Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Thebainer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sweetfirsttouch (talk | contribs) at 18:02, 5 December 2007 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Thebainer

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

Support

  1. Support Fully qualified.--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is a Secret account 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Daniel 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Docg 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cla68 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. maclean 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 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.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Tim Q. Wells 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --W.marsh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  4. Nufy8 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 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. Sound judgment and long-term commitment, but better candidates exist this year. Shem(talk) 10:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Too many lawyers already. Neil ☎ 10:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --Vassyana 11:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Edivorce 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. 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]
  27. Davewild 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Ripberger 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. BobTheTomato 21:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. EconomistBR 00:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. 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]
  32. 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]
  33. Oppose OTRS candidates, for reasons given here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. Viriditas 03:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. 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]
  38. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Thebainer&oldid=175965224"