Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Wizardman

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wizardman

Twelve months after an election that I was not yet ready for, I have kept watch on the Arbitration Committee in the past year, looking through the cases, understanding the ways and means of WP:ARBCOM, and the benefits and flaws this system entails. This year, I believe I am very qualified, willing, and ready for the responsibilities.

I've been a user since March 06, admin since January 07, WP:MEDCOM member since February 08, and have been deeply involved in WP:RFC/U since July 08. The combination of the final two has given me a strong insight into what being an arbcom member entails. Heck, I even wrote up a proposed decision for a case this year (wasn't used by arbcom obviously, but it was good practice). Though while I have my own version of experience, I can also provide change. How so? Simple. Arbcom is a body that can be good, but there's a few flaws I can fix: How fast we handle issues, how transparent our actions are, and how well we do what we're supposed to.

You see, ArbCom has had several cases go over three months, with voting going 1+ month. That won't do. It just punishes the innocent who have to wait for a ruling. Waiting a month for an arbitrator to vote is a sign they're not doing their job. As for transparency, i'm talking about arbcom makes sure that users know why they're ruling how they're ruling. This includes when voting is in place; put up many possibly FoFs and remedies and let all arbcom members vote how they see fit.

You do not have to agree with every decision I make. But if you know why I made the decision I did, why I voted the way I did, and if you can respect my decision despite disagreement, than I have done my job. I promise that I will do my job strenuously to the best of my ability, and I guarantee that I will not disappoint you if I am worthy enough for your vote. Wizardman

A quick note that my wikibreaks and time struggles were only a byproduct of this semester at university, my subsequent semesters will be far less time-consuming. Wizardman 19:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Support. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. HiDrNick! 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support Captain panda 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support --maclean 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cla68 (talk) 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support DurovaCharge! 00:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Voyaging(talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. ~ priyanath talk 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Good work at WP:RFC. Jehochman Talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tom B (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oren0 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. iridescent 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. kurykh 01:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. A really dedicated and level-headed guy. krimpet✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. – Toon(talk) 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. – A no brainer. Ceoil (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Caspian blue 01:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Protonk (talk) 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support A quick glance of his editing history shows that he is indeed active. Declaring a Wikibreak doesn't make one inactive nor does not declaring one mean that one is active. He is a lot more active than the vast majority of arbitrators and candidates. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. the name says it all. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - will make great Arbcom member :) RockManQReview me 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. iMatthew 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Great! Support! --Mixwell!Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. βcommand 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Über STRONG Support (again at risk of being slightly ridiculous). If I had to choose just one to support, it would be a toss-up between Rlevse and Wizardman. J.delanoygabsadds 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Yup, yup. Not part of the problem. --David Shankbone 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support..--Cometstyles 03:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support —Chris! ct 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support BJTalk 03:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Because I dislike all the other options more. Prodego talk 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I trust this editor's judgement, and his ability to mediate disputes. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. B (talk) 04:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -Dewelar (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - an excellent candidate. PseudoOne (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Cirt (talk) 07:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support لennavecia 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Weak Support Needs to work on communication skills but I reckon the basics are there. Brilliantine (talk) 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Fritzpoll (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Strong support. - High levels of clue and willingness to cut through crap to reach the heart of the matter. I have a strong feeling that Wizardman would get ArbCom moving faster, which at this point is an extremely good thing. //roux   editor review09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Net positive. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. — neuro(talk) 10:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 13:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support: Contributions and discussions as administrator and member of the Mediation Committee leads me support Wizardman. seicer | talk | contribs 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support--Dr.K. (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Head screwed on right. Sceptre (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Seddσn talk 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I supported Wizardman last year and am very pleased to support again. Wizardman has excellent judgment. Acalamari 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --Kbdank71 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Good experience, good judgement. Nothing from the opposes has yet to change my mind. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:23, 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]
  69. Support The Helpful One 19:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Synergy 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Unsure how likely you are to be elected, but I think you can do a decent job. If you get in, think for yourself, though. Support. AGK 20:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Tentative support. — CharlotteWebb 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - His good judgment will come in handy at arbcom. -- Suntag ☼ 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Came here thinking you were a 'crat and was ready to oppose for that reason, but will support instead.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support JPG-GR (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support BrianY (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--Maxim(talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Sort of a WTHN support here, but I like Wizardman and I think he's got a good head on his shoulders. Would prefer over some other candidates running. GlassCobra 00:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - user has not just checked out the enclosed instruction book, but has also paused awkwardly while waiting for the music to stop. --harej 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Branson03 (talk) 02:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Alexfusco5 02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. macy 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Royalbroil 03:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Khoikhoi 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Keeper ǀ 76 03:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Very level-headed. Mathsci (talk) 10:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support (swiched from oppose) Thinking about it, yes Wizardman messed up on the NPOV science question, but I believe that he will learn from that mistake. Other than that there wasn't really a strong reason to oppose his candidatcy. I interacted with him plenty of times and he has a great knowledge of the project. Glad to support. Secret account 12:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Fedayee (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Khukri 16:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support ElinorD (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. SupportDavid in DC (talk) 17:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. LLDMart (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. — Ѕandahl ♥ 20:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong support. Will bring great strength to Arbcom, as is evident from his outstanding record.  JGHowes  talk 21:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Xavexgoem (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support Chris (talk) 00:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - I have always been impressed with Wizardman's maturity and competence level for his comparably low age. Trusilver 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. +S Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Yup, I really like this guy. He will do a fine job. He knows and understands the intricasies of our "rules and no rules" system, and will be both effective and fair in administering justice under that system. No reservations in giving my full support. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support One of the better candidates. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (all apologies, I somehow managed to vote on the wrong page!) Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Gets to the root of tha matter. --Raayen (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support, while I could probably list a number of discussions he closed that I wouldn't have agreed with, he did unblock me and that carries a lot of weight! :) Anyway, more positive than negative, so, since there's no neutral or anything, I might as well support. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 05:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Xavexgoem (talk) 05:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support per Yellowmonkey. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support —Borgardetalk 07:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)h[reply]
  116. Support--BozMo talk 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Pedro :  Chat  10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Max (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not eligible to vote as you have fewer than 150 mainspace edits Fritzpoll (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support -- Alexf(talk) 12:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. --Sultec (talk) 16:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support TimidGuy (talk) 17:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. —Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:33, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
  124. Support Davo88 (talk) 17:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. User:Krator (t c) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support prashanthns (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - Renee (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support vi5in[talk] 23:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support - Trustworthy qualities for ArbCom are very important. I think this user has that.--Zereshk (talk) 23:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Splash - tk 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC). However, your answer to the science-NPOV question is obviously incompatible with credible arbitration, and unless the promised recantation appears promptly, I will have to switch to oppose. Splash - tk 23:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support --Node (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support He's seen his opposes based on the "science vs. NPOV" question, and he understands the concern. There's really no reason to oppose. Kylu (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support VartanM (talk) 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. A better choice than other people who have the same chance as you at winning. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote. — neuro(talk) 06:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note The Groove former accounts, he's eligible. Secret account 13:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support. Because really there is no reason to oppose. --Wayiran (talk) 11:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support. --NikoSilver 12:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support A man in space (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 18:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. VegaDark (talk) 21:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Joe Nutter 21:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support -- Samir 04:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Yes happy to --VS talk 06:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 10:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Hectorian (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 16:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support - as I said in my original oppose (between #53 and #54 below), this is mostly due to the expanded science answer. A candidate who got it right the first time would be ideal, but Wizardman has at least managed to show grace under pressure. I don't believe he'll interfere with the ArbCom process - worst case, he'll be a participating non-entity. Likely case, probably much better than that. Badger Drink (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. Politis (talk) 22:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Randomran (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Learns from mistakes admirably well. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 13:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support BencherliteTalk 16:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support --Mardetanha talk 18:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. —Animum (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support I am uncomfortable with the science/fringe responses, this is mostly a tactical vote. Skinwalker (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support, - Shyam (T/C) 10:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. Yip. Sure. --➨Candlewicke  :) Sign/Talk 11:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - Biruitorul Talk 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support--Iamawesome800 17:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support seems ok. Sticky Parkin 17:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. support JoshuaZ (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 05:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I think this Science Question Issue is being blown out of proportion. I am sure our wizard will not disappoint us. Good editor, good admin, good mediator and will make a nice arbitrator Behaafarid (talk) 09:42, 8 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) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support abf /talk to me/ 13:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support as better than near competitors. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support--Michael X the White (talk) 20:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Littleolive oil (olive (talk) 03:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  178.  Marlith (Talk)  05:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support — CactusWriter | needles 10:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support --IvoShandor (talk) 13:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support With experience in MedCom, I think you will be able to learn the ropes of ArbCom quickly. Leujohn (talk)
  183. SupportNokhodi (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ←Spidern→ 07:48, 10 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) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Gazimoff 14:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support RMHED (talk) 15:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiptoety (talk • contribs) 20:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support 'Excessively long statements by people bore me. It's not that difficult to be pithy.' Computerjoe's talk 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Due to WJBscribe's unfortunate withdrawal, Wizardman is my seventh support. Majorly talk 23:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support, He is an ethical user. --Wayiran (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support. Sarah 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support Farmanesh (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. SupportGenisock2 (talk) 09:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Very open user and dedicated. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support ---- The Myotis (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support, strategic... Aunt Entropy (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Giants2008 (17-14) 04:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support --danielfolsom 05:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. miranda 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 09:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Although I've strongly criticised this candidate for failing to give advance-notice of his exams interference in his ability to answer my questions promptly, I trust he will ensure that he will take greater care in the future. His response times are usually satisfactory - as his answers to my questions have been. Even if he has different personal views on certain matters, he will listen to relevant legitimate community concerns and support measures that adequately attempt to resolve those concerns. At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 8. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support. If I could support only one candidate this year, Wizardman would be the one. JBsupreme (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support -Dureo (talk) 21:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support - Garion96 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I like your stance on BLP and feel your otherwise a decent candidate Nil Einne (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support. Good record, leaves me no choice but to trust the user. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support - Xasha (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support - Sunray (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support. Has good judgement. -- Mentisock 13:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 17:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. SQLQuery me! 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217.  Frank  |  talk  20:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support -- lucasbfr talk 22:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support AlexiusHoratius 22:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support -   jj137 (talk) 22:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support EJF (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Keep working hard, maybe next year? ++Lar: t/c 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  223. --MPerel 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Orderinchaos 23:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Finally made up my mind. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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) One of original seven candidates that I support has withdrawn; Wizardman is (was?) first on my list of candidates I would support in the case of a candidate that I supported withdrawing/doing something that merited a reconsideration of my support.--Maxim(talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose, due to time issues. Further comments are at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Partially strategic voting, see also other comments. May change mind. Giggy (talk) 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Majorly talk 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Time concerns were the major issue here. When NYB was forced to take a wikibreak, ArbCom essentially stopped. I don't want to see that happen again. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Atmoz (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Regretably.--Koji† 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Dlabtot (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Sorry, but I remember one fairly recent situation involving you that really shocked me at the time and stuck very negatively in my mind, namely this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Dennis Daniels. You were the nominator and the original nom read: "Unsourced article of questionable notability. Violates WP:BLP1E and our policy on criminal acts." This was an article about a dead person so BLP1E was not clearly applicable and "our policy on criminal acts" pointed to Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts), which is not a policy, not a guideline, not even a proposed policy but a proposed guideline. You had later corrected WP:BLP1E to WP:ONEEVENT, which is actually a shortcut to the same section of WP:BLP, still a policy about living people and not the right policy to cite here. But the "our policy on criminal acts" bit was never corrected. Sorry, but this sort of thing is pretty bad for an admin, and not acceptable for someone who wants to be an ArbCom member. Nsk92 (talk) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose partly due to concerns over communication skills. Arbcom decisions must be clearly stated if they are to be effective. Further rationale here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Very regretful oppose -- Unfortunately I'm just too profoundly concerned by Wizardman's answer about science. Science-related Arb cases are frequent enough that we need Arbs who have clearer understanding of these issues. --JayHenry (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong oppose. Gave the worst answer to my question on science. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've read his new answer, and I stand by this oppose. He tries not to come across as relativist this time, but it's still not a good answer. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. per rspeer. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm sorry! I'm going with my gut on this one. I'm not fully reassured that voting you into the ArbCom would be the best choice, not necessarily for the ArbCom, but for yourself. Your answer to the science question didn't have much conviction either way, which sat worse with me than it not being a great answer at all. I'd tell you if this vote was personal, and this one isn't. Mike H. Fierce! 05:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose. Unimpressed with the answers. Everyone wants to make the committee run more smoothly and be more effective, but the devil is in the detail. Rebecca (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Oppose that hurts me the most. 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 13:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Overly bland. Moreschi (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. per nsk92 SashaNein (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Some of your answers were too soft and seemingly politically motivated. Oppose Dengero (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. RxS (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose per views on NPOV "vs science". Verbal chat 16:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Pcap ping 16:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - sorry, I don't know enough about you to really have confidence in your abilities at this time. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Came here determined to strong oppose, answers to questions moderated my opposition but still cannot support. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Answer to rspeer is particularly worrying.Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Would prefer someone a bit older and more mature. Some answers too slapdash for my liking. Jayen466 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 01:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Although I respect you highly for your work as an editor, administrator, and member of the Mediation Committee I am not convinced that you will be able to bring about the necessary changes at arbcom. I hope you will continue your excellent work at the MC.Nrswanson (talk) 03:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Nothing compelling about this candidate. Skomorokh 03:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I find Nsk92's anecdote above to be disturbing. Someone who brings an article to AfD based on a remarkably poor interpretation of content policies, particularly one as important as BLP, is likely to also bring poor interpretations to Arbcom decisions. The AfD reasoning also fails to consider why having the article may be in the public interest: Perhaps the public has a right to know who their society is executing. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 06:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Guettarda (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Reluctant oppose. Time issues are a concern, and while I have nothing against him, I'm just not sure Wizardman would bring the change Arbcom needs right now. --Alecmconroy (talk) 08:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Also oppose based on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 12:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 13:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Kablammo (talk) 14:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose --Folantin (talk) 15:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Seems to have a poor understanding of the issues affecting scientific articles, and I feel that there are stronger candidates. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Reluctant oppose - switched from support, which I made early based on your BLP "default to delete" stance, but I can't overlook Nsk's concerns at your citing a proposed guideline as a policy Fritzpoll (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weakly. Bunch of minor concerns that add up: the "NPOV vs. science" thing, iffy answers to the questions, but mostly I think you have good ideas but the communication is problematic. That's not good; we already have some issues with Arbs being able to clearly and concisely articulate their reasoning, and communication is an essential part of the skill set. I'm sorry - you do good work, and I have a very positive overall opinion of you, but I can't support for this particular role. MastCell Talk 19:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose partly per weak answer to science question, partly because I just think there are stronger candidates around. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley (talk) 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nothing personal, as per Giggy. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose re science answer. MikeHobday (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cri du canard (talk) 01:42, 3 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) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose - "if science conflicts with [NPOV], then it may not be the right way to establish an article"? Seriously? Holy moley. Intellectual relativism belongs on Conservapedia or in a high school philosophy class, not here, nor on anything that proports to be an "encyclopedia". Candidate insists that his statement is being mis-interpreted and will clarify. I'm not sure there's a right way of interpreting this scary statement. Would prefer a candidate who can get it right the first time. Badger Drink (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, from "strong oppose" to "support" in the span of two days. Mostly due to expanded answer on science (an expansion that I urge anybody opposing for "anti-science" reasons to read and digest), with a small pinch of strategic support thrown in to get over the hump of my own flip-flopping Badger Drink (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose with regret. The science answer is a deal-breaker and, more generally, I think Wizardman is unprepared for the job. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. I've been concerned about Wizardman's comments in some RFCs about a rather vague definition of civility, and a conflation of that concept with personal attacks. Chick Bowen 04:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Kusma (talk) 09:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Partially infamiliarity with the Candidate, partially answers and some other opposition reasons, partially preferring others. GRBerry 17:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Gentgeen (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Michael Snow (talk) 20:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak opposeI Generally think he's a level headed guy, but his fumbling through the science question has left be doubting his suitability for ArbCom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Politics (and I am a scientist) ViridaeTalk 06:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Wronkiew (talk) 08:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Opposeas per rspeer. And naivety of Wizardman shocked me (though at least it wasn't larded with the BS of some other candidates). Mccready (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out (this is a note for those voting in general, rather than a response to cactus) I clarified the science question, namely providing a clearer answer of my views and explaining why i misinterpreted the q and why I was probably misinterpreted). It probably doesn't matter since i should have been clear the first time, just letting you all know though. Wizardman 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Weak oppose due to willingness to make decisions on the basis of evidence the person being sanctioned hasn't seen. "Weak" because of the demonstrated reluctance, but an oppose nonetheless. Cynical (talk) 22:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Naive and immature.--MONGO 02:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 04:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Wow. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Terence (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Oppose. Manipulative, power grubbing games player. The community found him too untrustworthy to be a b-crat, even yet an Arb. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose this time. Good editor, but needs a little more seasoning.--Kubigula (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Indented vote - now neutral. Orderinchaos 11:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)) Not a strong oppose but just feel this user's philosophy from an ArbCom point of view differs from mine too markedly that I cannot support - I have absolutely no problems with their editing or admin work, which is of a good standard, and I would trust them. I think some of the other oppose votes are a bit over the top. Orderinchaos 10:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. I suppose it's a series of minor objections, each on its own barely worth mentioning, but taken together make for me a weak but clear oppose. Jd2718 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose per science answer, Tom Harrison Talk 13:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Too timid. Kelly Martin 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose pending answers like here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Tex (talk) 19:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose I know I am not always the best at explaining my reasoning in clear, careful, concise, and accessible prose, but neither am I likely to sit ArbCom in the foreseeable future. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Per salient points above. –Outriggr § 02:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. - jc37 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you are not eligible to vote, as you did not have 150 mainspace edits on and before 1 November 2008. J.delanoygabsadds 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented that vote before I saw the conversation at WT:ACE2008. If consensus determines that Mervyn should be allowed suffrage, please feel free to remove these comments and reinstate his vote without contacting me first. J.delanoygabsadds 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 15:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Can not be anticipated to enforce Wikipedia:Civility. Fred Talk 20:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose.Biophys (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. PhilKnight (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppost. Lots of little things, but the idea of him repeating his battle with Rspeer's question in an ArbCom decision takes me over the edge. We need arbitrators who can assess a problem, discuss it clearly and provide an articulate, reasoned solution; I do not believe Wizardman is the most able candidate in this regard. Rje (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose The confusion evident in his views on science and NPOV is alarming. Arbitrators must be able to communicate their views clearly; candidate seems to lack this skill in an important area. Xoloz (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 11:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose: nothing personal; simply that other candidates are better suited at this time. Jonathunder (talk) 02:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose - I share the concerns of those above, plus I wonder if you are too nice to deal decisively with the rough, unpopular issues an Arb must confront. —Mattisse (Talk) 06:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Experienced at dispute resolution, but takes frequent wiki-breaks which does not bode well for speedy resolution of cases. Answer to Question B from Thatcher and views on science are concerning. IRC user. DrKiernan (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose though the answer on science / npov has been revisited, it still shows a lack of understanding of npov and weight in particular as well as the various pseudoscience and fringe provisions. Candidates need to be familiar with this commonly contentious area, and able to comment clearly and decisively. . dave souza, talk 14:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose "Twelve months after an election that I was not yet ready for" are just the kind of words I did not want to read. As an experienced Wikipedian you know well that, apart from the enthusiastic newbie on RFA, losing an election on Wikipedia has very often little to do with readiness. You know these corners well. So why pretending that you are naïve to the point of believing that rejection means unpreparedness? You were prepared twelve months ago, just as you are prepared now. But this kind of attitude hints at cynicism, the opposite of what we need in the Arbcom - fresh air. Húsönd 19:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose - Epousesquecido (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 03:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose not at this time. — xaosflux Talk 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose excellent admin. But I have some concerns about your past actions. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. 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. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose while I like your stanceon BLP and you appear to be a decent candidate I feel private cases or withheld evidence need to be minimised and handled with utmost care, they may sometimes be better and/or necessary Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose No longer are some of the concerns that led me to oppose one year ago present, but I remain unconvinced that the candidate would not substitute his views about what policy ought to be for those of the community, particularly in the context of BLP, where committee overreach has been the most acute, spectacular, and troublesome across 2007 and 2008. Joe 08:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose - While I admired his boldness with the Ginger Jolie close, his answers as a whole are not indicative of the depth of thought I'd expect to see from an arbitrator. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose - I believe the candidate is too young for the ArbCom. Gregg (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose ST47 (talk) 22:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Wizardman&oldid=1223288382"