Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Add links
Page extended-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Fat Man Who Never Came Back

Greetings, neighbors and colleagues. I am the Fat Man Who Never Came Back. I have voiced my ongoing displeasure with the Committee's performance this year, complaining that the committee as a whole is ineffectual, indecisive, uncommunicative and largely unresponsive to the demands and needs of the community. Many colleagues who share this point of view, or who otherwise tire of the "types" of candidates being perennially regurgitated, have begged me to run for a spot on the Committee. I have avoided declaring my candidacy in the hope that several bold, fresh and plausible voices from outside the crowd of AN/I and RfARB regulars would step onto the stage. For the most part, they have not materialized; the names I see on the ballot (while sometimes indicative of decent editors and administrators, impressive in their encyclopedic accomplishments) do not inspire confidence that an overhaul of the way ArbCom functions is likely, or even possible. With seven open seats, this may be the only real opportunity to radically change the composition and disposition of the Committee over the next few years.
The committee needs an injection of independence, clear communication and common sense. I support a more welcoming environment for expert content contributors and strong writers as well as an end to internal cronyism, favoritism and needless behind-the-scenes machinations. Though the Committee does not dictate editorial policy, I would not refrain from using my position on the Committee to throw considerable weight behind reforms that would help bolster Wikipedia's prestige with the outside world: greater sensitivity toward BLPs; exploring the implementation of flagged revisions; and an easy and straightforward process for demoting poorly performing administrators. Let the Fat Man help regain your trust and confidence.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 13:54, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. HiDrNick! 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sluzzelin talk 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. You see, this is what the Arbcom needs. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Earnest Support. It may be tilting at windmills, but I actually think his would be a valuable voice to have on the committee. There are fifteen or more Arbs on the committee. I think having one single voice out of the fifteen be a bit of a
    gadfly would actually be of enormous benefit to the project. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Change to oppose based only on election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  4. — Ѕandahl ♥ 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. Jehochman Talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I feel TFMWNCB offers the best chance of bringing real change to the ArbCom, and he's a darn nice fellow with it! GTD 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support, aftr a lot of thought. I don't agree with most of what he says, but I think it would be good to have someone opposed to the current setup but willing to engage in dialogue, and of the "outsiders" TFMWNCB seems the most credible –
    iridescent 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Support - I would offer you cake in addition if I could. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support - This edit says it all. That not only shows TFM's serious side, but a philosopy which will benefit ArbCom.
    Kablammo (talk) 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. What Kablammo said. Seriously. Steven Walling (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Strong support. Gets it. TFM has huge clue, and has just great judgment. Widely respected by the content people. After Bishz and Catherine bit the dust, this is the man we we want to stand up for us. We are supposed to be here to write an encylopdia; not play pathetic power games, and I think TFM has a good grasp of that fact. This is no joke nom, its a serious bid to return the encylopdia back to the people who write the encylopdia. The days of power brokers like D Gerard and T sidaway are long gone, and frankly anybody who doenst realsie that shouldn't be here; instead should be just at home with their MORPG, or however its spelt. Ceoil (talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. — CharlotteWebb 01:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support Extremely level headed user who has not been "sucked into" the vacuum of Wiki politics and drama. TFM is here to work for the better of the encyclopedia and its users, not for an ego trip or a power grab. While I'm sure that most Arbs start out with the best of the intention, the sad truth is that the the politics and drama of wiki-admin life corrupt and distort even the best of folks. We truly need a breath of fresh air in the Arbitration Committee and someone like TFM. AgneCheese/Wine 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support SBHarris 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Strong Support, would bring genuine wisdom and the right focus to the committee. --MPerel 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Sandahl. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. By the way, I think you're right - the list of famous Chihuahuas should probably go. It's becoming a monster. --David Shankbone 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Strong support per SandyGeorgia's excellent, detailed analysis.
    cool stuff) 03:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  22. Support.
    T) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. Support Humane, sane and somewhat inane. RMHED (talk) 03:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support --
    Sign) 04:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Support -- A good number of the people who have chosen to project a strong online personality into wiki-space in matters administrative, frankly, give me a creepy feeling [just allow me that, ok?]. The Fat Man has also chosen this path, and is one of the few to do so in a humanistic way. Beyond the frivolity and humour he projects (which I often find quite entertaining), there is a serious and independent analyst who understands what is good for Wikipedia and will not be sullied by political games. To redesign an oppose: "Principled dissent and criticism are extremely valuable in any community and collaborative project - but dissenters who want to join the power structure need to be able to work with people in the environment they seek to join, and arbitrators need to have a cool temperament. I see that in this candidate." TFM communicates well in formal venues and is the epitome of cool temperament; why would we assume his addition to the arbcom would reduce its cohesiveness? (Which, from this distant view, would seem to be no mean feat.) –Outriggr § 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. As only one voice of fifteen I can't see how his occasional foray into satire would be detrimental to the committee. I hope everyone read his answers because they're quite thoughtful, and his sharp mind would quickly flag the committee's forays into the ridiculous and add a welcome new dimension to ArbCom's thinking (if, that is, the ticking aneurysm time-bomb of his cholesterol-laden arteries don't deprive us of his clear thinking). --JayHenry (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Support, per User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. I think this would do the committee some good. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Per everybody else. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support: Well meaning candidiate who clearly wants what is best for the project.
    talk) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  31. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. PhilKnight (talk) 10:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  34. Support — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Has to be the most on the ball, clued in person on WP. The jolly corpulent exterior hides it well. ViridaeTalk 12:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Absolutely. More clue than 90% of our current arbs. Tex (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 16:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support - Some say this is a joke candidacy. No. Cut through the vast layers of blubber (sorry!) and get to the meat of this candidate's views and you will find someone who is exceedingly clued about what needs to be done, and knows how to get the change we need. Last year I supported Giano because I feel ArbCom needs a contrary voice, a gadfly. FatMan is that voice this year, and this may be my most controversial support, but I could do no less than to weigh in (sorry!) in support. Laugh at my puns but think about my words, and his. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. talk) 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Support. The Fat Man understands why we are supposed to be here - to build an encyclopedia! Although he does not have the number of contributions I would normally look for in a candidate, from my experience working with him I see that he is willing to go above and beyond to make sure his edits are really meaningful. I highly doubt that he would ever be corrupted by power, and I think he has boatloads of clue. His would be an interesting, and I think highly insightful, voice on the committee. Karanacs (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Think outside the box. MrMurph101 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 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) 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. — Deor (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Davewild (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Change is good. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:20, 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) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Great attitude for an encyclopaedian, just what ArbCom needs. Skomorokh 23:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support...Modernist (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support AniMate 01:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Alexfusco5 02:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --Rividian (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support I like the cut of his jib! Seriously, though, he's a very good critical thinker. Arbcom needs more of those. BrownHornet21 (talk) 04:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support.
    talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  55. Synchronism (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  56. Support. Some people will be surprised to see me support TFM, given his comments about me in various places (which I think are due to a misunderstanding). Be that as it may, the direction of the encyclopedia needs to be returned to the hands of the people who write it, and I think TFM will help to do that. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. BrownHornet2 says it very well. I disagree with his comments on the badlydrawnjeff case, in particular his apparent assumption of moral deficiency towards those who disagree with the outcome of that case. However, he'd perhaps be the kind of fresh air that the committee needs. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. +S. Humor brings people back to reality. Besides (and more importantly) he Very Has Clue.
    Ling.Nut (talk—WP:3IAR) 09:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  59. fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Joopercoopers (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support — After a lot of thought, I agree that this candidate may be exactly what Arbcom needs. I also see him as humanistic, sane, and a good critical thinker. He maintains an independent and unique outlook that is sophisticated yet respectful of wikipedia's original idealistic values. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support -- while some may think of him as a "joke candidate", what we need is new and different ideas and not the "same old stuff". (I'm voting on the same side as SlimVirgin on something? Weird!) *Dan T.* (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oh, Fat Man. Because you are you. --Moni3 (talk) 01:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support
    Xavexgoem (talk) 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  67. Extremely hopeful support. He's just what we need... sense of humor, perspective, and a keen eye for what's wrong with the wiki.
    treme 01:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  68. Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Good answers with a good track record of participation on ANI and related. But I don't like fat people, but it works for ArbCom.  
    (Talk)  04:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  70. Support --DeLarge (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. I think the voters calling this a joke don't understand the candidate—his sense of humour, his insightfulness, his honesty. I think The Fat Man could do much excellent work on the committee. Marskell (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. --Sultec (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support - with delight! I've never come across this user before but, based on answers to the questions, he will be the perfect arbitrator. (Anyhow, if a fat guy from Brooklyn can't cut through the crap, no one can!) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Achromatic (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Joe Nutter 01:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support - although I'd prefer the experience of an admin, I also like the idea of you not being an admin too.. gives some balance at ArbCom and maybe you can smack a few of them down a peg or 27. I'll consider my vote for you as my vote for an ArbCom "at LARGE" member.. one that isn't in cahoots with the system (cabal?). - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support--Namsos (talk) 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support but largely as a protest -- if it looks like you could win, I'll switch to oppose because, while making Arbcom members a little uncomfortable with the looming threat of your being seated, the prospect of the years of torture and ultimate doom I expect you'd inflict on them is something that would just pull too much on my heartstrings (on the other hand, if you were blocked during your arbitratorship, it would set a good precedent; plus, you'd also be two for the price of one and I always like a good volume discount) --
    talk) 18:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  79. Per Krusty the Clown. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Saw too much drama somewhere, but Moral Support for what was said. SashaNein (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong Support A super candidate; bright, articulate, and brimming with common sense. Poltair (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Excellent communication skills. Ferrylodge (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. hell of a platform Geoff Plourde (talk) 01:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support I echo Poltair's assessment. Superlative candidate for the challenges facing ArbCom and the community as a whole. His responses to the General Questions bear re-reading. Lulletc (talk) 04:35, 5 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) 11:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. He gets my wafer thin mint ...could add a lot of value. Where's the risk? Pointillist (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support --Cube lurker (talk) 17:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support—Tony (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Weak Support I would not normally support a candidate like this but I have seen enough that I like to warrant doing so, as have some others who I highly respect. Orderinchaos 10:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support - Good interactions in the past, with reasoned responses to situations give me the impression he's a good candidate. Caulde 15:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support --VS talk 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support —Ashley Y 05:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Sense of humor is not a disqualification, if he knows when to turn it off, and I believe he does. Insightful and articulate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - he can't do worse than the previous lot. Give him a go. HeartofaDog (talk) 11:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Not an admin. --Michael X the White (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. One down, six to go. --Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support--
    800 17:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  96. Support   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support -
    talk) 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  98. Because Ceoil says so! Oh ... And because I like nice "jokes"!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support because of his light touch and sense of humour. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. GRBerry 20:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  101. Support - try as I might, I can't bring myself to oppose. Too reasonable. Fails to grok the problems with comestic but nonfunction solutions (i. e. OPTOUT, AOR) fully, but almost everyone does. Not deal breaking. WilyD 21:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. What the hay. Cla68 (talk) 02:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - Dougie WII (talk) 03:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I'd like to present this humble offering in great anticipation of your triumphant appointment. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Suport mdavies 965 (talk
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anti-groupthink support 138.162.0.41 (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this election. You must have an account. ST47 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Cautious support. I probably have more reservations about this candidate than about any other who I'm supporting, and I probably wouldn't want an Arb Comm consisting in its entirety of Fat Men. But I like most of his answers, he's got a good record as an in-house satirist, and an Arb Comm where he makes up 6.7% of the membership (more, if we're measuring total tonnage) just might be better than one where he doesn't. Besides that, this can be considered a bit of a protest support against the opposers who argue that candidates should be de facto robbed of suffrage (or should be allowed to use it only to support). Godspeed, you corpulent reformer.
    talk) 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  107. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Eóin (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Inconsistency - The IRC bot "ACEVoterNazi" says that Eoin is ineligible to vote, but Pathoschild's script says otherwise. Please do not indent any vote by this user. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 02:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support For improvements. --Raayen (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Alun (talk) 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support
    derm 20:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  112. Support --157.228.x.x (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SusanLesch (talk • contribs) 06:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support
    THE GROOVE 07:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  115. strong support sumal (talk) 11:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support Great answers to questions •CHILLDOUBT• 12:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support I read some of his postings other supporters linked to above, & as Ceoil & Lar point about above, he gets it. The fact that our absent fat one is not an Admin is irrelevant -- especially AFAICS he never asked to be one. Adminship is only a request to use certain tools, & if he doesn't want them he shouldn't be penalized for his lack of desire. -- llywrch (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - It would be a good thing to have an "outsider" on the ArbCom, for balance. Giants2008 (17-14) 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support JBsupreme (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support -
    talk) 20:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  121. Support - Will bring needed fresh outlook to ARBCOM. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strongly Support - Any enemy of betacommandbot is a friend of mine. I think he would be a startlingly fresh voice and would do a wonderful job, and if betacommand opposes him, he must be ABSOLUTELY GREAT!!!!!!!!139.48.25.60 (talk) 21:30, 12 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) 22:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support I'm somewhat concerned that an outside doesn't fully comprehend how difficult a job being arbcom is but I feel in balance there is enough good things ton support. Also feel he has right views on BLP and role of arbcom and concur with view on need to support expert contributors Nil Einne (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Intelligent, considerate and beholden to nobody. Precisely what we need right now. --Rodhullandemu 23:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support Il Grasso your insight is what ArbCom and the 'pedia need right now and into the shapely future. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support. Ateshi-Baghavan 11:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:50, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support --
    talk) 11:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  128. Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Had I not been aware of the Fat Man's delightful demeanour and mature common sense before, his refreshing answers to the questions would have been enough to convince me.
    For all the fun that playing Wikipedia may entail, this project is after all an integral part of what is often segregated as "real life"; and to fulfill its stated goal of building an encyclopedia it needs to follow the laws and mores of the land. I think that the Fat Man will greatly contribute to remind the Arbitration Committee of this fact. - Ev (talk) 13:26, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support per SandyGeorgia. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support --CreazySuit (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Bop --NE2 19:17, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Though if you take a break, please do come back. :) Acalamari 21:45, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support AlexiusHoratius 22:07, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Come on back :)   jj137 (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support EJF (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Sarah 23:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support – Waltham, The Duke of 23:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Moral support. Gimmetrow 23:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Unsportsmanlike conduct toward fellow candidates. DurovaCharge! 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Serious concern about judgement given his comments and opposition toward other candidates. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Voyaging(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong oppose. Appears to be a joke nom by a non-admin and self-proclaimed "parasite" on Wikipedia. Further comments and diffs available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Majorly talk 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. He's a funny and thought-provoking guy, but I don't think ArbCom is right for him.
    ✽ 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  11. Mr.Z-man 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Principled dissent and criticism are extremely valuable in any community and collaborative project - but dissenters who want to join the power structure need to be able to work with people in the environment they seek to join, and arbitrators need to have a cool temperament. I don't see that in this candidate.
    T 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  13. per Avruch - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Repeated trolling at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/SlimVirgin-Lar/Proposed decision. ElinorD (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I would no sooner vote for TFM than I would for myself.--Koji† 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. iMatthew 02:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. --
    Talk 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  18. Too much of a loose cannon. Nsk92 (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. talk) 02:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  20. RockManQReview me 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Far too trollish. John Reaves 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Can I say no fucking way under any condition should this user be an admin let alone ArbCom member, refuses to maintain a reasonable size for his talk page among other issues.
    βcommand 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    All users should please maintain reasonable standards of civility on the ArbCom voting pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. kurykh 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Non-admin, not enough experience and has been a bit pointy.
    chat) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. Although much of what Fat Man has to say is true, I think he would be better off on the sidelines pointing out problems rather than trying to solve them. Captain panda 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. "My candidate statement says I will use my immense girth to promote policy reform from my lofty ArbCom throne, and I stand by that statement" ... Prodego talk 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose
    Talk 04:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  29. Strong oppose per trolling mentioned above [1], [2]. --B (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I'm all for new blood, but sorry, honey, you ain't it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Ralph Nader was a great whistleblower. After that, he was a bad political candidate. Just saying. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. While my impression of The Fat Man is a positive one, from what I've seen in his comments at various discussions, he is not properly tempered for ArbCom.
    Talk) 05:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  33. Oppose. Unsuited for the job. Everyking (talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose. You are very helpful and useful in some regards, but you are not what I look for in an Arbitrator. Kingturtle (talk) 05:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Thanks, B and the diffs just make me acknowledge that Lar is a very open-minded and generous man.--Caspian blue
  36. -- Avi (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Too much bad faith --Scott MacDonald (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - Although I don't really know the candidate, it seems like someone who is quick with messages like this without double-checking the facts first is probably not going to be able to sort through the evidence in the ArbCom cases well. This is on the assumption that
    bad hand account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Definitely not. Seems to be at lengths with
    Wikipedia policy in his comments. —Dark talk 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  42. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership.
    talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  44. Oppose. While I think your goals are good, and I've agreed with many comments you've made here and elsewhere, the community hasn't placed trust in you via RFA/you haven't requested that trust. Please RFA and run again next year. //roux   editor review10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. —
    neuro(talk) 10:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Strong Oppose User indulges in trollish behaviour, inserts images to replace text causing disruption, uses wikipedia as a forum on his talk page, very low number of mainspace edits. DFS454 (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User has only 22 edits ..--Cometstyles 12:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. 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 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose --A NobodyMy talk 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose this year. Maybe next, absent any negative developments. (Election then would be unlikely if your current track record continues.) Sorry,
    AGK 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  51. Synergy 20:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Need to gain support from community by RfA first, then demonstrate balance and judgement as an admin before coming here.
    TalkQu 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  53. A weak and conflicted oppose. A fascinating character; the answers to the questions show real insight and thoughtfulness, and
    this was genuinely one of the finest moments I've seen on Wikipedia in a while - it speaks very highly of you. Still, the realist/cynic in me says that this editor and this role (Arbitrator) are not particularly well-matched. Best of luck, in any case. MastCell Talk 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  54. I agree with Krimpet, Rspeer and Captain Panda, to name but a few. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Echoing MastCell here; highly torn on this one. I've seen TFMWNCB around quite often, and have been impressed with his loquacity. I'll be reviewing the answers to the questions more closely and may revisit my vote here. I also would like to express my extreme disappointment with votes from people like Elonka and ElinorD above; accusations of joke noms and trolling are highly unwarranted and inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose per concerns above. Khoikhoi 04:30, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, I love the guy, but I can't support someone who's supporting further letting BLP run amok and having ArbCom make policy (including that) by fiat, even though, as usual, I'm not sure if he's joking or not. Besides, I think he's much better for the community in his current role. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose. Krimpet summed it up. bibliomaniac15 01:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Tiptoety talk 06:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Gentgeen (talk) 10:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Kusma (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. --Kbdank71 18:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Michael Snow (talk) 20:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Wronkiew (talk) 17:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. 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)[reply]
  74. Regretful oppose I would have liked to, but some explanations did not agree with me. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Regretful Oppose Generally a nice platform but I think BLP should be made less of a Sword of Damocles hanging over articles before it is further strengthened. I also don't feel this candidate is quite ready yet. Unlike others I don't view adminship as a prerequisite for arbcom, but I feel this year is just too soon in this particular instance. Brilliantine (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Terence (talk) 10:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 19:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. My encounters with him have suggested he's not the consistently cool contributor we need on ArbCom. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors who better reflect my views and who otherwise would be better suited. Diderot's dreams (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for good reason.Eric Barbour (talk) 10:04, 6 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) 12:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Not ready for the position in my opinion, previous conduct concerns me. Full rationale:
    (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  82. No. SilkTork *YES! 22:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. oppose JoshuaZ (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose Per my details. MBisanz talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Jon513 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose BrianY (talk) 20:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose Too reasonable for ArbCom. Does not take Wikipedia seriously enough, either. Kelly Martin 20:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 14:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Poor attitude tgies (talk) 05:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Weak Oppose — Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose Mervyn Emrys (talk) 15:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Fred Talk 20:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose. Thanks,
    SqueakBox 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  96. Oppose. I don't think he has the right attitude for this, but I do think some of his suggestions are interesting. Rje (talk) 02:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. OpposeGeni 09:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose Hobartimus (talk) 13:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Not an admin. — Manticore 03:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose despite admirable drollery and some good answers, the cavalier attitude to others and failure to engage with science question is troubling. . . dave souza, talk 09:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose deeceevoice (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose — xaosflux Talk 04:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose - Xasha (talk) 00:46, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose The candidate's conception of the proper role of the committee is far greater than mine (and than that of the community, at least as previously expressed, a failure to appreciate which [see, e.g., the reply to Mailer Diablo's second question: "In my view, the ArbCom has a community mandate to propose specific and meaningful reforms, and once declared, should work hand-in-hand with the community to engender support and implement them"] is itself worrisome), and inasmuch as ArbCom overreach, particularly in the context of BLP issues, relative to which the committee are ever eager to substitute their judgment about what policy ought to be for that of the community and to exceed their mandate, is one of the biggest internal problems facing Wikipedia, I can't support. Joe 07:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. SQLQuery me! 20:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose - doesn't have the right attitude for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 22:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose, despite SandyGeorgia's delightful statement of support.  JGHowes  talk 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose, based exclusively on my my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected. I personally supported TFM, but agree his appointment would be inappropriate given election results. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/The_Fat_Man_Who_Never_Came_Back&oldid=1221637022"