Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Thebainer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Thebainer[edit]

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

Support[edit]

  1. Support Fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a Secret account 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Docg 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. maclean 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. SQLQuery me! 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, I've always admired your work and think you'd make a fairly decent arbitrator. --Coredesat 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. His closure of the Daniel Brandt DRV showed nuanced thinking, an ability to closely listen to others, respect for consensus, and calm words. Exactly what we need. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  — master sonT - C 02:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm gobsmacked he hasn't got more support than he has - he deserves to be up there with Newyorkbrad. Rebecca 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ArbCom needs lawyers. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. · AndonicO Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Absolutely. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Cryptic 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support -Dureo 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Sensible, moderate, good at achieving compromise. DGG (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. — xaosflux Talk 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:37, December 3, 2007
  27. ~ priyanath talk 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. --Elonka 05:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Spebi 06:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support — Jack Merridew 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Punctured Bicycle 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. He's a diplomat too! :-) — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. John Vandenberg 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Longhair\talk 10:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Would be a great addition to the arbitration committee. Sane, trustworthy user. Angela. 10:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. What Arbcom needs is more lawyers.....--Cometstyles 11:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. -- lucasbfr talk 11:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. Stephen would make an excellent arbiter. He has my full support. Sarah 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Splash - tk 13:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Level-headed judgment; seeker of compromise. Xoloz 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support one of the best candidates IMO.  Grue  14:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong candidate who has exercised good judgement for as long as I can remember in deeply controversial cases. Would be an ideal and hard-working arbitrator if elected. Orderinchaos 15:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. KTC 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Seems reasonable. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support.--Isotope23 talk 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Wizardman 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Bakaman 19:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Rockpocket 22:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Lawrence Cohen 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. WjBscribe 23:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support ×Meegs 01:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Picaroon (t) 01:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. @pple complain 03:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Enuja (talk) 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. support Kingturtle 04:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Chaz Beckett 05:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. --Kubigula (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support -- Cirt 10:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  72. Support Gnangarra 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Carolmooredc Liked defend vs passion; have to read it every week or so :-)
  74. Support -- Fram 15:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Automatic support for OTRS candidates. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. Good man, common sense in abundance, not one to get carried away. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Michael Snow (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support -- Now that's a candidate with a really nice portfolio! — Sebastian 23:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  82. Support -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support VanTucky talk 06:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. DarkFalls talk 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I'm Mailer Diablo (talk) and I approve this candidate! - 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. JPD (talk) 16:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Johnleemk | Talk 16:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support --Duke of Duchess Street (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support - Not perfect, but some good answers and has fairmindedness necessary in an arbitrator. FCYTravis (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support ant_ie (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Kusma (talk) 08:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Tony Sidaway 18:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) In line with my wish to endorse levelheaded, no-nonsense candidates.[reply]
  95. Support Homestarmy (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Terence (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Branson03 (talk) 21:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. >Radiant< 23:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. RMHED (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Wimstead (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Smart guy, generally levelheaded, I've had my disagreements with him in the past but have always found him to be reasonable and have fair rationales for his actions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support, we need more level-headed Arbitrators. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support fully. I believed in his qualities for adminship, and I believe in them for arbitration. He is highly capable and has much more to give in the service of Wikipedia.--cj | talk 08:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. --Fang Aili talk 18:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support --A. B. (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support--D-Boy (talk) 21:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support --Grahame (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support semper fictilis 14:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Lawyers aren't that bad. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Physchim62 (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Support more than ample confidence in this user to make a valuable contribution to the Wiki community in this proposed capacity. Displays well-rounded logic and reason. Frank Pais (talk) 05:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  113. Support. --PTR (talk) 14:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support.Geni 23:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Though I disagree with some individual answers, on the whole, I find I have confidence in your judgment and neutrality. Dekimasuよ! 08:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Vagary (talk) 11:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Taprobanus (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support I am confident you will make a good committee member. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - calm, considered, good statement, good track record. Warofdreams talk 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Cool Hand Luke 23:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support fully qualified and considerate editor Luqman Skye (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support - Experienced, and Oi, Oi, Oi. Sfacets 12:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. True strength for Wikipedia's future — xDanielx T/C\R 13:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. the wub "?!" 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. RxS (talk) 19:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. JJ Williams 01:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Catchpole (talk) 08:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Very thoughtful and experienced wikipedian. Has my full confidence. Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Everything I've seen of his involvement in Wikipedia has been a positive contribution. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Jitse Niesen (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support Saudade7 23:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC) You know what was a terrible movie? Crocodile Dundee. (I'm just punchy having read all these campaigns.)[reply]
  136. Support Noroton (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support. I like the statement and the answers to the questions that I saw. Also, the opposition is weak, and several candidates right below him in the support percentange are not somebody I'd like to see on the arbcom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Ling.Nut (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Mackensen (talk) 15:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. JayHenry (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support would make an excellent arbiter. JERRY talk contribs 01:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support on balance, I support - most Aussie lawyers are good guys, and this one is on the right track with good project experience. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. SupportPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support.--nids(♂) 17:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support NoSeptember 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  147. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Iamunknown 22:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC) My knowledge of Thebainer leads me to think that he would function fairly and thoughtfully as a member of ArbCom[reply]
  149. opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. petedavo (talk) 03:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support, weighting many factors and reflecting on many facets, in balance support. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Karl2620 (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support David Lauder (talk) 19:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Thought hard about this one, more than the others, but I don't think he'd do any harm. Acalamari 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. Excellent candidate. --Bduke (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support --Peta (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support Carcharoth (talk) 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Okay. DS (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Tim Q. Wells 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --W.marsh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  4. Nufy8 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. GracenotesT § 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not now. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 00:37, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  7. – Gurch (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - auburnpilot talk 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. One thing wikipedia and arbcom in particular do not need is more lawyers.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Prolog 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Alexfusco5 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. B 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. After much thought, not this year. Will likely support next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Mercury 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Húsönd 03:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Crockspot 08:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. WAS 4.250 09:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Good candidate, but there are better ones in the race this year. --★čabrilo★ 10:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Too many lawyers already. Neil ☎ 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. --Vassyana 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Edivorce 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. My knowledge of and experiences with the candidate surely disposed me to support, but I find myself disagreeing substantially with several of his answers to the questions. Joe 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Davewild 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Ripberger 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. BobTheTomato 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. EconomistBR 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose with regret. Sound and thoughtful candidate but some of the current answers to questions are very unsettling. Open to reconsider and will keep an eye for unanswered questions. --Irpen 04:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Atropos 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose, IMHO the balance between the active editors and process people is already shifted to much against the editors. I would support Thebainer for a bureaucrat if he stands Alex Bakharev 08:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Maybe I am wrong, let me think a little bit more Alex Bakharev 09:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose OTRS candidates, for reasons given here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Viriditas 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose as per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis. --DeLarge (talk) 15:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - This editor just does not plain understand the problems facing editors trying to remove fringe POV-pushers. He is too accommodating of pseudoscientific cranks. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose - Per this highly ill-mannered Wikipedia Review post during the Brandt deletion saga. - Merzbow (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong oppose - per ScienceApologist. The last thing the project needs is more hand-holding for the cranks. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 13:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. dave souza, talk 14:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose, M.K. (talk) 17:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. futurebird (talk) 20:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. R. Baley (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nothing personal, but there are specific candidates (who I know and have my trust) that I would like to be on arbcom. I don't know you well, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. --Aude (talk) 00:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose, didn't make my list of top candidates. Antelan talk 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - Maybe next year? --健次(derumi)talk 02:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. The majority of answers are not clear to me and others I disagree with. daveh4h 09:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Chiefly, answers. Lots of "see my answer to". Yury Tarasievich (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose--Russianname (talk) 09:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. oppose, didn't make my list. JaakobouChalk Talk 16:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose Beit Or 22:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose The Bethling(Talk) 09:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose. Alæxis¿question? 12:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 14:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 15:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Bryan Derksen (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oi!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Most likely unwarranted fears about long-term sustainability. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose I would say he's a bad candidate for many reasons, all which I'd be happy to explain. --Eternalsleeper (talk) 10:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. IronGargoyle (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but I prefer Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose: As Zocky said. Geogre (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose TewfikTalk 18:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. --Vintagekits (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Nothing personal, but the committee would benefit from a more experienced candidate. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose. -- Wikipedical (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Thebainer&oldid=1147978987"