Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Grunt

Support

 * &#8212;No-One Jones (m) 21:00, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Strongly support!!! [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality (hopefully!)]] 00:16, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Grunt, you're almost overqualified. ;) Really- I hope to have the privellege of serving together with you. -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 01:00, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Very much so. Rdsmith4&mdash; Dan | Talk 01:42, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Yea, verily.--FeloniousMonk 19:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Endorse. func(talk) 00:40, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt has my support Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 17:21, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Grunt has earned my endorsement.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   04:50, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've never had any interactions with GRUNT but, I've noticed his nominations for adminship and his interaction with others and my gut feeling tells me that he's a good candidate.Tony the Marine
 * Strongly support GeneralPatton 03:12, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Support Is a nice person for the job [[User:Squash|Squash (Talk) ]] 07:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
 * Support. My experiences with Grunt have been nothing but positive. Reene (&#12522;&#12491;) 08:21, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Very strongly support. Oven Fresh 21:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 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 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)
 * In principle I partly agree with jguk here. The crude stereotype of the "typical American" is so far from reality as to betray rather clouded judgement, and the issue of this has been brought up enough for him to have noticed.  On the other hand, his judgement seems fine and unbiased on other matters, so I'm willing to treat this as an anomaly and give the benefit of the doubt. Very Verily  03:55, 3 Dec 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)
 * Oppose. --Ben Brockert 01:18, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I can let people know that he's already had a test as an arbitrator and failed: If you read this, at the wikiEN-1 mailing list, (if the link works), you'll see that when I let people know about admin abuse on The Wikipedia, he chose to comment on the case, and showed that he doesn't know how an arbcom should act. For example he was antagonistic, and didn't bother to check the relevant history, but still made a strong condemnation of me. He thinks you can be blocked for "openly supporting" other users. And has false views about "consensus", etc. WikiUser 21:51, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)