Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Manning Bartlett

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Manning Bartlett[edit]

I am an old-timer from mid-2001 and I was a member of the first group of admins ever appointed. My personal Wikipedia history is summarised at my user page (including links to my pre-Mediawiki contributions).

I participated heavily in the formation and/or development of a number the core philosophies that still underpin Wikipedia. But I will confess that I became very disillusioned on and off over the years as I felt that the 'pedia had lost it's way, and become mired in bureaucracy. I am delighted to see that in the past year the focus on "quality" has thoroughly regained precedence over "procedure".

My approach to being an arbitrator would be very simple. In any arbitration situation I just ask the question, "where is the best quality outcome for the Wikipedia"? Quality is to be found in the calm, impartial seeking of consensus and the delivery of swift resolution. The first priority is always the 'pedia, as it has been since the beginning of 2001. When one is focused on the quality of the 'pedia, making the "hard" decisions is never quite so difficult.

Before nominating myself I gave considerable thought to the question "Am I willing to give up the 'fun' side of the 'pedia"? Taking on an arbitrator role responsibly means giving it first priority, and scheduling it into one's life as a fixed and regular routine. This naturally implies that editing (and even basic adminship) must fall away. After sincere consideration, I am willing to genuinely make that commitment if elected.

Whether I am elected or not, I shall enjoy seeing the consensual process at work in this election, as this is the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so extraordinary. I am (like I hope you all are) extremely proud of my association with it over the years.

PS - I have taken the liberty of casting a few votes of my own. I have not voted for myself, and I will not cast any "oppose" votes. However there are a few outstanding candidates that I strongly desired to express my support for.

Manning (talk) 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Reasonable enough. W.marsh 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Completely satisfied with his answers to the questions about the arbitrators' ethics. --Irpen 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
  5. YES!  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Tim Q. Wells 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Gurch (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Answers to questions are excellent. GracenotesT § 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Bakaman 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Experianced.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Woody 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. looks good—Random832 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. "I just ask the question". Yes. -- drini [meta:] [commons:] 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --Coredesat 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. SQLQuery me! 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. DGG (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Cryptic 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. B 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. RMHED 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Duk 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I don't know a lot about you, but your statement is top-notch and you clearly have a lot of experience and good perspective. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Better perspective than a lot of the candidates. JayHenry 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support -Dureo 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Although we have recently disagreed with each other about the "line" of civil and uncivil comments, I believe that Manning would be an excellent member of the Arbitration Committee. Daniel 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Bob Mellish (talk) 05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. AniMate 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Tvoz |talk 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support for long term perspective. ~ priyanath talk 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. A young project needs as much historical perspective as it can get. Relata refero 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relata refero does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. Seems to prefer quality and content over process. edward (buckner) 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked user Secret account 21:59, 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) 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Throwing my hat in... 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. <<-armon->> 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37.  Grue  14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. KTC 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. For me, this is the only vote I make without hesitation or need of deep introspection or investigation of the candidate. I know the person well enough from his involvement in wikipedia, though he likely doesn't know me. I don't think I need to say more than that. For me this vote is a slam dunk. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Davewild 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support - yes, let's focus on the encyclopaedia. -- Schneelocke 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. —Ruud 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Rockpocket 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Shot info 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose (see below)[reply]
  45. Inactivity no problem. He'll catch up with ease. — Dan | talk 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. EconomistBR 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Greg Jones II 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. support Kingturtle 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Xdenizen 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, good answers (clearly the edit count is misleading), and has committed sufficient hours per week to be productive in the role. John Vandenberg 09:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Dan100 (Talk) 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Bobet 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. No large concerns. Acalamari 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support ➥the Epopt 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. —CComMack (t–c) 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support because we need people to refocus on what mead Wikipedia great in the first place. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support - appreciate the long-term perspective and focus on content. JavaTenor (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Best candidate yet.--Docg 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. -- RG2 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Michael Snow (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Support Wetman (talk) 09:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Sluzzelin talk 09:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this candidate! - 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support semper fictilis 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. This could be interesting. Phil Sandifer (talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. --Delirium (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I support the idea of what's good for the 'pedia, and the longer perspective that Manning would bring. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Alæxis¿question? 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support - jc37 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Experience is valuable. Neutralitytalk 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Kusma (talk) 09:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Terence (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Interesting suggestion about policies being locked, there's been a few times where i've tripped over myself using an old version of policy....nice answer concerning SPOV as well. Homestarmy (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Tony Sidaway 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Impressive.[reply]
  82. I (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Switching to support. On first impression this candidate appeared inexperienced and inactive and wasn’t one of my initial picks. On closer look, there's much more than meets the eye, there’s old history here and Manning edits 90% anonymously for reasons he satisfactorily explains. His core philosophies expounded here and answers overall convince me he is strongly invested in the success of the project and has knowledge, experience and deep insight to be a very valuable asset to Arbcom. --MPerel 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support `'Míkka>t 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support--Russianname (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support -Aatomic1 (talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --RelHistBuff (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support, has unique insights about the project because of his experience when Wikipedia was in its infancy. -- Graham87 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Duke of Duchess Street (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Deor (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Jab843 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. <eleland/talkedits> 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Weak Support SPOV isn't enough to dissuade me. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Bless sins (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support per MPerel. High quality of the candidate overcomes concerns about inactivity. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support - will be interesting to see how a user frustrated with bureaucracy fares in one of the most bureaucratic parts of Wikipedia. Very extensive experience, honest and open answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Strong Support - the arbitration committee needs members with experience and fairness who will not get bogged down in bureaucracy. Luqman Skye (talk) 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. the wub "?!" 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Mike R (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Well thought out and researched replies to questions. Clear focus on what's good for Wikipedia. Good ideas - such as the idea for WikiProjects. (I'm not convinced about the NPOV/SPOV stance, but nobody is perfect.) — Sebastian 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Some good question answers. He has low activity only because he hasn't been logged in. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. I'm in. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Bacchiad (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. SupportSaudade7 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Nice statement of purpose. Seems ethical.[reply]
  108. Support. This is the best-written statement I've seen of how ArbComm needs to work. Accounting4Taste:talk 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support. For, as has already been said, an old-timer's perspective and a very well-written statement. -- Watchsmart (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Mayalld (talk) 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Absolutely. KissL 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support wbfergus Talk 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Yes MateHow can a doctor go wrong:) you'll make a great one Taprobanus (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support: experience, experience, experience. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support: We need more old-timers high up in the wikiranks. Dreamyshade (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Suppport - positive interactions with this user. Admirable commitment to the project. Would be a useful voice on the ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support John Carter (talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Maxim(talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Chris.B (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Deb (talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support NoSeptember 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  123. Support dv dv dv d 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Although his activity level is a concern for me, he's clearly shown that he'll approach ArbCom cases with a clear head and a fresh, innovative perspective. Plus, he created the WikiProject, which has likely accomplished more in improving the encyclopedia than anything else. szyslak 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support maclean 09:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support - what a find! David Lauder (talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Might as well. DS (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. – Steel 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Too inactive This is a Secret account 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. spryde | talk 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Chaz Beckett 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alexfusco5 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A tough call, but I think I have to agree with "too inactive" :( Zocky | picture popups 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Too inactive, given that is one of the problems we're trying to fix; as well seems to be a bit out of touch with today's wikipedia. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Húsönd 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Fascinating user, but not quite right for ArbCom. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that you are really ready to commit to significant activity over a three year period. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. BobTheTomato 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. futurebird 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Primarily due to activity level. — xaosflux Talk 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Spebi 05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Only 500 edits since 1 February 2007 - WAS 4.250 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Crockspot 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Excellent answers, demonstrates sound judgment, but inactivity is a problem. Shem(talk) 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Too out of touch. Only oppose I am sorry about. Neil ☎ 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. We have enough inactive arbitrators :( Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose for his relative inactivity. Xoloz 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Oppose Man, if it weren't for his inactivity, he would be alright. Mindraker 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Come back, edit the pedia for a while and apply next year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. As above. — Rudget contributions 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose Edivorce 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. You seem like a good guy, but you haven't really been around the past 12 months, and we can all agree a lot has changed since. My platform is activity, which you don't show, unfortunately. Wizardman 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Your last 1000 edits go all the way back to 2004, long before I joined... I guess I would prefer someone more consistently active and in touch with what's going on. Grandmasterka 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose Ripberger 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Weak oppose - Only due to your Inactivity or else you were a perfect candidate...--Cometstyles 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Jd2718 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Insufficient activity. GRBerry 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. WjBscribe 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose: didn't remember seeing this editor around, so reviewed edits and have to agree with Grandmasterka and others. Jonathunder 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Not this year due to inactivity but maybe next year if candidates recent editing spurt is sustained. --A. B. (talk) 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. A bit inactive. Atropos 05:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose.Biophys 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Strongly oppose. I am disquieted by the candidate's position that all policies on WP should be completely locked and not subject to editing by anyone, including admins within the WP itself. There is more to this discussion; see the talk page Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Candidate's response and further discussion moved to talk page -- ZZ Claims ~ Evidence
  42. --Cactus.man ✍ 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Viriditas 03:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) change to support. --MPerel 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Skinwalker (talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Joe 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose In the strongest possible terms, this candidate must not be allowed to be an arbitrator as he is so anti-science as to make his statements regarding SPOV almost anachronistic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See candidate's response Manning (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  50. Sorry, but if you're such a long-term user and I haven't even heard of you, I must conclude your activity level is too low to be an effective arbiter. >Radiant< 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Dekimasuよ! 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, with regrets. I think you're a decent guy but your statements give the impression of being a little out of touch with what things are like here. answer to SPOV question is horrifying. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See candidate's response Manning (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  53. Weak oppose, due solely to inactivity. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. oppose. --Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Utterly Not. Candidate's views on SPOV are not only intellectually reprehensible, but the logic behind them is so inherently flawed that I'm left speechless. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    See candidate's response Manning (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  56. Oppose Shot info (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. WilyD 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. R. Baley (talk) 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. oppose --Mcginnly | Natter 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Don't know you, inactivity is a concern (we already have enough inactive arbcom members), arbcom is a serious time commitment. --Aude (talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose - nothing personal; we need new blood. (Sarah777 (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  63. Oppose = perhaps when you have more time? --健次(derumi)talk 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - Unacceptable interpretation of NPOV as it pertains to science. Antelan talk 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Tyrenius (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose MikeHobday (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --Lucretius (talk) 03:13, 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]
  67. Oppose Concerns over dealings with science (after reading response). - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Terribly sorry to be such a kind person, but I oppose due to lack of time commitment, lack of recent activity, and a big need for new blood. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Sarah 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong oppose. Too few recorded edits. Anonymous editors should not be arbitrators. -- Vision Thing -- 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - Too inactive. Risker (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Per Risker. Too inactive, too much of a Jimbot and has failed to answer several questions.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose on basis of inactivity. JERRY talk contribs 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Lack of recent activity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose (weakly). It's difficult for me to fully assess this user's suitability, since by his own admission a large percentage of his contributions have been anonymous. --Muchness (talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose: The lack of activity is not a thing indifferent. Geogre (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose As many others have noted, insufficient activity.--Bedivere (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose TewfikTalk 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. Inactivity and there are other better candidates. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Manning_Bartlett&oldid=1147978982"