Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Deskana

[edit]
Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Wikipedia’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Wikipedia to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Wikipedia.
Thank you for your consideration. --Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.


Support

[edit]
  1. Daniel 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mitch32contribs 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kurykh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. BLACKKITE 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Snowolf How can I help? 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Coren (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Keilana 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Icestorm815 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. spryde | talk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. ragesoss 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Chaz Beckett 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Rjd0060 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)#[reply]
  19. – Gurch (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. AniMate 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  24. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. (Extended comments moved to talk page per guidelines). Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support trusts their judgement in time-management Mbisanz 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27.  — master sonT - C 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. GracenotesT § 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support BobTheTomato 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. futurebird 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Docg 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. -MBK004 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - Jehochman Talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. - ScarianTalk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Unless his account gets hacked into. :) Prodego talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. sh¤y 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Captain panda 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. CIreland 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. JavaTenor 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Strong support. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Stardust8212 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. krimpet⟲ 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Carnildo 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. SQLQuery me! 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. DGG (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Full Support Alexfusco5 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54.  M2Ys4U (talk) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Stephen 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --Charitwo talk 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Charitwo does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Rebecca 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Húsönd 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. · AndonicO Talk 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. John254 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Trustworthy, hard-working, knowledgeable, and polite. Has my full support. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support --InkSplotch 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Hell, yes. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. ♠TomasBat 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. <shrugs> --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. — xaosflux Talk 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. --Meno25 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:20, December 3, 2007
  80. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Avinesh Jose 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Yes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support' — Jack Merridew 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Keegantalk 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Lara❤Love 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Jmlk17 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Neil ☎ 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. It might make sense for Dan to drop some of his other commitments to address the concerns below, but either way I think he would make a good arbitrator. Angela. 10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. I agree with Angela, he has a lot to offer and Arbcom job should be taken really seriously..--Cometstyles 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. --Vassyana 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. If you find the time to that TOO! -- lucasbfr talk 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support but only because you will leave MedCom if elected. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support I share the concerns of Splash; but, on balance, I trust the candidate with this duty. Xoloz 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support  Grue  13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. the wub "?!" 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Addhoc 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. KnightLago 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. --barneca 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. JoshuaZ 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. ElinorD (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Jeffpw 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. KTC 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Per Xoloz. Dekimasuよ! 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Mangojuicetalk 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Really no questions at all over this user's ability to do the job. Having dealt with him over a detailed matter some time ago, I would emphasise his ability to maintain confidentiality of all parties while allowing those who have a job to do to do it as being a critical quality. Orderinchaos 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Of course. — Rudget contributions 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Mattisse 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Concerns about concentration of power in few hands are valid enough. On the other hand, if a person already has n jobs and has shown that he can do them very well, then I guess we can trust him with the n+1st too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Deskana has shown he can be trusted many, many times. Also, I have no concerns regarding judgement whatsoever. GDonato (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. No problems here - Alison ❤ 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - JodyB talk 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support, I support this candidate.--Isotope23 talk 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. R. Baley 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. I strongly support this nomination: Deskana has had an excellent track record with his responsibilities, and he'll make a great arbitrator. Acalamari 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support AvruchTalk 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. support --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. 'Support, though my preference would be that he resign at least one other role (in addition to the MedComm). I worry about the ability to adequately handle all those duties. - Philippe | Talk 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Sensible user. Spartaz Humbug! 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Thumbs up OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. -- Tawker 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Gets the Quadell Seal of Approval. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. NHRHS2010 talk 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Kbdank71 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Excellent Judgement, will be a great arb--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133.  Folic_Acid | talk  20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Davewild 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Fabulous, fabulous user. Fabulous. (trippling for effect :P). Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. —Ruud 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Strong support Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. NF24(radio me!) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Toffile 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Strongly, WjBscribe 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. βcommand 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. EconomistBR 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support --Brewcrewer 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Adam Cuerden talk 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Greg Jones II 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Horologium (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Enuja (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. COGDEN 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. J-ſtanTalkContribs 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. -Goodshoped 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Yes. --DarkFalls talk 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. I'm torn. I completely agree with the opposers about having any one person wearing too many hats... but at the same time, I feel Deskana's good at all those jobs, and would do his usual excellent job at being an arbitrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Yes. Xdenizen 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - Sensible, shown trustworthy and level-headed under fire. All important attributes for an arbitrator. FCYTravis 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support -- Cirt 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  165. Support -- Euryalus 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Level headed and excellent judgement. Martintg 11:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Arbcom members can get checkuser access anyway, OTRS is like reading junk mail with the occassional bill...crat vs admin, nope no concentration of power. Gnangarra 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. I only hope that Deskana does not become stretched too thin and as a result an inactive arbitrator. James086Talk | Email 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support While I have concerns about concentration of power, I trust this user's judgment to exercise these powers in a responsible manner --Versageek 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support, absolutely. Deskana is an excellent admin, helpful, fair, and knowledgeable; a great asset for Wikipedia. I think he'll make a great arbitrator. Dreadstar † 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. -- Y not? 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Okay -- Marcsin | Talk 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Users trusted enough for OTRS access are, to my mind, sane enough to be arbitrators as well. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. support Pete.Hurd 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support. - Cumulus Clouds 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Conditional support - take what the opposers say into account; try not to take on too much. Wizardman 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Noor Aalam 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Excellent admin. -- SECisek 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Hardyplants 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Ariel♥Gold 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. Had nothing but good experiences with this user and clearly has a solid track record (just don't overstretch yourself, Deskana ;) ) - Mgm|(talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support - Merzbow (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. Epbr123 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support - Spawn Man (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support - ScienceApologist's vote below got me thinking, but I actually like the answer given. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support - Wondering if some opposers may come around if you were to take a time management course : ) jc37 02:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Chardish (talk) 02:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  193. Support especially per your exemplary work as a bureaucrat. VanTucky talk 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support -- Quiddity (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. SupportProfessor marginalia (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support W/mint-Talk- 07:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support. Wetman (talk) 08:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. ~ Riana ⁂ 09:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Dweller (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. Why, yes. Ronnotel (talk) 13:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Share concerns about "stretching" too thin, but otherwise OK docboat (talk) 14:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support. Calm and fair. Hopefully it won't be too many jobs, though. -- Sander Säde 14:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. flip-flopping. I was concerned about Deskana having too much power, but looking at it again, Deskana's a good guy and I'm sure it won't affect him. I trust his judgement. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support semper fictilis 15:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support Keeper | 76 18:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support, on the whole of my experience, Deskana is good, and editcountitis (including wherearetheeditsmadecountitis) is very bad. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support —DerHexer (Talk) 20:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support. Loads of experience. Don't see any problem with "too many hats". Deskana must have time management skills by now. --Fang Aili talk 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support Andrwsc (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support nat.utoronto 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support --  LAX  23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support. — Thomas H. Larsen 01:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support --Elonka 01:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support --θnce θn this island Speak! 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support — BillC talk 02:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support Peter morrell 06:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Kiyae (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Kiyae does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support --JuntungWu (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Ravenhurst (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Kelpin (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Tony Sidaway 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Amply qualified for the job.[reply]
  226. Support Good answer on the SPOV question in particular. Homestarmy (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support - KNM Talk 17:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support I've been particularly impressed with how this user has handled OTRS issues. AgneCheese/Wine 19:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support - Branson03 (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Redstarsldr (talk) 02:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User does not have suffrage Nick (talk) 02:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support. `'Míkka>t 04:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support -- Kleinzach (talk) 07:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support, as the resignation from the Mediation Committee would remove the only problem, IMO. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 07:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support NQA. Brusegadi (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support Wimstead (talk) 08:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -- Mentifisto 17:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Mentifisto does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support -- Springnuts (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  238. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support -- TimidGuy (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Hiding T 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support -- Tony Fox (arf!) 19:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support - I have no problem with Deskana having multiple positions at the same time as from what I see, he is managing fine so far. Greeves (talk • contribs) 20:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:43, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support -- EdJohnston (talk) 01:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  245. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support Tonywalton Talk 12:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Tyrenius (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  248. 'support William M. Connolley (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Wearing a lot of hats is not a problem, in my view (I have more hats than Deskana does, after all, and seek another one). The issue would be if discharge of responsibilities became difficult. I don't see that as very likely in this case. Support. ++Lar: t/c 15:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. There shouldn't be worry about Deskana having too much power as the current privileges aren't really that uncommon among arbcommers.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Paiev (talk • contribs) 14:58, 9 December 2007
    User does not have suffrage, < 150 mainspace edits on 1st November. NF24(radio me!) 20:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  250. --Mark (Mschel) 21:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  251. :-) Stwalkerster talk 21:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Abd (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Chrislintott (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support--Aminz (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support - wide-ranging experience, strong track record, would be a great person to have on the committee. Warofdreams talk 18:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support - John Carter (talk) 18:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support - An excellent candidate who has the right judgement and experience. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Strong support. An excellent Bureaucrat. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  258. I know him not here, only through checkuser-l and perhaps we haven't interacted directly, so I have no interaction with him at all but observed his manner to deal with confidential data, its analysis and attitude to other participants - from those, and also in my past interactions with other enwiki arbitrators, I think he'll be a good asset. --Aphaia (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  262. Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support MookieZ (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  264. JJ Williams (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Support per Angela. This is not the right place & time to worry about the number of hats. KissL 12:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support wbfergus Talk 20:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support I concur. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support Excellent candidate. The Bethling(Talk) 06:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support Now that we have some more 'crats, I think Deskana will have time for this. If not, we can promote more 'crats :-) - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support Suva Чего? 13:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  272. Support, strongly. JERRY talk contribs 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support Chris.B (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support Has done well in all roles.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Support Deb (talk) 15:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Support --Hirohisat 紅葉 21:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support dv dv dv d 22:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Iamunknown 23:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) While I am concerned by the situation W.marsh describes below, I believe from my observations and Deskana's statement that Deskana is more tactful now than then; I would appreciate his input on ArbCom[reply]
  279. opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support Has shown willingness to drop his commitments, so "not enough free time" isn't a concern for me. ArbCom is about dispute resolution, and he's shown he's more than up to that task. szyslak 06:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support Esrever (klaT) 07:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  282. As it happens, my thinking tracks quite closely with that of Iamunknown just above me. Joe 08:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Миша13 11:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support - per above - Modernist (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Support after long thought. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support GlassCobra 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  289. You poor doomed fool. I support this candidate. DS (talk) 23:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  290. SupportYilloslime (t) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  291. --Son (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  293. Support - Prepared to discuss things, which is a definite bonus. Carcharoth (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Strong Support Well deserving.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. No. See my rationale here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Tim Q. Wells 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose An arbitrator should be patient, not brusque. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm worried about if you could handle both Arbcom and being a bcrat at the same time, sorry This is a Secret account 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. --W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have responded to W.marsh's concerns there, for all those interested. --Deskana (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --(Review Me) R ParlateContribs@ 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. MagneticFlux 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too unilateral, impatient and bureaucratic. RxS 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Slightly too new for my taste. Maybe next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. --JayHenry 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose -Dureo 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per W.marsh. —Cryptic 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Everyking 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose regretfully.[1] Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. - Jeeny (talk) 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ UBeR 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. - Crockspot 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik•talk 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Too much influence for one user to have. Shem(talk) 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Worried about another E... Miranda 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Awadewit | talk 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Dan Beale-Cocks 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented vote. Sorry, but 150 article edits were required by November 1 in order to vote in this year's elections. — TKD::Talk 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose, though I'm thinking about this still. Over-concentration of influence in one pair of hands is worth being concerned about up-front, not post-facto. Splash - tk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose PeaceNT 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Sorry but concentration of power and influence has proven to be a disastrous idea. Like Raul654 Deskana should be plenty busy as it is. EconomicsGuy 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bakaman 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Honestly not quite sure why. Possibly being an arbitrator would distract from other, extremely necessary, duties. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Oppose. Extended comment moved to talk page WaltonOne 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Ripberger 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. GRBerry 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Too many roles. Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Concentration of power, + w.marsh. ViridaeTalk 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose Shot info 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. With regret. Keep up the bureaucrat work; we need the help. — Dan | talk 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak oppose. Very weak. Don't like the idea of a checkuser/arbiter/admin/crat...that much power shouldn't be concentrated. If not for Deskana's other responsibilities, I would support. Sorry. ♠PMC♠ 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong oppose Extended comment moved to talk page @pple complain 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose per above comments.--D-Boy 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Per above. Atropos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per Nishkid, the balance between "Active Editors" and "Process people" is already shifted to much from the editors Alex Bakharev 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. >Radiant< 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --ROGER DAVIES talk 19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose' Excessive involvement with OTRS; opposed desysopping one of our worst admins; supported by many of our worst editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Which administrator was that? --Deskana (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Not Zscout (I have no idea what his admin work is like). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. No Support - Per the above. JaakobouChalk Talk 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. As @pple. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Michael Snow (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal a bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. -- RG2 23:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose With great regret, as I have lots of respect for Deskana, but The Earth isn't round by consensus, but by fact. As such, I must agree with SciAp, above. I am open to a different vote next go 'round, should you run again. ThuranX (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    In my answer to that question, I did state that we should state that the Earth is round in our articles. --Deskana (talk) 00:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Viriditas 02:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per ScienceApologist, and to avoid too many hats on the same heads. John Vandenberg (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose with regrets. Antelan talk 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. No I really do apologise for this, but I feel there is, perhaps, a type of limit in regards to the kind of power one should be able to "wield". There are also other reasons that are quite minor relating to Deskana's past actions, comments and the like that leave me slightly concerned, but, overall, I think that Deskana is performing exceptionally well with the accesses that he already holds. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Too many tasks to juggle. - Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose per SA's concerns, as well as issues of separation of power. Skinwalker (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose per the concerns regarding the wearing of too many hats above. Arbcomm members should also be relatively active editors so as to stay in touch with the problems in the trenches. Tiamut 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose -Bharatveer (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose Terence (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose Closet creationist? Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Too much power. Law Lord (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Oppose Seems like way too much of an insider.Sukiari (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Per SA ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Capable in his current jobs, but not the best fit for ArbCom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose per Riana.--cj | talk 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose--Russianname (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. ArbCom needs fresh blood, not another of the "usual suspects". Nothing personal! Lankiveil (talk) 09:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  78. Oppose, M.K. (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 18:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose. Deskana seems to be a fine editor, but I am not convinced by his answer to the question w/r/t concentration of power, and if you are too busy with your current tasks to much contribute to mainspace, how are you not too busy for Arbcom? --Gwern (contribs) 21:58 7 December 2007 (GMT)
  81. Oppose. Not satisfied with the answer to the NPOV vs SPOV question.Grahame (talk) 00:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Alæxis¿question? 09:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Maxim(talk) 16:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. per Nishkid, I think you have enough on your plate. Arbcom is a serious time commitment. We have enough inactive arbcom members. --Aude (talk) 19:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose - Perhaps when you have more time? --健次(derumi)talk 03:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose ×Meegs 03:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. reasons on talk page. daveh4h 09:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose - Ealdgyth | Talk 19:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 20:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose I think you have enough on your plate. Showers (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --Lucretius (talk) 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjBscribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose per ScienceApologist. A Traintalk 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 06:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose per Jd2718 Mindraker (talk) 11:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Mike R (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. I agree with Nishkid64. Saravask (talk) 04:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose. Too much meta-work, not enough mainspace contribs. Bacchiad (talk) 04:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. too many hats Catchpole (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose - Per multiple other users - too many irons in the fire will result in prioritization issues. Risker (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong Oppose. Per separation of powers. Too much of a 'crat and a Jimbot and not enough of an article writer.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. WilyD 18:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose per above. Yahel Guhan 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. A look at your contribs tells me you've either forgotten why we're here or are already weighed down with all the extra hats you wear. Either way, you're not the right person to be on arbcom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have answered both of your concerns on my questions page. Have you read my answers? --Deskana (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    You certainly did reply and I did read those answers, but they didn't convince everyone as can be seen from the similar opposes above. Like several candidates in these elections, I think you're deceiving yourself as to what will happen if, or in your case more probably when, you're elected. Even if you give up other things, medcab and/or part of the bureaucrat stuff, arbcom appears to be extremely demanding of time and energy. If you can't find the time to build the encyclopedia now, you certainly won't if you are elected. Either you'll be increasingly detached from the work of this project and life in the trenches or you'll be a part-time arbitrator. Neither of these outcomes is ideal, not for you and not for the community. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. oppose.--nids(♂) 17:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but not as good for the job as Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. I (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose. A good editor and seemingly a nice person, but I oppose on the principle of too many hats, too much concentration of power COUPLED with the fact that I see nothing compelling about why this person should be on ARBCOM and in some cases I disagree with this person's positions. With all of these combined I oppose.--Blue Tie (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose An arbitrator should not be an admin. Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Deskana&oldid=1252091873"