Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/RMHED

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RMHED

The path forward is seldom clear.

I'm me, yes I can definitely confirm that. Been around Wikipedia for quite a while.
As for my statement I think this sums it up nicely " If you want to see the shit hit the fan, then vote for me ! "

I am happy to answer any and all questions, though I can't guarantee that you'll like the answers.

Oh, and in the interests of full disclosure I'd just like to categorically state that I am not an alcoholic, a drunk maybe, but definitely NOT an alcoholic.


Support

  1. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PhilKnight (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support ϢereSpielChequers 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support This isn't supposed to be a popularity contest, and doing the right thing isn't always popular. He is exactly who we need at ArbCom, and I completely trust his ability to put Wikipedia's interests over all else. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Willing to take bold steps and an independent thinker. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 19:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 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]
  8. Moral support DurovaCharge! 20:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support - good humour is sadly lacking in Wikipedia these days. Cynical (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Politics. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Eóin (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Moral support Obviously you're an independent thinker. We could use some. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support I have to say that I was impressed by your answers to the questions. Leujohn (talk)
  14. Enigma message 20:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Quite an interesting candidate. Shares my concern on BLP's, is incredibly honest, and I want to see shit hit the fan :) It might be what we need to reform Arbcom. RockManQReview me 01:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Ryan4314 (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Have a cookie. -- lucasbfr talk 21:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support -- PseudoOne (talk)
  19. Support Sarah 23:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Dlabtot (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voyaging(talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --Elonka 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose Majorly talk 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. iridescent 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Caspian blue 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose --Banime (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. krimpet✽ 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. kurykh 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mr.Z-man 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Steven Walling (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Trashing Ironholds RfA format with a temper tantrum was not a demonstration of the sort of behavior I'd like to see from an arbitrator. Avruch T 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. See reasoning. east718 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Major oppose, especially over wanting to oppose a nom that was transcribed literally one minute late. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No way. RockManQReview me 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Moved to Support[reply]
  20. Bad judgement is a quality I see in this candidate 24/7. I wish I could say otherwise, honestly.--Koji† 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. -- Avi (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. iMatthew 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Chill... --Mixwell!Talk 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. J.delanoygabsadds 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Good ideas, poor execution. CIreland (talk) 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per misunderstanding of WP:OFFICE Prodego talk 03:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose BJTalk 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. Per Koji, basically. --JayHenry (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. This candidate, while a good overall contributor, lacks the temperament to be an arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose. Unacceptable disposition. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. If I wanted some lulz, I would have nominated Natalie J:-DD to the ArbCom. Mike H. Fierce! 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Lacks objectivity and prudence.Horrorshowj (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose per objectivity and temperament concerns raised above. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Cirt (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose, per the answers to UninvitedCompany's questions (what the hell has a cheap potshot on the Beeb have to do with anything?) and the whole "one minute late" incident. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA and run again. //roux   editor review09:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. — neuro(talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mailer Diablo 11:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. You could at least tell us what type of beer you like. That's probably good for 20 or so votes... Viriditas (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For preference Jack or sometimes Jim followed by Beck's. RMHED (talk) 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong 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 13:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Per your statement above --B (talk) 13:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. GtstrickyTalk or C 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a serious candidate. What's worse though is that considering your recent attempts to enforce BLP I would have expected something more constructive. EconomicsGuy (talk) 15:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Pcap ping 16:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. GRBerry 17:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Not that I particularly like to see the shit hit the fan, it nevertheless strikes me that feces strikes the centrifuge on a regular basis on Wikipedia, and I fail to see how voting for you would adjust this steady flow in either direction. >Radiant< 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. --Kbdank71 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. oppose- candidate is random. Sticky Parkin 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How very true, much like the universe really. Though some cosmologists and those of a religious persuasion may disagree. RMHED (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. MastCell Talk 19:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Synergy 19:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Per recent block for disruptive editing. PeterSymonds (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For what it is worth, I am the one who initiated the action that resulted in his block, and I am supporting him. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Even so, the reasons behind the block are not what I would like to see. We don't need an arbitrator who can't distinguish what falls under WP:BLP and what doesn't, sorry. PeterSymonds (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Judgement concerns. Sorry, oppose. AGK 20:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Davewild (talk) 20:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. I trust this candidate to do what he thinks is right. I do not trust this candidate to actually know what is right. As such, I must strenuously oppose. DS (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only a dangerous zealot knows what is right. The rest of us just have to use our best judgement. RMHED (talk) 22:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Tiptoety talk 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. GlassCobra 00:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. macy 00:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. He does bring up many valid points however many of his actions, such as going around blanking all unsourced BLPs, are just a bit too pointy. Icewedge (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Alexfusco5 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. What?! Icy // ♫ 03:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Guettarda (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Strong Oppose: Without extensive debate on his style - take a look at his most recent RfA and judge for yourself - I vividly recall the deletion review he filed in which he questioned my rationale and motives for AfDing an article, without troubling himself to notify me of the review. My quote from the RfA was "I also would prefer admins not to publicly question the motives behind a decision in reviews where they pointedly exclude the decisionmakers from the process." For ArbCom, that imperative is ten times as strong.  RGTraynor  06:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you talking about those Maltese Aristocracy articles? If so they were prodded by yourself not AfD'd. The prods were incorrect because the articles had survived a previous bundled AfD, I removed your prods and informed you of the reason why. An admin then deleted the articles anyway, I discussed this with the deleting admin, he wouldn't restore them so I went to DRV and informed the admin of this. So I followed the DRV process exactly as it should be done. RMHED (talk) 14:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As it happens, the prods survived deletion review, and your rationale shot down for reasons given in that review, but that's not the point. The point was that you asked specifically for the rationale in prodding of a user whom you failed to notify of the review. That lack of communication should be avoided anywhere in Wikipedia; in an ArbCom candidate, it is completely unacceptable.  RGTraynor  20:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No my rationale wasn't shot down, the DRV was pretty evenly split. I didn't ask for your rationale as it was obvious from your prod reason. I was under no obligation to tell you I'd removed your prods but did so anyway as a courtesy. How is that a lack of communication? RMHED (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (1) The DRV was closed as Endorsed; that's shooting down your rationale; (2) The following are your quotes: "These articles had been in existence for several years so why the rush to delete? Why couldn't the normal deletion policy be followed? Why the reluctance to send them to AfD?" (3) As I've said twice now, you did not inform me of the DRV; kindly show the diff where you did and I'll be happy to retract my Oppose.  RGTraynor  03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The DRV could just as easily have been closed as restore, it was very much down to the closer's discretion. All those questions I asked were genuinely aimed at the deleting admin and not you. The deleting admin was informed by myself of the DRV. Maybe I was remiss to not also inform you, but the DRV instructions just say to inform the relevant admin. If my not informing you caused offence, then I apologize wholeheartedly. RMHED (talk) 03:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose -Djsasso (talk) 16:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. Миша13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. bibliomaniac15 01:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 03:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Oppose with weak, subjective answers.  Marlith (Talk)  04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Gentgeen (talk) 10:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Kusma (talk) 12:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose —αἰτίας •discussion• 16:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - This user's worthless posturing over users deleting their own talk pages is made even more incredible by the fact that he actively tries to hide his own. When confronted, he explains with oozing condescension that he shouldn't be held to the same standards as he holds other people. Hell no. TGH1970 (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User is ineligible to vote. DARTH PANDAduel 20:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Michael Snow (talk) 20:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Joe Nutter 01:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Votes oppose to other candidates pages = Lack of class. --Avg (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC0
    Pointing out my "lack of class" is in itself indicative of a lack of class, oh the irony. RMHED (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Great, don't vote support for me then. Oh wait, I'm not standing for election, you are.--Avg (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, the perpendicular is just far too challenging, I'm sitting for election. RMHED (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose لennavecia 01:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - Due to arguing, above, with people voting oppose. That's not what I look for in an arbitrator, sorry. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 12:24, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose - Wrong attitude for a arbitrator. --Orlady (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose - [message redacted under BLP concerns] --Toffile (talk) 15:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Happy‑melon 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Hiberniantears (talk) 20:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Definitely not. Sceptre (talk) 20:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose, for voting for Kurt Weber. Daniel Case (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Wronkiew (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Terence (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. I don't see evidence of ability to be fair and balanced. Nor of particularly strong analytical skills. And I'm concerned at general lack of effort and clue displayed both here and at own RfA. Candidates statement here and at own RfA is an invite for unwelcome drama. SilkTork *YES! 14:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. I am not convinced the user is ready for the position. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Bad judgement is precedent over supposed humorous aspects. Caulde 12:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. —Animum (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. I don't want to see the shit hit the fan. Martin 22:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose --VS talk 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose - apologies for pile-on; judgment is less than 100%: see recent RfA. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Per my details. MBisanz talk 04:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose, - Shyam (T/C) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose - The article blankings don't give me a positive feeling, and neither does the behavior demonstrated in other opposes. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. While this particular candidate has answered my individual questions in the way that I was hoping they'd be answered, this wasn't candidate I was hoping for them from; I can't support someone with the views that they have with regards to BLP. Celarnor Talk to me 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Tex (talk) 20:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose I definately do not want to see any shit hit a fan. Not with me downstream, anyway; and the winds tend to shift around. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:35, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose what tgies (talk) 05:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Weak oppose - There's a lot to like about this candidate (vigour in his approach to the BLP problem, sense of humour, etc.), but just too much to dislike (apparent inability to work collegially being a big one) for me to support. I had to think hard on this one, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Joke candidacy. — Manticore 07:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose — would be messy, too messy. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose Gazimoff 14:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 18:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose Fred Talk 20:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose I guess he's not the only candidate running on that platform, but still... Rje (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose Rivertorch (talk) 09:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. I haven't had any interaction with the candidate, but my first impression is based solely on this attitude – a condescending approach to others does not suit ArbCom. These are also concerning. haz (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose per Haza-w. --Dylan620 Contribs Sign! 11:08, 11 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, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose. JBsupreme (talk) 19:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose - Candidate statement and several responses to answers indicate he isn't taking this seriously. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose sorry but the shit hit the fan and got on you and you stink. I can't in good conscience vote on anyone that stinks (yes this is a joke, but when you have a statement like that, what do you expect?) Nil Einne (talk) 22:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose Far too prickly and not enough conciliatory; unsuitable material for ArbCom. --Rodhullandemu 23:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Oppose I don't want to see it hit the fan. — xaosflux Talk 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 16:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. No Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Reluctant oppose - I agree with him in principle, but not in practice: relatively recently he caused severe disruption by mass-nominating and blanking unsourced BLPs (and got a 24-hour block for it). He gets credit for drawing attention to the problem, but that's not the right attitude for ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 07:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. No That one might imagine that the committee have not gone far enough in substituting their views about what policy ought to be for those of the community boggles the mind. Joe 07:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. SQLQuery me! 20:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose AlexiusHoratius 22:13, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135.   jj137 (talk) 22:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/RMHED&oldid=1221636580"