I'm me, yes I can definitely confirm that. Been around Wikipedia for quite a while. As for my statement I think this sums it up nicely " If you want to see the shit hit the fan, then vote for me ! "
I am happy to answer any and all questions, though I can't guarantee that you'll like the answers.
Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure I'd just like to categorically state that I am not an alcoholic, a drunk maybe, but definitely NOT an alcoholic.
Support This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and doing the right thing isn't always popular. He is exactly who we need at ArbCom, and I completely trust his ability to put Wikipedia's interests over all else. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C)14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Quite an interesting candidate. Shares my concern on BLP's, is incredibly honest, and I want to see shit hit the fan :) It might be what we need to reform Arbcom. RockManQReview me01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trashing Ironholds RfA format with a temper tantrum was not a demonstration of the sort of behavior I'd like to see from an arbitrator. Avruch T 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per the answers to UninvitedCompany's questions (what the hell has a cheap potshot on the Beeb have to do with anything?) and the whole "one minute late" incident. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff)08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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. Secretaccount13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a serious candidate. What's worse though is that considering your recent attempts to enforce BLP I would have expected something more constructive. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I particularly like to see the shit hit the fan, it nevertheless strikes me that feces strikes the centrifuge on a regular basis on Wikipedia, and I fail to see how voting for you would adjust this steady flow in either direction. >Radiant<17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How very true, much like the universe really. Though some cosmologists and those of a religious persuasion may disagree. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I trust this candidate to do what he thinks is right. I do not trust this candidate to actually know what is right. As such, I must strenuously oppose. DS (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose: Without extensive debate on his style - take a look at his most recent RfA and judge for yourself - I vividly recall the deletion review he filed in which he questioned my rationale and motives for AfDing an article, without troubling himself to notify me of the review. My quote from the RfA was "I also would prefer admins not to publicly question the motives behind a decision in reviews where they pointedly exclude the decisionmakers from the process." For ArbCom, that imperative is ten times as strong. RGTraynor 06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about those Maltese Aristocracy articles? If so they were prodded by yourself not AfD'd. The prods were incorrect because the articles had survived a previous bundled AfD, I removed your prods and informed you of the reason why. An admin then deleted the articles anyway, I discussed this with the deleting admin, he wouldn't restore them so I went to DRV and informed the admin of this. So I followed the DRV process exactly as it should be done. RMHED (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens, the prods survived deletion review, and your rationale shot down for reasons given in that review, but that's not the point. The point was that you asked specifically for the rationale in prodding of a user whom you failed to notify of the review. That lack of communication should be avoided anywhere in Wikipedia; in an ArbCom candidate, it is completely unacceptable. RGTraynor 20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No my rationale wasn't shot down, the DRV was pretty evenly split. I didn't ask for your rationale as it was obvious from your prod reason. I was under no obligation to tell you I'd removed your prods but did so anyway as a courtesy. How is that a lack of communication? RMHED (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The DRV was closed as Endorsed; that's shooting down your rationale; (2) The following are your quotes: "These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?" (3) As I've said twice now, you did not inform me of the DRV; kindly show the diff where you did and I'll be happy to retract my Oppose. RGTraynor 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV could just as easily have been closed as restore, it was very much down to the closer's discretion. All those questions I asked were genuinely aimed at the deleting admin and not you. The deleting admin was informed by myself of the DRV. Maybe I was remiss to not also inform you, but the DRV instructions just say to inform the relevant admin. If my not informing you caused offence, then I apologize wholeheartedly. RMHED (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This user's worthless posturing over users deleting their own talk pages is made even more incredible by the fact that he actively tries to hide his own. When confronted, he explains with oozing condescension that he shouldn't be held to the same standards as he holds other people. Hell no. TGH1970 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't see evidence of ability to be fair and balanced. Nor of particularly strong analytical skills. And I'm concerned at general lack of effort and clue displayed both here and at own RfA. Candidates statement here and at own RfA is an invite for unwelcome drama. SilkTork *YES!14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While this particular candidate has answered my individual questions in the way that I was hoping they'd be answered, this wasn't candidate I was hoping for them from; I can't support someone with the views that they have with regards to BLP. CelarnorTalk to me20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose - There's a lot to like about this candidate (vigour in his approach to the BLP problem, sense of humour, etc.), but just too much to dislike (apparent inability to work collegially being a big one) for me to support. I had to think hard on this one, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sorry but the shit hit the fan and got on you and you stink. I can't in good conscience vote on anyone that stinks (yes this is a joke, but when you have a statement like that, what do you expect?) Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant oppose - I agree with him in principle, but not in practice: relatively recently he caused severe disruption by mass-nominating and blanking unsourced BLPs (and got a 24-hour block for it). He gets credit for drawing attention to the problem, but that's not the right attitude for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]