Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Cool Hand Luke: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Larno Man (talk | contribs)
1,138 edits
Line 162: Line 162:
# per Ryan [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# per Ryan [[User:TimidGuy|TimidGuy]] ([[User talk:TimidGuy|talk]]) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Blue">'''Alex'''</font></b>]][[User talk:Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Red">'''fusco'''</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Green"><sup>'''5'''</sup></font></b>]] 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# [[User:Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Blue">'''Alex'''</font></b>]][[User talk:Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Red">'''fusco'''</font></b>]][[Special:Contributions/Alexfusco5|<b><font color="Green"><sup>'''5'''</sup></font></b>]] 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
# '''Support''' ---[[User:Larno Man|Larno]] ([[User talk:Larno Man|talk]]) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:12, 2 December 2008

Cool Hand Luke

Hello. I've been around for a while, and I've worked on complex arbitration. I'm running because I want the Arbitration Committee to be what it ought to be: a speedy, just, respectful, and respected institution.
In the last year, ArbCom has frequently failed us. ArbCom has tied up hundreds of valuable volunteer hours in dragging cases. ArbCom has declined to make public votes about the very issues they were asked to resolve. ArbCom needs reform.
I believe ArbCom's mandate flows from the community and from the Foundation's mission to create free content. Unless ArbCom serves the community's encyclopedic objective, it serves no legitimate purpose at all. We must put it back on track. I intend to do so.
As a candidate, I pledge commitment to speed, transparency, and subservience to the community.
Speed is important because Wikipedia is a volunteer project. This encyclopedia exists because thousands of uncompensated volunteers donated valuable time to write it. We should be suspicious of any dispute resolution process that burdens contributors with bureaucratic busywork—drudgery that burns out users and distracts from the encyclopedia. Disruptive users always waste contributor time, but ArbCom can minimize the damage and disillusionment by conducting speedy and orderly arbitrations. Trolling should not be tolerated, and ArbCom should regularly update parties on their status. Draft findings should be regularly posted to elicit input.
Transparency similarly respects Wikipedia's volunteers. When a valued contributors sets aside time—often hours—to produce detailed evidence, ArbCom must minimally explain how their findings are supported by the evidence. Too often, detailed evidence has passed completely unnoted. Not only does this give the impression that evidence has been unfairly handled, it also demeans the work of volunteers.
Although many deliberations are sensitive and cannot proceed publicly, I would make factfinding open whenever practicable. "Secret hearings," apart from being unseemly, don't allow public examination of claims. I believe that truth prevails under vigorous scrutiny, so I am wary of private evidence that cannot withstand crossexamination.
Finally, ArbCom must behave as the community's servant. When an insoluble case arises, ArbCom must resolve the problem with existing policies. Sometimes, ArbCom may note that existing policies are inadequate, but it should always answer the question posed to it.
To ensure my responsiveness to the community, I stand with the option of "Arbitrator recall." I also pledge to never stand in the way of the community's choice of leadership.
Thank you. Cool Hand Luke

Support

  1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DurovaCharge! 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Captain panda 00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caspian blue 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ priyanath talk 00:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support - Shot info (talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support - Tom B (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Jehochman Talk 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Steven Walling (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes. krimpet✽ 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. PhilKnight (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I was impressed with his analytical ability in the Mantanmoreland case, if not entirely impressed with his temperament. I'm hoping the temperament issue was transient and a result of his involvement in the case, and the strong analytical skill will bear out on the committee. Avruch T 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Tenacious, analytical yet humane. Generally does what he says he's going to do.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support Majorly talk 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. kurykh 01:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Toon(talk) 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support, but it would be nice to add in more content to the encyclopedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Pretty much ditto Giggy and Ottava. Gimmetrow 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Protonk (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Pcap ping 01:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --PeaceNT (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Strong Support. Luke's campaign promises are extremely impressive. Worthy of our trust. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Giggity! Great user! --Mixwell!Talk 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Atmoz (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I have faith that his head and temperament are in the right place to actually deliver on those campaign promises. AgneCheese/Wine 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I wrote a little endorsement on my blog. Good luck! David Shankbone 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support SBHarris 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Dr.K. (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --MPerel 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Gets it. rootology (C)(T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support John254 03:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support GRBerry 04:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) revised text I've read the talk page thread regarding Ryan's concerns, and those links that anyone can read. Ryan's concerns are vastly overblown and do not merit the opposition that they are generating. GRBerry 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Bold candidacy, no doubletalk. (full rationale) rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. A good old-fashioned Wikipedian with the project's best interests in mind. A straight-shooter who'll bring a unique perspective to ArbCom. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Someone old bringing something new. This is the definition of someone who gets it. Mike H. Fierce! 04:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Fair enough. MER-C 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Strong support. Everyking (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Very straightforward and willing to get in and work. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Enigma message 06:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Many of the clearest-thinking answers and boldest, yet feasible, ideas in his statement and campaign pledges. If only half of this translates into action, I think we'll have an excellent Arb. --JayHenry (talk) 06:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Updating to note that I have evaluated Ryan Postlethwaite's and find it to be either misinformed or misleading. Whichever it is, my support for CHL stands--everyone please read NYB's statement on the talk page. This was effectively a well-poisoning from Ryan. --JayHenry (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Strong support. Great admin. Will make a great Arb. bd2412 T 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Highly sensible, excellent candidate. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support Another candidate who I often disagree with but trust to do nothing egregious. Should bring some fresh ideas by the looks of things. Brilliantine (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support لennavecia 08:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support, generally clueful. Not concerned at all about the WR account. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Skinwalker (talk) 11:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. What we've got here... is failure... to arbitrate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week. Which is the way he wants it... well, he gets it. I don't like it any more than you men. ViridaeTalk 12:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support A very helpful and experienced editor who I believe is certainly up to the task of arbitration. Blue Danube (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support - Fritzpoll (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support - if we don't want Wikipedia Review members, then we better kick NewYorkBrad out while we're at it. GTD 13:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Regards, Huldra (talk) 14:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support -- level-headed and fair. ATren (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong support. MookieZ (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support -- Yaf (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Strong Support This is an exceedingly sane and conscientious user. His work on Mantanmoreland was superb, we need someone on arbcom that has the analytical skills to make sense of some of the more tangled cases that surely lay ahead of us. Those opposing because he has a WR membership ought to actually review his contribs there. He is wheat in the vast sea of chaff, and what's more, he is the voice of reason when the more extreme voices are advocating new kinds of foolishness. Cool Hand Luke will bring change to arbcom, and it is the change we need. I have every confidence he will keep his promises. Absolutely endorse. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 16:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I liked most of your answers. RMHED (talk) 16:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Leatherstocking (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support I was highly impressed with his work on the Mantanmoreland arbcom. His posts on WR, if that is him, seem reasonable to me on the whole, and actually seem in-part responsible, along with NYBrad's, for elevating the critical discourse there and making that site less of a lunatic operation. In short, I have complete confidence in CHL's ability and maturity for ArbCom. I think he is one of the few candidates capable of substantially reforming WP's dispute resolution processes. Ameriquedialectics 16:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support --Explodicle (T/C) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. I think that Cool Hand Luke has the necessary judgment for ArbCom. Acalamari 17:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. --Kbdank71 17:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strongest possible support Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. support have not seen him around much on wiki, which means he dislikes excessive AN/I drama etc.:) This person is also very intelligent and rational. Sticky Parkin 18:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. AGK 18:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Iain99Balderdash and piffle 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. After reviewing the issues brought up by Ryan, I am able to support him as the issue is not as they are described below. spryde | talk 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Kablammo (talk) 21:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Brilliant wikipedia-space admin - he's got a ton of clue and knows his stuff. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support User has commendable tenure, and answers to the questions impressed me. GlassCobra 23:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Easy. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Tactical vote, despite uneasiness with stance on BLP. Skomorokh 23:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:Vote-Support Outstanding and hard working Wikipedian, just remember that if somethings true, we ought to say it regardless if it hurts the subject.--Ipatrol (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. I accept Luke's assurances that he didn't out someone, and that the editor in question had already been open about his identity. I'm supporting because I feel it's time for change. SlimVirgin talk|edits 01:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong support. His work on the Mantanmoreland RFAR impressed me to no end, and he's always had a cool head under pressure from what I've seen. Dr. eXtreme 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Strongly. — Dan | talk 01:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Yeah. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Bucketsofg 01:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Because he has a cool hand. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Ryan, this is ridiculous. When someone has their homepage linked from their userpage, discussing the contents of that homepage should never be regarded as a "privacy violation". --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 01:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Dlabtot (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voyaging(talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oren0 (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Elonka 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Oppose Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong Oppose per views on anonymity (see lar's questions). Protecting someone's privacy should always be done regardless of their actions. Prodego talk 03:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose - Agree with Prodego. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 04:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has clarified his position respecting your objection here. Cheers! bd2412 T 07:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strong Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. No way. Sarah 06:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. Dragons flight (talk) 06:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose - Luke is "One" on WR - he outed Coredesat (whatever his intentions were, that's what the effect was) over on the site leading to Coredesat leaving (See his post, much of it is now removed [1]). I don't want any editors doing things like that, let alone an arbitrator. 1051 posts on WR in the last year? You should have come over to WP to solve any problems you had rather than playing out the Wikipedian on WR. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to set the record straight, Coredesat did not leave because of this, as he himself indicated on two separate occasions: [2] [3]. In fact, he didn't even endorse blocking EricBarbour, who was the true aggressor here. Why is CHL getting blamed for something that was initiated by EricBarbour and which Coredesat himself denied was a factor in him leaving? ATren (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see the talkpage for this page for further information and comments from the candidate. Avruch T 20:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Too pretentious and active WR poster. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 09:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per combination of WR account, loose views on protection of pseudonymity, and support for too much BLP and BLPSE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Rebecca (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. WR users seen to generate too much drama. Stifle (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. — neuro(talk) 10:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose per Prodego and Ryan Postlethwaite. ElinorD (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose per Ryan Postlethwaite. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. per Ryan Postlethwaite. I don't care if people have accounts on WR as long as they do good work here but that crosses the line. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. per answer (and clarification) to Lar. Privacy concerns remain. Tom Harrison Talk 13:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per my reasons at User:MBisanz/ACE2008 MBisanz talk 13:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose per privacy concerns, per WR concerns (echoing EconomicsGuy that having an account or editing WR is one thing, but....) Pedro :  Chat  13:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The candidate has denied the accusation of outing on the talk page. Letting you know since he won't post to this page Fritzpoll (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Supports and contributes to a hate site. Crum375 (talk) 14:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Hell No. Severe privacy concerns. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. SashaNein (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per #14, an important issue of priority. — CharlotteWebb 14:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Weak oppose Colchicum (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Per Prodego and Ryan P - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Really sorry, but based on Ryan's evidence, I can't trust you with checkuser data and private correspondence. Sceptre (talk) 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose per the WR matter and Ryan's take on it. An arbcom member cannot have even the slightest whiff of controversy surrounding them in such matters, and this is much more than a whiff. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose - ArbCom needs less drama, not more. Whether you create the drama or not is immaterial; it'll follow you. That's unfair, I admit, but the reality is that we need less controversy surrounding the committee. // roux   editor review16:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. per answers to some of the questions. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. NVO (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Synergy 20:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Flat no per absolutist views on BLP. Moreschi (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. It pains me to switch my vote, because I really like your candidacy statement. The accusations about outing and whatnot seem to be flimsy evidence of untrustworthiness, and I duly ignore them. But that said, I do not vote for people who participate actively in Wikipedia Review. WR creates drama on-wiki and fuels trolls. Rule #1: don't feed the trolls. Active and respected communities members like Cool Hand Luke do not need grungy backchannels to make their criticisms and concerns heard. There is simple no excuse. Steven Walling (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Ryan Postlethwaite is making some points which I do find very disturbing. One wouldn't believe an editor would act like that, certainly not somebody I would like to see on ArbCom. --Kanonkas :  Talk  23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. No. --B (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose - whatever the details of the events on WR, it was a mess, and suggests to me a misjudgement, however well intentioned. Warofdreams talk 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Daniel (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --TS 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Mr.Z-man 01:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. per Ryan TimidGuy (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Alexfusco5 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Cool_Hand_Luke&oldid=255335697"