes. krimpet✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. 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 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  17. 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)
  18. Support Majorly 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  19. kurykh 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  20. – Toon 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  21. Support, but it would be nice to add in more content to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  22. Pretty much ditto Giggy and Ottava. Gimmetrow 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  23. 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 My work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  24. Pcap ping 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
    iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  25. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  26. Strong Support. Luke's campaign promises are extremely impressive. Worthy of our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  27. Giggity! Great user! --Mixwell! 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  28. Atmoz (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  29. I have faith that his head and temperament are in the right place to actually deliver on those campaign promises. Agne/ 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  30. I wrote a little endorsement on my blog. Good luck! David Shankbone 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  31. Support SBHarris 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  32. Support Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  33. --MPerel 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  34. Support. Gets it. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  35. Support John254 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  36. Support Burner0718 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  37. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  38. 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)
  39. Support. Bold candidacy, no doubletalk. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. Someone old bringing something new. This is the definition of someone who gets it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  42. Fair enough. MER-C 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  43. Strong support. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  44. Support. Very straightforward and willing to get in and work. ···日本穣 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  45. Enigma 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  46. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  47. 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)
  48. Strong support. Great admin. Will make a great Arb. bd2412 T 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  49. Highly sensible, excellent candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  50. 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)
  51. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  52. Support لennavecia 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  53. Support, generally clueful. Not concerned at all about the WR account. Titoxd 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  54. Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  55. 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 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  56. 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)
  57. Support - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  58. Support - if we don't want Misplaced Pages Review members, then we better kick NewYorkBrad out while we're at it. GTD 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  59. Support --CrohnieGal 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  60. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  61. Strong support -- level-headed and fair. ATren (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  62. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  63. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  64. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  65. 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)
  66. Support I liked most of your answers. RMHED (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  67. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  68. 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 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  69. Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  70. I think that Cool Hand Luke has the necessary judgment for ArbCom. Acalamari 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  71. --Kbdank71 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  72. Strongest possible support Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  73. 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)
  74. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  75. 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)
  76. Support Iain99 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  77. Support. -- Levine2112 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  78. 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)
  79. Support. Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  80. Brilliant wikipedia-space admin - he's got a ton of clue and knows his stuff. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  81. -Hit bull, win steak 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  82. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  83. Support User has commendable tenure, and answers to the questions impressed me. GlassCobra 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  84. Support. Easy. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  85. Tactical vote, despite uneasiness with stance on BLP. Skomorokh 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  86. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
    Template:Vote-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)
  87. 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 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  88. 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. eXtreme 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  89. Strongly. — Dan | talk 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  90. Yeah. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  91. Support. Bucketsofg 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  92. Because he has a cool hand. ~the editorofthewiki ~ 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  93. 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)
  94. Support on the basis of his reforming zeal and his call for transparency. --Wetman (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  95. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  96. Support.Nrswanson (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  97. Support - Zginder 2008-12-02T03:22Z (UTC)
  98. OK. Icy // ♫ 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  99. Synchronism (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  100. Supporting change, transparency, and CHL is even easier than yo momma. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  101. Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  102. 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)
  103. Cool head -- Noroton (talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  104. 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)
  105. Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  106. Support. -- Kim van der Linde 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  107. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  108. fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  109. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  110. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  111. 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)
  112. Mike R (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  113. 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 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  114. 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)
  115. Support per Iridescent. JavaTenor (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  116. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  117. 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)
  118. Support - MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  119. Support, see User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, will bring needed balance and experience to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  120. Support MrMurph101 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  121. Support.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  122. 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 Nutter 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  123. --Sultec (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  124. Solid on BLP, ethically sound.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  125. 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)
  126. east718 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  127. 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 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  128. 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)
  129. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  130. Support --Cri du canard (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  131. Support --Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

  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) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  3. Voyaging 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  4. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  5. Elonka 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  6. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  8. Strong Oppose per views on anonymity (see lar's questions). Protecting someone's privacy should always be done regardless of their actions. Prodego 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  9. 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)
  10. Strong Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. No way. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  12. 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 ). 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 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: . 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 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  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 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  13. Too pretentious and active WR poster. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per combination of WR account, loose views on protection of pseudonymity, and support for too much BLP and BLPSE. Seraphimblade 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  16. WR users seen to generate too much drama. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  17. — neuro 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per Prodego and Ryan Postlethwaite. ElinorD (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. —Scott5114↗ 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  20. John Vandenberg 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  21. per answer (and clarification) to Lar. Privacy concerns remain. Tom Harrison 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  22. Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  23. 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)
    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)
  24. Oppose Supports and contributes to a hate site. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  25. 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)
  26. Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  27. Per Prodego and Ryan P - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  28. Really sorry, but based on Ryan's evidence, I can't trust you with checkuser data and private correspondence. Sceptre 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
  31. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  32. per answers to some of the questions. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. NVO (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  34. Synergy 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  35. Flat no per absolutist views on BLP. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  37. 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
  38. 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)
  39. No. --B (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  40. 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)
  41. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  42. --TS 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  43. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  44. per Ryan TimidGuy (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  45. Alexfusco 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  47. Sorry, do like you a lot, but I will not support any active member of Misplaced Pages Review for any post here or anywhere else. Grace Note (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  48. Oppose To great an involvement in WR.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  49. 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 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  50. Oppose Seddσn 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  51. >Radiant< 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  52. Per WR concerns, no way. Tiptoety 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  53. Oppose Per Ryan and Prodego. The Helpful One 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  54. Oppose I just saw what Ryan had said and I have to oppose. Sorry! iMatthew 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  55. Oppose due to WR activity. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
  56. 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)
  57. Oppose Tex (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  58. WR posters do not get my support, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  60. Oppose WR. ST47 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
  61. Oppose --maclean 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. Has no clue what Misplaced Pages is for, disruptive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  63. IronDuke 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Category: