Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/White Cat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

Contents 1 White Cat 2 Support 3 Oppose 4 Other

[edit] White Cat

Hi, everybody out there. For those who may be surprised why am I even a candidate there is a very simple yet unorthodox explanation for this. I have had gotten into a fair share of disputes. Of course being into disputes is by very nature not pleasant. It isn't necessarily a bad thing either. After how can anyone truly be able to deal with disputes big or small without experiencing big or small disputes.

I'd like to talk about my "failures"

• I have one hell of a block log (as user "Cool Cat" and "Coolcat")
• I have had 4 failed RfA's here on en.wikipedia. Full list is available here and I would recommend a short peek at it at least.
• I let my paranoia bother AKMask to the point of an RFC.
• I had been in front of ArbCom twice as an involved party:
  1. WP:RfAR/Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek had put me on a year long temporary mentorship on issues concerning Turkey and/or the Kurds and banned me from mediating indefinitely until I am officially appointed to the Mediation Committee. That case was closed on 5 October 2005. Two out of three the other involved parties User:Davenbelle and User:Fadix ended up getting banned indefinitely^* and for a year^* respectively.
  2. WP:RfAR/Moby Dick had not levied any remedies on me. That case was closed on 13 August 2006. A number of remedies were levied on Moby Dick, a user treated like a sockpuppet of Davenbelle at least by arbcom^*.

I am not "proud" of any of this and I will not even attempt to make excuses. But I can't change the past. I was not genetically engineered with wikipedias policies and I do have a learning curve with a finite slope.

I have been recommended to have a fresh start with an unconnected account but I desire not to do that. My reason for this is simple. I value honesty above everything else. It would be dishonest for me to come and claim to be a different user - at least in my own mind. I refuse to give up on my ideals simply because it is convenient.

So in sum I am not any near your "ideal" and popular candidate. I think I have a lot of experience that I can put to good use should I get appointed as an arbitrator. I hope to offer a different perspective which I feel is healthy in any median. I strongly feel that if everybody is thinking alike, often nobody is truly thinking. Weather I have grown adequately with my involvement with wikipedia and other wikimedia projects such as commons in my 2+ years here is for you to judge.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3)
• Cool Cat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) (formerly)
• Coolcat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · logs · block log · lu · rfar · rfc · rfcu · ssp · search an, ani, cn, an3) (formerly)

• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

[edit] Support

1. —trey(wiki) 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. fuck yes. we need drastic change on arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. Alexfusco5 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. Support. This user has gotten into trouble but I think he/she has learned lessons. I believe its worthwhile having people on arbcom that have been on the other side of an arbcom case. I also believe he/she is dedicated to the project. Pocopocopocopoco 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Moral support - often takes things way too seriously, but this only shows Cat would be dedicated to impartiality. Would probably be most impartial of any users. Has never misused tools on commons. The Evil Spartan 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Moral support per Alkivar. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:37, December 3, 2007
8. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. This person is a great example of how arbcom has failed over the years and maybe with someone with so much experience being in arbitration "literally".. can solve this rising problem..--Cometstyles 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. ArbCom needs more diversity for sure!  Grue  14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Token Support - Obviously he's not going to be elected at this stage, and I don't think White Cat is necessarily the most level-headed person in disputes. But it would be good to have an arbitrator who isn't an admin and isn't part of the Wikipedia "establishment", and who can provide a genuinely independent perspective. Walton^One 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. Sympathy Vote! (Sarah777 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC))
13. Support Go, White Cat, fix ArbCom and close shut the jaws of Oblivion! Ripberger 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Support Will add zest to proceedings.--Bedivere 20:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Support He is a devote follower of Aiur.--Doktor Gonzo 00:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

    Doktor Gonzo does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

15. Support Gabriel Kielland (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Support. Just for being cool. Per Sarah777 and Walton One (-; ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Hell yes (Yeah, I'm voting support cause he's got no chance in hell.) Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Support. Knowledge of process from the other side. And for the same reason as Kyaa. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Support Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Support -- I have a good feeling about this one. :) Xdenizen (talk) 22:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

    Bubba ditto (talk) 00:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

    User does not have suffrage. Miranda 18:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

21. Moral Support. — Rudget _speak.work 21:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Moral support. --Gwern (contribs) 21:55 7 December 2007 (GMT)
23. Support - Dbiel ^(Talk) 09:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Moral support - E104421 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Moral support White Cat would be good for ArbCom; although I would expect him to recuse himself at least from Kurdish matters, and probably anything between the Dardanelles and the Indus. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Strongly support honesty is the best policy and recent edits have been high quality. Luqman Skye (talk) 07:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Symbolic support - a flawed Arbcom member with experience of heavy handed tactics by existing members would make a great commitee member/moderator. In a better world/Wikipedia perhaps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfacets (talk • contribs)
28. Moral support / Fred-J 18:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Strong support best candidate yet. Bacchiad (talk) 14:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
30. It's not looking good for you, sir, but you have my support. MookieZ (talk) 19:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Moral support wbfergus ^Talk 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
32. Strong Support. Can bring a fresh perspective to ArbCom. It's a pity that she won't succeed, I would have really liked to see what she did. Loom91 (talk) 07:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
33. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Support I liked your responses for your questions from other editors. Although you have some work cut out for you, I think with some hard work, you'll be fine.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

1. Too much drama This is a Secret ^account 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
2. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Creating drama out of a signature was not the best thing Wikipedia has ever seen. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. --W.marsh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
5. — Coren ^(talk) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. Er, no. BLACKKITE 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
8. Woody 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Chaz ^Beckett 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. – Gurch (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. -- Ned Scott 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. — TKD::Talk 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
16. The signature drama is enough to leave a sour taste in my mouth. Qst 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Strongest Possible Oppose, nuke from orbit. Giving White_Cat a position on Wikipedia's highest committee is akin to allowing an abusive troll to gain stewardship. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can understand people opposing (its a yes/no decision after all), but I do not understand this unnecessary drama. -- Cat ^chi? 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

18. Nope. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Nishkid64 (talk) 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Voted once above. — TKD::Talk 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

19. Oppose (vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Daniel 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
21. east.718 at 00:34, December 3, 2007
22. Nufy8 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
23. --Duk 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
25. I respect this candidate, but am concerned about his past behavior in dispute resolution. Gracenotes^T § 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
26. Oppose per Gracenotes. Sorry! Jonathan ^(T•@•C) 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
27. Nick 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
28. I respect this user, but I'm just not so sure about maturity and associated behaviour. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 00:39, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
29.  — master son^{T - C} 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Ρх₥α 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
31. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
32. I like cool white cat, but not in DR. Prodego ^talk 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
33. Stardust8212 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Prolog 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
35. Sean William @ 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Drama king. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
37. Oppose -- Avi 01:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
38. GRBerry 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
39. krimpet⟲ 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
40. sh¤y 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Oppose with a Red Flag and a side of Drama due to weird conspiracy theories, drama, etc.. Miranda 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    I can understand people opposing (its a yes/no decision after all), but I do not understand this unnecessary drama. -- Cat ^chi? 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

    *cough* Miranda 12:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

42. Sorry, no. DS 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
43. No way. --Coredesat 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
44. ➪HiDrNick! 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
45. Honesty's fine, but experience is better. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Oppose Thatcher131 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
48. This is probably the worst case of WP:POINT I've ever seen from an established user. Scobell302 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Rebecca 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
50. Jimbo fetish, for lack of a better reason. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
51. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Ummm .. no. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
53. His abominably poor judgment and conduct was instrumental in causing RickK's departure. Some things are worth holding a grudge about. —Cryptic 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
54. I agree with Alkivar that some significant changes are needed at ArbCom (although for reasons very different from his), but I certainly don't think that this candidate would bring anything near positive change. Joe 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    Inappropriate. --InkSplotch 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

55. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
56. Oppose -Dureo 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
57. — madman bum and angel 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Poor judgment. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
59. Húsönd 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
60. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
61. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
62. Oppose. Eluchil404 04:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
63. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
64. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Mbisanz 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
66. JayHenry (talk) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
67. Super mega no. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
68. No no drama. Spebi 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
69. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
70. Good heavens, no. —David Levy 06:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
71. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 06:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
72. No — Jack Merridew 06:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
73. Oppose Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
74. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Civility. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
75. No thanks. --Folantin 08:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
76. Crockspot 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
77. Masochist! =P — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
78. Zscout answer was unacceptable. Shem^(talk) 10:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
79. futurebird 11:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
80. I consider adminship a basic requirement to run for ArbCom. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
81. KTC 12:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
82. Soman 12:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
83. Oppose Sorry, must oppose. -- Marcsin | ^Talk 13:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
84. Splash - tk 13:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
85. Too much drama, too pointy. Last time I really noticed this candidate, they were on the noticeboard demanding we vote in a "forced retirement poll" and the words, "Do not freaking ignore me" really stand out in mind. The last thing we need on ArbCom is someone so adept at generating personal and project drama. Sarah 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
86. Oppose Erratic behavior. Xoloz 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
87. Oppose Not what I'm looking for on the committee. Sorry. --Dweller 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
88. While I'm sure being in front of ArbCom and getting sanctioned by it is an interesting way of gaining experience of ArbCom processes, it's not one the average user would ever have cause to possess and certainly not an ArbCom candidate who needs to be able to command the trust and respect of Wikipedians. Orderinchaos 15:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
89. Dekimasuよ! 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
90. Oppose There are reasons why criminals lose their rights to vote, arms, etc.  :D Mindraker 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I have both arms paws(?). :P -- Cat ^chi? 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
      • This oppose makes no sense. Grandmasterka 02:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
91. Luke 15:7 notwithstanding, sorry, no. Guy (Help!) 16:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
92. Has some good knowledge of how things work but too much controversy will result in this candidate possibly having a difficult time on the committee. GDonato (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
93. --Joopercoopers 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
94. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
95. Oppose.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
96. Oppose per previous incidents of controversy including sanctions from Arbcom. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
97. Davewild 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
98. Oppose. Too much drama caused by this User, and it was directly due to his bad behavior that User:RickK left Wikipedia. Corvus cornix_talk 19:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
99. --- RockMFR 19:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
100. Hell No ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 19:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
101. Kbdank71 20:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
102. Editor's behavior over signature, et al. does not earn my trust for ArbCom. Pagrashtak 20:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
103. Kaly99 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
104. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
105. —Ruud 21:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
106. Oppose - I appreciate your honesty, and I don't think it's fair in the slightest to keep on blaming people for past mistakes, but this is about the ArbCom, not you, and I'm not at all convinced you'd be the right choice. It may be a better idea to start more slowly instead of aiming right for those positions requiring the highest amount of trust and experience right away. -- Schneelocke 22:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
107. Oppose Um. No. I don't think so. --Pleasantville 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
108. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
109. --Malcolmxl5 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
110. WjBscribe 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
111. Oppose Refused to show examples for good work. — Sebastian 00:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
112. EconomistBR 00:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
113. Oppose Lolicon pic tipped me. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

     I beg your pardon, what lolicon pic? How is that relevant to dispute resolution. -- Cat ^chi? 16:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

     This image and while it wasn't on en wikipedia it was wikipedia. For me the attitude that arbitrators take to this area is extremely relevant. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

     I am neither the [orignal] uploader nor the creator of the image. I merely renamed someone else's image on commons from commons:Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg to commons:Image:Lolicon example.jpg as it did not have a descriptive name. 'Final solution' is too generic of a filename and is potentially problematic for other perhaps obvious reasons. I still fail to understand your concern. Commons is not a wikipedia and instead is a free image repository. -- Cat ^chi? 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

     My memory is you closed an afd on the subject when their was strong consensus to delete from commons; and the factt hat this tipped the balance indicates their was a balance to tip, deciding re you was for me the hardest choice in terms of my overall voting. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

     That image in question never underwent a deletion discussion involving me. The deletion debate I closed was over a different image involving a wikipe-tan parody. On commons deletion requests are expected to be based on something more concrete such as copyrights, Floridan law, project scope, quality, personality rights, privacy and etc rather than a few people's ethics or morality. Most voters on that specific case either barely had suffrage (had at least one edit prior to the nomination of which very few had 150 edits on commons) or did not have suffrage at all (no edits prior to the start of the commons deletion request). Most peoples only activity was the deletion discussion of that image. Most peoples rationale was merely their sense of morality or ethics. Commons isn't censored like that. Imagine us deleting images of 'naked women' (any women not pictured in a burka) based on say Iranian or Saudi customs.

     I won't hesitate to close any image deletion discussion on commons that does not cite deletion criteria and instead is a mere flamewar (commons isn't a forum either). Once the dust cloud settles the discussion can restart. I do want to add that the deletion vote in question was initiated by me over license concerns. Yes, I nominated the images for deletion and ended up closing it as a keep. Drini closed the same discussion as a keep as well. Images were ultimately deleted by Jimbo. After that the discussions on weather or not the images should be kept ends. I won't comment on weather or not I agree with Jimbo's decision as it really doesn't mater. All I will say is that I will abide by Jimbo's decision.

     Had Jimbo not intervene, the image would undergo a cleaner deletion discussion for certain.

     -- Cat ^chi? 19:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

     Thanks for finding the link, I guess I am looking for arbitrators who act very conservatively on these type of issues, I am not criticising your behaviour merely using it in order to judge your suitability as a an arbcom candidate. I would not, for instance, dream of opposing you being an admin on the basis of this. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

114. The amount of drama surrounding this candidate makes him a poor choice, although were that not the case, I would consider supporting him. Horologium (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
115. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
116. Oppose ×Meegs 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
117. Oppose Greg Jones II 02:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
118. Oppose, sorry: over time my estimation of this editor has gone up, and I believe he intends well, but still not right for this role. Jonathunder 02:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
119. oppose Kingturtle 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
120. oppose, not enough experience in mediation, and has been involved in drama too recently. John Vandenberg 06:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
121. Tempted to support in the spirit of Discordianism, but -- no. Raymond Arritt 06:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
122. Too much garnering of ill will for my liking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
123. Too much drama Alex Bakharev 08:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
124. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-04t13:21z
125. Agree with Xoloz and Ryulong. Acalamari 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
126. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
127. Oppose -- SECisek 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
128. No I respect him for listing his failures but no. RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
129. Oppose -- CoolCat is honest, but I'm not sure that the renegade spirit of the past is gone. Geogre 20:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
130. Michael Snow (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
131. Oppose. -- RG² 23:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
132. Oppose, drama kings on ArbCom are the last thing we need. ♠PMC♠ 00:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
133. Oppose lengthy and conbative history on AN/I and elsewhere. ThuranX (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
134. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 00:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
135. Oppose. Please stop with the attention-seeking behavior and get back to writing an encyclopaedia. Viriditas 03:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
136. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
137. Oppose I appreciate the honesty, but I don't respect the drama and the controversy in the past. Sorry. PrestonH 04:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
138. Oppose. Wetman (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
139. Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
140. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
141. Oppose We already have one joke candidate. Skinwalker (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
142. Oppose FlowerpotmaN·(t) 23:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
143. Oppose -- tariqabjotu 02:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
144. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
145. Weak Oppose SashaNein (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
146. Oppose too much POV pushing, Wikidrama, and negative encounters for my taste. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
147. Oppose Cannot support this user. GlassCobra 10:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
148. Oppose Anti-science. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
149. Oppose immature candidate write-up, may not be fit as arbitrator pruthvi (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
150. Terence (talk) 18:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
151. Too pointy for this role. Maralia (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
152. Wizardman 21:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
153. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
154. Wimstead (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
155. Strong oppose. All that signature nonsense (because it is the only way I can describe it) led me to the conclusion that this user is not suitable for the Arbitration Committee. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
156. phoebe/(talk) 09:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
157. Oppose. When in a disagreement, White Cat shows a lack of ability to listen to what people are saying and disagree respectfully and neutrally. Seraphim ^Whipp 16:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
158. oppose per Sarah, Orderinchaos,Corvus cornix, Schneelocke, John Vandenberg and utterly unsatisfactory answer to Ragesoss' question. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
159. Oppose, frivolous accusations of sockpuppetry are Bad For Wikipedia. Eliot (talk) 19:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
160. Oppose--Berig (talk) 20:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
161. Oppose, the edit warring about your signature was unacceptable. -- Graham87 06:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
162. Oppose - second batch of voting, adding some opposes. Not a suitable candidate per the above. Carcharoth (talk) 09:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
163. Oppose -- Not qualified. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
164. Oppose. Arbcom is a place for resolving disputes and/or issuing calm judgments on them, and I see no evidence that this editor is likely to assist in either process, and rather a lot of evidence to the contrary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
165. Oppose Tonywalton ^Talk 12:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
166. Oppose Mill cleaner (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
167. Strong oppose. Given various actions in White Cat's past, such as nominating Wikipedia's civility policy for deletion, insisting on changing archived pages to reflect his current signature, and most recently, his reaction to lolcats, I don't believe that this user has the right judgment for ArbCom. I do however appreciate White Cat's honesty, and I hope that he will continue to contribute to Wikipedia. Sorry. --Kyoko 16:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
168. Oppose Ealdgyth | Talk 19:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
169. Glad he ran, glad to oppose. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
170. Oppose - good to see this candidate learning from experience and hope that they continue contributing positively, but not enough time since involvement in dramas to really trust for a three-year stint anywhere. Warofdreams talk 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
171. No. Bearian (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
172. --Allen3 ^talk 16:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
173. Strong Opposeharlock_jds (talk) 18:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
174. the wub "?!" 19:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
175. Oppose Saudade7 23:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
176. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
177. Too confrontational for my comfort in a dispute-resolution role. Shimgray | talk | 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
178. Oppose. From candidate statement: I have one hell of a block log. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
179. Oppose. Per candidate's interpretation of consensus on deletion debate on Commons, closing discussion before resolution had been reached, and candidate's behaviour in that and other discussions. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC) I didn't come here to pile-on, I just arrived late.
180. Maxim_(talk) 00:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
181. Oppose nothing personal, but not what we need on ArbCom. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
182. Oppose good experience of ArbCom, all from the wrong side due to his own nature. Great experience, but we need cooler heads. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
183. Oppose. I am not convinced this user has the necessary experience or track record. --Muchness (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
184. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
185. Oppose Karl2620 (talk) 11:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
186. Oppose per IRC discussion. Will ^(talk) 15:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

     Come again? What discussion? I do not recall discussing anything related to the elections with you on IRC or elsewhere. Please be more specific with your reasons. -- Cat ^chi? 19:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

187. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other

1. Can we stop the pile-on, please? If you're considering an oppose vote, think about whether you have anything new to say. For better or for worse, the community clearly feels ArbCom is not right for White Cat. I'm not sure a WP:SNOW close is appropriate for ArbCom, but White Cat may consider withdrawing, just to show good faith and put an end to this charade. szyslak 23:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

   While I understand and appreciate your rationale, I’m not sure it’s appropriate to ask editors to stop voting in an advisory election where the candidate can immediately withdraw as soon as they tire of receiving the community’s opinions. Obviously, White Cat has made a decision to leave this open – for whatever reason – and, as a consequence, prospective voters should not be dissuaded from participating. — Satori Son 17:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

   I agree, in the sense that whether White Cat withdraws is up to him. szyslak 23:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)