Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Giano II: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Armon (talk | contribs)
4,546 edits
Line 121: Line 121:
# A good dissenting voice. [[User:Shem|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem|(talk)]]</sup> 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# A good dissenting voice. [[User:Shem|Shem]]<sup>[[User talk:Shem|(talk)]]</sup> 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Good editor will make a good arbitrator. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support'''. Good editor will make a good arbitrator. --<span style="color:red">★</span>[[User:Dcabrilo|čabrilo]]<span style="color:red">★</span> 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Strong support''' superlative editor, can penetrate the fog to see what actually needs to be done, I can think of no other with a stronger commitment to the project. --[[User:Mcginnly|Mcginnly]] | [[User talk:Mcginnly|Natter]] 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


== Oppose ==
== Oppose ==

Revision as of 10:05, 3 December 2007

Please Note: Comments longer than two short sentences will be moved to the talk page.

Giano

I first edited properly in May 2004. I had a couple of short term names before finally settling on Giano - my childhood nickname. I'm not an Admin, and have never wanted to be. An arbitrator needs only to form a sound opinion.

I believe passionately that the Wikipedia project can succeed through high quality content. I think that all editors should be encouraged to contribute to main-space, if only through copy-editing or formatting, at least initially. As a chronic dyslexic I am always amazed at how helpful most editors are with copy edits and advice and this is one of Wikipedia's strengths. To me one of the greatest wiki-crimes are summaries such as this [1] to a new editor. Lack of linguistic and grammatical skills need be no impediment to editing Wikipedia. The lambasted editor in question there I suspect has an enormous amount to contribute if it can only be encouraged. We all have something to contribute but often is does need a little fostering.

My faults: I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless. Some of my doings have probably become exaggerated with the telling. For the record: I don't think IRC should be banned but kept in its place. I have used it myself. Admins should be given a dedicated, exclusive to them, page to discuss business openly rather than in the secrecy of #admins. From time to time some matters do need to be discussed privately but these are always affairs for the Arbcom rather than a general admin.

Regarding Arbcom deliberations many problems can be solved by common sense. Many wikipedia problems become confused by pile-ons and opinions from those not grasping the situation. "Troll" is frequently shouted at anyone persistent in seeking the truth. The result is often muddy water, impossible to see through. This has been the case some of the more notorious Arbcom cases. Other cases are avoidable, more understanding is required to see where controversial editors are coming from, and more use employed of talk pages - often compromise can be reached before an edit war commences.

I would be very useful to the Arbcom, I have more experience than many other editors at both writing content and the machinations of Arbitration. I see two sides of each coin.

Support

  1. Strong support. The ArbCom needs more thinking out of the box and more spumoni. Bishonen | talk 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  2. Mackensen (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support Giano's RfC and Arbcom to help wrongly accused User:!! was inspiring, bringing praise from a wide variety of editors who usually disagree. He would make a great Arbcom. Travb (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Paul August ☎ 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tim Q. Wells 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support ... for why, see User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano ++Lar: t/c 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support absolutely. Giano is argumentative, disruptive, pompous[2], arrogant and spectacularly annoying, and I rarely agree with him on anything. But I'd far sooner have someone with his impressive ability to consistently say the right thing in the wrong way than one of those all-too-frequent characters who always manage to say the wrong thing in the right way. I trust his opinion; his sense of fairness; his ability to understand what the key issues are in a dispute & which editors are capable of being turned around; his ability to stay neutral in the face of trolling & provocation from both sides; his understanding of when the sarcasm should stop & the constructive comments start; and above all his understanding of where things are going wrong & dedication to keeping the project on course to what it could one day be, more than I'd trust any dozen "All hail to the wisdom of the glorious First Citizen Jimbo" self-appointed Defenders of the Wiki. — iridescent 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Strong Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Support Because he speaks his mind about what is right and wrong and doesn't mince words. His 'moral compass' is aligned correctly. Being a member of the committee will ensure fair treatment for all.spryde | talk 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strongest support ever. With no offense to anyone, Giano is a single most decent human being this project has. Placing Giano on the committee would be a single change that would have a greatest impact on the improvement of the climate of Wikipedia. --Irpen 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, Need a variety of opinions on the arbcom, says he won't publish private arbcom emails, good enough for me.Rayc 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Cla68 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —trey(wiki) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong support. We need more people like him. *Dan T.* 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. !! ?? 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. The election of the Arbitration Committee is flawed; in that a candidate with a vast majority of support from the community may not be given the opportunity to serve by decision of the Trustees. This is inappropriate in this medium, and thus I shall only be voting once - despite some other fine candidates. My one vote thus goes to Giano, who is relentlessly fair and fearless in the pursuit of the truth. Support LessHeard vanU 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Prolog 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Rock steady support with wobbly zuppa inglese on the side. -- Hoary 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - Epousesquecido 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support Ripberger 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Will (aka Wimt) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Strong Support, without question, would be a breath of fresh air at ArbCom. Giano is one of the finest content contributors, and one of the loudest, most articulate agitators for truth on Wikipedia today. BobTheTomato 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. I admire people of integrity and courage. They also happen to make good arbitrators. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Need a greater range of opinions, he is committed to Wikipedia like few others. RxS 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Duk 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
  30. support - the committee could use a fresh perspective. —Random832 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I concur with Lar's arguments. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. I concur with Iridescent 100% ... Giano = the only guy with the balls to tell it like it is.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. A straight shooter. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. For what it's worth; +ve outweighs the -ve. BLACKKITE 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. - auburnpilot talk 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Shanes 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Is a person of integrity, who from what I have seen remains remarkably civil in all circumstances, and will not allow any of the corruption and cliquey-ness that anti-wikipedians, along with many in the community, fear is a risk in Arb-Com and Wikipedia as a whole. He also knows about the grassroots reality of editing and so will be truly aware of the experience of editors and responsive to their needs.Merkinsmum 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Smart, dedicated. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Less groupthink. - Jehochman Talk 00:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Long live the Iron Arm of the people, Derktar 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  42. Sluzzelin talk 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Probably the hardest call of this election. But neutrality ain't an option here.--Docg 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oops. Have we started voting already? I agree with Doc above - neutrality ain't an option. Not really a hard call though. Carcharoth 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. R. Baley 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Sean William @ 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. I trust Giano when he states that he would view ArbComm communications as strictly confidential, and I appreciate his insight and his extraordinary experience writing quality content. JavaTenor 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Captain panda 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support: Danny 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support Casey Abell 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support (Sarah777 01:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  52. Smart user whom I trust to not bullshit us. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Giano's motives are clearly ethical rather than political; that alone makes him an outstanding candidate. CIreland 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support a truly courageous user who would be a valuable voice in committee discussions. --Alecmconroy 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support ~ priyanath talk 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong Support - His efforts both on and off wikipedia do a great service to the project. He has earned my respect and my confidence in his ability to sit on the Committee. Lsi john 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Tyrenius 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    oh HELL yeah! sNkrSnee | ¿qué? 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented as user doesn't have suffrage, self reported for too few contribs ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Net positive. ➪HiDrNick! 02:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. It's hard to find a candidate who is better equipped to know what's good for the project than Giano. Channelling his righteous energy into proper channels is a Good Thing. Zocky | picture popups 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Viriditas 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. krimpet⟲ 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. [3] and a dissenting voice will keep a group in check. KTC 02:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --MPerel 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support. —dima/talk/ 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. AniMate 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. ♠TomasBat 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Bob Mellish 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. He has made it plain he will respect confidentiality on Arbcom matters. No commitment on drama, but still support.... Johnbod 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Just what the ArbCom needs. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Cautiously. —Cryptic 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Can't believe I'm saying this - Support - Giano made a total nuisance of himself on The Troubles arbcom case some months back. He was invaluable in seeing justice was done. In the words of one arbiter; "Gadflies are useful". Though annoying in the extreme, I admire him for his strength and integrity - Alison ❤ 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. strongest support in the whole election. Not to make this into a paranoia/cabal thing, but it's good to have someone who's unafraid to challenge the powerful and he would be but one voice of 15. JayHenry 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. I am impressed with his track record of producing FA's. Pocopocopocopoco 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Out of retirement support. Is one of the only candidates who might be able to help reform a very broken process. --Bdj 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Strongest Support -Dureo 03:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Indeed, one who is here to build an encyclopaedia, unlike most of his detractors who appear to be here for other motives. More power to your elbow Giano. --Cactus.man ✍ 03:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Goobergunch|? 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support -- Robster2001 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. tells it like it is. ViridaeTalk 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Strongest possible support. Everyking 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support hbdragon88 04:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. —Mira 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. Great editor and fighter against injustice. Isarig 05:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support per Lar. --Marvin Diode 05:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Catchpole 06:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Strong support, - Jeeny (talk) 06:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Strong support Even-handed, articulate, with an appetite for work. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. WAS 4.250 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support — Jack Merridew 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Strong Support earned my respect in the Durova case, we need someone to step up in arbCom--Certified.Gangsta 07:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --Reinoutr 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support WP:100. henrik•talk 07:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support StaticElectric 07:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support V-train 07:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Justforasecond 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Strong Support I could say per all the above, but I won't. I'll say per this ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. SchmuckyTheCat
  106. Strong support. The usual reasons: wants to write an encyclopedia, speaks his mind, no "All hail to the wisdom of the glorious First Citizen Jimbo" self-appointed Defenders of the Wiki crap &c &c. I'm probably one of the longest-serving editors here (first edit June 2003), hope that counts for something (Probably not). edward (buckner)
  107. Support Giano's got a great deal of flair; occasionally this leads to flare-ups, but so what? Obviously intelligent and dedicated to the project, never boring. --Folantin 08:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - better understanding of what this project is really about than any other editor I have encountered. Risker 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. I love this guy. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. I support the possibility of having a critical voice on ArbCom. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. Its time for the writers to take the encyclopaedia back. Relata refero 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support. --Itub 09:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. Changed my mind after reading Lar's support statement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. A good dissenting voice. Shem(talk) 09:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Good editor will make a good arbitrator. --★čabrilo★ 09:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Strong support superlative editor, can penetrate the fog to see what actually needs to be done, I can think of no other with a stronger commitment to the project. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Antics and attitudes are fundamentally incompatible with ArbCom. Saying the right thing isn't bad, but saying it the wrong way can sometimes be worse than not saying anything at all. Editor, yes, arbitrator, no. Kurykh 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. — Coren (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Mr.Z-man 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, sorry. I was all set to support, but Giano's refusal to accept policy on posting of private email, coupled with the appearance of grudge-bearing agains certain individuals, means I cannot have confidence in Giano maintaining the requisite level of discretion as an Arbitrator. Giano writes great content. That doesn't mean he'd be a great arbitrator. Put simply, I do not trust Giano with the sensitive private data that ArbCom members get: CheckUser, Oversight and so on. Guy (Help!) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I agree with JzG, while he has some excellent traits of being a good arbcom member, way too much drama surronding him, and I'm worried that Arbcom was close to banning him for 90 days This is a Secret account 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Chaz Beckett 00:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Gurch (talk) 00:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nufy8 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. -- Ned Scott 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. - I'm far too concerned about... oh, a great many things about Giano. A fabulous writer, but I think that being on Arbcom would be a horrible experience for him. DS 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. GracenotesT § 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15.  — master sonT - C 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I think very highly of Giano, who was outspoken and right about Majorly and !!. But I'm concerned that he would use his position as arbitrator to eliminate, rather than control or limit, off-wiki communication among sysops. Chick Bowen 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Great user, but a bit too colorful for arbcom. Though I do dislike off wiki communication.... hmm.... Prodego talk 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Totally unacceptable behavior in the Durova affair. Crum375 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Regretfully. Good ideas offset too much by the means of pursuing them. — TKD::Talk 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agree with Guy. sh¤y 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose Too much baggage that rears its ugly head too often. -- Avi 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Fred Bauder 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. SQLQuery me! 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Carnildo 01:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong oppose. I simply can't (nor will I ever, more than likely) trust Giano to perform any actions related to the ArbCom. I was just edit conflicted on this twice with two oppose votes, and that convinces me even more. --Coredesat 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Marvelous editor, but exactly the wrong person for arbcom. DGG (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Hell No This user has been blocked for revert warring, being incivil, personal attacks and for violating users' privacy. The day he's on the Arbitration Committee as a trusted user, I quit in protest. — Save_Us_229 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. - Per above concerns mostly -- Tawker 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Alexfusco5 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Definitely not —Animum § 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. His personal attacks and confrontational style would only worsen ArbCom cases, if anything. Chick Bowen hit my thoughts on the nail; if he's so bitter about things that he posts them on his talk page and doesn't 'let go', I'd be afraid of worse issues on the committee. David Fuchs (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. B 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. While there is some merit to the idea of setting the cat amongst the pigeons, I'm going to stick to the same rationale for all candidates. Oppose Thatcher131 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Way too controversial for me to approve (Hint: See block log and ArbCom cases). Scobell302 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. ATren 02:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Húsönd 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Concur with JzG and Chick Bowen. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Way, way too controversial. AmiDaniel 03:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Has good intentions, but his methods of implementing them could use some work. Picaroon (t) 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I strongly oppose this nomination: see the following diffs: [4][5][6][7] Acalamari 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose - much too emotional. --InkSplotch 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Only due to pattern of disruption on meta discussion. I respect your contributions. I don't support your candidacy. Your a good editor. Mercury 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Not today, guv'nor. Give it a year for everything to die down, in the meantime I think perhaps this is in bad taste. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm very glad you posted the email, it was the right thing. Unfortunately, that would be unacceptable for an arbitrator. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. futurebird 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Eluchil404 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongly. Spebi 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:25, December 3, 2007
  54. Mbisanz 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Giano has the heart in the right place and is very passionate about the project. But he is too prone to drama in a position requiring a cool head. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I respect Giano's contributions, but I don't think he has the right balance of temperment for Arbcom. Dragons flight 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. A great encyclopedia contributor, but not the temperament needed for ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I am unconvinced about neutrality and respect for various policies needed for this project to operate (such as CIVIL).-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Will only interfere with his ability to write his usually excellent articles.--MONGO 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. - Crockspot 07:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. --Hut 8.5 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Problems with civility and staying cool. Also, this is completely inacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. I value your input, but you're too controversial for this role. DrKiernan 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. No, partially because of the cloud of disruptive users who follow you about cheering for your every move, and partially for your being in the middle of too many dramas. Other than that, as an editor I have great respect for you. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. <<-armon->> 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Giano_II&oldid=175451789"