Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin

Fish and karate

Hello. I'm Neil, also known as User:Fish and karate. I've been on Wikipedia since March 2005, and an admin since April 2006.

In that time, I've contributed a great deal to Wikipedia, both as an editor and as an administrator. I believe the experience and knowledge I've accumulated over this time would stand me in excellent stead as a member of the Arbitration Committee.

Why do I want to volunteer my time to be a member of the Committee? Because I believe I can contribute in a positive manner, and help the Arbitration Committee to act as the body it was created to be - a group of experienced users that resolve disputes that the community could not resolve. I participated extensively (under my former username, Neil) in the recent RFC on the Arbitration Committee's standards and practices - see here, here, and here. I am knowledgeable in the way ArbCom functions, and would not become overwhelmed by the volume of work or of the complexity.

The priority is to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. This means everyone's priority should be "what makes the encyclopedia better"? Things that make Wikipedia better:

  1. Well-written, researched, interesting content
  2. Collaborative editing
  3. A strong, consistent, and ethical approach to decision-making
  4. Clear and timely communication
  5. Politeness
  6. The avoidance of hostility
  7. Understanding
  8. Empathy with another's point of view

My decision-making, as part of Arbitration work, will be made based on the above. I believe strongly in trying to rehabilitate "problem" users. I believe in a light touch when it comes to "punitive measures". Targeted editing restrictions rather than wholescale blocks, progressive blocks rather than indefinite bans for those whose intentions are good but methods are poor. I believe in Wikipedia, and want it to continue to be the single best example there is of collaborative contributing. I believe that as a part of the Arbitration Committee, I could play my small part in enabling that to continue. Thanks for reading. fish&karate 13:24, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support--Maxim(talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. An editor with exemplary integrity and commitment to the project. Cla68 (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. iridescent 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support GTD 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --PeaceNT (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Has the best interests of the project in mind. krimpet✽ 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. PhilKnight (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support L'Aquatique[talk] 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Willing to call a spade a spade and not play diplomatic niceties at times. rootology (C)(T) 02:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. GJC 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Has been working on fixing ArbCom outside of this election, and he's got some good ideas. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Everyking (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mike H. Fierce! 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Synchronism (talk) 06:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Brilliantine (talk) 07:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong support لennavecia 07:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support likely to get things done. Pedro :  Chat  07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Absolutely! "Vast contributions to WR" don't exist. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Yes. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. Many sound ideas, clear commitment to project. Regarding WR, the contributions of his that I recall seeing there have been helpful. Martinp (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support as my experiences have shown he is perfect for the job. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Good candidate. I'm sick of the "Everyone on WR is evil" attitude around here. ATren (talk) 15:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) changed to oppose. ATren (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support --Tikiwont (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I think that Fish and Karate will be great on ArbCom. Regarding his WR comments, I've only seen good posts from him there. Acalamari 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Enigma message 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Balls. Although he might have the worst username in recent living wiki history (what was wrong with neil ?). Ceoil (talk) 01:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Strong support, perplexed by the number of opposes for such an exemplary encyclopaedian. Skomorokh 01:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Alexfusco5 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support based on good edits and kind personality, from the edits that I've seen. Chergles (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support good answers to most questions (are we supposed to read every answers - someone should make a cheat sheet!) and a general all round good vibe. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I tend to think Wikipedia Review is mostly lame, but WRophobia is an exceedingly unhelpful and tired meme now that it's almost 2009. Fish and karate (agree with Ceoil, what's with the redonk user name?) has primarily good judgment and has always been fair and thoughtful when I've seen him. --JayHenry (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support faithless (speak) 03:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Kusma (talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support --DeLarge (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Sultec (talk) 23:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. SupportRacepacket (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Happy‑melon 18:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support, has shewn greater integrity and commitment to improving arbitration procedures than any of the sitting arbitrators. DuncanHill (talk) 20:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Absolute strongest possible support per Ryan Postlethwaite, Prodego, and Slrubenstein. The dude's a character. I need characters serving alongside me who are willing to shake things up and make people go "What the hell did he just do?" Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 23:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support --VS talk 06:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Clear way of what you want to do in Arbcom. Leujohn (talk)
  52. Support for the Kung Fu Piscine! Has good judgement, common sense, knows his way around the warped wastelands of Wikidom and has a keen sense of humor. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. @pple complain 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Wronkiew (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Based on answers, is likely to be ineffective, which may tend to hasten the death of Wikipedia. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support This user seems to know their way around hideous Wikipedia pseudo-bureaucracy pretty well tgies (talk) 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support A little mystified by all of the opposes, since I haven't found any of them compelling. I liked his answers to move questions, especially Thatcher's 1B - I haven't yet seen another candidate answer that one as well. I find his view of policy in general slightly troubling (believing that it's critical to the project that anyone be able to edit policy pages while simultaneously believing policy should be hard, fast, and prescriptive seems a little incongruous), but I think he's clearly one of the best seven candidates running. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to restate my support in light of recent events. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support — xaosflux Talk 05:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support decent views on BLP and because of all the WR opposes Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Although this candidate wasn't one of the seven I originally decided to vote for based on candidate statements and Q&As, I've looked at his wider contributions to the project as a whole, and been so impressed that I want to support him as well. - Gregg (talk) 16:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support PseudoOne (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I believe F&K was wrong to oppose CHL. Nevertheless I wish to go on record in support of his ideas, in general even if I do not agree with everything. ++Lar: t/c 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nufy8 (talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per vast contributions to WR, one of which led to removal of OTRS access. I want arbitrators who discuss problems with the community, not on an external site. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Strong oppose. I do not trust this candidate with the right to access sensitive information. And making smutty insults about Tony Sidaway on WR, while keeping a "clean" record and handing out incivility blocks on Wikipedia is exactly what an arbitrator should not do. ElinorD (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose civility is a very important requirement for arbitrators because people at RFAR are under a very stressful situation. Harsh words not needed. Caspian blue 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Sorry. Captain panda 00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Dlabtot (talk) 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Voyaging(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose per many, many troubling comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose - Can't be trusted. Crum375 (talk) 01:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Avruch T 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Elonka 01:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. -- Avi (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. kurykh 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. iMatthew 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Too prone to explode. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Altough fish is healthy for us, it's not healthy for this user to be a arbcom. --Mixwell!Talk 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Atmoz (talk) 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. per east's reasoning.--Koji† 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Daniel (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Removal of OTRS access makes me too uncomfortable about this candidate.--chaser - t 03:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose, the answer to lar's "favorite color" question was not suitably mature. Prodego talk 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be because it was a joke question. Giggy (talk) 23:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose BJTalk 04:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. It is with some regret that I oppose this candidate, as he has displayed a lot of integrity in the past. But I find that, oftentimes, Neil has a tendency to take strong viewpoints much too far. Thank you for all of your outstanding contributions, however. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose - the removal of OTRS access and behavior on WR leave serious doubts about the suitability of the candidate to the position. -MBK004 05:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Sarah 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - I'd like to see some admin recall system implemented. I'm sure it can be made enforceable. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose per concerns raised by others above. I am not confident in this editor. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, nothing personal, but stating he would have done or supported BLPSE earns my oppose up front, and the questions regarding WR cement it. Seraphimblade Talk to me
  39. Questionable judgement skills. —Dark talk 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - per east718 and Postlethwaite. //roux   editor review09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. WR is bad, mmkay? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. — neuro(talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose 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 12:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There still is no comment there, other than that you oppose. — Sebastian 11:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 12:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Conti|✉ 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. --Dweller (talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Tex (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Very weakly; lots of good characteristics and seems like a great guy, but an accumulation of fairly minor concerns tip the scales very weakly against. I'm sorry. MastCell Talk 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Davewild (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, marginally, for concerns over impartiality and per Ryan's comments. Does have some good ideas about Arbcom reform that I hope he will continue to pursue. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Synergy 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. An administrator that removes userboxes without notification should not become an arbitrator.--Michael X the White (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Ryan's comments are worrying.. The Helpful One 21:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Tempted to support just because of the ridiculous removal of OTRS, but no. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Weak Oppose per east718. GlassCobra 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Manipulator. Not suitable. --Wetman (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose was going to support, but WR erases that possibility.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 04:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. This editor has a history of instability. He tends to go too far when he gets passionate about something.Nrswanson (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose OTRS gone? Hiyah! ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. SlimVirgin talk|edits 05:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Poor judgement. Guettarda (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose For the same reasons as those given by Ryan Postlethwaite and ElinorD.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. For the same reasons as Ryan at #3. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 03:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Yup, per Ryan ...--Cometstyles 06:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Gentgeen (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Michael Snow (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Vigorously Strong Oppose Like many others, I share Ryan Postlethwaite and ElinorD's reasoning. I have to add that I am deeply disturbed by this candidates answer to EleanorD's second question. ElinorD asked if Neil has other accounts at WR. Given that Neil admits to having gone by different names, this is a reasonable question asked in good faith. Neil's response was "no" which would have sufficed for me ... except he went on to ask ElinorD if she uses multiple accounts. This is inappropriate: it is for us to ask candidates questions, not for them to ask us. It is childish: if Neil wants to accuse another user of sockpuppetry, s/he is free to but one would think that a candidate for ArbCom would use official channels and not do so in such a cavalier way - is neil playing "tit for tat?" I would expect this from a nine year old. I do not want a nine year old on ArbCom. It is abusive: it impugns ElinorD's character, is he really accusing her of sockpuppetry? Does he have any basis for asking this question? WR has been involved in outing and harassing wikipedia editors ... is this a sign of things to come? Can we trust Neil with any authority? It is especially abusive in this context: to what purpose does he ask this question? To discourage other people from asking frank questions? Isn't this process all about asking frank questions? Oughtn't we to ask frank and challenging questions before electing someone to ArbCom? Shouldn't we expect direct and courteous answers and not insinuations or accusations? I realize some people may think I am making a mountain over a molehill but given the role WR has played in outing and harassing Wikipedia editors, and just how seriously some of our editors have been harassed - and given ElinorD's fine standing in this community, where I think all agree she is a valuable editor, I think this stinks. Neil may consider it a "joke," perhaps that is part of his attachment to WR. But you know what, it is not funny, not when some of our best editors have been stalked in real life, meaning that many of us have to be especially guarded about our identities, and not when we ban people for sockpuppetry when it is used to abuse our rules. As far as I am concerned, Neil's snide little comeback at the very least shows a serious lack of judgment. The last thing we need in a member of ArbCom. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Sorry. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strongest possible oppose. Someone how cannot respond to simple questions without making spiteful and vicious comments should not be n ArbCom, probably not even be an admin. Str1977 (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. There's a shadow of concern over the candidate in relation to sound judgement which might impact upon reactions to any ArbCom decisions involving this candidate. SilkTork *YES! 12:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Absolutely lacks the civility required to arbitrate. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. TS 00:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Terence (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strong Oppose.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 15:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose Too involved in WR. We need arbitrators who are independent of the major cases of concerns like IRC, WR, etc, so that they can offer an impartial judgment. Some other concerns raised above enforces my oppose. Though I believe some propositions by Neil on the committee were interesting and valuable. Cenarium (Talk) 16:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. I don't believe in 'light touch' action when it comes to incivility; too many articles are completely scarred by this. Jonathanmills (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Strong Oppose Uses Wikipedia Review to start threads in which he openly states that he thought that vandalism to my userspace was "childish but funny"...hardeharhar I guess.--MONGO 00:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Lucian Sunday (talk) 07:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite, I agree with his concerns. — E ↗ 14:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong Oppose. As an admin he protects a page and then reverts it to his version after an edit war, therefore cannot be in any way trusted even with sysop tools let alone arbcom responsibilities. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose - Concerning history of at least the appearence of holding grudges. Would certainly be bad for the optics of how ArbCom is perceived by the community, making him a bad choices when bridges need to be built, not burnt. WilyD 20:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose = I don't share the same sentiments as those who have or are operating on WR. Caulde 16:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Gazimoff 14:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Poor judgement, I also have concerns about incivility and partiality. Rje (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong oppose. Everyking (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. I fear that this candidate's approach and judgement will cause further divide between ArbCom and community - the effects of which are undesirable and detrimental for this project. Strong oppose. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose I originally supported, but now have concerns about the way a recent private email conversation was handled. ATren (talk) 19:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Wkdewey (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 02:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose My broad feelings about the candidate have been oddly mixed—I found Proto to a fine guy, wasn't too keen on a good bit of that that Neil did, and have a positive general feeling about F&k (he is, it happens, not the only name-changing user about whom I have felt similarly)—and so too are my feelings about his candidacy, such that this is, to be sure, a conflicted, if not regretful, vote (feels good not to say "!vote", no?), which explanation I bother to give only because I think some of my fellow opposers to have reacted too strongly to certain happenings and some to have opposed for things that would dispose me to support. I find ultimately, though, that the candidate is not someone whom I should like to see on ArbCom, and surely not amongst those candidates to whom it is useful that I should give my support. Joe 06:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose too many name changes. What has this user to hide? X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. SQLQuery me! 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose - I don't have a problem with Wikipedia Review in principle, but someone who uses it to privately mock active editors isn't suitable for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Fish_and_karate

Leave a Reply