Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe


 * The candidate to whom this page belongs has withdrawn from the 2008 Arbitration Committee Elections. Please do not modify this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Support

 * 1) 100% right attitude.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely. Strong support. Would be an excellent ArbCom member.--chaser - t 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) No problem at all, he will make a good abrcom member.—  Ѕandahl   ♥  00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Durova  Charge! 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) -  file lake  shoe  00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support, level-headed, intelligent and hard working editor.  Dreadstar  †  00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Sam  Blab 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support  Majorly  talk  01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14)  kur  ykh   01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Per: details  MBisanz  talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Best of all the candidates. Avruch  T 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) –  Toon (talk)  01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Certainly qualified. Steven Walling (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) One of the more suitable editors on Wikipedia. Fair and logical.-- Koji  †  01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Weak support. The issue with Peter Damian makes me go "eh", but I have not heard his story of you being involved echoed in any other place. I'd be fine with you on ArbCom. -  NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Will be a great addition, good luck! RockManQ Review me 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) -- Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Support - fair and level-headed. His experience as a crat will help too. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28)  iMa tth ew  02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - One of the most qualified to serve on the committee; a well-trusted, well-liked member of the community with ample experience in disputes resolution, given that he is chair of the mediation committee. I am making one vote these elections and it goes to WJB. ~ User:Ameliorate!  (with the !) (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Tom B (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Support: I have my doubts, but you can do. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4)  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Good God, yes! One of the greats.  -- David  Shankbone  02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)   L'Aquatique   [  talk  ] 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Second best candidate behind Jayvdb. Good luck! Daniel (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support JodyBtalk 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support I suppose... J.delanoy gabs adds  03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Extra Strong Support. A man willing to stand by his principles in the face of oncoming wrongdoing is what we need more of. rootology  ( C )( T ) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Yep. Definitely has the right temperament. GJC 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support In my view, the best candidate for nomination this time (with no offence to several other very worthy candidates running). Orderinchaos 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Epbr123 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support  Burner 0718  Wutsapnin? 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support most definitely. – RyanCross  ( talk ) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Because I dislike the rest more.  Prodego  talk 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) WJB is as level-headed as you can possibly find, and I trust his judgement thoroughly.  Master&amp;  Expert ( Talk ) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) B (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Strongest possible support, outstanding candidate. Everyking (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Indeed. - &#10032; ALLST☆R &#10032; echo 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Even though I'm no fan of "hat collecting", he is trustworthy and he earns my support.  r speer  /  ɹəəds ɹ  05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -MBK004 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Asset to the project. Andre (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong support. An excellent candidate. Sarah 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) –Moondyne 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Support.  — Athaenara  ✉  07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support.  bd2412  T 07:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support – absolutely. —  sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Ironholds (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Shows a welcome awareness of the perceived mistakes and problems with ArbCom, and a willingness to work to rectify them. Steve  T • C 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Weak support. I like your stance, and your history shows a general tendency towards fairness and clarity. I am concerned, however, with how much time you spend on other 'backstage' WP things, and am worried that either those or ArbCom will suffer. // roux   editor review 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Obvious choice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - would make a fine arbitrator, and hopefully knows that he can put the requisite amount of time in Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Of course. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now Strong support for helping to uphold the ArbCom's motion, even though I neither agree with it nor with the special treatment certain users get. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - have only ever seen sensible actions from this user. Ronnotel (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  Horologium  (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) --Conti|✉ 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Graham 87  14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support: Experience as a bureaucrat, chair of the Mediation Committee and administrator leaves me to wholly support WJBscribe. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) [[Image:Yes check.svg|15px]] Support ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Lots of hats, yes, but I'm confident you can manage your time, or you wouldn't be running on a "speed" platform. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) --Kbdank71 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) For excellent judgment, and my personal interactions with WJBscribe. Acalamari 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) I trust this candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) 'Support Dbiel (Talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Has proven time and time again that he has the right skills and approach to be an Arb. Unusual? Quite  TalkQu  20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —  Dæ dαlusContribs /Improve 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support — -- Suntag  ☼  21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support The  Helpful  One  21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Davewild (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Too much on his platter but a worthy candidate ....-- Cometstyles 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) No particular qualms, not inherently against "hat collecting." Glass  Cobra  22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. A cool head and clear intentions. The best of luck. haz  (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * For courage. Jehochman Talk 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Unclear if he has enough time for this job. Jehochman Talk 22:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong support. The best. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, even if it were only for speaking up with ethical reservations at the latest Giano II controversy. Intended as a vote for balanced ethical behavior and transparency.--Wetman (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) This is breaking my "only seven supports" rule, but I feel that, for his show of solidarity in unblocking Giano (as someone who got annoyed at him breaking parole, this time he actually didn't) and reminding fellow Arbs of the rules they've set... Luxembourg, deux points. Sceptre (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Privatemusings (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Whether we agree with him or not, unblocking Giano in the middle of his own running for ArbCom, in light of what happened to SlimVirgin, shows courage and conviction. We want arbs who won't be afraid to go against the others if they believe something is right. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Sceptre and ElinorD. Having the balls to do something unpopular if you think it's necessary is A Good Thing. –  iride scent  00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - strong experience, very active in a number of areas but good performance in all of them. Very good statement. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - fair-minded, willing to act. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) — Deor (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Seems to have some sense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support per above.  --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support -- Levine2112  discuss 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Unblocking Giano while running for ArbCom shows a dedication to doing what's right despite political backlash. A  ni  Mate  01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Branson03 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Strong Support  Alex ' fusco ' 5  02:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) SupportNrswanson (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support Honestly, if I was in your position of Adminship, Cratship, administrating both Commons and Meta, and assisting with both OTRS and the Mediation Committee, I would have cracked by now. And, you want to do more? Whatever floats your boat...  Gl ac ier   Wo lf   03:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Yes.  Icy  // ♫ 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Hesperian 04:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) You are a very hard working, suitable candidate. ѕwirlвoy   ₪  04:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Has more sense than I thought. — CharlotteWebb 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) John Reaves 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ѕwirlвoy  ₪  05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Willingness to stand up to bullying of Giano a plus in my book and as usual, support and opposition are a good guide to whether you'd be a good choice. Grace Note (talk) 06:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) For having big, hairy brass ones. My previous concerns remain, but we need someone willing to take correct, decisive actions. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Kamek  (Koopa wizard!) 08:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I was ambivalent about this candidate but his conduct in the latest drama has moved me to support. Nancy  talk  08:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support — Possum (talk) 10:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Outstanding Wikipedian. --Dweller (talk) 11:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support for all the good work he's done for Wikipedia, including his unblock of Giano and the reasoning behind it &mdash; he told PrivateMusings on the NTWW podcast he hoped the unblock would prevent arbitrators feeling they're becoming a class of user unto their own. That's the kind of person we need on the committee. SlimVirgin  talk| edits 13:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) fish &amp;karate  13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - As per User:Glacier Wolf. Also: Someone opposed as "career Wikipedian", that is precisely why I support, we need people in ArbCom like that. Plus this is continuity with change. Having it both is possible. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) —DerHexer (Talk) 13:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Dev920, who misses Jeffpw. 14:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support for being willing to stand up to TPTB --Peter cohen (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Yes ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support  Khu  kri  16:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. (ESkog)(Talk) 16:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) I liked just about everything I've seen from him, but was a little concerned with the "too many hats" thing.  But the Giano unblock was spot on and showed he can stand up to the man when the man is wrong.  Great job.  Just please don't "toe the line" once you're on arbcom. Tex (talk) 17:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Wronkiew (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Tenmei (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Ecoleetage (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. User impresses me with his independence. Cool Hand Luke 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. LLDMart (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support - Has been significantly more level-headed on several occasions than those of the current ArbCom members who I have taken note of. I see no issue here with respect to separation of powers. &mdash; Mike.<b style="color:#309;">lifeguard</b> &#124; @en.wb 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Support re Giano unblock - for doing so, and for doing it so magnanimously MikeHobday (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Миша 13  22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Pour encourager les autres. Giano (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) I was uncertain, but some of the arguments "against" have convinced me to vote "for". 6SJ7 (talk) 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) I have the same impression 6SJ7, but I was inclined to support anyway. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Yes. ST47 (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30)  IronDuke  00:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. One of our finest.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Gnangarra 01:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 01:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Support faithless   (speak)  02:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Jonathunder (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Weakly. I trust WJBscribe's judgment, but I do agree with the opposes to some extent. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666666">Tropical <sup style="color:#666666">Cyclone  03:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Strongest possible support the obvious choice. WJBscribe will fix the problems and do a super job.  There is no concern with separation of powers from a user who has so consistently shown he is trustworthy in the past. Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - A l is o n  ❤ 04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) — Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  05:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Support per Jerry. --MagneticFlux (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 42) He's demonstrated his commitment, and I like his prospect as an Arbitrator better than most of the others. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) I don't know him personally, but I trust his judgement.  Foxy Loxy  Pounce! 05:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 44) Support (I should just have gone for a straight mediator ticket...) Xavexgoem (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 45) Kusma (talk) 07:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Max (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You are not eligible to vote this year, I'm afraid as you had insufficient mainspace contributions before 1st November Fritzpoll (talk) 10:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Kafka Liz (talk) 10:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- Alexf(talk) 12:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Per his bold actions recently regarding an ill-conceived block by an arbitrator. Anyone who can take such actions in the middle of an Arbcom run has my respect, and my vote. S. D. D.J.Jameson 12:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Kauffner (talk) 14:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Tundrabuggy (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) support Crum375 (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support The Giano unblock demonstrates the calibre and integrity of this candidate; arbcom could do with such a member. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) OK. Chick Bowen 16:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Strongest Possible Support —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 16:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Ucucha 16:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Hiberniantears (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Charitwo (talk) 18:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - - <span style="font-family: Papyrus, sans-serif"> Philippe 19:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) User:Krator (t c) 19:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support - Tājik (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Supportprashanthns (talk) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support - Renee (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Michael Snow (talk) 20:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support - I think the user has shown trustworthy qualities for ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support A fair, steady hand is needed here. Acting in good faith, I used the account checker on the Elections page and it told me I was eligible to vote in this election. Apparently it malfunctioned, and probably not just for me. It seems fundamentally unfair to trick people into believing they are eligible to do something and then yank the rug out from under them when they do it. This is not an effective way to encourage more participation in Wikipedia. Persons who relied on the malfunctioning account checker who voted should have their votes count. It's a fundamental fairness issue, not a personal issue, although in this environment, every principle seems to get reduced to personalities pretty quickly. So I cast my votes, even if they will be summarily invalidated, therby undermining the credibility of the entire election. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Vote reinstated for historical purposes after this candidate withdrew.
 * 1) Support -Node (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support The clincher for me was his idea about block reviews and transparency. He has a strong understanding of how ArbCom is supposed to operate.--Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong Support From all that I've seen, WjBscribe has the patience, commitment, fundamental sanity, and good judgment that this assignment demands. --Orlady (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) <b style="color:#3366BB">W ODU P</b> 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Acts according to his conscience: If only more of us did. Kylu (talk) 06:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Eusebeus (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support VartanM (talk) 06:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Good candidate. --Namsos (talk) 06:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) HaeB (talk) 09:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. He is an excellent candidate. --Wayiran (talk) 11:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Kennedy  ( talk ) 11:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. --NikoSilver 12:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Just to make sure that I don't miss the deadline at all. This is the only candidate who I can support without a lot of further research, and that's something I decided several weeks ago. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Happy ‑ melon  18:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Very strong Support -- <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000"> Tinu  <em style="font-family:Kristen ITC;color:#ff0000">Cherian  - 18:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Support -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  19:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support per ElinorD Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Malinaccier (talk) 21:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. This will come as a surprise to many I am sure.  My questions to him were honestly answered and I believe that, while he has made mistakes in the past, there is evidence of care and thought and integrity in his approach to decision making.  Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost.  I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe Nu  tter  21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) TS 01:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support ☺ Coppertwig(talk) 01:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5)   Marlith  (Talk)   02:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) SupportDineshkannambadi (talk) 03:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support--MONGO 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support per all of the above. <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;" class="plainlinks">Khoikhoi 04:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Terence (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) I have some reservations about power concentration, and the candidate has not answered User:Mailer Diablo's IRC question, but he does say, "I do think it important that decisions concerning Wikipedia are discussed on Wikipedia" and has opposed the creation of a bureaucrat IRC channel. The oppose votes based on his unblock of Giano, which was implementing an ArbCom decision and which the blocking admin has accepted, irritate me. DrKiernan (talk) 11:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Hectorian (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support.  Buck  ets  ofg  15:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Politis (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. But I respectfully request that if elected, the candidate would remove some of his other hats so that he can better focus on the job of Arb. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. -- Domer48  'fenian'  22:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Randomran (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Awesome 'crat, awesome sysop. Long deserved. &mdash; C  eranthor 02:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Support ...reconsidered my initial vote.....Modernist (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Has shown integrity and good judgment, and that's what the arbcom needs. Support. Kosebamse (talk) 08:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong support - Civil, dedicated, committed, and friendly. AdjustShift (talk) 15:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Support BencherliteTalk 16:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Support Comments on Footnoted quotes case spot on. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Supportsure -- Mardetanha talk 18:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) —<b style="color:#002BB8">Animum</b> (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Support--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) SupportLisatwo (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Yes most definitely -- VS talk 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Support - experience universally positive. Note: I have returned after 1 month of inactivity simply to vote; I have 2 years of experience and 60000 edits over two usernames. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Support &mdash; BillC talk 03:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Has brains, and I have the feeling his election would help redress the balance between thoughtful decision makers and thoughtless networking pontificators in favour of the former. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Support, -  Shyam  ( T / C ) 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Proven track record in medcom. --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Good, sensible decisions. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) SupportJon513 (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Support --  Iamawesome  800  17:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) support  « l | Ψrometheăn ™ | l »   (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Support I have been sitting on this one for a while. I see and understand the concerns that this candidate has too much on his plate. On the other hand, I have never seen him as anything but fair and dedicated to the project, so if he feels that he is capable of managing his time around being in Arbcom, I'm going to assume good faith and support him. Trusilver  18:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Support Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC))
 * 40) Support 100000% yes, Ive seen this user all over wikipedia. <em style="font-family:Lucida Handwriting;color:White;background:red">Hereford 20:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Support --Ariobarza (talk) 20:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk
 * 42) Support' -- Samir 23:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 43) Support' -- Agathoclea (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Ecoleetage (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Duplicate vote; Ecoleetage already voted "support" above, at no. 141 Jayen  466  01:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I hope you can deliver what you are promising. Behaafarid (talk) 09:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Dmcdevit·t 11:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  abf  /talk to me/  13:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as better than some others. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ONe more. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support.  Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Have experienced him to be fair. --Buster7 (talk) 08:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Support 110% of the positive kind of attitude. Leujohn  ( talk )
 * 9) Support Nan oha A's Yu ri  Talk, My master 02:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) SupportNokhodi (talk) 03:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) WJBscribe has my total support, though I will take this opportunity to point out that I think concerns about editors wearing "too many hats" is a valid one. However, I also have faith in WJBscribe's ability to balance the all duties he currently has with the obligations that come with being an Arbitrator. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 03:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Raayen (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Sedd&sigma;n talk 05:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support ←  Spidern  →  07:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) → Na · gy  09:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - BusterD (talk) 13:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Support  Gazi moff  14:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, 'cause he reminds me of someone I know. · ΚΕΚΡΩΨ · 14:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Support This blood we need.  Hús  ö  nd 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.-- Maxim (talk)  00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Hi DrNick ! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6)  Voyaging <sup style="color:teal;">(talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) As I have collected evaluations from people, there are evident concerns on WJBscribe's candidacy; Elonka related matters, possible hat collecting, unpunctuality and current activity regarding an overturn of a fellow 'crat's enforcement. The concerns seriously challenge to his own three pledges: "Transparency, Appropriate sanctions, Speed" as well as "neutrality", "discretion", and "judgment". Besides, he has been very slow and less than enthusiastic to answer to given questions, but the community want "new faces" to change our sluggish Arbcom. Also, after he has gotten the b'crat title, his activity to MEDCAB has been hugely decreased; he is currently almost inactive for it. However, ArbCom requires a sincere devotion. Therefore, I oppose.Caspian blue 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9)  krimpet  ✽  01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Mr.Z-man 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a tough one. I consider you to be completely qualified to be a member of the committee, but I am afraid that the time sink ArbCom is will adversely affect your excellent performance as a bureaucrat. I'd rather have you run for steward instead. I'll keep thinking about this one, but for now, weak oppose. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) ~ Riana ⁂ 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Atmoz (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Has shown poor judgement as a crat. I have no confidence that arbcom activity would be impartial.  Friday (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7)  Gtstricky Talk or C 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Nearly complete abandonment of mainspace work = he's got too much on his plate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per Separation of powers and plate is too full. We have more important things for him to do like 'crat and admin functions. It's better to keep 'crats separate from arbitrators. Will is certainly his is more than qualified and capable to do the role and he has my complete support in all other situations.  Royal broil  04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose BJ Talk 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) You need a breather for a year. Mike H. Fierce! 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppse: He was very aggressive towards me while defending a friend of his on the wiki and he took the wrong side of the issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) – Outriggr  § 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose as I think the plate is too full. I also think that anyone working on Wikipedia should participate regularly in the upkeep and expansion of mainspace articles in order to keep grounded in the whole purpose of the site. Adding another responsibility on top of the pile of others will only make this more difficult. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Oppose I personally believe that WJB is simply a hat collector, edits Wikipedia solely for his own advantage in real life or for the end result of perceived power, and will manipulate and abuse any further powers (as he allegedly already has done) for his own self serving ends. The candidate is no longer trustworthy IMO and should stand down from both this election and other "positions" on this website. Pedro : Chat  07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose لenna  vecia  08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Fear he may not be able to shake off preconceptions when looking at cases. Also, too many hats could lead to burnout. Brilliantine (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Mailer Diablo 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose due to concerns about impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Arbitrator requires fairness. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) oppose- too like the current arbs. He also allowed things he decided not to deem important, about an (at the time) politically popular wiki-individual, to be whitewashed- just like the current lot. (To clarify- I don't mean anything against the wiki-individual concerned, who has answered well and in full, and everything said about him may well be completely unfounded- what I dislike is WJB's seeming dismissiveness at the time and assistance or complacence over a possible cover up, especially surrounding election time.)  Sticky   Parkin  13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose.  Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose'' •C H ILL DO UBT•      13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Pcap  ping  13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Overly bland. Something of a career Wikipedian. Moreschi (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) He's got too much shit on his plate. I will not take a chance on an editor, crat or no, that can potentially drag down the already crap productivity of the committee. SashaNein (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Verbal   chat  15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * GRBerry 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reconsidering - see below GRBerry
 * RMHED (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)</S>
 * 1) I'm afraid I agree with the separation of powers issue brought up above. Since we have no shortage of volunteers, I don't think piling up functions on one person is such a great idea, in terms of potential burnout if nothing else.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3)  Syn  ergy 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose --  Ευπάτωρ   Talk!! 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong oppose Serious concerns about favoritism; too many other demands on his time; too much of an insider to effect the reform Arbcom desperately needs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) oppose with one exception, I am opposing all 'crats for ArbCom, don't like the idea of having a few people with that much power.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: when I wrote this, I thought there were 3 other 'crats running as well. Guess my memory of who is a 'crat isn't what I thought---but it's still the principle.  I generally don't like the idea of 'crats being arbcom members. :(--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Mandarin, never seen sticking his neck out for anything, seems to believe Wikipedia is a community rather that an encyclopaedia.  Skomorokh   22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Regretfully Oppose While I respect Will's work, this strikes me as having a full plate of dinner in front of you and already asking for seconds. JPG-GR (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Was sitting on the fence here, but wheel-warring with an arb on a Giano block the type of drama-seeker we need--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Threaded discussion moved to talk. Hi DrNick ! 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Patrick (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose ... Modernist (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to support...the unblock took character...Modernist (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) I was going to say more or less what JPG-GR said, but why do that when it's been said already? Too many hats. Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Just NO. Per Elonka, or rather, because of. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Rockpock  e  t  02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) --Rividian (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - judgment is questionable, per recent events. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - convinced by the reasons for opposes above and by example provided by Scott Mac (Doc). &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 04:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose.Biophys (talk) 04:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) It really pains me to do this, because I do like WJBscribe in many respects, but the recent decision to overturn an ArbCom member's block on Giano less than a week after the exact same thing happened less than a week ago and resulted in the desysopping of SlimVirgin and an explicit ruling against overturning of said blocks strikes me as lacking in judgment. The only thing more disruptive than yet another Giano block is yet another Giano unblock.  Why keep the cycle going?  -- Cyde Weys  04:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak oppose  Enigma  message 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) This was a tough one for me, as I think the Scribe has been an excellent bureaucrat, but the candidate field is strong enough that concern about balance of powers is an important consideration.  I'm worried about getting a repeat of this and ending up with another overextended mandarin, wearing too many hats and none of them well, and forgetting where he came from or why he's here--as Nish says there may be too much on the plate already. --JayHenry (talk) 07:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Collection of individually minor concerns: hat collecting and concentrating our bits in a small number of hands has not worked out especially well in the past; a distressing lack of discernment on some high-profile issues (e.g., and this) concerns me regarding his judgement on the sort of complex matters that come before the Committee. MastCell Talk 19:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Users who are unable or unwilling to answer questions as candidates, or who do not have time to do so, are unlikely to do better are members of the committee.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose.  Kablammo (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) oppose I find myself disagreeing with him too much William M. Connolley (talk) 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 21:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Per Nish and Jay.  miranda   22:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose --Stephen 23:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - ridiculous amount of unanswered questions harkens back to the slipshod communication and lethargic case-pace of the recent past. Badger Drink (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Cri du canard (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose pending answers to questions. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) +O Ling.Nut (talk&mdash;WP:3IAR) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) - auburn pilot   talk  06:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Politics Viridae Talk  07:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Switching from support as I have been convinced of the arguments regarding the concentration of power Fritzpoll (talk) 10:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose per Caspian Blue. I do think WJBscribe could be a good Arb... But I also think this past year has shown that the current Arbcom, although filled with good Arbs, still isn't good enough.  I think Arbcom needs to take a step forward, and I worry WJBscribe might just turn out to be more of the same.   --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Regretfully Oppose Close one, I believe that WJBscribe would be a decent ArbCom member, but he'll be more useful as a b-crat. Last year I opposed Deskana for the same reason, and he burned out. Also there are two other candidates in the same vote range that I'm more willing to support, and I think WJBscribe would be too lenient on controversial users and ArbCom doesn't need that. Secret account 14:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely accurate. I burned out due to serious illness, and that would have been no different if I had been elected to ArbCom or not. Deskana (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Gentgeen (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Synchronism (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Partially tactical, partially due to hat collection/per JayHenry. Giggy (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)  R. Baley (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Career mandarin.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 04:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Far too many issues to list here. Naerii, aka  THE GROOVE   06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. Xavexgoem (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note on my talk page.  THE GROOVE   06:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --DeLarge (talk) 09:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose dougweller (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) Nothing personal, purely politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Justforasecond (talk) 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose It's important to have arbs who are aware of the political inner workings of the project. But WJBscribe is very involved in these things and, voluntarily or not, he'd be part of ArbCom's image problem. Independence from the apparatchiks is already problematic. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. - jc37 21:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose as I have done to anyone whose answer to the confidentiality question hasn't satisfied me. This candidate hasn't answered it at all which is by definition unsatisfactory. Cynical (talk) 22:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose.  Axl  ¤  [Talk]  01:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Eóin (talk) 03:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 17:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Partly tactical, and partly because of the concentration of power; I'm willing to overlook that, but only for candidates from whom I've personally seen fantastic things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrExtreme (talk • contribs)
 * 13) Oppose. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. @pple complain 00:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot&#39;s dreams (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose per Sandy's reasoning. Tony   (talk)  09:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 17) Caspian-blue puts it well. Caulde  12:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 18)  Peter Symonds  ( talk ) 17:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Sorry, but no. <span style="font-family:impact, serif;background:black;color:red;border-style:single;letter-spacing:1px">Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 04:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose &mdash;Ashley Y 05:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose pending answers. Unreasonable lack of timeliness in responses suggests this candidate has too much on his plate - nearly 2 weeks since I posted question 1, and still no answer. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 23) Reluctant oppose and it pains me to do so, because WJBScribe really cut through some nonsense on my behalf once which I really appreciate.  SandyGeorgia and others, however, have brought up some concerns  that I can't ignore.  Otherwise, I really appreciate his contributions and work with helping the project. Cla68 (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Sorry, but I think that others will be better. Captain   panda  17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose, editors blocked for this type of gross misbehavior need to stay blocked. Also seems to want to allow more BLP. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 26) Reluctant oppose. Clearly a good WPian. I agree with his unblock of Giano. My vote is the sum of a series of small doubts, combined with the Hats/Extended thing (I opposed Deskana last year, similar idea) rather than a single major objection. Jd2718 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 27) Extremely reluctant oppose I really hate to do this. He's a good wikipedian.  I didn't agree generally with his unblock of Giano but it was the fair and proper thing to do.  He has been helpful and consistent wherever I have seen him.  But I am inclined to vote tactically to support Jayvdb's candidacy.  I'm sorry. Protonk (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 29) Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 30) Marginal call, but I think this is the best position for me to be on record.  GRBerry 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. I am a fan of Scribe, but concern over concentration of power combined with desire to see certain voices on ArbCom pushes me to narrowly oppose.-- Kubigula (talk) 05:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 10:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 33) Splash - tk 23:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 34) Mike R (talk) 23:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. I read the statements of the 2 people in 7th place. I decided I had to make a decision based on just that, lest I spend an entire evening reading questions and diffs. The other candidate's statement was more impressive. Nothing personal. --Fang Aili talk 23:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose per Sandy the Kingmaker, and despite his unblock of Giano, which was right. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose --Tikiwont (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 38) Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose I don't think Crats should be Arbs. RMHED (talk) 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose Seems unlikely to resolve our ongoing dilemmas. Fred Talk 20:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Elonka. DepartedUser (talk) 21:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The above candidate has withdrawn from this Election. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.