Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Hemlock Martinis

Support

 * 1) I guess i'm the first? Decent guy, does good work.   ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - auburn pilot   talk  00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Grandmasterka strongly supports the common-sense candidate! Grand  master  ka  01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Hús  ö  nd  03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6)  krimpet  ⟲  03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) What the hell is wrong in Bishonen's diffs? Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  M er cury    03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) &rArr;   SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Isarig 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Although not fantastically. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) JayHenry 06:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) &lt;&lt;-armon-&gt;&gt; 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) We need more people like Hemlock Martinis. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] A bit inexperience relatively, but a good candidate. KTC 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) _ JodyBtalk 17:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. A good admin, and the fact that he isn't part of the wiki-"establishment" can only be a good thing; he can be trusted to give independent and impartial rulings as a member of ArbCom. WaltonOne 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support - a fresh perspective can only be a good thing; arbitration unfortunately has become a huge mess of lawyering, nitpicking over the exact wording and so on, with the result that in the end, resolutions are either heavy-handed and imbalanced, or non-existant for all practical purposes. -- Schneelocke 21:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) No major issues at all. Acalamari 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) EconomistBR 01:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) SQL Query me!  05:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support  -- 健次 (derumi)talk 05:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support I think this candidate will bring a fresh approach to the turgid processes of the ArbComm. Xdenizen 06:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26)  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) - Zeibura (Talk) 21:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support I would like to see what you do! docboat (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) SUPPORT.  semper fictilis  15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Not part of the old guard, which is nice. Neutralitytalk 00:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Personally took the time to expand upon his answers to questions regarding this election. The ArbCom needs people with this level of follow-up. Ante  lan  talk  03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Changing to support, Hemlock wasn't one of my initial picks, but I've since taken a closer look at this candidate and am impressed by his responsiveness, concise straightforwardness, and fresh perspective. -- M P er el 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Ravenhurst (talk) 13:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support pro-neutrality Homestarmy (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support sensible outsiders. Eliot (talk) 19:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]] Bardofcornish (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bardofcornish does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 23:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Can't find anything in his record not to like.  --Hyperbole (talk) 06:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - no reason to oppose, seems to know policy well. No need to have undergone Adminitis three times to be part of arbcom. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, damn fine chap. - J Logan t: 20:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support ugen64 (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - slightly confused that statement suggests that ArbCom needs new ideas but candidate doesn't propose any, however, good track record, considered answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support' as he has the right attitude. Bearian (talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support-- Argos ' Dad  04:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Excellent work on Turkey's accession to the European Union. Luqman Skye (talk) 07:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Bacchiad (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support  S a u d a d e 7  22:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Support User: right honorable dr. zombie
 * User has about 10 edits, needs 150 before November 1st to qualify to vote Secret account 06:37, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Support KissL 15:35, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support wbfergus undefinedTalk 21:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support I liked the statement, all-around good editor. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Philcha (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Danny (talk) 21:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Sarah 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Too inexperienced This is a Secret account 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Chaz Beckett 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose ""cooldown blocks" and civility vigilantism on ArbCom.  Bishonen | talk 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 5) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Nufy8 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  spryde  |  talk  00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) east. 718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
 * 10)  B LACK K ITE  00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) – Gurch (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) ~ Riana ⁂  00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Oppose -- Avi 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14)  —  master son T - C 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Sorry, not yet. --Core desat 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]  Alex ' fus ' co5  02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) &#10154; Hi DrNick ! 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) With regret, right ideas, but I consider more experience as an admin is required here. -- Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Answers to questions indicate an almost total unfamiliarity with dispute resolution. &mdash;Cryptic 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Zocky | picture popups 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Videmus Omnia  Talk  03:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose -Dureo 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) —  xaosflux  Talk 05:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) —Mira 05:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27)  T M F Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Weakly, though, and not without acknowledging that there is indeed a good bit to commend the candidate for ArbComming.  Joe 06:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Not ready yet.--Bigtimepeace | talk |  contribs 07:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Crockspot 07:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Shem(talk) 09:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Regretfully.--Vassyana 11:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Five months of deep involvement is not really enough to have acquired the broad perspective needed for an arbitrator. However, this is a relatively weak oppose. Splash - tk 13:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35)  Grue   14:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Addhoc 14:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Ral315 — (Voting) 16:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Davewild 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose Ripberger 20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Not there yet, but may be strong candidate in a future election. WjBscribe 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Johnbod 23:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. &mdash; Sebastian 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Weak oppose, good editor, needs a touch more experience before ArbCom. Come back next time, and I'm sold. &spades;P M C&spades; 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose Nothing personal. Atropos 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose -- SECisek 19:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Michael Snow (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. Speedy decisions can be just as harmful as slow deliberations. Viriditas 03:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. -- M P er el 04:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC) changed my mind on this one, switched to support... -- M P er el  04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose at this point. I was hoping for more thorough answers to some questions. Perhaps next round. Ante  lan  talk  05:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) Updated to support above after he personally took the time to answer questions I had in more depth.  Ante  lan  talk  03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Trustworthy, but not experienced enough in my estimation for ArbCom. Van Tucky  talk 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose per NPOV/SPOV answer. Skinwalker (talk) 18:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, good contributor and decent answers, however more experience is needed for this role. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. During this election, candidate blocked IP 74.200.75.5 for attempting to vote. Sure, the IP has no suffrage, but the fact that HM thought this justified blocking rather than just indenting the !vote indicates poor judgement. Martinp (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Vote absolutely changed to oppose per Martinp. Reference User talk:74.200.75.5, this is unacceptable behavior and lack of judgment from Hemlock and Yamla. SashaNein (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose anti-science Too accommodationist. See User talk:Hemlock Martinis. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Not yet. Terence (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Weak oppose. Too soon. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, more experience required. &mdash; BillC talk 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose: This block and your response to it after it was questioned, shows that you might not fully understand the blocking policy. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Wait 'til next year. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, sorry Zagalejo^^^ 23:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose: I had been neutral or leaning toward support, but I do not believe that "civility" should receive the attention and enforcement of 3RR.  Until someone can figure out a universal meaning of "civility" that is applicable, enforcing it is going to be either imprecise or prejudicial.  We need less, not more, attention to this on ArbCom, with more, not less, attention on disruption.  (I apologize for the discursive element.)  Geogre (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Weakly, per WJB and Titoxd. Dekimasuよ!  05:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Weak oppose. the wub "?!"  12:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Mike R (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) per Bishonen, Martinp, and Geogre. KillerChihuahua?!? 22:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, the civility stance was a dealbreaker. Carcharoth (talk) 13:12, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22)  Maxim (talk)  00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose regretfully, but I do not think you are ready. JERRY talk contribs 00:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Excellent user, but I must oppose per Martinp, Geogre and especially Bishonen. The "cooldown block" has died a deserving death and must not return in any form. szyslak  07:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose --Peta (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Blocking an anon IP for trying to vote is reprehensible. LuciferMorgan (talk) 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Opposedeeceevoice (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Yes, no, yes, no? I shall simply say nothing.... -- \/\/slack  ( talk ) 03:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)