Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Mercury

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

[edit] Mercury

Hello. I have been a English Wikipedia contributer for a bit now. I'm also a sysop on the English Wikipedia, and I volunteer in the Wikimedia OTRS queue answering emails. I thank you for reading my candidacy statement.

I've been watching the workings of arbitration. I believe it is important in our community to have this process, and I do respect the work the arbitrators do. I don't really desire to change the dispute resolution process, or the arbitration process. I desire to arbitrate. Should I be chosen for the role, I will do it to the best of my ability. Mercury 03:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• Mercury (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

[edit] Support

1. Fred Bauder 01:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Like those below, I oppose the Durova "witch hunts" and the use of admin tools during the dispute was uncalled for. However, no one deserves a drubbing like this, so I'm giving a Moral support. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Per Firs ~ Riana ⁂ 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. AniMate 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Tim Q. Wells 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Nothing personal, I just do not think he is ready. spryde | talk 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Lack of experience with this, shown by the recent Kmweber case This is a Secret ^account 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Qst 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Bad faith and disruption on this and related pages. Bishonen | talk 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC).
9. Prolog 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Actions and demeanor during the Durova issue left much to be desired. RxS 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. (ec*3) Not ready yet. --Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Chaz ^Beckett 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Because of recent misuse of admin tools during the Durova incident including semi-protection of the ANI page. Cla68 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. Oppose. Part of the problem rather than a solution of the issue of undercarpet games. --Irpen 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
16. W.marsh 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Alexfusco5 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
18. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Oppose (my vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Nufy8 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
22. --Duk 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Full disclosure: I did not support the Durova witchhunt, but condemned her actions instead. However, Durova did not need an apologist. —Kurykh 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
24. east.718 at 00:35, December 3, 2007
25. – Gurch (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Per involvement in the durova witchhunts.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
27. BLACKKITE 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
28. - auburnpilot talk 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Have concerns. Gracenotes^T § 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Supported an admin over an innocent victim of their harassment. No. • Lawrence Cohen 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Per editors above regarding Durova witchhunts. Travb (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Oppose — iridescent 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
33. oppose Extended comments moved to talk page. Merkinsmum 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
34. absolutely not.—Random832 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
35. GRBerry 01:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Way too much of a blind follower :/ --krimpet⟲ 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose for lots of reasons, e.g. saying "don't troll" to another valued contributor in a good-faith discussion. --Alecmconroy 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
38. He protected an AN/I subpage that criticized one of his friends, which of course made the dispute even worse. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Recent, obviously inappropriate use of tools. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
40. Per above. Miranda 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Coredesat 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
42. DGG (talk) 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Not impressed by answers to questions. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Especially in these situations, clinging to Durova is like clinging to a sinking ship, and it shows in this vote. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Too new, plus poor judgement. Zocky | picture popups 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Cryptic 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Rebecca 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Strongly per Kla’quot. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Joe 02:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Sorry, but absolutely not. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Bob Mellish 03:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose. --InkSplotch 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Húsönd 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
54. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
55. GlassCobra 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
56. No, sorry. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
57. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
58. JayHenry 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Oppose Ealdgyth | Talk 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Oppose No thanks -Dureo 04:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Viridae^Talk 04:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose - perhaps at another time. Not now. -- Robster2001 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
63. Everyking 04:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
64. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
66. sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
67. Oppose - despicable behavior at the recent Durova ArbCom case. Isarig 04:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)