White Cat

I want to make this statement more of a Q&A to more efficiently express why I am a candidate.

You can see it here: actual statement

The reason why it is a separate page is my statement is a mere 629 words which is "well over" the 400 word limit.

White Cat (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
Questions for the candidate
Discuss the candidate
Support or Oppose this candidate

Voting in this election is now closed.
Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

Support

Absolutely. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PhilKnight (talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like your ideas... L'Aquatique[talk] 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Catchpole (talk) 20:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per Elonka. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(wildcard) support for perseverance in rooting out a sockpuppet in the face of harassment and ridicule. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strange to me why not many support for White Cat. --Raayen (talk) 03:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sadly, the most qualified non-admin....--Comet styles 06:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:46, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
moral support E104421 (talk) 19:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full support Experience of the service is a good way to find out how to fix it. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full support Excellent ideas. FinFangFoom (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support How better to deal with nationalistic edit warriors, but to put one on the ArbCom? Kelly Martin 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support for someone who gets rather more crap thrown at them than they deserve. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Nice guy, I like him. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 20:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Can see reasoning for his decisions, therefore explainable and therefore accountable. Good candidate. Caulde 14:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SQL ^{Query me!} 20:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Eluchil404 (talk) 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HiDrNick! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Kanonkas : Talk 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—Wknight94 (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dlabtot (talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Voyaging^(talk) 00:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Candidate is not an admin. --El on ka 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some good ideas; I think you need to develop them a bit by participating in some arbcom cases where you are not "involved" in the case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
iride scent 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
kur ykh 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
krimpet ✽ 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian blue 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Steven Walling (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean well, but you are easily provoked. ArbCom is a position of extremely high stress, so I don't think it is a good fit for you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Avruch^T 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
iMatthew 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It always needs moar catz. --Mixwell!^Talk 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Graham87 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Koji† 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose User:ST47 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per history of unreasonable behavior. Friday (talk) 03:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. rootology (C)(T) 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GJC 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose BJ^Talk 03:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prodego ^talk 04:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MER-C 04:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --B (talk) 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eusebeus (talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You tend to use double-speak with people when you know perfectly well what the other person means. It's distressing and not a quality that suits such a position. Mike H. Fierce! 04:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We need more of an even keel for the arbitration committee. --JayHenry (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a somewhat regretful opposition - his ideas are really good and I share many of his stances on Wikipedia. But his temperament is unsuitable for this position. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Do not forsee satisfactory performance by this candidate. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per tendency to be involved as an involved party in cases. While this may give some unique insight into working with ArbCom, it doesn't bode well for your qualifications. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
—sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Avi (talk) 07:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I respect your reasons for running, but I don't think that someone who has been involved in so many AC cases is necessarily the best candidate at this time. Maybe next year? //roux editor review08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I can't think of anyone less qualified to be an arbitrator. --Folantin (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really not a good idea yet - give it a year of impeccable conduct and we'll see how things are then. Brilliantine (talk) 08:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebecca (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per previous behavior, the risk of wikidrama is too high. – sgeureka ^t•c 10:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a great guy on IRC and on-Wiki, but I don't think you have the temperament. Sorry. — neuro^(talk) 10:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mailer Diablo 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Conti|✉ 13:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You are far too easily provoked, frequently ignore consensus when it doesn't suit you, and get extremely defensive and combative when others disagree with you. (example) These are not quality that an arbitrator should have. --Farix (Talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Far too prone to drama and confrontations. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 15:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What? Oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
GRBerry 16:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ╟─Treasury Tag►contribs─╢ 17:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Gavia immer (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns over history. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This user needs to learn civility first. Kaldari (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply not of the opinion that this user is trusted enough by the en:wiki community to justify our electing him onto a seat. I can substantiate that point if necessary, but I doubt that would be necessary. Oppose. AGK 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Synergy 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thinks nothing of exploiting process and wasting countless users' time for trivial personal gain. —David Levy 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Helpful One 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PeterSymonds (talk) 21:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Franamax (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitration is so not your thing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I'm tempted to support just to see the arbcom implode --Enric Naval (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. GlassCobra 00:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too entrenched in own drama. --harej 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexfusco⁵ 02:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
--Rividian (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
m acy 02:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hrmmm ... trying to choose a single reason out of many for this oppose for brevity's sake ... shakes Magic 8-Ball ... I'll go with the lunacy surrounding the account renaming, along with the edit warring over adjusting all of the old talk page signatures. --Cyde Weys 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose--Joopercoopers (talk) 10:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mike R (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Aude (talk) 15:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ^Khukri 16:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - White Cat has nowhere near the levelheadedness needed for this position, as evidenced again and again on multiple wikis. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Миша 13 22:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Highly disruptive, unfriendly, unable to be neutral. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 00:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No way. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Jonathunder (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marlith (Talk) 03:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kusma (talk) 09:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gentgeen (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Michael Snow (talk) 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Splash - tk 23:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wronkiew (talk) 08:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --CalendarWatcher (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Happy‑melon 18:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Sorry, but the whole drama around the account renaming and sig-modification disposes me unfavorably as to the candidate's suitability as an arbitrator. --MCB (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moral support, but factual oppose: A good guy, but not qualified for the position. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. What exactly is the openness value of making evidence public after the case is over and after someone has been sanctioned on the basis of evidence they have yet to see? Aside from my disagreement with the candidate's answer, it seems unique among those I've read so far in not actually making sense. Cynical (talk) 22:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - changed to Strong Oppose on 7th December 2008 as usertalk interactions leave me with little confidence in the candidate's temperament. Cynical (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Not just no, but hell no. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Terence (talk) 10:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Individual question 4 blew it for me. Leujohn ^(talk)
Oppose. Has demonstrated that more than one Wiki community on more than one occasion has not trusted the candidate. That is not a good basis for securing confidence in an ArbCom decision involving this candidate. SilkTork *^YES! 13:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --VS ^talk 01:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - drama-queen, jaw dropping WP:SPIDER issues. Strong takes on certain issues; together makes a very poor arbcom candidate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Per my details. MBisanz ^talk 04:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Shyam ^(T/C) 10:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Too tied up in own drama. — Manti core 13:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-- Jeandré, 2008-12-08t00:20z
Oppose Awadewit (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as unsuitable. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per SilkTork --YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 17:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tex (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Enigma ^message 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 07:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not the right person for the job -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've thought "why did you do that?" to poorly thought-out actions far too many times to support for ArbCom. Sorry, but no. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fred Talk 20:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 02:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly unsuited to the role. Rje (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are some candidates who should know enough not to stand for election. Too erratic. Xoloz (talk) 05:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Giants2008 (17-14) 04:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose yet I did read but no I can't support. Nil Einne (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose not for arbcom.. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:57, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not convinced that candidate understands Wikipedia policies. Switzpaw (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for all the obvious reasons. X MarX the Spot (talk) 12:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - good answers to questions, but judging from his previous background, he doesn't have the right character to be on ArbCom. Terraxos (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Joe 08:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— Sebastian 09:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You need to show the community that you can maintain an even temperament for an extended period of time before you'll ever be able to gain a position of trust. Grand master ka 22:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
jj137 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not suited to task, sorry. ++Lar: t/c 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]