Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/MastCell

Support

 * 1) Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Nufy8 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) I trust your ability to arbitrate. Qst 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support You have worked well as an admin. I recall your indef block of TingMing when it was found out that there was massive sockpuppetry. I think you'd be a great arbiter.Ngchen 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Prodego  talk 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) ~ Riana ⁂  00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) – Gurch (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Baka  man  01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9)  SQL Query me!  01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Who cares if he doesn't now use IRC/the mailing list?  He's not on arbcom now. --B 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Videmus Omnia  Talk  03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Pocopocopocopoco 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16)  Spebi  05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Crockspot 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) I don't necessarily always agree with MastCell, but I certainly trust him. --Vassyana 11:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) - Two Oars   (Rev)  12:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Addhoc 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Eminently suitable for the job. PeaceNT 14:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) --barneca 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) JoshuaZ 15:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Spike Wilbury ♫  talk  16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) EconomicsGuy 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. R. Baley 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Gets it. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Carolmooredc Sometimes only advocates will bother to improve articles; getting them into the WIKI head so they do it neutrally - as opposed to punishing them when it takes a while to get it - is important and he seems like he would get that
 * 29) Filll 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) As per Secret...-- Cometstyles 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - I'm a bit torn, actually. I think identifying problematic editors is not always as easy as you think, but clearly, there's many cases where obvious troublemakers were given far, far too much credit and leeway. -- Schneelocke 21:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Shot info 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Guettarda 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Hardyplants 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Adam Cuerden talk 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) CO GDEN  03:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Moreschi puts it well - he "gets it." We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in drama or to serve as a reform school for wayward editors. Note mail list and IRC are low signal / high noise venues with little utility and great potential for abuse (especially in the case of IRC). Raymond arritt (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) The Evil Spartan 05:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Xdenizen 06:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Support per Raymond arrittJQ 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Support per everyone.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) RMHED 15:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Not using IRC is not a concern. Acalamari 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Always fair. -- Levine2112 discuss  19:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46)  Wikidudeman  (talk) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * --Anthon01 (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Anthon01 does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) - Merzbow (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) - Support per Raymond arrit. Having seen Mast Cell in action in arbitration-like roles (largely on WP:ANI), he strikes the necessary balance between empathy and severity.  T i a m u t ' 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support: Absolutely. We need more Wikipedians like this on Arbcomm. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We bend over backwards to accommodate editors who are incapable of reform. They should be given fewer chances. MastCell, to me, has the correct attitude to this problem. --Rodhullandemu  (please reply here - contribs) 23:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Secret and IronDuke. I also like MastCell's ability to see through mountains of crap and find and clearly state the essentials of a situation. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support i have nothing but good experiences with MastCell, he is fair and is able to keep a calm head on even very controversial issues. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Guettarda (talk) 05:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Support I'd let MastCell be my doctor, my lawyer, my congressperson, or my arbitrator for that matter. Ante  lan  talk  06:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Highly qualified for the job and brings a much needed perspective to what Wikipedia needs if it is ever to be considered a reliable source in any sense off-wiki and on-wiki. --  Fyslee  /  talk  06:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) support William M. Connolley (talk) 08:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Wetman (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Kittybrewster  &#9742;  09:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) support Hal peridol (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Support provided he agrees to join the ArbComm mailing list ➥the Epopt (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Dessources (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Don't agree with you all the time, but I do agree with the approach you use docboat (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Lisatwo (talk) 17:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Tony Sidaway 18:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Impressively levelheaded.
 * 22) Support I have considered Irpen's oppose below, and I don't see any comments that dissuade me (diffs?); I support the platform. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Support trustworthy Wikipedian. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Wow, what great answers to the questions posed. And these were not just answers saying what we wanted to hear, but answers defining the candidate's perspective. I wasn't particularly intending to vote here, but MastCell would be an invaluable addition to the ArbCom team. Geometry guy 22:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Support AgneCheese/Wine 23:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Rschen7754 (T C) 23:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Support a sensible user and would be an asset to Arbcom. particluarly agree with views on net negative to WP as a point to consider re desysopping. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:56, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Keeps calm and objective.  Good mediator, always tries to seek a mutual consensus for all. David D. (Talk) 07:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - When I turned 14 I started High School and I stopped using IRC. Brusegadi (talk) 07:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Support, per answers to questions. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Has shown a clear understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and has shown a commendable willingness to speak out in support of those policies. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Support --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34)  Rockpock  e  t  20:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Support &#0149;Jim 62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; 23:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Support Is top-notch. Very level-headed and careful.  MisterSheik (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Almost exactly per Raymond Arritt.  It's not as if Mailing Lists are complicated technology and we can't fathom whether or not MastCell will be able to figure it out. --JayHenry (talk) 18:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Support ×Meegs 05:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Doesn't make sense that people are opposing him for not using a double-secret mailing list or IRC. He didn't say he would never use a mailing list, and he seems like a perfectly good candidate otherwise. Grand  master  ka  08:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) JoeSmack Talk 14:22, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - A good candidate. Not using IRC or the mailing list pre-election does not concern me in any way. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Support - good sysop, good user, excellent statement. No concerns at all. Bearian (talk) 21:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Dekimasu<small style="color:darkgreen;">よ! 05:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Support. Based on experience with content editing. Some concerns, but overall I feel ArbCom would benefit in this case. Carcharoth (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. Cri du canard (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) the wub "?!"  17:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Support<font color="#ff004f">S<font color="#ff001f">a<font color="#ff1000">u<font color="#ff4000">d a d e 7  22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Just based on my psychic intuitions.
 * 49) KillerChihuahua?!? 19:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 50) -- lucasbfr talk 09:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 51) Support - Tim Vickers (talk) 00:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Reasonable and even handed Phyesalis (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 53) Support On this last day of elections, I'm revisiting a few of the candidacies about which my views were earlier mixed, in order that I might finally vote. This one, though, I intended to support straightaway, and I must suppose that I simply failed to save my vote for this fine candidate last week.  Joe 07:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 54) Support I've liked what I've seen.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 55) Support Smart, capable, broad-minded and unaligned – will make a great arb. I am especially impressed by his circumspection when it comes to disputes. --G-Dett (talk) 20:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 56) SupportGood candidate.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 57) Yes. Absolutely. DS (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 58) SupportYilloslime (t') 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 59) Support Luqman Skye (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Sorry, needing to use either IRC or the mailing list is a must to become a arbcom member. This is a Secret account 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Please see here for my reasoning.  IronDuke  00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Chaz Beckett 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Secret.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"> spryde  |  talk  00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Nishkid64 (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) <small style="background:#fff;border:#daa520 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
 * 8) No.   ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) - auburn pilot   talk  00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) You do good work, but I have to oppose per Secret and IronDuke. --Core desat 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]]  Alex ' fus ' co5  02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Cryptic 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Too new. Rebecca 02:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) <font style="color: #082567">Hús  ö <font style="color: #082567">nd  03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18)  <font color="#8B7B8B" face="Verdana">M er cury    03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose -Dureo 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) — <font color="#FF9933" face="monotype">xaosflux  Talk 05:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Isarig (talk) 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Per IronDuke. 6SJ7 (talk) 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Stifle (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Splash - tk 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] KTC 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27)   Grue   14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose - Too new. <font color="007FFF">Mattisse  15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Great guy but not ready for the role.  Neil   ☎  15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Ral315 — (Voting) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose Edivorce 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Davewild 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose Ripberger 20:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose Me rk i n s m um  23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) WjBscribe 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) EconomistBR 00:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Neutrality and objectivity are called into serious question even by his candidacy statement. Contribution history appears clearly agenda driven. Chido6d 01:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret account 03:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose --LordPathogen 04:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * LordPathogen does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 21:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too new I'm afraid. Atropos 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, per Secret and patchy answers to questions. John Vandenberg 10:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose -- POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin. --profg Talk 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) - <font face="Trebuchet MS">Zeibura (Talk) 22:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Michael Snow (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Not a neutral editor. Highly invested in areas, such as skepticism, where neutral decisions are particularly necessary. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 23:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose : doesn't take WP:CIV seriously. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Christopher Parham (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I expect arbcom to be open to all communication methods and to be familiar with their use. Viriditas 03:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) 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 04:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Tim Q. Wells (talk) 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  07:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Peter morrell 14:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose, good editor with a lot of admirable qualities. Needs time, and perhaps work a bit more towards neutrality.  Dreadstar  †  18:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) Alarmed by candidate's positions expressed at Requests for arbitration/Matthew Hoffman/Workshop. --Irpen 07:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose: Geogre (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Terence (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) no support something is not working with this one. perhaps in the future.  Jaakobou <sup style="color:#1F860E;">Chalk Talk  01:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. &mdash; Sebastian 08:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose: --Russianname (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) oppose. --Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Changing the rules to make it easier to "deal with" editors that are considered "bad" is not what Wikipedia needs. Eliot (talk) 19:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) oppose --Mcginnly | Natter 13:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose Whig (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. Wasn't going to vote, but don't like attitude that "The Arbitration Committee can't dispense Truth...."Ferrylodge (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose - Maybe next year? -- 健次 (derumi)talk 03:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose -- R OGER D AVIES   talk 08:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Per some of the Q&A. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 20:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose - appears to want to concentrate on dealing with editors who are unconstructive and can be identified straightforwardly. I'd rather focus on building consensus. Warofdreams talk 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) GRBerry 14:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Mike R (talk) 20:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) -- Vision  Thing -- 21:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose - To my surprise, concur with Irpen. Missing the point that there is no such thing as a benign block, particularly to new users.  Risker (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose maybe next year wbfergus undefinedTalk 21:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. ¡Qué nuevo! If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40)  Maxim (talk)  00:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Opppose past history of poor judgement. JERRY talk contribs 01:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Opppose not got the right attitude from evidence shown by IronDuke - Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose Hell no, considering you wanted me to be banned in the Allegations of Apartheid arbcom case.  Yahel  Guhan  05:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. Not flexible enough. Loom91 (talk) 06:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose Made ill-considered proposals in some recent ArbCom cases. Beit Or 11:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose as some past decisions raise doubts about the ability to perform well as an arbitrator. <font style="color:#22AA00;">Tewfik <font style="color:#888888;">Talk 17:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose, too new, as per others. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 21:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. --Padraig (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 52) Opposedeeceevoice (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose  Sarah 23:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)