Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Ed Poor

Support

 * Intelligent, dedicated, fairminded, diffident (sometimes slightly maddeningly so), a natural choice for arbitrator. Easy endorsement. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 23:00, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support, an obvious choice. Fred Bauder 11:24, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ed would make an excellent arbitator. He has my full support. Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 11:28, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Perfect arbcomm material. Has all it takes. JFW | T@lk  17:42, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 22:11, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --Viriditas 10:22, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. I completely disagree with Eds POV on most things, but there can be no doubt that he is one of the strongest fighters for NPOV. I also agree with him about temp bans, i think there should be far more of these. The bellman 11:29, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
 * Support --Josiah 22:52, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Maybe the best example of a Wikipedian respected by users who otherwise disagree. Cribcage 17:48, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Slim 12:38, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * An obvious choice, yes. &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 20:02, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. A POV warrior, but open-minded and fair. HistoryBuffEr
 * Support; even if we disagree politically, I'm sure that he has a genuine interest in fairness and would make a good arbitrator. Everyking 06:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.  &mdash;Lowellian (talk)   10:30, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support.  &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;Talk 10:32, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Great user. nice person.--198 04:41, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. Like others I disagree with a number of his POV's, but he supports the NPOV policy and is easy to work with. I've seen him explain the policy to newer users a number of times and believe he is truly committed to wikipedia's success. Wesley 17:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support great personality for this role. Even if a few times I was on the "other side" of a dispute, he was always corteous, genial and committed to good edits and NPOV. --Zappaz 00:33, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Like others have said, different POV on many things, but personality and commitment to NPOV make him very suitable. --Robert Merkel 11:09, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. --mav 17:54, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * user:Anthere

Oppose

 * Oppose. Engages in POV wars.  --[[User:Eequor| &eta;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &upsilon;&omega;&rho; ]]] 06:19, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Shameless bigot. Creates articles to justify his bigotry. - Xed 12:08, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose. POV merchant nonpareil. Sjc 08:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Although Ed Poor's presence on the arbitration committee certainly would make it more interesting, his sanctimonious inability to see his flaws and his infrequent but regular outbursts of puerility will lead to some impressive flareups and flameouts. Just one guy's opinion. The Cunctator 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Doesn't understand basic policy. Agree with the Cunc. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 21:03, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Does not follow Wikipedia policies for stating credible sources for articles such as Demographics_of_terrorism. --Rebroad 21:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose Does nothing but add POV. Just look at his edit history. Ruy Lopez 23:51, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Shameless (indeed, proud) bigot, as stated above.  Exploding Boy 21:58, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for the reasons stated above. Shorne 06:51, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Agree with Cunc, Rebroad. 172 15:53, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * He is a hypocrite. Lirath Q. Pynnor
 * Oppose Pays lip service to the NPOV policy and consistently makes POV edits (sometimes subtle, sometimes not so subtle) without bothering to balance his remarks. --Axon 14:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Opppose due to POV-related issues. --[[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:47, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)