Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/PMA

Statement
If elected, I intend to focus on the task of arbitration as much as I can - i feel that my almost five years here have given me a pretty good insight into situations that might arise.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Moral Support. semper fi —  Moe  05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 16:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Five years, that's a long time. Baka  man  18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral support despite the lack of answers to the questions. &mdash; Nightst  a  llion  (?) 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Someoneinmyheadbutit&#39;snotme 21:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. ugen64 08:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support (Not moral, but real). Leotolstoy 23:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- Agathoclea 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) -- Majorly  00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) AmiDaniel (talk) 00:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Tito xd (?!?) 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) He didn't answer any of the questions. --Core desat  00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Questions questions. - Mailer Diablo 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) - crz crztalk 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Jaranda wat's sup 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --ElKevbo 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) I am strongly doubtful of the candidate's ability to serve the Arbitration Committee, given the candidate's lack of answers to questions and the very recent RfC opened regarding the candidate's behaviour. theProject 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose (but note, statement indicates he might have just run into a health problem) Jd2718 01:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Hello32020 01:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Thatcher131 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Peta 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Due to his behaviour and actions which led to the RfC and his persistent refusal to answer questions posed by the community, evidenced both here on the Q & A page and at the RfC. Sarah Ewart 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) I reviewed the reasons this user was desysopped, and, well, no way. Bishonen | talk 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 19) — Mi  ra  03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) KPbIC 03:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Ter e nce Ong 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose Xoloz 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) His statement is WAY too simple for me to have any idea of his qualifications (or lack thereof). Scob e ll302 04:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) THB 05:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) The one sentence we have is vapid. —Centrx→talk &bull; 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Srikeit 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) No responses, absolute minimalist candidacy statement.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) His statement was too vague to feel that I could support him. --Riley 06:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Dylan Lake 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Nufy8 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) thProject summed it up for me -- Tawker 07:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. — CharlotteWebb 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. Everyking 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Does not seem to want this duty. Sjakkalle (Check!)  09:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) --Zleitzen 09:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Has been reprimanded numerous times for blocking editors who simply had a different point of view on articles he was editing. Responsible for the most outrageous and sustained abuse of admin powers I have ever seen. Now dysopped after activities exposed in rfc.
 * 36) No. – Chacor 09:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) cj | talk 10:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Strong oppose. Hasn't even replied to the questions! --Sugaar 11:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Neigel von Teighen 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Too controversial. Sorry. Dweller 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. Is this a joke nomination? yandman  13:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Delta Tango • Talk 14:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47)  Tewfik  Talk 16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) no.   ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Absolutely not. 1ne 17:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose A longer statement? --mh 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) SuperMachine 17:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Ten thousand times no! - This person is everything that is wrong in Wikipedia. Never.--  Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) MichaelW 20:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. No statement, and no answers to questions, means a no vote from me. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 21:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) All of the substantive issues raised notwithstanding, the failure to reply to any of the questions not only impedes our fully evaluating the candidate but is also plainly indecorous. Joe 23:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Michael Snow 23:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose. If he can't answer to question he might not be able to fully check the evidences in each cases. Sorry, Lincher 01:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose. Engaging in a sterile edit war, and then blocking the dissenting editors with no discussion whatsoever = definitely not fit for ArbCom. Grand  master  ka  03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. Silensor 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Frankly, the lack of answers to questions is quite distressing and doesn't seem to reflect five years of experience. The laconic candidate statement seems quite...whatever Centrx said. Vapid. --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Strong Oppose No questions answered. GizzaChat  &#169; 07:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose - Metamagician3000 09:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose. No answers. --Muchness 15:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. Although I am personally very, very doubtful that PMA's not answering the questions put forth by other users indicates his inability to free up enough time during his post on the Arbitration Committee, this and his short statement is pretty telling about his commitment to the Arbitration Committee and consequently warrants my opposition. &mdash;Goh wz 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) The idea behind moral support votes, thinking one way but voting another, appalls me. I've seen it backfire.  -- Cyde Weys  18:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 67)   young  american  (ahoy hoy) 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Moral opposition. Well, actually, more of an opposition based on utter disregard to the opinions and cares of others, but I thought it'd be fun to type "moral opposition" for once. ;)  Matt Yeager   ♫  ( Talk? ) 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose.  Nish kid 64  01:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Are you kidding? Based on the effort demonstrated here, no way. —Doug Bell talk 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose Addhoc 11:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose RfC, lack of defense to RfC, no answers to questions GRBerry 12:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose. Because of RfC and one line statement. --Merlinme 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Oppose - no candidate statement to speak of, no answers to questions. If you don't have the time for these things, how will you find the time to do your arbcom duties? -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Strong Oppose. Doesn't care enough about the election to even answer questions. This is insulting. Plese withdraw. —Lantoka ( talk 01:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Oppose. Fram 10:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Oppose. Due to not answering questions and possible behavior issues. --Danaman5 19:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Oppose riana_dzasta 11:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 79)  Satori Son 07:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) oppose Pete.Hurd 22:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Krupo 04:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Oppose Michael 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Strong Oppose Some people just can't handle power Lost Kiwi (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Oppose -- no responses to questions. Why should we expect that candidate will respond to arbcom cases? --ScienceApologist 17:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Oppose -- Clear lack of answers translates into not working hard! Donaldd23 19:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Oppose. Guess why?! the wub "?!"  19:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) Oppose. You've been active, why did you not answer the questions? -- Renesis (talk) 05:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 91) &mdash;Xyrael / 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 92) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 93) Oppose by default. (Did not seem action oriented. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) &mdash; Sebastian 04:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 94) Oppose unresponsive. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 95) Oppose weak statement. lack of reason. Kiwidude 22:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 96) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)