Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Disendorsements

'''For a short period of time, opposition could be placed on this page. However, a community majority has indicated their preference for all endorsements/disendorsements to be merged. It is therefore advised not to use the Disendorsements page for such matters anymore. Use this page: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements'''

This page is for the listing of disendorsements either by or for specific users.

Note: This page is not for listing endorsements of candidates.

This page was for listing disendorsements and/or opposing sentiments either by or for specific users for a short period of time. However, a majority voted in favour of combining this page with that found at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements; such action has thus been taken. It is therefore advised not to use this page for listing one's opposition of a candidate.

172

 * Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:36, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Pot calling the kettle black? Shorne 02:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Fred, as a current Arbitrator, I would hope you could at least provide one specific reason why you feel this way. "Fox in the henhouse" is a rather cryptic statement that leaves me wondering what the heck you're talking about. Please, can you provide some tips of what to look for in 172's edit history that makes you think he would be so dangerous to the other hens? --DV 14:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 172 has a long history of aggressive point of view editing which he covers up with a smokescreen of "academic authority". He is especially active with edits which whitewash left-wing totalitarian governments, leaders and actions. Fred Bauder 11:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians . The reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientation. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose --Josiah 22:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I've only had one encounter with 172, back in the days of Quickpolls. Admittedly, that was a contentious page; but I don't recall anyone more hostile than 172. His profanity is the only reason I've remembered him. Cribcage 17:29, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * On second thought, I don't want to make that accusation without offering citations. I've had no subsequent conversations with 172, so they were easy to find. Here's one, and here's another. To be fair, read the entire exchange in context. (Scroll to the bottom.) Cribcage 18:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ambi

 * Oppose. Ambi intruded into a request for mediation to insert personal comments with no substance whatsoever. (See Requests for mediation/Archive 11.) We could expect the same tendentiousness if she were put into a position of power. Shorne 07:21, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ambi is female. RickK 06:43, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)
 * I changed he to she on a previous version of this. Unfortunately, that correction was lost when Michael Snow deleted this page. Shorne 19:46, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose due to disagreement with the user over her actions regarding the B-Movie Bandit and her unwillingness to compromise. Much too liberal both in blocking and in deletionism. Everyking 12:32, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Hurt my feelings. - Xed 13:51, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

blankfaze

 * Oppose. His comments towards users on RfA are consistently unreasonable; he calls users trolls he disagrees with. Very Verily  10:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, Verily, as this is a place for endorsements, not the opposite, I'd normally be inclined to just remove it. But this comment is so amusing, I'm going to leave it be, in order to give passers-by a good smidgeon of comic relief. BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 03:39, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I forgot to mention what a pillar of civility and humility you are. Very Verily 09:18, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose also. My only experience of Blankfaze is that he has reverted my contributions twice. First time with no explanation, and second time with an explanation that was no longer relevant, as I had made a different change the second time to cater for his objection. We are currently discussion his initial objection on his talk page, but at this stage I suspect it might be flawed! --Rebroad 19:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Blankfaze is being nice enough to explain himself now, but considering I'd only been a Wikipedian for a couple of days, his actions gave me a very bad first impression of both himself and of Wikipedia. --Rebroad 13:22, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I originally supported Blankfaze's self-nomination, but I have changed my mind in light of his revealing cabal-like behaviour. Shorne 04:50, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Increasingly sycophantic of late towards the 'benevolent dictator' (and harasser of left-wing users), Jimbo Wales - Xed 12:14, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, now I've lost Xed?! Gee willllllikers! BLANKFAZE | (&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;??) 19:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose for same reason. CheeseDreams 12:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose A person who votes against a candidate for adminship just because he doesn't like one of the supporters and didn't even bother to take into consideration the candidates contributions or dedication, shows a lack of respect for the candidate and therefore cnanot be trusted as an arbitrator.Tony the Marine
 * Let it be noted that I withdrew the vote in question after realising my mistake. BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 06:26, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, without concensus, he removed cricisms, including those of himself, from the endorsements page and created this ghetto page. Fred Bauder 11:13, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * In my defence I was only trying to clean up the page, not do anything shady. I mean, come on, the page is for ENDORSEMENTS.  It's not called "Discussion of candidates page".  It was specifically created to provide a place for users to ENDORSE candidates. Sorry if my actions were unfavourable to you, sir.  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 22:54, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, he is still too new to hold such a position. Even I ,two years after being in this project, have not nominated myself for this position because I question my ability to be an arbitrator, a position that requires pshyclogical knowledge in order to find a solution between two wikipedians. "Antonio Mr Fun all Night Martin"
 * Oppose, several inappropriate behaviors as admin point to lack of maturity, perhaps due to youth. Vandalizes pages for "kicks" ; Engages in revert wars ignoring discussion in Talk (26x on Dore Gold)  --MPerel 07:03, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
 * :-P BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 07:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cecropia

 * Oppose. The only people who use names like "fair" and "wise" are those who are not. CheeseDreams 02:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I imagine it is worth noting that this opposition by a user I have never had interaction with follows hard on my commenting on the user's improper drawing of an RfC on User:Theresa knott without showing that s/he made any effort to resolve the dispute first. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, actually it results from my coming to the election page via an entirely different route and noting people remarking on calling onesself "fair" and "wise". In the same way, people in personals write "good looking young healthy male" when in fact they are "88 year old fat ugly (for his age) only-just-male with chronic liver failure". Until you just pointed it out, I didn't actually notice you were the same user. CheeseDreams 23:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I did not characterize myself as "fair" and "wise," one of the endorsees did, and I believe he was trying to be humorous. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:44, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What the...??? CheeseDreams: I was the one who called Cecropia fair and wise, (and I wasn't being humorous, Cercropia :) ). If you have no actual and legitimate statement to make concerning this user, then I suggest you remove your "disendorsement". <tt>func</tt><tt>(talk)</tt> 22:02, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, it remains. CheeseDreams 23:34, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I categorically deny that I have paid CheeseDreams to disendorse me. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 07:49, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dante Alighieri

 * Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:18, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Just a note that I'm not exactly a "current" mediator as I'm on sabbatical from the Mediation Committee. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 01:11, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

DG

 * Oppose. (Someone had to say it.) Shorne 03:22, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ed Poor

 * Oppose. Engages in POV wars.  --[[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">η <font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ <font size="+1">υωρ ]]] 06:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shameless bigot. Creates articles to justify his bigotry. - Xed 12:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This user is too quick to admit his mistakes. We need someone who can be arbitrary and capricious, not some "high-minded" moralist who's going to toe the company line and persecute trolls. Why, he'd rather we starved! (a troll: guess who!)

Everyking

 * Strongly Oppose. His response to three separate users opposing his reverts to an article: "i'll revert you till doomsday". Not even fit to be admin IMO. Not ArbCom material.
 * Add violating the 3rr to that as well. Reene (リニ) 10:45, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. seems unsuitable to be an admin as well. edit warring not to argue a point but simply to keep his version of an article without justifying. removed from the article without reason. See Autobiography (album). --Hemanshu 15:43, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * oppose I agree his behaviour seems unsuitable for an admin as well. Read Talk:Autobiography_(album) and especially Talk:Autobiography_%28album%29/Archive1 and Votes_for_deletion/Autobiography_album_design and Votes_for_deletion/La_La for details, e.g. "Your opinion has been registered, but nothing will come of it as long as I'm watching this article." or "I'd really hate to see you do all that work for nothing." IMHO the edits that other made or suggested were entirely reasonable and nowhere near "trashing the article" as he described. Finally I would say that in most of his comments on this subject he actually shows all the classic signs of a troll! - Drstuey 22:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads the discussions regarding these matters can very plainly tell that everything I said and have done was quite justified. Quite moderate, in fact, given the circumstances. Everyking 23:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Grunt

 * Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. (I must admit that Grunt replied promptly to a recent complaint; however, the general unresponsiveness of the mediators, including their complete failure even to acknowledge a case brought against Wikipedia's worst troll [VeryVerily], suggests to me that no current mediator is cut out to be an arbitrator.) Shorne 03:26, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Xed 20:16, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I am curious: would you like to elaborate on your reasons for your opposition? Knowing this will help me to improve any flaws I feel I may have. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:06, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has more than enough geeks (for want of a better word). If Wikipedia is the be more than an encyclopedia for Babylon 5 fans, it needs people from a wider circle in administrative positions. - Xed 19:38, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed you do understand that this is an endorsement page not the vote itself (or a discussion page). It won't be like votes for admin. Most of the people who have anti endorsed a candidate have done so because they feel they need to tell the world about something they have actually seen the candidate do wrong. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:48, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt asked. I answered. - Xed 20:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed is entitled to express his opinion. You seem to think it frivolous, but the same is true a fortiori of some of the favourable endorsements that appear here. Shorne 03:10, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I declare my interest as a candidate. I strongly oppose Grunt. If elected, Grunt will, as a minimum, have to remove himself from any discussions involving Americans or America-related issues (he publicly and persistently describeds himself as anti-American, and therefore would not be able to arbitrate objectively any such cases). Given the large number of American users, this would be a serious impediment to him filling this role. Accordingly, I disendorse Grunt. jguk 00:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I repeat myself: I do not bias against American individuals, a fact to which virtually any American on Wikipedia will attest (ask blankfaze, Fennec or any of the other Americans that are endorsing me). -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:45, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)
 * You openly and persistently describe yourself as "anti-American". You then go on to qualify it by saying "only against typical Americans". The comment is indefensible and your persistency in keeping it on your user page despite all the criticism it has rightly received shows appalling judgment on your part. jguk 21:58, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think thats a reason to vote for Grunt.CheeseDreams 23:07, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I cannot think of a possible response to this statement without directing you to the numerous qualifiers that I have placed on this; therefore, I shall refrain from giving an actual response. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 22:04, 2004 Nov 26 (UTC)

Hephaestos

 * Oppose. Tends to bouts of personal abuse and stubbornness.  Very Verily  10:04, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. --[[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">η <font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ <font size="+1">υωρ ]]] 06:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improv

 * Strongly oppose. &mdash;[[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 02:31, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

James F.

 * Strongly oppose. I oppose the reëlection of any current arbitrator. All active members of the current arbitration commitee have demonstrated themselves to be corrupt, unaccountable, and unresponsive. This includes James F. For some evidence, please see Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. Shorne 03:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Johnleemk

 * Oppose, in the absense of consensus regarding the matter, removed criticism of candidates from the endorsements page Fred Bauder 11:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of using the other for their warning) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for reasons of the aforementioned presumptive action (which, according to the current state of the survey is quite the opposite to the desires of the community) CheeseDreams 12:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you were paying attention to the straw poll, it closes November 28. While it is highly unlikely there will be a sudden deluge of votes going in the opposite direction, I believe the common-sense thing to do is to avoid ruling out any possibility. Once the strawpoll's deadline is up, that will be that. I will respect the will of the majority, even if there's no consensus per se. I should note that the first poll of any kind &mdash; the survey Michael Snow started &mdash; is inconclusive, as nobody can even claim a simple majority, so it has no bearing on what happens to this page. As for Quadell's strawpoll, it's not over till it's over. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Lir

 * Oppose, for reasons that ought mystify nobody. Snowspinner 17:28, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia isn't the cosy club you suggest. There's about 200,000 or more registered with it. Your comment isn't valid. Even you have to provide evidence.WikiUser 21:44, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)- Sorry, simply opposing is of course allowed.WikiUser 21:46, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. As if it needs to be said. Cribcage 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Neutrality

 * Strong Oppose After returing to this site for the first time since February, I came across this so-called "Neutrality" user and this project page through the Recent changes feature... Without bothering to state his reasoning, "Neutrality" reverted the addition of the funeral for a major African American cultural icon. (I am wondering if there is a racial motive for this; it seems as if Wikipedia users only post stories that concern its largely middle- to upper-class white American readership, as opposed to representing a variety of stories of interest to a diverse range of classes, national origins, racial backgrounds, etc.) Revert warriors must not be given positions of authority on Wikipedia. Wenteng 04:20, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is about whether a notice about the rapper Ol' Dirty Bastard's funeral should be made the top item on the "In the News" template, three days after his death was already reported on the template. Numerous editors seem to have thought it was inappropriate but Wenteng keeps reverting it (as of this posting, Neutrality has reverted it a total of one time compared to Wenteng's four times).--Fastfission 04:28, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not even qualified as an admin, yet alone an arbitrator. - Xed 19:11, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Um, you know he is an admin, right?   – Quadell (talk) (help)   20:07, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't recognise his adminship. There were irregularities in his election. - Xed 20:19, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * What are these? I may withdraw my support if said irregularities point to a lack of integrity. Shorne 03:18, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Admins need 80% of the vote. Neutrality didn't get this. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Neutrality. Raul forged a number of 83%. In previous votes for adminship (I think he only got in the 2nd or 3rd time he was nominated), Neutrality repeatedly attempted to have opposing votes disbarred. Not really the kind of person suited to being an arbitrator - Xed 09:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I just re-read the transcript at the link provided above, and it does not reflect poorly on Neutrality at all. If anyone's actions were questionable, it would have been the folks conducting the vote, because Neutrality was not yet an Admin at the time. In any case, the logistics of that vote is all water under the bridge, as Neutrality has repeatedly proven himself to be a worthy Administrator. But don't take my word for it - I encourage voters to look at the edit history of Neutrality and compare it to the edit history of Xed, and judge for yourself. Be sure to click the "Next (500)" button a few times to get the full picture. --DV 09:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, the notion that Raul "forged" anything or that Neutrality is not wholly fit to be an admin is nothing short of RIDICULOUS. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 11:21, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. His username is the antithesis of his actions.  --[[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">η <font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ <font size="+1">υωρ ]]] 06:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Your opposing me is a badge of honor. I'm pleased you disendorsed me&mdash;surely I am not as qualified as the other users you disendorsed (Grunt, etc)? [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 17:37, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)
 * Seconded. I hope for a disendorsement for Eequor as well.  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 18:12, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Damn, too late. I've been endorsed!  BLANKFAZE  | (что??) 18:14, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Cribcage 17:32, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Plato
I'll be honest, I'm not always the perfect little wikipedian I wish I could be, so I don't blame anyone for disendorseing me. :)--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick @  )---^-- ]] 08:16, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Raul654

 * Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * --Oppose-- somebody deleted all of raul's oppose endorsments and his disendorsment section, seems a bti fishy to me. Chuck F 03:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive. Gzornenplatz 01:17, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * Gzornenplatz's words are a bit strong. But Raul654 has been striking me as a bit cabalish lately; and he doesn't do nearly as good of a job explaining his reasoning in cases as, say, Jwrosenzweig. 172 03:32, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure anti-endorsements belong here, but I (shockingly) agree with these sentiments. Although I once thought Raul was clearheaded and voted for him in the last election, my recent experiences have been very poor.  He, in his role as arbitrator, made demeaning comments to me based on something he mistakenly believed I had done, due to failing to look at the material he had been given.  There was no response to my further queries, much less an apology for his error. Very Verily  07:54, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I've also noticed that a number of arbitrators, along with a number of the likely "frontrunners" in this race, have a bit of a self-righteous and condescending streak to them. They seem to believe that they have earned the trust of the community; and with they feel that they are entitled to 'talk down' to general users. However, their source of status may not be too impressive. Users like Raul are simply more 'trusted' and popular than users like Gzornenplatz because they can avoid certain kinds of conflict. This isn't the case because they are inherently better behaved than users who get in revert wars; it's just easy to steer clear of edit wars when you're spending most of your time on cleanup, meta, IRC, or the mailing list and not working on the contentious topics in which Gzornenplatz and VV are interested. 172 12:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * World, take note: 172, I, and possibly Gz agree on something. People whose passions are in particle physics, ancient Greece, or children's toys will simply not be exposed to the same stresses that editors on communism or nationalism are.  But this is a dubious ground for the air of superiority, of being a better person, the former type often exude vis-a-vis the latter. Very Verily  13:28, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Again, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with VeryVerily. People like me are blackened as "edit warriors" solely because we write primarily on contentious political topics and have to put up with impossible people who revert everything we do without discussion. Those who deal primarily with macramé or rhubarb get a good reputation merely by dint of avoiding controversial topics. As for Raul654 and the other haughty arbitrators, their record is available for anyone who cares to look at it. (See below for some references.) Merely being incumbents should bring them no glory: they have proven to be appallingly biased, unaccountable, and vindictive, not to mention slow to take their (unjust) actions. Shorne 03:50, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * In my own defense - for those who are unaware, all of the complaining users above (Gzornenplatz, 172, VeryVerily, and Shorne) are currently under investigation by the arbitration committee. In fact, taken together they are involved in almost half (5 out of 13) of the current cases. →Raul654 06:38, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)
 * Before concluding from this insertion that we "complaining users" are acting out of spite, users would do well to consider why people whose cases are pending would antagonise an arbitrator. If we were acting wholly out of self-interest, we would curry favour with Raul654. Readers should also look into the record of Raul654. I have provided three links below that prove every single allegation stated above: inept, biased, unresponsive, vindictive, demeaning, self-righteous, condescending, superior, haughty, unaccountable, slow. More proof could easily be found. After all, every bit of it is logged here for posterity. Shorne 06:46, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. I oppose the reëlection of any current arbitrator. All active members of the current arbitration commitee have demonstrated themselves to be corrupt, unaccountable, and unresponsive. This includes Raul654. For some evidence, please see Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily, and User talk:Jimbo Wales. Shorne 03:38, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * See also the case for mediation filed against Raul654 by Netoholic: Requests for mediation/Archive 11. Shorne 07:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose Votes to remove other users from an election that he is running in, when it should be obvious that he needs to recuse himself. (why is raul the only member with an opposition section? Chuck F 09:46, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Having looked into his record, I find him to be high-handed and condescending. - Xed 19:41, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. Approaches disagreement without consideration, restraint, or grace.  --[[User:Eequor|<font size="+1">η <font style="position: relative; bottom: -1px; vertical-align: text-bottom">[[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|♀]] [ <font size="+1">υωρ ]]] 06:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not strongly, but nevertheless. Cribcage 17:34, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sam Spade

 * Oppose for the following reasons: See User:Spleeman/Sam Spade (which is only a partia record of Sam's views.) 12.75.139.231 20:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that an endorsement (or disendorsement) from an anonymous user is inherantly contradictory.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   14:29, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions .--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically. If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 03:52, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose, much too controversial, much too needy. Always going up for election, always failing, leads me to question his understanding and acceptance of consensus. Failed adminship(and failed adminship discussion page is also worth a visit), Failed ArbCom and his willingness to use questionable tactics here. He also believes "they also keep extensive "mailing lists"" to mobilise support against him, which sounds a mite like a conspiracy theory to me.  If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. --Mrfixter 15:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. From first to last all my interactions with Sam Spade have started with a snarl from him. I don't think he is intentionally nasty, but he seems unable to stop trying to put other people down even when he is trying to be nice or apologetic. I don't mind so much being snarled at, but I do not see how he could function as an arbitrator. Patrick0Moran 152.17.115.182 21:37, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. In the strongest possible terms. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose Vehemently. Resorts to personal attacks, and does not comply with either Assume good faith, or Civility CheeseDreams 19:29, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. For reasons given a thousand times before Sam Spade is untrustworthy.  His personality seems to change with weather or not he disagrees with an article or with another user.  He might be cordial on pages that he agrees with, but utterly lacks civility on other pages.  Btw, there is nothing wrong with other users publicizing what they believe to be Sam Spades' misdeeds (as long as they are honest); afterall doesn't free speech go both ways?  And it only shows how strong and diverse an opposition has developed toward Sam Spade, and his hypocritical actions. millerc 06:51, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I am frankly somewhat appalled by the company my strong oppose puts me in, but I think that perhaps that says something in itself, that so many Wikipedians who certainly do not agree on anything else do agree that Sam Spade should not be on the ArbCom. Wikipedians need to know they can trust the ArbCom.  I could not trust an ArbCom with Sam on it.  My experience with him has been that he can talk a good game about fairness and NPOV but he will not walk the walk; he will always phrase what he wants to do in terms of nice, neutral principles but it doesn't take long at all to see him switch to a different set of principles when the ones he was just advocating are no longer convenient.  ArbCom needs people willing to adhere to one standard for everyone, and I see no hint that Sam Spade plans to drop the double standards that have caused me to not trust him even as an editor, let alone as an Arbitrator.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:32, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose. Sam is a valuable contributor to Wikipedia, and I admire him for the quality of his edits as well as the sheer amount of time he spends here. However, he has very strong beliefs on certain issues and will never put aside his POV in a dispute. If given arbitration power, I am certain he would abuse it. Sam makes a great contributor, but he would make a terrible arbitrator. (yes, I know this isn't a vote, but I felt I had to get this message across) -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 13:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose....and in the strongest terms. Sam is completely unsuitable because of his inability to keep his personal agenda away from Wikepedia articles. He wastes massive amounts of lots of good folks time who fruitlessly point out carefully his errors, and he just will not budge in the face of crushing evidence that he is mistaken. He is completely immune to intellectual honesty and I feel very strongly that he would most certainly abuse his admin power to foist his views and Wikipedia would be all the lesser for it. Sam displays the antithesis of the characteristics of a good Admin--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm sympathetic to some of Sam's arguments, but nominating himself here doesn't say much about his perception of the reputation he's earned for himself. Cribcage 17:37, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Too much personal agenda, pseudo-civility, pseudo-NPOV, questionable motives, etc. I see no reason that this user would be a good choice for arbiter. --Fastfission 20:41, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sannse

 * Oppose. No current mediator will get my support. All have been unresponsive to complaints. Shorne 03:55, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Theresa knott

 * Strongly oppose. Theresa Knott has proven to be utterly supercilious, consistently taking the part of the administration and dismissing the legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. See, for example, her extensive discussion over the past few days in User talk:Jimbo Wales, where she snapped "Stop whinging" at me in response to a complaint that has received considerable popular support, then continued to accuse another user of "whinging". Although she did eventually apologise for this display of condescension, her partiality towards the administration coûte que coûte is precisely the opposite of what we need at a time when so many people are complaining&mdash;with justice&mdash;of an élite cabal. Shorne 04:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * OK I'm not sure if it's a good idea to defend myself here. But what the hell I'm going to do it anyway. I do not dismiss legitimate complaints of the hoi polloi. I have spoken on many occasions to admins and other users if I feel they have behaved out of line to other users. RickK, 172, Gabriel Webber,Heph, Grunt I think (I confirm this -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:34, 2004 Nov 22 (UTC)), the admin on apple pie whose name escapes me - Arminius, orthogonal, and loads more that I can't remember. When it comes to it I will reverse other admins if I feel they have not acted within policy. I did not "snap" at you. I reminded you that the AC decision was a tempory measure designed to protect wikipedia, and that your calling for the AC to be purged was whinging. The "other user" that I accused of whinging was Xed, who was complaining yet again, that he had been temp blocked over his insistance on keep adding jimbo's email to secretlondon to the requests for arbitration page despite the fact that it had already been rejected by the arbitrators. He used this blocking to attack me, even though I wasn't the one who blocked him. He also said that i appealed to authority when in actual fact i had said that the AC should not have duristiction over private emails. This is something I still think btw. All this happen months ago, so yes i do think that Xed brinig it up again is whinging. I also want to correct the "eventually apologised" statement you made. You complained that i was being condescending, I apologised for that the moment I read your complaint. There was no "eventually" about as any who reads jimbo's talk page can see. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 14:38, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose protected POV version of page in edit war not pre-edit war version(s). CheeseDreams 22:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I did protect the page to stop the edit war. I have no idea if the version I protected was POV or not as I have no knowledge or interest in the subject. I was merely trying to stop the edit war. The edit war is between multiple users all reverting each other like crazy, there are hundreds and hundreds of edits to that article, I wouldn't have the faintest idea which version to revert to. Also note that this is the first interaction i have ever had with cheese dreams. He did not bring his concerns to me on my talk page, or on the talk page of the article. His first action on seeing me do something he didn't like was to start a rfc on me and then make this edit here. What can I say? Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 23:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * CheeseDreams, this seems to be a misunderstanding about the protection policy. The admin protecting a page is not supposed to choose which version or decide which is POV.  To do so would make the admin an involved party. Very Verily  12:40, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note the way other admins such as RickK revert to a version before an edit war before protecting - thus retaining the article, during the protection, in a state more agreeable to both sides than either of the edit war versions, or at least one which they don't object to continuing to exist for a while. CheeseDreams 23:29, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Reverting to a "stable version" is a somewhat controversial practice. I know RickK does it, but many other admins do not.  See Protection policy. Very Verily  13:33, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Note also what rickK had to say on this matter Theresa Knott  (The snott rake) 23:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To Xed: First of all, props for the use of the word "ghettoise" and the "Keep your wig on Terry"  and "Something similar happened in Florida a while ago" comments. A Good Laugh. However, I really do take offence at your notion that I "may be guilty of election fraud". Lastly I urge you to give up this campaign of yours against Theresa, because nothing good can come of it. Regardless of your opinion of her, you're only perpetuating a mean and nasty flame war here. Show your dissent with your VOTE, my friend. <b style="font-size: 74%;">BLANKFAZE</b> | <b style="font-size:90%;">(&#1095;&#1090;&#1086;</b><b style="font-size:70%;">??</b><b style="font-size:90%;">)</b> 23:12, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Election fraud making patronising comments seems her only skill. Regards admins as infallible. Believes defending users against arrogant admins is "trolling" and "whinging" - Xed 20:13, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC). changing vote to Support, since I believe that this is the best strategy for keeping Theresa off the streets - Xed 20:09, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * (Interesting: "making patronising comments seems her only skill")   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:01, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * This from the user who is the master of patronizing comments...the irony is thick here. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 03:29, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa Knott has indeed been patronising and imperious. I wouldn't say that that's her only skill, however: she also seems to be good at making anagrams of her name. Shorne 03:02, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually I'm useless at making anagrams of my name. I rely on the talent of others in that respect. Quite a number of people have made numerous suggestions on my talk page. I just pick one I like every now and then. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 08:36, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Elitist. Useless at anagrams. Poor conception of basic sexual morality. Hardly admin material. Case closed - Xed 19:22, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * "Elitist. Useless at anagrams." -> "Lass is eager, eats stimulant." Also, "sexual morality" -> "I max u. Yes, a troll."   – Quadell (talk) (help)   20:33, Nov 23, 2004 (UTC)
 * He's right about my sexual morality, I call myself a tart, and I show my naked tits to anyone who cares to look at them ;-) (See my user page) Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very strong support. --Viriditas 23:11, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Theresa Xed --> The dear sex (I may be a tart but im not cheap) or -->He rated sex (So do I, what a coincidence)
 * Theresa Knott Xed --> Hot sex trade kent (I do actually live in north kent)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 20:54, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed you are a funny guy.You have changed your mind yet again on me! However this time you have made a very serious alligation. I suggest you explain how I have managed to to do this "election fraud" when the election hasn't even started yet. I would also like you to explain why my saying I support blankfazes organisation of this endorsement page means I have perfomed election fraud, especially when you haven't even opposed blankfaze. (In fact you supported him - you are ware that he was the one to move the oppose remarks to a seperate page?)Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 15:35, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Supporters and opposers need to be able to see clearly the comments of all parties in relation to the potential candidate. Putting opposing comments on a separate page is virtually deleting those comments since not many will look at that page, because they either don't know it exists or because they can't be bothered to jump through so many hoops. There is no real sense in putting the opposing votes on a separate page, so the only real reason can be that some candidates don't want others to see them. This matches your general view that admins are beyond reproach and complaints against them are not to be acted on, or even listened to. As for supporting blankfaze, my support or otherwise is based on careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects. - Xed 16:06, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that because you disagree with the way blankfaze organised the pages and I said "OK I can live with that" about it then it's acceptable to accuse me of election fraud but not him? Xed you are trolling. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 16:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This fits in with your worldview that admins are beyond criticism, and to do so is trolling. At least you're consistent. - Xed 16:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You are making incendiary comments, Xed. If you provide no solid reasoning behind them beyond saying you conducted "careful consideration of the candidates positive and negative aspects", you are opening yourself to accusations of trolling. Your conduct of discussion is controversial enough to cause others to flame you, and that is the typical definition of trolling. Either explain why you have not accused blankfaze of election fraud (and why you accused Theresa of supporting it instead of merely saying she tolerates it, although that would still be quite unacceptable for most) or strike out your false accusations. Note: For the conspiracy theory-inclined, this is not an order, merely my opinion. I'm sure it is shared by many of my fellow members of the "cabal". Johnleemk | Talk 17:49, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There's nothing incendiary about my remarks. How I come to my desisions as really up to me. Blankfaze may be guilty of election fraud, but he doesn't share the numerous deficits of character that I have already shown Theresa to have. Theresa, by her words and actions, believes admins to be some sort of infallible clergy. She's even trying to make me withdraw my criticism of her intolerance of criticism! In Grunts nomination above (unless it's been deleted..), she criticized my giving an explanation for my opposition even though Grunt had asked for one. Thus my opinion of her is overwhelmingly negative, whereas my opinion of blankfaze is more ambiguous. You aren't asking the first user in Theresa's list to justify himself (Strongly endorse. &mdash;No-One Jones (m)). Again, criticism of the Wikiclique seems a lynching offense here.- Xed 18:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed I an happy for you to critisize me all you like. What I am complaining about is you lying about me. You have accused me of election fraud. That is a lie. Please retract it. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 19:52, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep your wig on Terry. You supported a motion to ghettoise opposing comments so few would see them. Something similar happened in Florida a while ago. For some reason you don't want people to see criticism of the infallible admins. Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Xed, I did not ask Mirv to justify himself because he did not troll. If he had said "Support; anyone who commits fraud in an election is worthy of a position on the arbcom," yes, I would ask him to justify himself. Johnleemk | Talk 19:57, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You seem to agree with Theresa's view that criticizing admins amounts to trolling. That seems to be what Wikipedia has become - an encyclopaedia with daily show trials for the insufficiently sycophantic - Xed 21:55, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * There is a big difference between making a criticism and lying about a person. --Viriditas 23:16, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, for instance you lied when you said I claimed Vanunu was a scientist, whereas I am criticizing Terry the Infallible - Xed 16:20, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily

 * Strongly oppose. I was appalled to see this name on the list of candidates. His self-nomination is a sick joke. There could not possibly be a worse candidate than someone, currently the object of four cases before the arbitration committee, who openly disdains the rules (especially the three-revert rule), refuses time and time again to enter into discussion, and repeatedly reverts everything that does not suit his POV. Shorne 04:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC
 * Shorne is trolling communism and politics pages, and his attack is the main reason we lost the contributor User:Adam Carr. For instance, see this edit.  There is nothing shameful about being opposed by some of Wikipedia's worst trolls. Very Verily  10:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * VeryVerily is the main reason that we are going to lose the contributor User:Shorne. Shorne 03:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the  Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week.  The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like.  I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Ruy Lopez is a sockpuppet of Richardchilton/Hanpuk/etc. See Requests for comment/Richardchilton. Very Verily  10:03, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if that were true, it would be of no significance. Shorne 03:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose. VeryVerily is openly defiant of Wikipedia policy. An edit warrior like VV should not be given this kind of responsibility. --Ce garcon 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In the strongest possible terms. El_C 17:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, fox in the henhouse. Fred Bauder 20:37, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)


 * Strongly oppose Edited Henry Kissenger article (despite talk page concensus otherwise) to make the intro seem as if concerns raised about Kissinger were normal political concerns rather than those of Crimes against Humanity. CheeseDreams 23:31, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the article? Half the damn thing is about the accusations you note. Very Verily  10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Oppose --Josiah 22:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Do I know you? Very Verily 10:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Can't even follow the new 3RR rule! see here. --Rebroad 22:23, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Adraeus

 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I endorse the opposition considering Sam Spade's rancorous behavior towards those who hold opinions contrary to his own. Sam Spade is neither a good Wikipedia citizen nor a good candidate for the arbitration committee; however, he is a good candidate for arbitration. Sam Spade's behavioral history demonstrates that if he were elected, he would abuse power to serve his own purposes. Wikipedia must not elect POV Warriors to the Arbitration Committee if it is to continue providing information encyclopedically.


 * If you are for Wikipedia, vote against Sam Spade. Adraeus 20:53, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boraczek
When Shorne insulted Stan, calling him an "idiot" and a "propagandist", (on 13 Oct 2004) 172 expressed his support for Shorne instead of disapproval for insulting other Wikipedians. The reason is that Shorne and 172 have similar political orientation. I'd like arbitrators to condemn people who hurl insults, not to encourage them. Boraczek 18:02, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 172

David Vasquez
Per the wishes of Jimbo Wales, I have removed all statements of my opposition to any of the candidates. In all fairness, this action requires that I also remove all of my endorsements.

I encourage everyone to vote their own conscience, without considering alliances, or whether or not you like the other contributors who are supporting a candidate you would otherwise support. --DV 13:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I encourage everyone to ignore the wishes of Jimbo Wales. This is a wiki, not a dictatorship. CheeseDreams 13:43, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is an encylopedia! Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:19, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * This is a wiki encyclopedia, not one run by dictatorship. CheeseDreams 11:27, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fred Bauder
I strongly oppose candidates who persistantly edit from a particular point of view and who are not amenable to discussion. I have therefor warned against the candidates, User:172 and User:VeryVerily. The issue is not right or left or even engaging in edit wars with respect to contested edits. It is sustained insistance on getting their way. That said, it is possible they might grow into the role of arbitrator should they be elected, but it is likely that they would simply view the arbitration committee as an area for further point of view activities justified by the same sort of sophistry they use to justify POV edit warring. Fred Bauder 11:11, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

I also oppose User:blankfaze who, without consensus, created this ghetto page for criticisms of candidates and User:Johnleemk who has taken it upon himself to enforce this non-existent "policy". It seems very unlikely that either would respect other Wikipedia policies reached by consensus or be able to work on the arbitration committee productively. Fred Bauder 11:20, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC).


 * I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of the other) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I cannot endorse anyone for such a responsible position who claims "Civility is vital" yet less than 3 weeks ago used the Wikipedia email system/function to send me the following email (edited, original was explicit): "F*** off, you ignorant rat bastard". Interested parties can read the details of Sam's email and my response here and here. Also, again though Sam claims he's known for his efforts to "preserve neutrality", as Sam Spade, and in his previous account, JackLynch, Sam has an extensive history of disruptive activity and bigoted statements on topics such as Atheism that run counter to his particular ideology, and of deleting questions and comments from his personal Talk left by other editors seeking clarification of his actions and comments. Also of concern, despite other candidates having done so in interest of complying with the Arbitration policy, Sam Spade has failed to disclose his past multiple accounts, JackLynch and Jack.


 * That Sam "would enforce the observance of (NPOV/Civility) vigorously" and "promote the removal of those who are unwilling to adapt to our process." as he pointedly states in his candidate statement I have no doubt, it's what in his view constitutes civil or NPOV behavior that causes my concern, based on his past actions.

--FeloniousMonk 19:23, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nick-In-South-Africa

 * Sam Spade
 * Oppose I feel obliged to dis-endorse user Sam Spade because I deem him unsuiatable for the role of Admin. Specifically for his conduct on and related to the Talk Atheism pages, seemingly because they do not fit in with his agenda which as Felonious Monk details above, is well documented and sadly biggoted is not too strong a word. Here he simply will not accept well sourced multiple references and conceding the point on the wide use of the weak or passive definition of Atheism. Not only this he repeatedly fails to answer direct questions on his reasons for failing to accept these multiple, well sourced references and this is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy. He also has sent a foul language abusive e-mail to Felonious Monk using the Wikipedia e-mail system following the start of these discussions. This is simply beyond the pale more especially in the light of his failure to express contrition for this.


 * Sam’s behaviour and style completely contra indicates his suitability for the important role of admin.--Nick-in-South-Africa 13:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

El_C

 * Opposition:
 * Theresa knott


 * Strong Opposition:
 * Sam Spade
 * VeryVerily

Ruy Lopez

 * VeryVerily
 * Oppose. This user has been banned previously, and has been repeatedly breaking the  Three revert rule recently which is one of the reason arbitrators have placed a temporary order banning him Requests for arbitration/Gzornenplatz, Kevin Baas, Shorne, VeryVerily/Proposed decision from editting certain articles within this last week.  The administrators are currently discipling him, I would think a vote for him is in effect saying the arbitrators are currently wrong for asking him to adhere to the three revert rule and the like.  I ask that you please investigate this user's history before supporting him. Ruy Lopez 06:33, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Shorne
Totally disgusting. Negative comments, however true, are "discouraged" and shoved into a corner, whilst positive comments, however fatuous, are encouraged and put on a pedestal. No wonder the (mal)administration here is so hopelessly corrupt and oppressive. Shorne 04:35, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikimol
My comments on candites can be found at User:Wikimol/Arbitration election endorsements.

I believe this page was useful, exactly as Organizers say, as a handy reference to candidate's past conflicts. Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and I want to know how candidates themselves resolved disputes in which they were personaly engaged. --Wikimol 08:43, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope this page will not be used
In my "Letter from the Founder" I wrote: "The only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential, and both of those are helped along enormously when we feel favorably towards each other just as a natural result of being volunteers together on this incredible ridiculous crazy fun project to change the world.

None of us is perfect in these matters; such is the human condition. But each of us can try each day, in our editing, in our mailing list posts, in our irc chats, and in our private emails, to reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love."

This page is a magnet and incentive for a different approach, one which I most vigorously reject for our community. I encourage people to avoid the use of this page, and instead stick to positive endorsements of people who you think will represent our values thoughtfully and rationally. If the trolls want to have an attack party here, let them. But let's not sink to their level. Jimbo Wales 16:53, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing that Jimbo appears to attack as a troll anyone who has an objection to someone being an Arbitrator. Those who seek to discipline and judge us should surely be beyond reproach themselves and have the full support of the Wikipedia community. It's important that those who seek to set themselves above the rest are open to full scrutiny. I therefore encourage sensible use of this page. jguk 01:06, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It's disappointing that Jimbo states "[t]he only way we can coordinate our efforts in an efficient manner to achieve the goals we have set for ourselves, is to love our work and to love each other, even when we disagree. Mutual respect and a reasonable approach to disagreement are essential" and then appears to call everyone he disagrees with a troll. Not everyone who has a strong disagreement with a nominee's candidacy is doing so out of malice; I concur with jguk, we should encourage sensible criticisms of the nominees' past actions. millerc 02:33, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why I hope this page will be used
This page allows users to voice their concern about the candidates. Some candidates may simply by force of personality in their statements "appear" to be neutral, open minded candidates to be elected, when in actual fact they are nothing of the sort. It is important to prevent such obfuscation. In a real world election, it is never a case of each side stating how nice they are, without also warning the electorate about the dangers of choosing wrongly.

Hitler was elected democratically.

CheeseDreams 23:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Looks up Godwin's Law. Draws own conclusion --Tagishsimon (talk)


 * The red herring notwithstanding, Adolf Hitler was not elected democratically in the way most of us would view the term. His Nazi Party secured the most seats in the Reichstag, but never a majority, Communists also holding a large position, but not as many as the Nazis. After several dissolved governments, Hindenburg appointed Hitler Chancellor in perhaps history's most disastrous attaempt at what we '60s flower children would have called "co-opting": more like making the schoolyard bully into the head hall monitor in order to bind him to "the system." Hitler paid obeisence to Hindenburg. Some Germans were charmed: "The Field Marshall and the Corporal." Wasn't that warm and fuzzy? Not too many warm and fuzzy moments after that. After Hitler was chancellor the Nazis got 44% of the votes in the Reichstag, and only formed a government by making a coalition with another rightest party. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * but that is exactly my point - people who would abuse the system ought not to recieve any kind of power. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hitler had asked Hindenburg to appoint him "how would you answer to the German people if you did not"
 * To which Hindenburg replied "if I appointed you, how would I answer to God". CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * But Hindenburg did appoint Hitler, so your point is...?


 * P.s. getting power with over 43% of the vote is the dream of many unstable democracies. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hitler had the power before the Nazis got 44% of the vote.


 * It was certainly poor form to invoke the law explicitly. And it's "Godwin" not "Goodwin" (your misspelling redirects to the properly spelled article). However, I concede the above remarks are a well-executed attempt by both CheeseDreams and Tagishsimon to shut down the discussion.


 * But Jimbo has already effectively shut down this discussion with his strong statement discouraging any further postings on this page, so seeing how it's his site, I will respect that request and no longer post in this thread, as once once of the founders of a site discourages something, you're pissing into the wind to persist at it. Cheers, --DV 00:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Run that by me again. Cheesedreams cites Hitler. I cite Godwin's law, in effect saying that to cite Hitler is in bad taste and loses the argument. And you lump me and Cheesedreams together and. think it in worse taste to cite Godwin's law that to make comparisons to Hitler in a discussion about the arbitration Committee. Go figure. And try working on your english comprehension. --Tagishsimon (talk)
 * It is officially considered bad form to invoke Godwin's law explicitely. See the article for confirmation. CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Some things are more than their creators


 * if this is truly a wiki, the founder should have no more authority than any other, in fact, it would be a show of good faith if the founders were to recant all powers they have and hold the status of no higher than an anonymous user, and go on to comment on nothing, and seek to enforce no authority, only editing minor insignificant articles.


 * If god walked on earth, he would be the cleaner in a tibetan monastry. CheeseDreams 20:04, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(A user attempted to supress this section - it has been restored, as Wikipedia has an NPOV policy, allowing the case for the existance of this page to be made as much as the case for its non-existance)


 * Since when did the NPOV policy apply to things outside of the article namespace??? Shane King 01:06, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Oh, right, in that case, ill go and rewrite the Wikipedia:NPOV policy (which resides outside of the article namespace) to suit my POV, and castigate those disagreeing. CheeseDreams 08:10, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Pages outside the article namespace are governed by different policies, and large-scale rewrites are not permitted without community consensus, usually gathered from polls. If you read WP:NPOV carefully, you'll find it states several times that the policy applies to articles. The correct inference, then is that this does not apply to pages that are not articles. There is a reason why it does not say in the very first sentence (or anywhere else), "Wikipedia policy is that all pages should have a neutral point of view". Johnleemk | Talk 08:21, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * So, who had the large scale consensus to seperate this page and suggest it ought not to be used? Or was it just hypocracy? CheeseDreams 08:29, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The issue we were discussing was the validity of NPOV policy outside the main namespace, not the validity of blanking this page. I express no opinion either way, but NPOV policy most emphatically does not apply to pages outside the article namespace. Johnleemk | Talk 08:36, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * but the policy that DOES apply to pages outside of articles is that non-offensive comments cannot be removed just because it suits the POV of an editor CheeseDreams 19:09, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Johnleemk | Talk 07:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I strongly believe in the ethical free exchange of information and ideas, and was under the impression that such a free market was a wiki ideal. For any informed vote, access to all relevant candidate information, even that which is negative, is not a luxury, but a necessity. Indeed, how else are uninformed voters to learn of hypocritical candidates who claim a high level of dedication to the policies and ideals yet who repeatedly fail to "reach for a higher standard than the Internet usually encourages, a standard of rational benevolence and love ...in their editing, in their mailing list posts, in their irc chats, and in their private emails"?

If seating an Arbitration Committee by informed voters casting informed votes is a goal of this process, then the information found on the Disendorsements page is beyond useful, it is required reading.--FeloniousMonk 19:31, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! --Rebroad 20:57, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Election organizers' views regarding this page
The tradition of public "oppose" statements that elucidate the rationale for opposition comes from WP:RFA, where candidates are chosen by consensus and an honest evaluation is a necessary, if sometimes troubling, part of the discussion process. The arbitration committee election, on the other hand, is a voting process rather than a consensus one. Accordingly, each vote is given equal weight regardless of its rationale, and the rationale for failing to support a candidate need not be shared.

On behalf of the election organizers, I would like draw special attention to the portion of our earlier statement where we ask you to show your disapproval only with your vote itself. It is our hope that this may be a collegial election. Since nearly all candidates are long-time contributors to the wiki, we would hope that the process will unfold in such a way that even those who are not elected will retain their dignity and the respect of the community.

In reviewing the "disendorsements" already made, I observe that few comments are surprising. Instead, allegiances and prior conflicts that have already been hashed out in the community are being trotted out for another go. Other than by serving as a handy index by gathering this material in a single place, little is accomplished through these listings.

We discourage additional listings on this page and suggest that those who have already added material here may wish to remove it.

On behalf of the election organizers, The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) Danny 17:41, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC) and Elian 18:17, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)