Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/White Cat: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Neokamek (talk | contribs)
753 edits
→Oppose: Oppose
Line 111: Line 111:
# '''Oppose''' <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' <sup>[[User:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#6633cc>Khu</font>''']][[User_talk:Khukri|'''<font face="verdana" color=#CC66FF>kri</font>''']]</sup> 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. ([[User:ESkog|ESkog]])<sup>([[User talk:ESkog|Talk]])</sup> 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' '''[[User:Neokamek|<span style='color: #FF8000; background-color: #2020A0;'>Kamek</span>]]''' <small>([[User talk:Neokamek|Koopa]] [[Special:Contributions/Neokamek|wizard!]])</small> 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 17:22, 2 December 2008

White Cat

I want to make this statement more of a Q&A to more efficiently express why I am a candidate.

You can see it here: actual statement

The reason why it is a separate page is my statement is a mere 629 words which is "well over" the 400 word limit.


Support

  1. Absolutely. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --A NobodyMy talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I like your ideas... L'Aquatique[talk] 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Catchpole (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support - per Elonka. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (wildcard) support for perseverance in rooting out a sockpuppet in the face of harassment and ridicule. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HiDrNick! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Voyaging(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose Majorly talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Some good ideas; I think you need to develop them a bit by participating in some arbcom cases where you are not "involved" in the case. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. iridescent 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. kurykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. krimpet✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Caspian blue 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Steven Walling (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. You mean well, but you are easily provoked. ArbCom is a position of extremely high stress, so I don't think it is a good fit for you. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Avruch T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. iMatthew 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. It always needs moar catz. --Mixwell!Talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Graham87 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Koji† 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
  30. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. J.delanoygabsadds 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Per history of unreasonable behavior. Friday (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. GJC 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose BJTalk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Prodego talk 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. MER-C 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose --B (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Eusebeus (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. You tend to use double-speak with people when you know perfectly well what the other person means. It's distressing and not a quality that suits such a position. Mike H. Fierce! 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. We need more of an even keel for the arbitration committee. --JayHenry (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. This is a somewhat regretful opposition - his ideas are really good and I share many of his stances on Wikipedia. But his temperament is unsuitable for this position. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Do not forsee satisfactory performance by this candidate. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per tendency to be involved as an involved party in cases. While this may give some unique insight into working with ArbCom, it doesn't bode well for your qualifications. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. —sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. -- Avi (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - I respect your reasons for running, but I don't think that someone who has been involved in so many AC cases is necessarily the best candidate at this time. Maybe next year? // roux   editor review08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose I can't think of anyone less qualified to be an arbitrator. --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Really not a good idea yet - give it a year of impeccable conduct and we'll see how things are then. Brilliantine (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 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. Per previous behavior, the risk of wikidrama is too high. – sgeureka t•c 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. You are a great guy on IRC and on-Wiki, but I don't think you have the temperament. Sorry. — neuro(talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Conti|✉ 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose You are far too easily provoked, frequently ignore consensus when it doesn't suit you, and get extremely defensive and combative when others disagree with you. (example) These are not quality that an arbitrator should have. --Farix (Talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strong Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Far too prone to drama and confrontations. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. What? Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. GRBerry 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose ៛ Bielle (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Concerns over history. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. This user needs to learn civility first. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. I'm simply not of the opinion that this user is trusted enough by the en:wiki community to justify our electing him onto a seat. I can substantiate that point if necessary, but I doubt that would be necessary. Oppose. AGK 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Synergy 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Thinks nothing of exploiting process and wasting countless users' time for trivial personal gain. —David Levy 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Davewild (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose The Helpful One 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Arbitration is so not your thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. lol, I'm tempted to support just to see the arbcom implode --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Yikes. GlassCobra 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose - too entrenched in own drama. --harej 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Alexfusco5 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. --Rividian (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. macy 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Hrmmm ... trying to choose a single reason out of many for this oppose for brevity's sake ... shakes Magic 8-Ball ... I'll go with the lunacy surrounding the account renaming, along with the edit warring over adjusting all of the old talk page signatures. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Mike R (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Khukri 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/White_Cat&oldid=255451772"