Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Thebainer

G'day, my name's Stephen and I'm a law student from Melbourne, Australia. I've been an editor here since October 2004, and a sysop since December 2005. I also do a little OTRS, and I'm involved with many of the mailing lists.
I feel that I have a good mind for detail; I've presented evidence in a number of arbitrations (such as this one and that one) and it always seems to have been received well. I feel that I have a good grasp of policy, having rewritten a number of them (such as the three-revert rule or the blocking policy).
The project has changed a great deal in the more than three years that I have been participating in it; users have come and gone, the volume of work produced here has dramatically increased, and even many of the ways in which the community has run have evolved significantly. Yet there are many important things which have stayed the same: our fundamental goal to write a free encyclopaedia, our aim to build a strong and cohesive community to support that effort, and the principles that underlie those goals. Arbitration fulfils the essential function of championing that second goal: resolving disputes, defending against passion, reinforcing our basic policies. It's a role that requires eternal diligence, to borrow a phrase, a role to which I hope I can contribute.
Who knows where the project will be in another three years. I am confident that the principles at the heart of the project will continue to drive it, and that I will be doing what I can, in whatever capacity, to aid in that end. The things that motivated people to pick up their keyboard and edit back when I joined continue to motivate them to do so now, and while the community remains strong, they will continue to motivate people in the future.
After all, if we can survive the userbox wars then we can survive anything. -- bainer ( talk) 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. Support Fully qualified.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. This is a Secret account 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Daniel 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Docg 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. maclean 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. SQL Query me! 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Support, I've always admired your work and think you'd make a fairly decent arbitrator. -- Core desat 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. His closure of the Daniel Brandt DRV showed nuanced thinking, an ability to closely listen to others, respect for consensus, and calm words. Exactly what we need. Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14.  — master son T - C 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. I'm gobsmacked he hasn't got more support than he has - he deserves to be up there with Newyorkbrad. Rebecca 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. ArbCom needs lawyers. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. · AndonicO Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Absolutely. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Cryptic 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Support - Dureo 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Sensible, moderate, good at achieving compromise. DGG ( talk) 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. — xaosflux Talk 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:37,  December 3, 2007
  27. ~  priyanath  talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. -- El on ka 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Spebi 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Support — Jack Merridew 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Punctured Bicycle 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. He's a diplomat too! :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. John Vandenberg 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Longhair\ talk 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Would be a great addition to the arbitration committee. Sane, trustworthy user. Angela . 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. What Arbcom needs is more lawyers.....-- Comet styles 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. -- lucasbfr talk 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Don't see why not. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Support. Stephen would make an excellent arbiter. He has my full support. Sarah 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Splash - tk 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Support Level-headed judgment; seeker of compromise. Xoloz 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Support one of the best candidates IMO.  Grue  14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. -- Cactus.man ✍ 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Strong candidate who has exercised good judgement for as long as I can remember in deeply controversial cases. Would be an ideal and hard-working arbitrator if elected. Orderinchaos 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. KTC 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Seems reasonable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Support.-- Isotope23 talk 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Wizardman 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Baka man 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Rockpocke t 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. WjB scribe 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Support × Meegs 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. @pple complain 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Enuja (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. support Kingturtle 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Chaz Beckett 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. -- Kubigula ( talk) 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  72. Support Gnan garra 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Carolmooredc Liked defend vs passion; have to read it every week or so :-)
  74. Support -- Fram 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Automatic support for OTRS candidates. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Support. Good man, common sense in abundance, not one to get carried away. Guy ( Help!) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. - Zeibura ( Talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. Support -- Now that's a candidate with a really nice portfolio! — Sebastian 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  82. Support -- Mattinbgn\ talk 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support VanTucky talk 06:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. DarkFalls talk 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. I'm Mailer Diablo ( talk) and I approve this candidate! - 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. JPD ( talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Support --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support - Not perfect, but some good answers and has fairmindedness necessary in an arbitrator. FCYTravis ( talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. Support ant_ie ( talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Support. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. Kusma ( talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Tony Sidaway 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) In line with my wish to endorse levelheaded, no-nonsense candidates. reply
  95. Support Homestarmy ( talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Terence ( talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Support Branson03 ( talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. RMHED ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Wimstead ( talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Smart guy, generally levelheaded, I've had my disagreements with him in the past but have always found him to be reasonable and have fair rationales for his actions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. Support, we need more level-headed Arbitrators. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Support fully. I believed in his qualities for adminship, and I believe in them for arbitration. He is highly capable and has much more to give in the service of Wikipedia.-- cj | talk 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Support Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. Support — An gr If you've written a quality article... 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. -- Fang Aili talk 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Strong support -- A. B. (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support-- D-Boy ( talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Support -- Grahame ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Support semper fictilis 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Lawyers aren't that bad. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Physchim62 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Strong Support more than ample confidence in this user to make a valuable contribution to the Wiki community in this proposed capacity. Displays well-rounded logic and reason. Frank Pais ( talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. -- PTR ( talk) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. Geni 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Support. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Though I disagree with some individual answers, on the whole, I find I have confidence in your judgment and neutrality. Dekimasu よ! 08:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. Vagary ( talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. Support. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Support -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Taprobanus ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Support I am confident you will make a good committee member. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Support - calm, considered, good statement, good track record. Warofdreams talk 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. Bearian ( talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Support fully qualified and considerate editor Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Support - Experienced, and Oi, Oi, Oi. Sfacets 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. True strength for Wikipedia's future — xDanielx T/ C\ R 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. the wub "?!" 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. RxS ( talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. JJ Williams 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Catchpole ( talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. Support Very thoughtful and experienced wikipedian. Has my full confidence. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Everything I've seen of his involvement in Wikipedia has been a positive contribution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. Support Saudade7 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) You know what was a terrible movie? Crocodile Dundee. (I'm just punchy having read all these campaigns.) reply
  136. Support Noroton ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. Support. I like the statement and the answers to the questions that I saw. Also, the opposition is weak, and several candidates right below him in the support percentange are not somebody I'd like to see on the arbcom. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support Ling.Nut ( talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. JayHenry ( talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. Support would make an excellent arbiter. JERRY talk contribs 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Support on balance, I support - most Aussie lawyers are good guys, and this one is on the right track with good project experience. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support.-- nids (♂) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. Support NoSeptember 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  147. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  148. Iamunknown 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) My knowledge of Thebainer leads me to think that he would function fairly and thoughtfully as a member of ArbCom reply
  149. opiumjones 23 ( talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. petedavo ( talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Support, weighting many factors and reflecting on many facets, in balance support. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support Karl2620 ( talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support David Lauder ( talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Thought hard about this one, more than the others, but I don't think he'd do any harm. Acalamari 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Support. Excellent candidate. -- Bduke ( talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Support -- Peta ( talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  157. Support Carcharoth ( talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Okay. DS ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Tim Q. Wells 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. -- W.marsh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  4. Nufy8 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Gracenotes T § 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Not now. 哦， 是吗？( review O) 00:37, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  7. – Gurch ( talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. One thing wikipedia and arbcom in particular do not need is more lawyers.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Prolog 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Alex fus co5 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. B 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. After much thought, not this year. Will likely support next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Hús ö nd 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Crockspot 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. WAS 4.250 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Good candidate, but there are better ones in the race this year. --★ čabrilo★ 10:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Too many lawyers already. Neil  ☎ 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. -- Vassyana 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose Edivorce 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. My knowledge of and experiences with the candidate surely disposed me to support, but I find myself disagreeing substantially with several of his answers to the questions. Joe 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Davewild 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Ripberger 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. BobTheTomato 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. EconomistBR 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose with regret. Sound and thoughtful candidate but some of the current answers to questions are very unsettling. Open to reconsider and will keep an eye for unanswered questions. -- Irpen 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. Atropos 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Weak oppose, IMHO the balance between the active editors and process people is already shifted to much against the editors. I would support Thebainer for a bureaucrat if he stands Alex Bakharev 08:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Maybe I am wrong, let me think a little bit more Alex Bakharev 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose OTRS candidates, for reasons given here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. Viriditas 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. -- MPerel 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose as per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. -- DeLarge ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose - This editor just does not plain understand the problems facing editors trying to remove fringe POV-pushers. He is too accommodating of pseudoscientific cranks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose - Per this highly ill-mannered Wikipedia Review post during the Brandt deletion saga. - Merzbow ( talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Strong oppose - per ScienceApologist. The last thing the project needs is more hand-holding for the cranks. -- Action Jackson IV ( talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. dave souza, talk 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, M.K. ( talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. futurebird ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. R. Baley ( talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Nothing personal, but there are specific candidates (who I know and have my trust) that I would like to be on arbcom. I don't know you well, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. -- Aude ( talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose, didn't make my list of top candidates. Ante lan talk 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次( derumi) talk 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. The majority of answers are not clear to me and others I disagree with. daveh4h 09:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Chiefly, answers. Lots of "see my answer to". Yury Tarasievich ( talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose-- Russianname ( talk) 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. oppose, didn't make my list. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose Beit Or 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose The Bethling (Talk) 09:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. Alæxis ¿question? 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Oi!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose. Most likely unwarranted fears about long-term sustainability. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose I would say he's a bad candidate for many reasons, all which I'd be happy to explain. -- Eternalsleeper ( talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose. IronGargoyle ( talk) 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but I prefer Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose: As Zocky said. Geogre ( talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose Tewfik Talk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Nothing personal, but the committee would benefit from a more experienced candidate. 6SJ7 ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Thebainer&oldid=1147978987"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Thebainer

G'day, my name's Stephen and I'm a law student from Melbourne, Australia. I've been an editor here since October 2004, and a sysop since December 2005. I also do a little OTRS, and I'm involved with many of the mailing lists.
I feel that I have a good mind for detail; I've presented evidence in a number of arbitrations (such as this one and that one) and it always seems to have been received well. I feel that I have a good grasp of policy, having rewritten a number of them (such as the three-revert rule or the blocking policy).
The project has changed a great deal in the more than three years that I have been participating in it; users have come and gone, the volume of work produced here has dramatically increased, and even many of the ways in which the community has run have evolved significantly. Yet there are many important things which have stayed the same: our fundamental goal to write a free encyclopaedia, our aim to build a strong and cohesive community to support that effort, and the principles that underlie those goals. Arbitration fulfils the essential function of championing that second goal: resolving disputes, defending against passion, reinforcing our basic policies. It's a role that requires eternal diligence, to borrow a phrase, a role to which I hope I can contribute.
Who knows where the project will be in another three years. I am confident that the principles at the heart of the project will continue to drive it, and that I will be doing what I can, in whatever capacity, to aid in that end. The things that motivated people to pick up their keyboard and edit back when I joined continue to motivate them to do so now, and while the community remains strong, they will continue to motivate people in the future.
After all, if we can survive the userbox wars then we can survive anything. -- bainer ( talk) 15:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. Support Fully qualified.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. This is a Secret account 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. Daniel 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Docg 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. maclean 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. SQL Query me! 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Support, I've always admired your work and think you'd make a fairly decent arbitrator. -- Core desat 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. His closure of the Daniel Brandt DRV showed nuanced thinking, an ability to closely listen to others, respect for consensus, and calm words. Exactly what we need. Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14.  — master son T - C 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. I'm gobsmacked he hasn't got more support than he has - he deserves to be up there with Newyorkbrad. Rebecca 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. ArbCom needs lawyers. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. · AndonicO Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Absolutely. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Cryptic 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Support - Dureo 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Sensible, moderate, good at achieving compromise. DGG ( talk) 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. — xaosflux Talk 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:37,  December 3, 2007
  27. ~  priyanath  talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. -- El on ka 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Spebi 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Support — Jack Merridew 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Punctured Bicycle 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. He's a diplomat too! :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. John Vandenberg 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Longhair\ talk 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Would be a great addition to the arbitration committee. Sane, trustworthy user. Angela . 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. What Arbcom needs is more lawyers.....-- Comet styles 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. -- lucasbfr talk 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Don't see why not. Stifle ( talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Support. Stephen would make an excellent arbiter. He has my full support. Sarah 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Splash - tk 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Support Level-headed judgment; seeker of compromise. Xoloz 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Support one of the best candidates IMO.  Grue  14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. -- Cactus.man ✍ 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Strong candidate who has exercised good judgement for as long as I can remember in deeply controversial cases. Would be an ideal and hard-working arbitrator if elected. Orderinchaos 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. KTC 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Seems reasonable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Support.-- Isotope23 talk 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Wizardman 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Baka man 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Rockpocke t 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. WjB scribe 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Support × Meegs 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. @pple complain 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Enuja (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. support Kingturtle 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Chaz Beckett 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. -- Kubigula ( talk) 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  72. Support Gnan garra 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Carolmooredc Liked defend vs passion; have to read it every week or so :-)
  74. Support -- Fram 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Automatic support for OTRS candidates. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Support. Good man, common sense in abundance, not one to get carried away. Guy ( Help!) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. - Zeibura ( Talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. Support -- Now that's a candidate with a really nice portfolio! — Sebastian 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  82. Support -- Mattinbgn\ talk 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support VanTucky talk 06:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. DarkFalls talk 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. I'm Mailer Diablo ( talk) and I approve this candidate! - 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. JPD ( talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Support --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support - Not perfect, but some good answers and has fairmindedness necessary in an arbitrator. FCYTravis ( talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. Support ant_ie ( talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Support. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. Kusma ( talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Tony Sidaway 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) In line with my wish to endorse levelheaded, no-nonsense candidates. reply
  95. Support Homestarmy ( talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Terence ( talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Support Branson03 ( talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. RMHED ( talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Wimstead ( talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. Smart guy, generally levelheaded, I've had my disagreements with him in the past but have always found him to be reasonable and have fair rationales for his actions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. Support, we need more level-headed Arbitrators. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Support fully. I believed in his qualities for adminship, and I believe in them for arbitration. He is highly capable and has much more to give in the service of Wikipedia.-- cj | talk 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Support Bramlet Abercrombie ( talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. Support — An gr If you've written a quality article... 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. -- Fang Aili talk 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Strong support -- A. B. (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support-- D-Boy ( talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Support -- Grahame ( talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Support semper fictilis 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Lawyers aren't that bad. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Physchim62 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Strong Support more than ample confidence in this user to make a valuable contribution to the Wiki community in this proposed capacity. Displays well-rounded logic and reason. Frank Pais ( talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. -- PTR ( talk) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. Geni 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Support. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Though I disagree with some individual answers, on the whole, I find I have confidence in your judgment and neutrality. Dekimasu よ! 08:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. Vagary ( talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. Support. -- Legis ( talk - contribs) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Support -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Taprobanus ( talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Support I am confident you will make a good committee member. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Support - calm, considered, good statement, good track record. Warofdreams talk 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. Bearian ( talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Support fully qualified and considerate editor Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Support - Experienced, and Oi, Oi, Oi. Sfacets 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. True strength for Wikipedia's future — xDanielx T/ C\ R 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. the wub "?!" 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. RxS ( talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. JJ Williams 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Catchpole ( talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. Support Very thoughtful and experienced wikipedian. Has my full confidence. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Everything I've seen of his involvement in Wikipedia has been a positive contribution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. Support Saudade7 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) You know what was a terrible movie? Crocodile Dundee. (I'm just punchy having read all these campaigns.) reply
  136. Support Noroton ( talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. Support. I like the statement and the answers to the questions that I saw. Also, the opposition is weak, and several candidates right below him in the support percentange are not somebody I'd like to see on the arbcom. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support Ling.Nut ( talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. JayHenry ( talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. Support would make an excellent arbiter. JERRY talk contribs 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Support on balance, I support - most Aussie lawyers are good guys, and this one is on the right track with good project experience. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Support Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support.-- nids (♂) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. Support NoSeptember 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  147. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  148. Iamunknown 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) My knowledge of Thebainer leads me to think that he would function fairly and thoughtfully as a member of ArbCom reply
  149. opiumjones 23 ( talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. petedavo ( talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Support, weighting many factors and reflecting on many facets, in balance support. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support Karl2620 ( talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support David Lauder ( talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Thought hard about this one, more than the others, but I don't think he'd do any harm. Acalamari 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Support. Excellent candidate. -- Bduke ( talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Support -- Peta ( talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  157. Support Carcharoth ( talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Okay. DS ( talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Tim Q. Wells 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. -- W.marsh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  4. Nufy8 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Gracenotes T § 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Not now. 哦， 是吗？( review O) 00:37, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  7. – Gurch ( talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. One thing wikipedia and arbcom in particular do not need is more lawyers.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Prolog 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Alex fus co5 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. B 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. After much thought, not this year. Will likely support next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Hús ö nd 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Crockspot 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. WAS 4.250 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. Good candidate, but there are better ones in the race this year. --★ čabrilo★ 10:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Too many lawyers already. Neil  ☎ 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. -- Vassyana 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose Edivorce 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. My knowledge of and experiences with the candidate surely disposed me to support, but I find myself disagreeing substantially with several of his answers to the questions. Joe 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Davewild 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Ripberger 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. BobTheTomato 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. EconomistBR 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose with regret. Sound and thoughtful candidate but some of the current answers to questions are very unsettling. Open to reconsider and will keep an eye for unanswered questions. -- Irpen 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. Atropos 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Weak oppose, IMHO the balance between the active editors and process people is already shifted to much against the editors. I would support Thebainer for a bureaucrat if he stands Alex Bakharev 08:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Maybe I am wrong, let me think a little bit more Alex Bakharev 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose OTRS candidates, for reasons given here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. Viriditas 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. -- MPerel 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose as per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. -- DeLarge ( talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose - This editor just does not plain understand the problems facing editors trying to remove fringe POV-pushers. He is too accommodating of pseudoscientific cranks. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose - Per this highly ill-mannered Wikipedia Review post during the Brandt deletion saga. - Merzbow ( talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Strong oppose - per ScienceApologist. The last thing the project needs is more hand-holding for the cranks. -- Action Jackson IV ( talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. dave souza, talk 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose, M.K. ( talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. futurebird ( talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. R. Baley ( talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Nothing personal, but there are specific candidates (who I know and have my trust) that I would like to be on arbcom. I don't know you well, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. -- Aude ( talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose, didn't make my list of top candidates. Ante lan talk 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次( derumi) talk 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. The majority of answers are not clear to me and others I disagree with. daveh4h 09:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Chiefly, answers. Lots of "see my answer to". Yury Tarasievich ( talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose-- Russianname ( talk) 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. oppose, didn't make my list. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose Beit Or 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose The Bethling (Talk) 09:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. Alæxis ¿question? 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose. -- Steve, Sm8900 ( talk) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Oi!-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose. Most likely unwarranted fears about long-term sustainability. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose I would say he's a bad candidate for many reasons, all which I'd be happy to explain. -- Eternalsleeper ( talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose. IronGargoyle ( talk) 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but I prefer Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose: As Zocky said. Geogre ( talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Oppose Tewfik Talk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 ( talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Nothing personal, but the committee would benefit from a more experienced candidate. 6SJ7 ( talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Thebainer&oldid=1147978987"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE