Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Wizardman

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

I'm withdrawing my candidacy. I did well, but the community finds me inexperienced, and the only way to remedy that is via a year's worth of dispute resolution experience. Can't say I didn't try. Wizardman 18:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) --W.marsh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash; trey  (wiki) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3)  Anthøny  00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5)  Kurykh  00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs (st47) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Good judgment  Grace notes T § 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8)  Snowolf  How can I help? 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Nick 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) – Gurch (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Qst  00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Fresh Face ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13)  Baka  man  01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) --- RockMFR 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15)  Captain   panda  01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Stardust8212 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) —  Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18)  krimpet  ⟲  01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19)  SQL Query me!  01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) Support -- Cirt 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
 * 21) B 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22)  Alex ' fus ' co5  02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) Hasn't been worn down by the years of dispute resolution as our current arbitrators have been. Quite capable of the job and with a fresh enthusiasm I like to see. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25)  M er cury    03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Cryptic 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) GlassCobra 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Aboutmovies 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29)  Hús  ö  nd 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:41, December 3, 2007
 * 33) RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Sjakkalle  (Check!)  07:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) ~ priyanath talk 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Define "too new" and I will oppose!!..we need new ideas and not the same old failing perspective of yesteryears..-- Cometstyles 12:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Addhoc 14:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) Support.--Isotope23 talk 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Wizardman is trustworthy. Acalamari 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) &mdash; Rudget contributions 17:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Support -  Avruch Talk 18:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43)  OhanaUnited  Talk page  18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) Spartaz Humbug! 19:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Davewild 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46)  Rockpock  e  t  22:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Strong support for a great candidate.  -- David  Shankbone  22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Support.  Lawrence Cohen  22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 49) WjBscribe 23:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 50) → Aza Toth 23:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 51) Kittybrewster   &#9742;  23:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 52)  Kwsn   (Ni!)  00:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 53) EconomistBR 00:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 54) Seen this editor around, and liked what I saw. Anynobody 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 55) Jerry  01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 56) Greg Jones II 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 57) support Kingturtle 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 58) — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍 ) 07:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 59) We need to try something different this time and I hardly consider Wizardman that inexperienced. Voting based on experience has brought us to where we are today, it just isn't working as it should. Wizardman would be a refreshing change from that. EconomicsGuy 13:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 60) This isn't per se an uncritical endorsement of Wizardman, but I think he would be vastly preferable to Raul654, for instance. As noted above, candidates with "experience" are often those who already have too much power for their own good. WaltonOne 14:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 61) Support, I've seen some very good things with Wizardman, and think he would make an excellent Arbitrator. Dreadstar  †  15:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 62) Support -- Fram 15:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 63) RMHED 16:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 64)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  20:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 65) Support for mediation experience. And I don't think the field of competitors is that good anymore, since Ryan jumped off :-] &mdash; Sebastian 22:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 66) Support. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 67) I see no reason why not. None at all. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 68) W/mint -Talk-  07:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 69) Support -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie 15:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 70) I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this candidate! - 15:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Lack of experince for the job, sorry :( This is a Secret account 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) east. 718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
 * 4) Nufy8 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) - auburn pilot   talk  00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Regretful oppose.   ALKIVAR &trade; &#x2622; 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) --Agüeybaná 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Very regretful oppose, though would support later. --Core desat 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) Well on your way, but I believe there are numerous better qualified candidates. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Too new. Maybe later. Zocky | picture popups 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) Too new, but certainly a possibility in the future. Rebecca 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) Sorry, I preferred the other Wizardman :( Dihydrogen Monoxide  ♫ 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Too new, maybe next time --Duk 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose -Dureo 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) Perhaps next election. —  xaosflux  Talk 04:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) —Mira 05:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) I agree, perhaps the next election. I appreciate your work here, though.  Spebi  06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) I would like to be able to support, but some of the answers to the questions are a bit disquieting. Joe 06:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) showed a very disturbing tendency of not doing his homework in his participation of the Ideogra-Certified.Gangsta arbCom case. definitely doesn't seem to be competent for the job--Certified.Gangsta 07:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) WAS 4.250 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) - Crockspot 07:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) Does good work for the 'pedia, but inexperienced for this position. —  Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  09:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) You don't really stand out, sorry. Shem(talk) 10:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 25) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 11:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose Good fellow, but not ready for this heavy duty yet. Xoloz 14:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 27) Too soon to tell if he;d make a good arbitrator in a year or two, but not ready this year. Neil   ☎  15:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 28) Not yet.  Antandrus  (talk) 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 29) [[Image:Symbol oppose vote.svg|15px]] Not convinced either way leading to siding with the caution. KTC 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 30) Ral315 — (Voting) 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose Edivorce 18:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose Ripberger 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose - you certainly seem nice enough, but I'm not convinced you're experienced enough when it comes to dispute resolution. Maybe next year? -- Schneelocke 22:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 34) Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 35) Weak oppose Would like more experience in ArbCom areas. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. Risker 00:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 37) Tyrenius 02:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 38) Atropos 06:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 39) A little to new for me.  Ru n eW i ki     777 20:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose:  Geogre 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 41) Regretful oppose - seems to think it's OK to revert an admin action without discussion and has no clear understanding of recent arbcom rulings.--Docg 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 42) Michael Snow (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 43) Picaroon (t) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 44) John Vandenberg (talk) 03:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. Viriditas 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 46) 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 04:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 47) Weak oppose Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 48) Weak oppose Ante  lan  talk  06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose, sorry, but please get more experience first. Jonathunder (talk) 07:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 50) -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  07:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose Per crockspot Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 52) Very good editor, but not ready for Arbcom. PeaceNT (talk) 16:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 53) Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)