Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Cool Hand Luke

Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "
never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership
.
Thank you. Cool Hand Luke

Support

  1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Captain panda 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caspian blue 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ priyanath talk 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Tom B (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven Walling (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes.
    ✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I was impressed with his analytical ability in the Mantanmoreland case, if not entirely impressed with his temperament. I'm hoping the temperament issue was transient and a result of his involvement in the case, and the strong analytical skill will bear out on the committee.
    T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Support. Tenacious, analytical yet humane. Generally does what he says he's going to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Majorly talk 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. kurykh 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Toon(talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, but it would be nice to add in more content to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Pretty much ditto Giggy and Ottava. Gimmetrow 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 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 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ping 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong Support. Luke's campaign promises are extremely impressive. Worthy of our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Amended: I have reviewed Ryan's concerns and find them to be baseless. --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I also strongly support CHL per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Giggity! Great user! --
    Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. I have faith that his head and temperament are in the right place to actually deliver on those campaign promises. AgneCheese/Wine 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I wrote a little endorsement on my blog. Good luck! David Shankbone 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support SBHarris 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --MPerel 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Gets it.
    T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  35. Support John254 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support
    GRBerry 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  39. Support. Bold candidacy, no doubletalk. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. A good old-fashioned Wikipedian with the project's best interests in mind. A straight-shooter who'll bring a unique perspective to ArbCom.
    Talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Someone old bringing something new. This is the definition of someone who gets it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Fair enough. MER-C 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Very straightforward and willing to get in and work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Enigma message 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Many of the clearest-thinking answers and boldest, yet feasible, ideas in his statement and campaign pledges. If only half of this translates into action, I think we'll have an excellent Arb. --JayHenry (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating to note that I have evaluated Ryan Postlethwaite's and find it to be either misinformed or misleading. Whichever it is, my support for CHL stands--everyone please read NYB's statement on the talk page. This was effectively a well-poisoning from Ryan. --JayHenry (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support. Great admin. Will make a great Arb. bd2412 T 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Highly sensible, excellent candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Another candidate who I often disagree with but trust to do nothing egregious. Should bring some fresh ideas by the looks of things. Brilliantine (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support
    vecia 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    STRONG support upgrade for this.
    vecia 14:34, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  53. Support, generally clueful. Not concerned at all about the WR account.
    cool stuff) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  54. Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. ViridaeTalk 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  56. Support A very helpful and experienced editor who I believe is certainly up to the task of arbitration. Blue Danube (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - if we don't want Wikipedia Review members, then we better kick NewYorkBrad out while we're at it. GTD 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support -- level-headed and fair. ATren (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Strong Support This is an exceedingly sane and conscientious user. His work on Mantanmoreland was superb, we need someone on arbcom that has the analytical skills to make sense of some of the more tangled cases that surely lay ahead of us. Those opposing because he has a WR membership ought to actually review his contribs there. He is wheat in the vast sea of chaff, and what's more, he is the voice of reason when the more extreme voices are advocating new kinds of foolishness. Cool Hand Luke will bring change to arbcom, and it is the change we need. I have every confidence he will keep his promises. Absolutely endorse. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support I liked most of your answers. RMHED (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support I was highly impressed with his work on the Mantanmoreland arbcom. His posts on WR, if that is him, seem reasonable to me on the whole, and actually seem in-part responsible, along with NYBrad's, for elevating the critical discourse there and making that site less of a lunatic operation. In short, I have complete confidence in CHL's ability and maturity for ArbCom. I think he is one of the few candidates capable of substantially reforming WP's dispute resolution processes. Ameriquedialectics 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support --
    T/C) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  70. I think that Cool Hand Luke has the necessary judgment for ArbCom. Acalamari 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Kbdank71 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strongest possible support
    talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I want to restate my support in light of recent events.
    talk) 05:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  73. support have not seen him around much on wiki, which means he dislikes excessive AN/I drama etc.:) This person is also very intelligent and rational. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support.
    AGK 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. --
    discuss 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  78. Support. After reviewing the issues brought up by Ryan, I am able to support him as the issue is not as they are described below. spryde | talk 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support.
    Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  80. Brilliant wikipedia-space admin - he's got a ton of clue and knows his stuff. —
    ♦ (speak) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  81. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support User has commendable tenure, and answers to the questions impressed me. GlassCobra 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Easy. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Tactical vote, despite uneasiness with stance on BLP. Skomorokh 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Outstanding and hard working Wikipedian, just remember that if somethings true, we ought to say it regardless if it hurts the subject.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. I accept Luke's assurances that he didn't out someone, and that the editor in question had already been open about his identity. I'm supporting because I feel it's time for change. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strong support. His work on the Mantanmoreland RFAR impressed me to no end, and he's always had a cool head under pressure from what I've seen.
    treme 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  89. Strongly. — Dan | talk 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Yeah. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. Bucketsofg 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Because he has a cool hand. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Ryan, this is ridiculous. When someone has their homepage linked from their userpage, discussing the contents of that homepage should never be regarded as a "privacy violation". --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support on the basis of his reforming zeal and his call for transparency. --Wetman (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support.
    talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  97. Support - Zginder 2008-12-02T03:22Z (UTC)
  98. OK. Icy // ♫ 03:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Synchronism (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  100. Supporting change, transparency, and CHL is even easier than yo momma.
    (Talk?) 05:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  101. Support Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. STRONG SUPPORT Charts. DO YOU NEED MORE REASON?. Can't wait for a data projections and statistical analysis to become part of ArbCom discourse. It will be a new age!--Cerejota (talk) 05:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Cool head --
    talk) 06:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  104. I have made a
    talk) 08:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  105. Support Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 09:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 12:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Epbr123 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Strong support. Definitely a good candidate, has handled the witchhunt perpetrated by certain opposers with dignity and grace; excellent work on the difficult Mantanmoreland case, as others have noted. Minkythecat (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Mike R (talk) 15:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support I orginally meant to support the candidate before I found out that he was One in WR. Yes there is the pros and cons of this candidate, but nobody can't ignore his contribtions towards the Mantanmoreland RFAr. His WR participation isn't as bad as most people and myself thought, and there are other admins that does worse. Yes he agree sometimes with the banned users there, but just because they are banned, that doesn't mean that you can't ignore them. I sometimes agree with them as well. And while there is some responses to questions that I disagree with, it's more opinion based. The only major concern I have is about BLP though, but that doesn't mean that he will bring a bad presence in ArbCom Secret account 15:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. I originally wasn't planning to vote here at all as I've had no interaction with the candidate AFAIK (either here or on WR), but I'm convinced after reading the "oppose" section; of all those opposes not a single one other than Prodego appear to have actually managed to dig up a credible reason to oppose. Since when is "talked to someone I don't agree with" been any kind of offense? That seems to be all that the accusations boil down to. And (to Ryan in particular, and the "per Ryan"s in general) why are you not also opposing Casliber, Jehochman, SirFozzie etc? Not to mention current Arbs Deskana, FT2, Newyorkbrad and thebainer, all of whom have participated in WR attack threads (although obviously not in the attacks themselves), as have you and I. – 
    iridescent 16:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  114. Support per Iridescent. JavaTenor (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. support.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Yes he was very vocal during some of the complex cases of the past year but he had legitimate reasons to express frustration at ArbCom's inability to defend its positions. He's actually a good candidate to smack some sense into the committee. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support -
    MrOllie (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  118. Support, see User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes, will bring needed balance and experience to ArbCom. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support MrMurph101 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support.--ragesoss (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. While I do have some issues, the option of Arbitrator Recall really seems great to me. It's always nice to know that the community has some control over elected officials after they've won (Unlike US Presidents, especially in their second term). Joe Nutter 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --Sultec (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Solid on BLP, ethically sound.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. support - per ryan's concerns, and the very good work for the project on the mantanmoreland arb. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. east718 23:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Still concerned about WR dealings, but was convinced by support of SandyGeorgia and candidate's strong defense of her on that despicable site. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. I initially had some reservations, particularly due to the oppose concerns. The support of the supposedly wronged party, along with the support of Lar, SandyGeorgia and Secret, convinces me that the opposing concerns are insufficient to overcome the benefits of adding his perspective and voice to ArbCom. Vassyana (talk) 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --Cri du canard (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --
    Xavexgoem (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC) - WR stuff has me slightly concerned[reply
    ]
  129. –Outriggr § 02:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 02:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  131. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 02:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Supporting views beat the opposing ones (my view)--Raayen (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Ealdgyth - Talk 04:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support - sane and sensible. I remain unswayed by the opposition nor can I agree with Ryan's comments below - Alison ❤ 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 05:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support per Minkythecat. --
    MagneticFlux (talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  137. Straight to the point, interesting views, will be effective. - Fedayee (talk) 05:21, 3 DecembDevolutioner 2008 (UTC)
  138. Spell4yr (talk) 06:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Your strong views on BLP earns you my support vote despite my disagreement with you about WR.
    talk) 06:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  140. Kusma (talk) 07:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Viriditas (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Max (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not eligible to vote as you have fewer than 150 mainspace edits Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support --Aude (talk) 12:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. Hal peridol (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. I support. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support, sensible ideas and excellent general attitude. ~ mazca t|c 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Good editing history, strong answers to questions, will make a positive difference in ArbCom. Many of the "Oppose" votes seem to be based on guilt-by-association. *** Crotalus *** 16:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Let's see about this one.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:30, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
  148. Support Davo88 (talk) 17:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support - Tājik (talk) 19:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Michael Snow (talk) 20:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support...Modernist (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Kingturtle (talk) 21:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Cirt (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support It's time some of us learned to drop the knee-jerk histronics, and it's time the rest of us stop jumping through hoops while bending over backwards to try and accomodate the knee-jerk reactions of the aforementioned small and far-too-vocal minority. Additionally, of the four candidates currently vying for two seats, Luke stands head and shoulders above the rest - far enough to easily overcome any minute concerns. Badger Drink (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support I don't think you'll be particularly good, and I'm unhappy over ther ramifications of Wikipedia Review editing. My support is partly
    tactical to try and ensure other candidates at this election are kept out. Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support is tactical but I now have less concern about offering it.Pedro :  Chat  14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - I would feel comfortable enough with this user serving on ArbCom.--Zereshk (talk) 23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support, and WP >> WR, to the point of almost being able to engage in a "good engineering approximation". Splash - tk 23:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Belated but strong support. Having done some legwork, I really like your answers to the questions. But to be honest, the highly questionable "oppose" rationales alone would probably drive me into this column. I'm nervous about the recall thing - not because I doubt your integrity, but because I doubt the process - but having looked through everything, I'm confident you'd do a great job on ArbCom. MastCell Talk 23:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Achromatic (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support Very level-headed. Ryan's 'oppose' rationale doesn't make any sense (nor do the "per Ryan" votes, needless to say).--G-Dett (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. ...and looking forward to what he gets done. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support --Node (talk) 02:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Graham87 02:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Certainly. Excellent answers to questions I care about (and all questions answered shows that he cares).--Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Classy support to other candidates.--Avg (talk) 02:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support in opposition to the BADSITES hysteria others seem to be showing. *Dan T.* (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Has a good idea of how an efficient ArbCom should run. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support--Namsos (talk) 06:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support --Kansas Bear (talk) 08:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. HaeB (talk) 09:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support - --Wayiran (talk) 11:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support --NikoSilver 12:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support --Barberio (talk) 14:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support--thoughtful answers Mccready (talk) 17:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support.
    talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  178. One of only two AC votes I’m making this year; I’ve got an overwhelming feeling of
    barneca (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  179. Support --Nancy talk 18:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support Ryanjunk (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Strong Support The breath of fresh air that ArbCom really needs. This candidate offers hope for the future of Wikipedia. Poltair (talk) 20:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Strong support - Not normally one to divulge my reasoning in a pure vote (such a rare wikievent), nevertheless, here we go: insightful answers; emphatic commitment to greater transparency and clear communication with the community at large; principled commitment to recall (regardless that I believe the recall process is flawed); opposition to Jimbo appointment by fiat; support for a single term of office without re-election; and many more. I think CHL will be a shot in the arm for a flagging ArbCom. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support VartanM (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support I don't agree with everything this candidate says, but I think he is fundamentally 'one of us'. Good luck. Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (
    talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support His work setting the story straight at WR is notable.--MONGO 02:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. support JoshuaZ (talk) 03:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)\[reply]
  188. Support Terence (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support Hectorian (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support QueenCake (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Sfrandzi (talk) 20:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Looks good to me. Full rationale:
    (talk) 20:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  194. Support. One of the ArbComm's big problems is failure to communicate, I think you can help.
    talk) 22:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  195. Support I was neutral, leaning towards support, but the BADSITES opposes pushed me towards full support. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. support William M. Connolley (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Randomran (talk) 22:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support •Jim62sch•dissera! 23:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. @pple complain 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support - I've been thinking this one over, and I conclude that you would be a good voice for ArbCom.--
    talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  201. Support Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support Has an excellent history with respect to anti-disruption and would make a fine addition to the CU team on that basis alone. Generally knowledgeable, sane and thoughtful - qualities sorely needed, I think. BADSITES was rejected with good reason and guilt by association is not a valid reason to oppose this candidacy.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Wronkiew (talk) 06:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support - my only concern with this candidate was the confidentiality issue, on which I actually misunderstood his views. Will make a fine arbitrator. Cynical (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support—Tony (talk) 09:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Move to Support - Have read the election thread on Wikipedia Review, and believe that my initial concerns over CHLs involvement in WR were in error. Skinny87 (talk)
  207. Support after following WR discussion, and editors I trust. Verbal chat 11:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Gives reasoned responses to even the most difficult of situations. Caulde 11:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support --Trödel 13:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support -- I liked his answers to Mailer Diablo's questions here, and his suggestion for improving our
    WP:SOCK policy (though I understand that Arbcom doesn't make policy). I also liked his very clear answer on whether Arbcom should take any notice of IRC. EdJohnston (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  211. Support BigDuncTalk 21:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Supporting CHL, as I've really appreciated his graceful response to the graceless attacks leveled at him throughout this process. S.D.D.J.Jameson 23:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Strong Support Change we can believe in. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support - Biruitorul Talk 16:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 16:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  216. After discussions regarding specific concerns that I have, I am now much more confident in CHL's appropriateness for ArbCom. Thank you for the time. -- Avi (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support. The Mantanmoreland analysis alone would be sufficient; that it's backed up by an extensive record is intensely reassuring. —CComMack (t–c) 17:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support. Thoughtful. Fair. I hope he will find his voice in the cttee. Jd2718 (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support
    talk) 01:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  220. talk) 04:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  221. Support. Excellent work on the Mantanmoreland arbcom case -Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Ditto Pocopocopocopoco cojoco (talk) 06:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support Kafka Liz (talk) 12:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support
    talk) 13:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  225. Yes. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support Clear headed, and most of all fair.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support -- Vision Thing -- 21:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support Fangfufu (talk) 02:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Per an excellent response to my question, indicating that he will try to cite diffs supporting statements. II | (t - c) 03:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support We need soemone like him in ArbCom. Leujohn (talk)
  231. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Yes. SilkTork *YES! 23:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support tgies (talk) 04:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I agree with the need for transparency in Arbitration, and welcome the idea of reform. ←Spidern→ 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  234. Support Gazimoff 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support Given his statement and his answers to my question, I can't not vote for him! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support --Patrick (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support — Zaui (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  239. I remember you being the "charts and graphs" guy during the Mantanmoreland and Poetlister issues at AN months back. From what I remember I was especially impressed with you. We NEED a charts and graphy guy on arbcom, especially a level-headed one. Wizardman 19:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support Answers to the questions are very good. I think CHL's judgement is sound, fair and reasonable. Rje (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  241. User:Krator (t c) 21:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support Still impressed. Shenme (talk) 04:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support Xoloz (talk) 05:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  245. --Scray (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support --- The Myotis (talk) 05:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support — I'm a bit concerned about subservience to the community — Judicial activism can be a good thing — but like the overall picture I'm seeing and believe CHL to be a reasonable fellow who will be an asset to the AC. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC) chgd from weak oppose[reply]
  248. Support Hobartimus (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support Per his helpful involvement in the Mantanmoreland case and his commitment to ArbCom transparency. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support in part, because of his openness and how he dealt with things at this discussionsDGG (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support I like the openess. --Nate1481 17:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Support because of user thinking about Arbcom--Rjecina (talk) 19:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support for putting transparency ahead of winning. Sceptre (talk) 19:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support - Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support -
    talk) 02:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  257. Support Finn Rindahl (talk) 02:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Support - Speed and transparency are just what the doctor ordered. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support a WR person is good to balance the committee Wkdewey (talk) 04:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  260. I took a number of factors into consideration - to specify a few: no concerns with timeliness and good answers to my questions (although they fell short in Questions 4d, outstanding answer to Q2). At the conclusion of my analysis, I ranked this candidate somewhere in the top 8. Support. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support (Quentin X (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  262. Support, sound fellow with sound ideas. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support Like the answers, like the way he's conducted his campaign, like that he's willing to engage with his and Wikipedia's critics in order to improve. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I've looked at WR before and found most of the stuff they say stupid. They do sometimes provide some useful commentary but the site is largely filled by somewhat wacky conspiracy theorists and others with shall I say odd views. And I understand why some editors are angry at the way they are treated on WR. But I do think we sometimes give them too much time and space, in the end, they are just a stupid site who the vast majority of the internet have never heard of and if CHL wants to do stuff there that's upto him provided he doesn't violate policy or misuse his powers. Also I think CHL views on BLP are close to what I expect and better agree with his views on the OM case and on private evidence and trials Nil Einne (talk) 21:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  264. Support -Dureo (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Support - BusterD (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Eóin (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support — xaosflux Talk 05:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support. Good record, great admin. Will make a great Arb. --Kaaveh (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support Switzpaw (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support: I have some trepidation, since I fear sociability in anyone. I consider clubbishness our greatest danger at ArbCom, and I fear it in both its positive and negative formulations, but I also think we need to swing away from the foolhardy "what you do outside Wikipedia is part of Wikipedia" philosophy that has poisoned deliberations. Geogre (talk) 20:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  275. support E104421 (talk) 22:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Support. Just saw Luke's vote for John, and the reasons. That's exactly the kind of statement I believe the community wants to hear from ArbCommers when big issues get into tight scrapes. Luke's insights into the role of ArbCom in serving content are the basis for any meaningful reform. His practical proposals seem ambitious to me, ArbCom members have enough pressures without demanding higher turnaround, perhaps we need to think of more ways non-ArbCommers can assist ArbCom with their work (perhaps "running mates" willing to clerk during a term of office). But enough. Support from me, Alastair Haines (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support.
    -- Banjeboi 23:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  278. Support. alanyst /talk/ 04:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support. Gregg (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Voted for him last year, and what I read at Lar's page only reconfirms this. Moreover, I absolutely disagree with the opposition he gets for participating on Wikipedia Review. — Sebastian 10:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Heimstern Läufer (talk) Why, you ask? 12:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Support per David Shankbone ~ #30. THF (talk) 16:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support --NE2 19:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support -- lucasbfr talk 20:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support per Alison and MastCell. Mathsci (talk) 20:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support - Xasha (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support   jj137 (talk) 22:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support, arbitrators can still provide evidence right? :) --Pixelface (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support   PseudoOne (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support EJF (talk) 23:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support Vsmith (talk) 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support BrianY (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

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) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Very strong oppose Although I originally oppose him for purely tactical reasons, Cool Hand Luke given more than enough reasons to make very, very, very scared if he was on arbcom. He has engaged in massive canvassing, by himself and through supporters. User:Alecmconroy engaged in a spree of canvassing on the night of December 3 (proven by checkuser) for CHL, and one of those users included me. Then CHL tried to convince Fish and karate into convincing me to change. How curious. I'm a target of a canvassing campaign that seeks pressure me to change my vote. I'm not particularly active in the meta side of things, and since I've become a target (of two emails--CHL said that he didn't ask to Alec to spam me, so it's pretty damn ironic both emails were related to Fish and karate), I truly wonder how many others have been targeted. CHL is using unfair means to try and win this election. Due to his extensive involvement in WR, plus his pressure campaign, I would be truly scared if CHL was on arbcom. Maxim(talk) 13:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elonka 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose per views on anonymity (see lar's questions). Protecting someone's privacy should always be done regardless of their actions. Prodego talk 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Agree with Prodego. --
    Sign) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The candidate has clarified his position respecting your objection here. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. No way. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose - Luke is "One" on WR - he outed Coredesat (whatever his intentions were, that's what the effect was) over on the site leading to Coredesat leaving (See his post, much of it is now removed [1]). I don't want any editors doing things like that, let alone an arbitrator. 1051 posts on WR in the last year? You should have come over to WP to solve any problems you had rather than playing out the Wikipedian on WR. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, Coredesat did not leave because of this, as he himself indicated on two separate occasions: [2] [3]. In fact, he didn't even endorse blocking EricBarbour, who was the true aggressor here. Why is CHL getting blamed for something that was initiated by EricBarbour and which Coredesat himself denied was a factor in him leaving? ATren (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the
    T 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Also note that Coredesat has voted for Cool Hand Luke for arbcom, along with giving him quite a ringing endorsement. Scroll up and see for yourself. At this point in time it's vote #105. ~ priyanath talk 18:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people are strongly against my opposition here, so I think it’s best to clarify things. Firstly, I was wrong in my belief that Coredesat left because of the incident – he’s now clarified things and it wasn’t down to that. Apologies to both CHL and Cord for that. Now, for the outing – I’ll try and explain the series of events first; EricBarbour got into a dispute with Coredesat and then went to find his details which he posted on WR. These details were not correct, and CHL then went and stated the correct details, which he found by looking at a link from coredesats wikia userpage to his own website. CHL's intentions were to remove the possibility of harassment to the random person Eric had posted to, but it still had the effect of outing Coredesat on Wikimedia projects, where he hadn't revealed his identity. The action that I find questionable is that Eric clearly had some beef with Coredesat, yet didn’t really know his real life identity. The information given by CHL was enough to reveal the identity to a person that was attempting to out him. If Eric had wanted to then harass Coredesat, he’d then have the information to do so. I respect that CHL was attempting to set the record straight and not put an innocent man under the spotlight, however there were far better ways of doing that than revealing Coredesats identity on WR to someone that would have been best without that information. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 23:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let us still remember-- the user who was allegedly "outed against his will", Coredesat, has actually endorsed CHL above. Please read talk page before believing any allegations of "outing". --Alecmconroy (talk) 07:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too pretentious and active WR poster. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per combination of WR account, loose views on protection of pseudonymity, and support for too much BLP and BLPSE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WR users seen to generate too much drama.
    talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. —
    neuro(talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  18. Oppose per Prodego and Ryan Postlethwaite. ElinorD (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. chat) 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    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 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    per Ryan Postlethwaite. I don't care if people have accounts on WR as long as they do good work here but that crosses the line.
    talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I was going to change to abstain but considering what is now being posted on the talk page about those who choose not to think Wikipedia should be run by a cabal on an external site... my oppose stands and even more so than before. You are no better yourselves. If that earns me another WP:DICK of the year nomination then so be it.
    talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Abstaining.
    talk) 19:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. per answer (and clarification) to Lar. Privacy concerns remain. Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per privacy concerns, per WR concerns (echoing EconomicsGuy that having an account or editing WR is one thing, but....) Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Noted on reading all relevant discussion. Moving to support. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has denied the accusation of outing on the talk page. Letting you know since he won't post to this page Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Supports and contributes to a hate site. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Hell No. Severe privacy concerns. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per Prodego and Ryan P - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really sorry, but based on Ryan's evidence, I can't trust you with checkuser data and private correspondence. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Moved to support.[reply]
  26. Oppose per the WR matter and Ryan's take on it. An arbcom member cannot have even the slightest whiff of controversy surrounding them in such matters, and this is much more than a whiff. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose - ArbCom needs less drama, not more. Whether you create the drama or not is immaterial; it'll follow you. That's unfair, I admit, but the reality is that we need less controversy surrounding the committee. //roux   editor review16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. per answers to some of the questions. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose.
    NVO (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. Synergy 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Flat no per absolutist views on BLP. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. It pains me to switch my vote, because I really like your candidacy statement. The accusations about outing and whatnot seem to be flimsy evidence of untrustworthiness, and I duly ignore them. But that said, I do not vote for people who participate actively in Wikipedia Review. WR creates drama on-wiki and fuels trolls. Rule #1: don't feed the trolls. Active and respected communities members like Cool Hand Luke do not need grungy backchannels to make their criticisms and concerns heard. There is simple no excuse. Steven Walling (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan Postlethwaite is making some points which I do find very disturbing. One wouldn't believe an editor would act like that, certainly not somebody I would like to see on ArbCom. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Per talk page I think I'll stay neutral on this candidate. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. No. --B (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose - whatever the details of the events on WR, it was a mess, and suggests to me a misjudgement, however well intentioned. Warofdreams talk 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --TS 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. per Ryan TimidGuy (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Alexfusco5 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Sorry. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 04:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Sorry, do like you a lot, but I will not support any active member of Wikipedia Review for any post here or anywhere else. Grace Note (talk) 06:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Too great an involvement in WR.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Save for one convincing exception, extensive contributions on WR is prima facie evidence of bad-faith.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support[reply]
  45. Oppose Seddσn talk 16:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. >Radiant< 17:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Per WR concerns, no way. Tiptoety talk 20:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Per Ryan and Prodego. The Helpful One 20:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose I just saw what Ryan had said and I have to oppose. Sorry!
    iMatthew 20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  50. Oppose due to WR activity. The Uninvited Co., Inc.
  51. Oppose due to campaign promises. An arbitrator who is too quick to recuse or be recalled will not be effective.
    Chick Bowen 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  52. Oppose Tex (talk) 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WR posters do not get my support, sorry. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose after further reflection on this candidate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose WR. ST47 (talk) 23:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose --maclean 00:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Has no clue what Wikipedia is for, disruptive. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. IronDuke 00:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I am abstaining from voting on this candidacy. I don't really think yet another user corroborating false allegations is a good look, even if struck, so I have removed my oppose rationale entirely. It's in the history, anyway. Orderinchaos 03:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose the WR incident is disturbing.
    Dreadstar † 03:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    +O I've been asked to explain my Oppose. Before I begin: All lovers, supporters and defenders of WR, direct your remarks elsewhere. OK then. First, personal info is radioactive. If CHL did not divulge it, or did not divulge info that could be used to to divulge it, then CHL should set the record straight. If CHL did either divulge or help divulge, deliberately, but as a mistake, then CHL should say it was a mistake etc. Second: WR provides no benefit to Wikipedia. I only want Arbs who benefit Wikipedia. WR defenders please resist the urge. Thanks!
    Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 03:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  60. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Gentgeen (talk) 10:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~
    User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  63. Kauffner (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. talk) 15:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    User:Krator (t c) 19:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    E104421 (talk) 19:47, 3 December 2008 (UTC) i've changed my mind. E104421 (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. talk) 22:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  66. Oppose - partly tactical, partly WR stuff (though I wouldn't know about the latter enough to really pass judgment)
    Xavexgoem (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  67. - auburnpilot talk 02:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Guettarda (talk) 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Rethinking this vote.[reply]
  68. WODUP 05:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mostly because of his behaviour at WR.
    THE GROOVE 06:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Support.[reply
    ]
    Oppose due to Wikipedia Review involvement Skinny87 (talk) 07:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Move to support after browsing Wikipedia Review and believing that CHL would indeed be a benefit to the community as an Arb.[reply]
  69. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose WR and other concerns
    talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  71. I like Cool Hand Luke, just not for arbcom. Also, I don't give a shit about him using WR. John Reaves 21:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak-ish Oppose. Generally seems like a good candidate, however attitude to secret evidence isn't acceptable. If the submitter of evidence can't or won't reveal it to the person it is being used against (NOT just the allegation that evidence supports) then the evidence must be discounted. Anything else is unfair and brings the entire project into disrepute. Cynical (talk) 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC). Vote changed, I misunderstood the candidate's views on this matter. Cynical (talk) 06:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Aunt Entropy (talk) 19:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose --VS talk 01:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    # -- Avi (talk) 04:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 08:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose --
    800 17:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  77. Oppose Too good of a person to be put on ArbCom; besides, he might actually do some good. Kelly Martin 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Just to test what the bot says, because it's acting weird...will remove in a bit. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose I simply can't reconcile "ArbCom must behave as the community's servant", a candidate's recitation of any form of which usually leads me to support, with "ArbCom can (and perhaps should) go much farther by validating practices like 'default to delete' that some users have been courageous enough to implement", which suggests that the candidate would readily substitute his own judgment for that of the community in the community's construction (both creation and interpretation, that is) of community-created policy, and I think we've already a bit too much of that. (There is, I should say, a good deal that I like about Luke, and were I not convinced that he would be a profound problem with respect to BLP, I would probably support in order, as others, to provide a counterweight against WR-/outing-related opposition by which I am utterly unpersuaded.) Joe 05:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Too much drama and politics.
    t 11:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  80. Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 20:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose - overall quite respectable candidate, but openness to recall has to make this a non-starter. WilyD 22:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Cannot support any candidate open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 23:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose drahmaz, recall, anonymity issues. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My vote comment was too short, and left too much to guesswork and misinterpretation, for this I apologize. I should have taken the time to write a more transparent explanation, as this election is very important, and yourself and others have put in a lot of time, which I do appreciate. I did not mean to slight you or cast an insult your way; I personally dislike the Wikipedia Review, and believe it has been, and will continue to be a source of drama. This in my mind presents a conflict of interest for arbcom. I realize that NYB is on ARB, and I would not suggest he has had a COI, but I think with such a large spate of candidates available, that my support votes were better cast for some of the others. I also am reluctant to support anyone who is voluntarily subject to recall, and I believe that your position on BLP/anonynimity issues is contrary to that which should be protected by Wikipedia. Again sorry for the flippant short form of my initial vote comment. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Sumoeagle179 (talk) 11:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC) chgd to support[reply]
  85. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, you are not eligible to vote, as you did not have 150 mainspace edits on and before 1 November 2008. J.delanoygabsadds 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I indented that vote before I saw the conversation at
    WT:ACE2008. If consensus determines that Mervyn should be allowed suffrage, please feel free to remove these comments and reinstate his vote without contacting me first. J.delanoygabsadds 15:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose The arbitration committee enforces Wikipedia policies, that is its prime directive. Fred Talk 15:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 03:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  88. Strong oppose - I just found an email from CHL in my inbox asking me to convince other users to make strategic votes on Luke's behalf. That a candidate for Arbcom - who should be aware of
    WP:CANVAS - might in any way think this is appropriate baffles me, and I am sadly forced to remove my support and strongly oppose Luke now. fish&karate 08:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Are you certain it came from him and not from some impostor? Stranger things have happened & the question does have to be asked .... - Alison ❤ 08:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It was done with the Special:Emailuser thing, so going by 'This e-mail was sent by user "Cool Hand Luke" on the English Wikipedia to user "Fish and karate"', I'm pretty certain, sadly, yeah. fish&karate 09:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    At my request, Fish and Karate forwarded the e-mail to me. My comments about it are on the talk page here, where I suggest that further discussion about this also take place.
    talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  89. THE GROOVE 19:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  90. Oppose Too much drama. David in DC (talk) 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Opposenothing personal, tactical vote. --TimBits 22:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose I can not support someone who regularly (3.2 posts per day, 1000+ total posts) contributes to a site like wikipediareview.com, and CHL has over 1,000 posts there. Additionally, Fish&Karate's comment above and the email related to it are disturbing to me. While it may not technically violate the canvass policy, it still indicates a level of "behind the scenes maneuvering" that is not in the spirit of transparency. His request should have been made on the person's talk page. I cannot in good conscience support this candidate. Ariel♥Gold 01:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your position previously
    talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I did no "ranting" anywhere. My opinions stand, regardless of what transpired by others on the talk page. Ariel♥Gold 04:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe Noroton is saying that he posted (what he characterises as) a rant against the reasoning you're using (but not against you per se), before you actually voted. I could be misinterpreting that, of course. But I do NOT think he was saying YOU were ranting. I hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 05:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I meant; thanks Lar. ArielGold, I only meant to point out to you a discussion at that spot on the talk page (and above it) where other editors (me especially) had thought about some of the same things and come to conclusions you might find interesting or useful. --
    talk) 20:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  93. Oppose --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose - Garion96 (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. 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. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose — while I remain neutral on the WR involvement, some other interpretations of practice worry me. I still have respect for a good editor, but I don't think that "Arbitrator" is an appropriate post at this time. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 18:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose I largely stand by my earlier comments in support but I appear to have misunderstood CHL's views on need for discretion by the arbcom in some instances. Will elabourate further in my talk page soon. Nil Einne (talk) 10:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose Sunray (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. SQLQuery me! 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose - Agree with the gist of Steven Walling's comments above. While I am not against the use of outside sites like WR per se, CHL has put far too much energy into many postings there when he could have been openly posting here on Wikipedia to the community at large. Hence discussions have to take place during Arbcom elections over what was/was not stated on WR. Why go to WR to take stands on issues/editors when this could be done openly here? Why encourage backchannel communications? I don't think this editor has thought out the ramifications of this issue of inclusive/exclusive modes of communication, as it seems to contradict some of the principles he supports. Maybe this is an issue of lack of maturity. I do comment him for his post supportive of Jayvdb and have hopes for a future candidacy. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. seresin ( ¡? )  22:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. His past behavior, notably in the cases involving Dr Zen and THF, leave me convinced CHL shouldn't be an admin, let alone an arbitrator. Raul654 (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Reluctant oppose, mainly because of WR concerns.  JGHowes  talk 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Cool_Hand_Luke&oldid=1148853953"