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

2007 Election status

Rebecca

I realise that it's a late stage in the nominations, but I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. So, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Rebecca. I've been around Wikipedia since 2003, and I've been involved in most areas of the project, including serving a previous stint on the arbitration committee in 2005. I've changed quite a bit over these last three years - I'm older, wiser, albeit surlier, and though I once swore that I'd never go near the place again after I stepped down, I've been convinced to nominate once more.

I'm running again because I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. I believe the committee should be here to facilitate the work of writing an encyclopedia, and at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help that goal. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with the community, especially with those of us who primarily work on writing articles. My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus), as I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. Most of all, though, I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job. I ran on a similar platform three years ago, and for a time, we managed to get the committee running smoothly and effectively. Three years later, I'd like the chance to help do that again - although hopefully with a more lasting effect this time around.

As a final point, I also want to note that I've recently been appointed as one of the English Wikipedia's ombudspersons to handle complaints over abuses of the privacy policy and CheckUser. I don't think this poses a conflict of interest if I were to be elected, as UninvitedCompany previously held both positions simultaneously. However, if necessary, I would be prepared to resign from that position in order to avoid any perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Later update: I've noticed a number of opposes based on claims of a conflict of interest with my position as a checkuser ombudsperson. Can I just reinforce what I said in my original candidate statement - that I am quite prepared to resign from the former if elected to the arbitration committee? I'm also a bit bemused as to why a couple of people have opposed based on supposedly not answering all the questions, because I've answered every single question put to me so far. Rebecca 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Later update #2: I've noticed a number of people opposing based on the fact that I chose to vote in the election. I've voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and as I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I am not, I don't feel that there is any reason not to this year. I've currently supported all but one of the candidates who are currently in contention for positions on the committee - and I initially supported him too. I'm just concerned that some people seem to be assuming that because I voted I did so as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca ( talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. Support Tim Q. Wells 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. One of the most qualified. This is a Secret account 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Nishkid64 ( talk) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Full Support-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. -- W.marsh 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. – Gurch ( talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Strong Support two years ago Rebecca made a tough decision to help me despite universal opposition from powerful editors and opposition from her own friends. Someone like this, who can make tough unpopular decisions is what the arbcom needs. Travb ( talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. IronDuke 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. — Animum § 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. -- Step hen 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Support, sorely needed. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  20. Support--- Sandahl 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. -- Duk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Swtitch to oppose 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Daniel 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Captain panda 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Support -- Avi 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. - MBK 004 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. sh ¤ y 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. RxS 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. SQL Query me! 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Core desat 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. - Royalguard11( T· R!) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Manning 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. —  TKD:: Talk 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33.  — master son T - C 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. Risker 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) On reading your user page, I see that you do not have internet at home; not certain how you could be responsive and effective without regular internet access. I will not oppose, however. Risker ( talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. DGG ( talk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support- Dureo 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Thatcher131 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Told you so. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Unquestionably qualified. -- ArglebargleIV 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. krimpet ⟲ 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. -- InkSplotch 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Hús ö nd 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Johnbod 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. See no reason not to support. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Support - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. support Gnan garra 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. ¿Amar៛ Talk to me/ My edits 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. — Mira 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. utcursch | talk 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. I'm sold.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Banyan Tree 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Support with pleasure. -- Irpen 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Strong Support — Jack Merridew 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Jd2718 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to 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) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Support. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Please try to be more civil in your language. Support, in spite of incivility. WAS 4.250 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Crockspot 08:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Davewild 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. ~  priyanath  talk 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. AniMate 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Absolutely. henrik• talk 09:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. John Vandenberg 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Unqualified support for anyone who supports editors. edward (buckner) 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    User blocked indef Secret account 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Vote restored per AN/I. The user was in good standing when he voted and his subsequent block was unrelated to this vote. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Easy! --★ čabrilo★ 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Support An obvious choice. Geogre 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Experienced arbitrator and very trustworthy. Angela . 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Great editor and very experienced...-- Comet styles 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. -- Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Worthy goals, and the experience to hopefully succeed in them -- Stormie 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Conditional on resigning as CU ombudsman to avoid COI. Stifle ( talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. if you resign from the ombudsman commission. My opinion is that ombudsmen (?) should stay as far as possible from the people having the CU tools. -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Support - Modernist 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. Yes, please. I was so pleased to log on today and discover that Bec had decided to nominate; an excellent candidate. Sarah 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support, though I would appreciate it if you would note in your candidate statement your previous username (unless you do not for privacy reasons). Splash - tk 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Certainly, excellent candidate. PeaceNT 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Addhoc 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Support per Angela. ElinorD (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support JoshuaZ 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. KnightLago 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Jeffpw 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Support is not conditional on resigning ombudship, but I think you should to avoid any appearance of COI. -- barneca 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. Enthusiastic support Very solid candidate with past experience in this role and on Wikipedia more generally. Good answers and goals too. Orderinchaos 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Yes, absolutely. We need Rebecca's perspective. Guy ( Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. With no condition on ombudsman attached. KTC 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Mattisse 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) -- Strike vote. Ral315 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Absolutely. — Rudget contributions 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. -- MONGO 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. support -- Rocksanddirt 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Like the focus on content. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Carolmooredc sounds good
  105. Support. I've had my share of conflicts with Rebecca in the past, but I can't deny her hard work or her dedication to the project. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Kbdank71 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support - yes, let's gain sight of our goal of writing an encyclopaedia again! -- Schneelocke 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Cool, level headed, fair. Lester 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. 6SJ7 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Changing from oppose to support, conditional on Rebecca giving up Ombudsman if elected. Otherwise, fine candidate. Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Changed from oppose per Lawrence Cohen. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 23:12,  December 3, 2007
  114. Support. Can do more good for the community on ArbCom than OmbudsCom. — CComMack ( t– c) 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. — Dan | talk 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Support --David Shankbone 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. Hesperian 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. WjB scribe 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Support - Satu Suro 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Support - users are still free to ask her questions. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. EconomistBR 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. VMS Mosaic 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    -- arkalochori |talk| 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Blocked indef Secret account 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Support Greg Jones II 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Keegan talk 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    @pple complain 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. COGDEN 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. I like Australians. ;) <<-armon->> 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. Support - No interest in making arbitrary deadlines when real ones already exist. --健次( derumi) talk 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. Support. Jonathunder 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Excellent editor, and has a strong knowledge of arbitration processes. -- DarkFalls talk 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Good candidate Alex Bakharev 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. Support. She will bring integrity back to the ArbCom. - Mark 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. Support -- Cirt 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  136. Support -- Euryalus 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support -- Alecmconroy 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Bobet 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. Support, per Sarah, looks like an excellent candidate. Dreadstar † 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Support per GRBerry. I trust Rebecca to defend the better interests of the encyclopedia, not those of bureaucracy, rules-lawyering, and (I must say) a rather perverse approach to "quality control". — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. I disagree strongly with Rebecca on a number of issues, but I think her perspective would be invaluable on the arbcom, and she perfectly fulfills my desire to have a few more crazy old-timers there. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Support Noor Aalam 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support -- SECisek 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. Jerry 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    The above signature looks like my user name, but it is a different unrelated user ( User:Jerrch). JERRY talk contribs 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  147. Support - Fabulous user. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  148. Support Voting against those who will not make good Arbitrators shows responsibility; opposition to MOScruft, as questioned here, show common sense. Note her comment on the talk page that this is not tactical voting, not that there's anything wrong with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  149. Support good answers to candidate questions; clearly knows what she's letting herself in for. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. Hardyplants ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Support - was already part of the committee and clearly knows what she's doing. No major points to oppose on. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support-- Aldux ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support Per Phil Sandifer. Rebecca seems like she's willing to put her nose to the arbcom grindstone. -- Bfigura ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Support.-- danntm T C 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Switching to support per this. -- MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  157. Support Mbisanz ( talk) 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Suppport. She has said she will take Arb over checkuser. Ante lan talk 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  159. W/mint -Talk- 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  160. JRDarby ( talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. Eluchil404 ( talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Reconsidering based or further reflection. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  161. Support. Hal peridol ( talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  162. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  163. Support. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  164. Full support Alæxis ¿question? 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  165. I truly didn't believe that I'd support Rebecca, but it happens that she is one of the better candidates whom we now have, and so I support, although weakly. Joe 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  166. Support Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  167. Support Andrwsc ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  168. For two reasons: my note on her talk page, and because I agree with SlimVirgin and MONGO. Acalamari 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  169. One of the top candidates. Neutrality talk 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  170. Support Eusebeus ( talk) 05:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  171. Support seems practical, would be a fresh quality on arbcom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Peter morrell 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  173. Kusma ( talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  174. Support Grahame ( talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Strategic Support - I'm not at all sure about Rebecca as an arbitrator, but this is a strategic support to prevent some of the other candidates getting in. (Note: I may change my mind about this, as it doesn't necessarily seem a great reason to support.) Walton One 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    On second thoughts, I don't think this is a sufficient reason to support. Given Rebecca's controversial history and the fact that I know little about her, I won't vote on this one for the time being. Walton One 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  175. Support Chuq (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  176. Support We need arbitrators who admit up front that there really isn't any difference between NPOV and SPOV. Thanks, Rebecca. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  177. Support I liked your election statement by User:Pruthvi.vallabh [1]
  178. Gamaliel ( Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  179. Strong support - Mature and pragmatic. BusterD ( talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  180. Support on principle. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  181. Support - Kleinzach ( talk) 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  182. Support. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  183. Support I have greater faith in few other editors.-- cj | talk 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  184. Support Sound prior arbcom judgments, good answers to election queries. - Kain Nihil ( talk) 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  185. Support — An gr If you've written a quality article... 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  186. Support — Springnuts ( talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  187. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  188. Mrabbits ( talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  189. Support-- D-Boy ( talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  190. Wolfman ( talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  191. -- Robth Talk 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  192. Support -- Graham 87 06:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  193. ~ UBeR ( talk) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  194. Support -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  195. Support youngamerican ( wtf?) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  196. RMHED ( talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  197. support William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  198. Support Showers ( talk) 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  199. Support. Ashdog137 ( talk) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  200. Support ugen64 ( talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  201. Support-- Russianname ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  202. Support User:RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  203. Support A good candidate that has taken criticisms and questions well, concerns raised do not concern me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  204. Support - good track record, has responded to objections in a calm and informative manner. Warofdreams talk 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  205. Strong Support eminently qualified to be an arbitrator; better still: pleasant and fair. Luqman Skye ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  206. Support - well qualified, demographics of Arbcom can do with a bit of new blood, and besides, she likes Canadians :) Sfacets 12:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  207. Support Agne Cheese/ Wine 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  208. Support -- Trödel 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  209. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  210. Support Sue Wallace ( talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  211. Tony Sidaway 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) On careful thought, I now think Rebecca's experience should be put to work in arbitration. reply
  212. Has been a fine arbitrator in the past. Support. MookieZ ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  213. Support Saudade7 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Yay! A Woman! (Where are all the women arbitrators on Wikipedia?) reply
  214. Support. Seems like a fair and reasonable candidate. Good luck. wbfergus Talk 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  215. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  216. Merovingian ( T, C, E) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  217. Support ArbCom is a better use of this candidate's resources than OmbudsCom. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  218. I (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  219. Support. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  220. Support -- Feer 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  221. Support Seems like such a good candidate that I am opposing some other fine candidates. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  222. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  223. Support Esrever ( klaT) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  224. Support, just as Raul, this candidate definitely has some baggage. But I am in particularly impressed by her answers to Georges questions, and believe, that should Raul be lected, Ambi/Rebekka would be a valuable countervailing influence on the arbitration committees composition. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  225. Absolute support szyslak 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  226. Support Tewfik Talk 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  227. Support Philcha ( talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  228. Support. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  229. Support -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  230. Support -- Peta ( talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  231. Support -- Raymond Arritt ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  232. Support Carcharoth ( talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  233. ➪ HiDrNick! 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Docg 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Fred Bauder 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Prolog 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Alex fus co5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Apologetically. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. BobTheTomato 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Unapologetically. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    (change to support) I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:34,  December 3, 2007
    I would have supported, but you're a checkuser ombudsman and this may lead to a conflict of interest. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) vote withdrawn. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. A good contributor, but makes a lot of comments in bad faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. No. Failure to disclose previous account ( User:Ambi) and last-minute registration are problematic, as is general attitude. Neil  ☎ 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    It's not a previous account. The account was renamed through the proper channels, so it's the same account. It's all in the logs and was done on the up and up, thus there's no non-disclosure here. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Chaz Beckett 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose In my experience, candidate lacks civility far too often. Xoloz 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Seems to be a rebranding of User:Ambi, so definitely oppose.  Grue  14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Nothing personal but no per above concerns. EconomicsGuy 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose Edivorce 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. You monitor arbcom, being a member of it too would make it hard to be neutral. Justforasecond 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose Ripberger 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. -- Cactus.man ✍ 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose Not enough time for candidacy questions, not enough time for Arbcom. Mindraker 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Bramlet Abercrombie 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Marvin Diode 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose due to late candidacy. Corvus cornix talk 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. oppose - was originally just a comment ("I think it is bad practice to run for ArbCom *and* to vote in opposition against one's opponents") but now I've seen that Rebecca has voted in opposition against many opponents. IMHO, that's a major etiquette faux pas. Kingturtle 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Atropos 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Of course. Changed from support. Your characterization of fellow hard-working candidate FayssalF as "inexperienced" seems highly unusual, Ambi. Shem (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. No. Mailer Diablo 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose. Voting against her rivals and entering the election as late as possible to avoid questioning tells you everything you need to know. Dan100 ( Talk) 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Guettarda 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Temperament. -- Y  not? 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Strong oppose Came the closest to mass wheel warring without sanction that I've seen when she undeleted several shopping mall articles without researching the deletions or discussing with any of the deleting admins. See the Westfield Warrawong discussion. GRBerry 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Voting against nearly all one's opponents doesn't sit right with me. -- MPerel 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I've reconsidered per this. -- MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Does not appear to work well with others, as suggested by both civility problems and voting against most other candidates. >Radiant< 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Going and opposing most of the other candidates is not what I want to see in any candidate. I do, however, believe that Rebecca is an excellent editor. Acalamari 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Withdrawn in accordance with discussion. Acalamari 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Glen 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Strong oppose In general, I don't care about civility, but someone on the Arbitration Committee ought to be above the fray. And voting against rivals shows a lack of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose Gizza Discuss © 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose Wheel-warring in User:Giovanni33's block log. Lack of maturity per above. - Merzbow ( talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. -- RG 2 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose per behavior outlined above. Viriditas 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Filll ( talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Viridae Talk 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. I think voting against other people in the election was an error of judgment. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose Too politically correct, therefore incapable of neutrality. Alex Middleton ( talk) 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. User:Krator ( t c) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. SashaNein ( talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Too uncivil, and has a habit of wheel-warring. Nothing personal, I like Rebecca, but I just can't support given those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose. Fresh face required. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose Convinced by some of the arguments above.-- Bedivere ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose per GRBerry. -- Fang Aili talk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose Huldra ( talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose Samsara ( talk •  contribs) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Weak oppose I generally respect Rebecca as an admin, but I feel that her willingness to wheel war over a copyright tag casts serious doubt on her impartiality with respect to issues concerning Australian editors. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Terence ( talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose No difference between SPOV and NPOV would lead to some very problematic, well, problems :/. Homestarmy ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Wizardman 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. semper fictilis 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Catchpole ( talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose; civility, wheel-warring, voting against opponents. -- John ( talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose -- Borgarde talk 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose In brief encounters I had, I saw him/her jumping at conclusions without listening all sides first. `' Míkka >t 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose - "albeit surlier" and especially if one is on the wrong side of the argument. David D. (Talk) 07:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. (On a minor note, it also doesn't speak for a calm and open mind that Rebecca semi-protected her user talk page.) — Sebastian 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Brusegadi ( talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. dave souza, talk 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Agree with #60. Grand master ka 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Changing to oppose. The wheelwarring in Giovanni33's block log is troubling. - Crockspot ( talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose - A former arbitrator who burned out on it is hardly the kind of person we need. -- Hyperbole ( talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose I re-read the answers you provided, and I appreciate your honesty. However I'm not sure you won't avoid burnout this time around. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. 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 or really at all, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. -- Aude ( talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose I think most observers would agree that there are simply no reasons here for a second chance; there is also no reason to believe she won't get burned out and quit a second time. Nothing personal, but we need to strive for the highest standards. Frank Pais ( talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Frank Pais does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Strong oppose - per my question at her questions for candidate page. Wheel warring was unquestionable in Giovanni33 incident, enough grounds for having sysop removal. I am worried this candidate will not tackle wheel warring enough (I believe the current Arbcom has been partisan or negligent to do so). I may consider downgrading to a simple oppose based on response. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Oppose. I remember her when she was Ambi, and whatever her other merits, I don't remember thinking she made/would-make a good Arbcom member. -- Gwern (contribs) 06:06 9 December 2007 (GMT)
  93. Oppose No =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. daveh4h 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. effeiets anders 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) - I don't think it is good if someone is recently appointed in the OmbudsCommittee, that she shortly resigns to join another one... reply
  96. After reading and verifying some of the comments left above. Cla68 ( talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose NOt bad, but I want others. -- \/\/slack ( talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Voting against other opponents is my main concern, but some others touched upon above concern me as well. Ral315 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Oppose having gone through and rethought this, I must switch to oppose. Dureo ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Strong oppose—A strong tendency to be petulant, argumentative, and to engage in petty behaviour does not augur well for a positive contribution to ArbCom. Indeed, her history of dispute-mongering suggests that she will bring to bear existing grudges and obsessions. Tony (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. A tough choice, but concerns outweigh strong points. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. As editor, positive. As admin, awful. As arbitrator, unthinkable. Grace Note ( talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose Per negative feedback from others and seeing this user repeatedly swear on IRC. Arbitrators have to deal with many problematic users and must be able to stay cool when handling disputes; her incivility suggests that she will not be able to do so. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. the wub "?!" 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Mike R ( talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Far too hotheaded--I have seen too much bad faith from this user. Philwelch ( talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Strong Oppose. Sorry Ambi, but due to some of your actions (and inactions) as an admin and arb, I must oppose you. But judging from your previous, brief stint on the AC, you will only be unhappy once more in that unhappy place.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose: I'm not as active as I used to be on Wikipedia -- from user page, among other concerns that I will not list here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Oppose on the grounds that as she can't see that its (diplomatically) wrong to oppose other candidates, how will she be a cool head on ArbCom? Other candidates who have chosen to vote have voted Support only Rgds, - Trident13 ( talk) 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose -- @pple complain 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Picaroon (t) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Iamunknown 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. petedavo ( talk) 04:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. Strong oppose. Civility issues, cliquishness, unrepentant abuse of admin tools, repeated examples of making strong accusations without proof, and tendency to edit-war about even minor issues. This is absolutely not someone whose judgment I would trust on ArbCom. -- El on ka 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Opppose (weakly) in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Oppose. Moved from support. 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) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose. I lack confidence in objectivity. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Opppose. Prefer Raul. Mill cleaner ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Opppose. -- Padraig ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Weak Oppose Unfortunatly, since you said that you are not as active on Wiki anymore forces me to choose to oppose you. You're a great editor, but I feel that you aren't ready yet. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo ^^^ 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Rebecca&oldid=1147978976"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Rebecca

I realise that it's a late stage in the nominations, but I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. So, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Rebecca. I've been around Wikipedia since 2003, and I've been involved in most areas of the project, including serving a previous stint on the arbitration committee in 2005. I've changed quite a bit over these last three years - I'm older, wiser, albeit surlier, and though I once swore that I'd never go near the place again after I stepped down, I've been convinced to nominate once more.

I'm running again because I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. I believe the committee should be here to facilitate the work of writing an encyclopedia, and at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help that goal. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with the community, especially with those of us who primarily work on writing articles. My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus), as I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. Most of all, though, I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job. I ran on a similar platform three years ago, and for a time, we managed to get the committee running smoothly and effectively. Three years later, I'd like the chance to help do that again - although hopefully with a more lasting effect this time around.

As a final point, I also want to note that I've recently been appointed as one of the English Wikipedia's ombudspersons to handle complaints over abuses of the privacy policy and CheckUser. I don't think this poses a conflict of interest if I were to be elected, as UninvitedCompany previously held both positions simultaneously. However, if necessary, I would be prepared to resign from that position in order to avoid any perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Later update: I've noticed a number of opposes based on claims of a conflict of interest with my position as a checkuser ombudsperson. Can I just reinforce what I said in my original candidate statement - that I am quite prepared to resign from the former if elected to the arbitration committee? I'm also a bit bemused as to why a couple of people have opposed based on supposedly not answering all the questions, because I've answered every single question put to me so far. Rebecca 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Later update #2: I've noticed a number of people opposing based on the fact that I chose to vote in the election. I've voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and as I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I am not, I don't feel that there is any reason not to this year. I've currently supported all but one of the candidates who are currently in contention for positions on the committee - and I initially supported him too. I'm just concerned that some people seem to be assuming that because I voted I did so as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca ( talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Support

  1. Support Tim Q. Wells 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  3. One of the most qualified. This is a Secret account 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. Nishkid64 ( talk) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5. Full Support-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. -- W.marsh 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. – Gurch ( talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. Strong Support two years ago Rebecca made a tough decision to help me despite universal opposition from powerful editors and opposition from her own friends. Someone like this, who can make tough unpopular decisions is what the arbcom needs. Travb ( talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. IronDuke 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. — Animum § 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. -- Step hen 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Support, sorely needed. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  20. Support--- Sandahl 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. -- Duk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Swtitch to oppose 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Daniel 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. Captain panda 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Support -- Avi 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. - MBK 004 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. sh ¤ y 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. RxS 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. SQL Query me! 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Core desat 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. - Royalguard11( T· R!) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. -- Manning 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. —  TKD:: Talk 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33.  — master son T - C 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. Risker 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) On reading your user page, I see that you do not have internet at home; not certain how you could be responsive and effective without regular internet access. I will not oppose, however. Risker ( talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. DGG ( talk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support- Dureo 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Thatcher131 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Told you so. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Unquestionably qualified. -- ArglebargleIV 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. krimpet ⟲ 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. -- InkSplotch 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Hús ö nd 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Johnbod 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. See no reason not to support. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Support - Hit bull, win steak (Moo!) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. support Gnan garra 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. ¿Amar៛ Talk to me/ My edits 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. — Mira 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. utcursch | talk 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. I'm sold.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Banyan Tree 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Support with pleasure. -- Irpen 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Strong Support — Jack Merridew 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support Jd2718 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to 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) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Support. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Please try to be more civil in your language. Support, in spite of incivility. WAS 4.250 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Crockspot 08:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Davewild 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. ~  priyanath  talk 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. AniMate 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Absolutely. henrik• talk 09:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. John Vandenberg 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Unqualified support for anyone who supports editors. edward (buckner) 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    User blocked indef Secret account 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Vote restored per AN/I. The user was in good standing when he voted and his subsequent block was unrelated to this vote. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Easy! --★ čabrilo★ 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Support An obvious choice. Geogre 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Experienced arbitrator and very trustworthy. Angela . 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Great editor and very experienced...-- Comet styles 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. -- Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Worthy goals, and the experience to hopefully succeed in them -- Stormie 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Conditional on resigning as CU ombudsman to avoid COI. Stifle ( talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. if you resign from the ombudsman commission. My opinion is that ombudsmen (?) should stay as far as possible from the people having the CU tools. -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Support - Modernist 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. Yes, please. I was so pleased to log on today and discover that Bec had decided to nominate; an excellent candidate. Sarah 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Support, though I would appreciate it if you would note in your candidate statement your previous username (unless you do not for privacy reasons). Splash - tk 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Certainly, excellent candidate. PeaceNT 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Addhoc 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. Support per Angela. ElinorD (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Support JoshuaZ 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. KnightLago 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Jeffpw 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Support is not conditional on resigning ombudship, but I think you should to avoid any appearance of COI. -- barneca 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  93. Enthusiastic support Very solid candidate with past experience in this role and on Wikipedia more generally. Good answers and goals too. Orderinchaos 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. Yes, absolutely. We need Rebecca's perspective. Guy ( Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. With no condition on ombudsman attached. KTC 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  96. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Mattisse 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) -- Strike vote. Ral315 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Absolutely. — Rudget contributions 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. -- MONGO 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. support -- Rocksanddirt 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Like the focus on content. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Carolmooredc sounds good
  105. Support. I've had my share of conflicts with Rebecca in the past, but I can't deny her hard work or her dedication to the project. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Kbdank71 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Support - yes, let's gain sight of our goal of writing an encyclopaedia again! -- Schneelocke 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Cool, level headed, fair. Lester 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. 6SJ7 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Changing from oppose to support, conditional on Rebecca giving up Ombudsman if elected. Otherwise, fine candidate. Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Changed from oppose per Lawrence Cohen. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 23:12,  December 3, 2007
  114. Support. Can do more good for the community on ArbCom than OmbudsCom. — CComMack ( t– c) 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. — Dan | talk 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Support --David Shankbone 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. Hesperian 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. WjB scribe 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Support - Satu Suro 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Support - users are still free to ask her questions. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. EconomistBR 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. VMS Mosaic 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    -- arkalochori |talk| 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Blocked indef Secret account 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Support Greg Jones II 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Keegan talk 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    @pple complain 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  126. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse) 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  127. COGDEN 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  128. I like Australians. ;) <<-armon->> 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  129. Support - No interest in making arbitrary deadlines when real ones already exist. --健次( derumi) talk 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  130. Support. Jonathunder 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  131. Excellent editor, and has a strong knowledge of arbitration processes. -- DarkFalls talk 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  132. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Good candidate Alex Bakharev 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  134. Support. She will bring integrity back to the ArbCom. - Mark 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  135. Support -- Cirt 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  136. Support -- Euryalus 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  137. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  138. Support -- Alecmconroy 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  139. Bobet 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  140. Support, per Sarah, looks like an excellent candidate. Dreadstar † 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  141. Support per GRBerry. I trust Rebecca to defend the better interests of the encyclopedia, not those of bureaucracy, rules-lawyering, and (I must say) a rather perverse approach to "quality control". — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  142. I disagree strongly with Rebecca on a number of issues, but I think her perspective would be invaluable on the arbcom, and she perfectly fulfills my desire to have a few more crazy old-timers there. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  143. Support Noor Aalam 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  144. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  145. Support -- SECisek 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  146. Jerry 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    The above signature looks like my user name, but it is a different unrelated user ( User:Jerrch). JERRY talk contribs 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  147. Support - Fabulous user. Jaakobou Chalk Talk 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  148. Support Voting against those who will not make good Arbitrators shows responsibility; opposition to MOScruft, as questioned here, show common sense. Note her comment on the talk page that this is not tactical voting, not that there's anything wrong with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  149. Support good answers to candidate questions; clearly knows what she's letting herself in for. -- AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  150. Hardyplants ( talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  151. Support - was already part of the committee and clearly knows what she's doing. No major points to oppose on. -- Ynhockey ( Talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  152. Support-- Aldux ( talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  153. Support Per Phil Sandifer. Rebecca seems like she's willing to put her nose to the arbcom grindstone. -- Bfigura ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  154. Support.-- danntm T C 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  155. Switching to support per this. -- MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  156. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
  157. Support Mbisanz ( talk) 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  158. Suppport. She has said she will take Arb over checkuser. Ante lan talk 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  159. W/mint -Talk- 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  160. JRDarby ( talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Support. Eluchil404 ( talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Reconsidering based or further reflection. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  161. Support. Hal peridol ( talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  162. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  163. Support. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  164. Full support Alæxis ¿question? 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  165. I truly didn't believe that I'd support Rebecca, but it happens that she is one of the better candidates whom we now have, and so I support, although weakly. Joe 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  166. Support Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  167. Support Andrwsc ( talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  168. For two reasons: my note on her talk page, and because I agree with SlimVirgin and MONGO. Acalamari 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  169. One of the top candidates. Neutrality talk 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  170. Support Eusebeus ( talk) 05:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  171. Support seems practical, would be a fresh quality on arbcom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  172. Support Peter morrell 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  173. Kusma ( talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  174. Support Grahame ( talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Strategic Support - I'm not at all sure about Rebecca as an arbitrator, but this is a strategic support to prevent some of the other candidates getting in. (Note: I may change my mind about this, as it doesn't necessarily seem a great reason to support.) Walton One 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    On second thoughts, I don't think this is a sufficient reason to support. Given Rebecca's controversial history and the fact that I know little about her, I won't vote on this one for the time being. Walton One 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  175. Support Chuq (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  176. Support We need arbitrators who admit up front that there really isn't any difference between NPOV and SPOV. Thanks, Rebecca. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  177. Support I liked your election statement by User:Pruthvi.vallabh [1]
  178. Gamaliel ( Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  179. Strong support - Mature and pragmatic. BusterD ( talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  180. Support on principle. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  181. Support - Kleinzach ( talk) 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  182. Support. Titoxd( ?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  183. Support I have greater faith in few other editors.-- cj | talk 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  184. Support Sound prior arbcom judgments, good answers to election queries. - Kain Nihil ( talk) 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  185. Support — An gr If you've written a quality article... 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  186. Support — Springnuts ( talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  187. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  188. Mrabbits ( talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  189. Support-- D-Boy ( talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  190. Wolfman ( talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  191. -- Robth Talk 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  192. Support -- Graham 87 06:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  193. ~ UBeR ( talk) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  194. Support -- Mattinbgn\ talk 04:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  195. Support youngamerican ( wtf?) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  196. RMHED ( talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  197. support William M. Connolley ( talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  198. Support Showers ( talk) 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  199. Support. Ashdog137 ( talk) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  200. Support ugen64 ( talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  201. Support-- Russianname ( talk) 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  202. Support User:RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  203. Support A good candidate that has taken criticisms and questions well, concerns raised do not concern me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  204. Support - good track record, has responded to objections in a calm and informative manner. Warofdreams talk 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  205. Strong Support eminently qualified to be an arbitrator; better still: pleasant and fair. Luqman Skye ( talk) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  206. Support - well qualified, demographics of Arbcom can do with a bit of new blood, and besides, she likes Canadians :) Sfacets 12:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  207. Support Agne Cheese/ Wine 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  208. Support -- Trödel 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  209. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  210. Support Sue Wallace ( talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  211. Tony Sidaway 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) On careful thought, I now think Rebecca's experience should be put to work in arbitration. reply
  212. Has been a fine arbitrator in the past. Support. MookieZ ( talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  213. Support Saudade7 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Yay! A Woman! (Where are all the women arbitrators on Wikipedia?) reply
  214. Support. Seems like a fair and reasonable candidate. Good luck. wbfergus Talk 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  215. Bryan Derksen ( talk) 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  216. Merovingian ( T, C, E) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  217. Support ArbCom is a better use of this candidate's resources than OmbudsCom. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  218. I (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  219. Support. Sam Blacketer ( talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  220. Support -- Feer 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  221. Support Seems like such a good candidate that I am opposing some other fine candidates. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  222. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  223. Support Esrever ( klaT) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  224. Support, just as Raul, this candidate definitely has some baggage. But I am in particularly impressed by her answers to Georges questions, and believe, that should Raul be lected, Ambi/Rebekka would be a valuable countervailing influence on the arbitration committees composition. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  225. Absolute support szyslak 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  226. Support Tewfik Talk 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  227. Support Philcha ( talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  228. Support. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  229. Support -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  230. Support -- Peta ( talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  231. Support -- Raymond Arritt ( talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  232. Support Carcharoth ( talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  233. ➪ HiDrNick! 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  4. -- Docg 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  5.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  6. Fred Bauder 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  7. Prolog 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  8. Alex fus co5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Apologetically. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  9. BobTheTomato 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  10. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  11. Unapologetically. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  12. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    (change to support) I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:34,  December 3, 2007
    I would have supported, but you're a checkuser ombudsman and this may lead to a conflict of interest. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) vote withdrawn. MaxSem( Han shot first!) 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  13. A good contributor, but makes a lot of comments in bad faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  14. No. Failure to disclose previous account ( User:Ambi) and last-minute registration are problematic, as is general attitude. Neil  ☎ 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    It's not a previous account. The account was renamed through the proper channels, so it's the same account. It's all in the logs and was done on the up and up, thus there's no non-disclosure here. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  15. Chaz Beckett 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  16. ⇒ SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose In my experience, candidate lacks civility far too often. Xoloz 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  18. Seems to be a rebranding of User:Ambi, so definitely oppose.  Grue  14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  19. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  20. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  21. Nothing personal but no per above concerns. EconomicsGuy 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose Edivorce 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  23. You monitor arbcom, being a member of it too would make it hard to be neutral. Justforasecond 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose Ripberger 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  25. -- Cactus.man ✍ 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose Not enough time for candidacy questions, not enough time for Arbcom. Mindraker 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose Bramlet Abercrombie 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  28. Marvin Diode 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  29. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose due to late candidacy. Corvus cornix talk 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  31. oppose - was originally just a comment ("I think it is bad practice to run for ArbCom *and* to vote in opposition against one's opponents") but now I've seen that Rebecca has voted in opposition against many opponents. IMHO, that's a major etiquette faux pas. Kingturtle 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  32. Atropos 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  33. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  34. Of course. Changed from support. Your characterization of fellow hard-working candidate FayssalF as "inexperienced" seems highly unusual, Ambi. Shem (talk) 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  35. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  36. No. Mailer Diablo 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose. Voting against her rivals and entering the election as late as possible to avoid questioning tells you everything you need to know. Dan100 ( Talk) 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  38. Guettarda 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  39. Temperament. -- Y  not? 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  40. Strong oppose Came the closest to mass wheel warring without sanction that I've seen when she undeleted several shopping mall articles without researching the deletions or discussing with any of the deleting admins. See the Westfield Warrawong discussion. GRBerry 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Voting against nearly all one's opponents doesn't sit right with me. -- MPerel 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I've reconsidered per this. -- MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  41. Does not appear to work well with others, as suggested by both civility problems and voting against most other candidates. >Radiant< 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Going and opposing most of the other candidates is not what I want to see in any candidate. I do, however, believe that Rebecca is an excellent editor. Acalamari 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Withdrawn in accordance with discussion. Acalamari 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  42. Glen 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  43. Strong oppose In general, I don't care about civility, but someone on the Arbitration Committee ought to be above the fray. And voting against rivals shows a lack of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  44. Oppose Gizza Discuss © 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose Wheel-warring in User:Giovanni33's block log. Lack of maturity per above. - Merzbow ( talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  46. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose. -- RG 2 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose per behavior outlined above. Viriditas 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  49. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose. Epbr123 ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose opiumjones 23 ( talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  53. Filll ( talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  54. Viridae Talk 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. I think voting against other people in the election was an error of judgment. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose Too politically correct, therefore incapable of neutrality. Alex Middleton ( talk) 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  57. User:Krator ( t c) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  59. SashaNein ( talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  60. Too uncivil, and has a habit of wheel-warring. Nothing personal, I like Rebecca, but I just can't support given those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose. Fresh face required. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose Convinced by some of the arguments above.-- Bedivere ( talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose per GRBerry. -- Fang Aili talk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose Huldra ( talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose Samsara ( talk •  contribs) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  67. Weak oppose I generally respect Rebecca as an admin, but I feel that her willingness to wheel war over a copyright tag casts serious doubt on her impartiality with respect to issues concerning Australian editors. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  68. Terence ( talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose No difference between SPOV and NPOV would lead to some very problematic, well, problems :/. Homestarmy ( talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  70. Wizardman 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  71. semper fictilis 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  72. Catchpole ( talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose; civility, wheel-warring, voting against opponents. -- John ( talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  74. Oppose -- Borgarde talk 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose In brief encounters I had, I saw him/her jumping at conclusions without listening all sides first. `' Míkka >t 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose - "albeit surlier" and especially if one is on the wrong side of the argument. David D. (Talk) 07:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  78. Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. (On a minor note, it also doesn't speak for a calm and open mind that Rebecca semi-protected her user talk page.) — Sebastian 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  79. Brusegadi ( talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  80. dave souza, talk 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  81. Agree with #60. Grand master ka 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  82. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  83. Iain99 Balderdash and piffle 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  84. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  85. Changing to oppose. The wheelwarring in Giovanni33's block log is troubling. - Crockspot ( talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose - A former arbitrator who burned out on it is hardly the kind of person we need. -- Hyperbole ( talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  87. Oppose KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  88. ~ trialsanderrors ( talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose I re-read the answers you provided, and I appreciate your honesty. However I'm not sure you won't avoid burnout this time around. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  90. 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 or really at all, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. -- Aude ( talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Oppose I think most observers would agree that there are simply no reasons here for a second chance; there is also no reason to believe she won't get burned out and quit a second time. Nothing personal, but we need to strive for the highest standards. Frank Pais ( talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    Frank Pais does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  91. Strong oppose - per my question at her questions for candidate page. Wheel warring was unquestionable in Giovanni33 incident, enough grounds for having sysop removal. I am worried this candidate will not tackle wheel warring enough (I believe the current Arbcom has been partisan or negligent to do so). I may consider downgrading to a simple oppose based on response. The Evil Spartan ( talk) 05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  92. Oppose. I remember her when she was Ambi, and whatever her other merits, I don't remember thinking she made/would-make a good Arbcom member. -- Gwern (contribs) 06:06 9 December 2007 (GMT)
  93. Oppose No =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  94. daveh4h 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  95. effeiets anders 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) - I don't think it is good if someone is recently appointed in the OmbudsCommittee, that she shortly resigns to join another one... reply
  96. After reading and verifying some of the comments left above. Cla68 ( talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose NOt bad, but I want others. -- \/\/slack ( talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  98. Voting against other opponents is my main concern, but some others touched upon above concern me as well. Ral315 ( talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  99. Oppose having gone through and rethought this, I must switch to oppose. Dureo ( talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  100. Strong oppose—A strong tendency to be petulant, argumentative, and to engage in petty behaviour does not augur well for a positive contribution to ArbCom. Indeed, her history of dispute-mongering suggests that she will bring to bear existing grudges and obsessions. Tony (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  101. A tough choice, but concerns outweigh strong points. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  102. As editor, positive. As admin, awful. As arbitrator, unthinkable. Grace Note ( talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  103. Oppose. —— Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  104. Oppose Per negative feedback from others and seeing this user repeatedly swear on IRC. Arbitrators have to deal with many problematic users and must be able to stay cool when handling disputes; her incivility suggests that she will not be able to do so. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  105. the wub "?!" 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  106. Mike R ( talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  107. Far too hotheaded--I have seen too much bad faith from this user. Philwelch ( talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  108. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  109. Strong Oppose. Sorry Ambi, but due to some of your actions (and inactions) as an admin and arb, I must oppose you. But judging from your previous, brief stint on the AC, you will only be unhappy once more in that unhappy place.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  110. Oppose: I'm not as active as I used to be on Wikipedia -- from user page, among other concerns that I will not list here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  111. Maxim (talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  112. Oppose on the grounds that as she can't see that its (diplomatically) wrong to oppose other candidates, how will she be a cool head on ArbCom? Other candidates who have chosen to vote have voted Support only Rgds, - Trident13 ( talk) 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  113. Oppose -- @pple complain 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  114. Picaroon (t) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  115. Iamunknown 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  116. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  117. petedavo ( talk) 04:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  118. Strong oppose. Civility issues, cliquishness, unrepentant abuse of admin tools, repeated examples of making strong accusations without proof, and tendency to edit-war about even minor issues. This is absolutely not someone whose judgment I would trust on ArbCom. -- El on ka 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  119. Opppose (weakly) in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  120. Oppose. Moved from support. 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) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  121. Oppose. I lack confidence in objectivity. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  122. Opppose. Prefer Raul. Mill cleaner ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  123. Opppose. -- Padraig ( talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  124. Weak Oppose Unfortunatly, since you said that you are not as active on Wiki anymore forces me to choose to oppose you. You're a great editor, but I feel that you aren't ready yet. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  125. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo ^^^ 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Rebecca&oldid=1147978976"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE