Privatemusings

Privatemusings
for ArbCom.
Listen to PM explain his perspectives - and check out the 5 big ideas

If you've got a moment, I'd love you to take a look at my 5 big ideas. Thanks!

G'day Wikipedians :-)

I've been around the wiki for a few years now - less than some, but more than most, I'd say (reader from 2003 onwards, dabbler 2004, registered my first account 2005).... Head over to my userpage for important background, and of course feel free to ask any questions of me you'd like

I've been fairly critical of arbcom on a number of levels for quite a while, and feel it's only fair to stick my hand up, and offer a few ideas as part of my candidature. This is a preliminary statement - there is more here, and here are a few 'key' aspects of my thinking;

  • I am not an admin - it is a 'good thing' to have a non-administrator representative on arbcom.
  • I will stand for re-election after 1 year regardless of term lengths - if I'd like to go longer, I can stick my hand up again, and you will get to decide :-)
  • Arbcom has fallen way short of best practice on a number of levels, and in many ways we set up some of our best editors to fail... I'll be sharing more of my ideas about ways to fix some things, which I hope you may consider :-);
  • Arbcom Communications are appalling! - I will respond to emails, discuss matters on my talk page, and post actively to case pages. I will be a dynamic arb where possible!
  • The two watch words of my approach (tatooed on the backs of my weary hands) will be "De-escalate" and "Resolve" - to this end I will ask questions, offer suggestions, and where necessary apply sanctions.
  • Content is king - and the best content editors are the true kings of the wiki. This is important.
  • I will create an Arb Surgery - not as painful as it sounds, rather the concept that I will be regularly available, in real time, 'on wiki', in voice conversation, or via any practicable means to talk about anything any Wikipedian would like to. Every Sunday evening, UTC, any wiki editor can simply talk something through with me as an arb, if they'd like.
  • I don't really like the existence of 'Oppose' voting - so if you'd really really like to Oppose someone - make it me, and make me your only 'Oppose' vote - this too is important in my view, so please give it some thought. Thanks!

Vote Privatemusings!


Support

  1. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 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)[reply]
  3. 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)[reply]
  4. Moral support. RockManQReview me 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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)[reply]
  6. 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)[reply]
  7. 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)[reply]
  8. 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)[reply]
  9. Keep thinking. SBHarris 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Although you are sanctioned by arbcom until 2008-12-10. Zginder 2008-12-01T02:55Z (UTC)
  11. Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Because no one else would do any better. Prodego talk 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, would make great member :) PseudoOne (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Full and total support Thoughtful, logical, honest, and fair. Thinks far outside the box. -- Ned Scott 06:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Absolute Support - Per everything above. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Clever and some interesting ideas. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. 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. --CrohnieGalTalk 14:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
  20. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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)[reply]
  22. Support --A NobodyMy talk 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. It's a good thing not to be an administrator in this.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  24. 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)[reply]
    Support - I'm not knowledgeable on the drama; seems fine. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) moving to oppose[reply]
  25. Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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)[reply]
  27. Support. Someone who still has the original purpose of Wikipedia in mind. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. 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)[reply]
  29. Seriously have no idea what it is that people have against privatemusings. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. 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)[reply]
  31. Support due to a clear understanding of how bad secret trials are for the project. Cynical (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support I approve. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support I believe that communication and transparency are two areas that need work. Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 14:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support I support this candidate because he thinks openly; something that is sadly lacking at present. Poltair (talk) 16:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. 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)[reply]
  37. (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)[reply]
  38. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support The ArbCom needs different voices. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. 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)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
  42. 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)[reply]
  43. Alun (talk) 14:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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)[reply]
  45. 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)[reply]
  46. Moral support OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support A non-admin perspective could be useful. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. WODUP 08:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 50 supports. ayematthew ✡ 01:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  51. Support: He has seen some of the problems with the status quo and has reform ideas. Geogre (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. 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)[reply]
  53. SQLQuery me! 20:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please see the discussion page for my rationale Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Nufy8 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Dlabtot (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Voyaging(talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose Majorly talk 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. - filelakeshoe 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. iridescent 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mattinbgn\talk 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Crum375 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Caspian blue 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Kuru talk 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. 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)[reply]
  20. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. krimpet✽ 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Butterfly. No interest in content. Ceoil (talk) 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    kurykh 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Steven Walling (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Mr.Z-man 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry. Avruch T 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Abstain. Avruch T 00:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    iMatthew 01:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Graham87 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but i had to do this. --Mixwell!Talk 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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)[reply]
  33. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I appreciate your candidacy for its humor value. David Shankbone 02:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose J.delanoygabsadds 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Troubling history. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose BJTalk 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose --B (talk) 04:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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)[reply]
  42. Not now. Sorry. MER-C 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. 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)[reply]
  44. Oppose. You still have many bridges to mend first. Kingturtle (talk) 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Grsz11 05:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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)[reply]
  47. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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)[reply]
  49. No, but thanks for standing. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. 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)[reply]
  51. Rebecca (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. 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)[reply]
  54. Judgement concerns. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. — neuro(talk) 10:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Mailer Diablo 11:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 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)[reply]
  59. 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)[reply]
  60. 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)[reply]
  61. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. GRBerry 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. 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)[reply]
  66. 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)[reply]
  67. Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. 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)[reply]
  69. 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)[reply]
  70. Davewild (talk) 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Pcap ping 21:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Absolutely not. Serious past drama, and current behavior does not inspire confidence. GlassCobra 22:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Tiptoety talk 22:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 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)[reply]
  76. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 23:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. opposeI don't really want a political arbcom.Genisock2 (talk) 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. not an admin. Synergy 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. 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)[reply]
  80. Oppose - The proposal of Wikipedia:Sexual content turned me off big time. --harej 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Too scary. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Alexfusco5 02:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose means well but not suited to the job. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. Cheeky.--Wetman (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. 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)[reply]
  87. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Guettarda (talk) 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. 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)[reply]
  90. Awful behaviour. –Moondyne 09:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. 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)[reply]
  92. RelHistBuff (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Wider scope of activity necessary for the job. --Stormbay (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose Throwawayhack (talk) 21:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. 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)[reply]
  99. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. "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)[reply]
  101. Oppose -- not IMHO an editor of/with good judgement. Gnangarra 00:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. 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. bibliomaniac15 01:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Privatemusings has been banned before and could possibly be untrustworthy. Need to contribute more to Wikipedia. MathCool10 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. 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)[reply]
  105. 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....--Cometstyles 07:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Gentgeen (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. 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)[reply]
  108. Kusma (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Michael Snow (talk) 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Splash - tk 23:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. 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)[reply]
  114. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. 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)
  116. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. 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)[reply]
  118. Wronkiew (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose Dramaqueens not needed.--MONGO 02:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose. Hasn't displayed sound judgement. utcursch | talk 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Carnildo (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Terence (talk) 09:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppse - Garion96 (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose because previous blocks and current RFC show that the candidate does not listen to reason. SilkTork *YES! 00:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. 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)[reply]
  126. —Animum (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose --VS talk 01:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose - concerned about block evasions, etc Xavexgoem (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose Choess (talk) 14:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose apparently pro-censorship and knee-jerk policy formulation. Would have supported otherwise. Verbal chat 19:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Tex (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Sorry. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose. People with a fascination for drama are not the best people for dealing with it. ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. 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. — Manticore 06:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. 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)[reply]
  139. Oppose Gazimoff 14:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose Fred Talk 20:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose - Seems to have a hard time listening to people. multichill (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose Hobartimus (talk) 13:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Not confident that the user has the necessary good judgement to be on the ArbCom. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. 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)[reply]
  146. Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  147. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose - Per User:Lar/ACE2008. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose (not my only oppose either--not ready to throw that monkey wrench around). — xaosflux Talk 05:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. There were some good statements by some supporters, but what Fritzpoll wrote tipped my scale. — Sebastian 09:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. 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)[reply]
  154. Oppose - inconsistent judgement; not enough experience. Caulde 14:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. 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)[reply]
  156. Oppose -- lucasbfr talk 21:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose. DS (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Needs to stick to articlespace. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category