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
→‎Support: balanced mix
Line 226: Line 226:
#'''Support''' [[User:Skinwalker|Skinwalker]] ([[User talk:Skinwalker|talk]]) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Skinwalker|Skinwalker]] ([[User talk:Skinwalker|talk]]) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Alaexis|Alæxis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Support''' [[User:Alaexis|Alæxis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
#For a different perspective. It's good to have a mix of views in something like ArbCom. <span style="border: 1px #F10; background-color:cream;">'''[[User:SilkTork|<font face="Script MT" color="#1111AA" size="2">SilkTork</font>]]''' *[[User talk:SilkTork|<font face="Roman" color="#0ccccc" size="0.5"><sup>SilkyTalk</sup></font>]]</span> 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


== Oppose ==
== Oppose ==

Revision as of 18:36, 5 December 2007

Please Note: Extended comments may 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 Extended comment moved to talk page — 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. Extended comment moved to talk page...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. [2] 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]
  117. Support, per Lar and Alison. Stu ’Bout ye! 10:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support: A man who understands ethics, law, human duties, and community, as well as writing. Geogre 10:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Eusebeus 11:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. I really didn't think I would, but here I am. I must admit I have some concern still about potential drama, but I'm convinced Giano would take a seat seriously and use all appropriate discretion. Colored me surprised as hell. Vassyana 11:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Uber strong support this candidate 100%! This editor has turned me from a negative and disruptive editor to a positive and wiki friendly contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vintagekits (talk • contribs)
  122. Support writing is encouraged. - Francis Tyers · 12:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. The very definition of fearless and insightful, two necessary qualities of an arbitrator, as much as his insights might be better phrased in ways that make people listen more than react at times. Splash - tk 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support I think this candidate has the project's best interests in mind, however I would give one request to him that sometimes it's better to keep your 'powder dry' and not get into major shouting matches over incidents that you disagree with. -- Marcsin | Talk 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Above all else, his heart is in the right place; if he's sometimes too dramatic -- well, he won't be the first ArbCom'er with that flaw, and he'll do good for us all. Xoloz 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support  Grue  13:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Forte Supporte! Extended comment moved to talk page --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Though not eligible to vote, I support this candidate. Given those that are retiring from Arbcom and the possibility James Wales may appoint Giano, I look forward to a new look Arbitration Committee. HydroMagi 14:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - clearly capable - Modernist 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Gut instinct was to support, but had reservations. Convinced by Lar's evaluation. --barneca 14:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. WilyD 15:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. --SGT Tex 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. the wub "?!" 15:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Padraig Support have always found him fair and think he would be a asset to wikipedia.--Padraig 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support - Mattisse 15:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Strong support. You don't have to be an admin to be an arbitrator. Enough "old boy networking". Mindraker 16:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. EconomicsGuy 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. daveh4h 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Eugène van der Pijll 17:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support. Heart in right place, net benefit to Arbcom. Martinp 17:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Edivorce 17:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Bryan Derksen 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support --Rocksanddirt 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 18:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support. Hemmingsen 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Brief reappearance support - I recommend reading his answers to the questions and User:Lar/ArbCom2007/Giano before submitting a kneejerk oppose out of fear of FrankenGiano. Yomanganitalk 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Honest and intelligent. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Carolmooredc Wanted to vote for one person to shake things up a little, sounds like Giano.
  150. Davewild 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. While I have reservations, I think he would move ArbComm in the right directions. Can't sit on the fence, and I trust him more with the secret data than some who already have it. GRBerry 20:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. A better option than a "career politician" type of candidate. Oldelpaso 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Will be independent and unbiased.--Bedivere 20:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support I waffled a bit when deciding whether to support or oppose. I think he's a valuable voice of opposition when things get a bit cabalish around here, even if I think he sometimes gets a bit shrill for my taste. It speaks volumes that Kelly Martin, who he often bitterly opposed in the past, has admitted a certain amount of respect for him in her blog. Ultimately, I decided he should have his shot at this and see what he can make of it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Strongest Support Just what the project needs. --Domer48 21:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Suppport Jd2718
  157. Support - sure. -- Schneelocke 21:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. —Ruud 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Why not? Kaldari 22:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Good understanding of a greater need for transparency. --Pleasantville 22:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support 100% backing --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support per Lar. Good luck! —CComMack (t–c) 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. NF24(radio me!) 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. A gamble I recognise, but I think Giano is an honourable person and would behave honourably as an Arbitrator. WjBscribe 23:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Toffile 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. EconomistBR 01:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. RMHED 01:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. --arkalochori |talk| 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support: for his many sins, placing him on the arbcom might be the best punishment the community can endorse. And he is such an excellent editor, he may do quite well at this, in all seriousness. Jonathunder 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support: Damn the Man. Duke o Puke 02:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Duke o Puke does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support Let's put his ability to cut through crap to work for us. Maralia 02:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support --健次(derumi)talk 02:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. @pple complain 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Difficult decision here, but I come down on support because I think the candidate will stir the pot that needs to be stirred, without running amok. COGDEN 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. kmccoy (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support Knows the difference between right and wrong. --Hdt83 Chat 07:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Thought provoking and honest answers; I do trust Giano to take on this role seriously, productively, and keep his commitment to undertake this without admin tools. John Vandenberg 07:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Strong support Fair, passionate, and understands the ins and outs of producing content - he'll bring a much-needed perspective to ArbCom -- Arvind 09:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strong support. Thedarxide 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Surprising myself after doing a lot of reading and trying to think it through. - BanyanTree 11:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. Wikipedia cliques and cloak-and-dagger stuff need to be stopped; we need more "disruptions" in that general direction. GregorB 11:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support which probably adds me to a roster of suspects on a secret mailing list somewhere. Cleduc 11:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support - someone that will argue matters and not just go along blind - it's very easy for Giano to be outvoted in an arbitration so I can't see the damage it would cause. violet/riga (t) 12:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support --Elian Talk 12:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support, honest original thinker. Dan100 (Talk) 13:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Wouldn't want him to have sole power, certainly would want his voice on the committee. --RobthTalk 15:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support nancy (talk) 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Clearly a strong candidate and conscientous to boot. User:Athinaios (talk) 17:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support, because truth is stranger than fiction. — CharlotteWebb 17:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. --Tolanor 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support. -- SECisek 19:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support. Deor 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support. Bramlet Abercrombie (talk) 22:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. The times I find myself agreeing with Giano’s principles outweighs the "how he brings the message" concerns. --Van helsing (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support. -- RG2 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support for any number of reasons, including courage to do the unpopular and unpleasant. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. --- RockMFR 00:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Strong Support We need to have more common sense at ArbCom, and less groupthink. Giano is the right candidate to achieve this. Gray62 (talk) 01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support Haber (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Extended comment moved to talk page --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Transparency. ~ UBeR (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support. Advocate of greater transparency and would bring a certain freshness to ArbCom Tyro (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Cronholm144 04:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. After reading ongoing discussions and digging deeper into the Durova-affair, I've changed my mind. Peter Isotalo 07:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Strong support. --Martin Wisse (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Strong support. Transparency. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support. Wetman (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support. Earned my support from the Durova issue. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 09:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Would bring the necessary cowbell to ArbCom. User:Krator (t c) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong support. Hgerstung (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indented, user does not have suffrage. Snowolf How can I help? 15:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support. Ceoil (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Strong Support per [3] SashaNein (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Strong support We need people who would rather be right than popular with the in-crowd. Lurker (said · done) 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Alæxis¿question? 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. For a different perspective. It's good to have a mix of views in something like ArbCom. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 18:36, 5 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. Extended comment moved to talk page 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]
    Oppose - much too emotional. --InkSplotch 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. 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]
  46. 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]
  47. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. futurebird 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose. After careful reconsideration my oppose must stand.[8] Eluchil404 04:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strongly. Spebi 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. — xaosflux Talk 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:25, December 3, 2007
  53. Mbisanz 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. 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]
  55. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. 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]
  57. A great encyclopedia contributor, but not the temperament needed for ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 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]
  59. Will only interfere with his ability to write his usually excellent articles.--MONGO 07:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. - Crockspot 07:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. --Hut 8.5 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Problems with civility and staying cool. Also, this is completely inacceptable. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. I value your input, but you're too controversial for this role. DrKiernan 08:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. 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]
  65. <<-armon->> 10:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Not a chance. Takes advantage of his status gained from writing some decent articles to act like a child every couple of weeks. Neil ☎ 10:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose. The trouble Giano caused over The Troubles would have been sufficient reason; but now wilfully disclosing private email? Even Jimbo is fed up with him. — ras52 10:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Wrong approach to many situations and would likely cause too much drama as part of the arbitration committee. Angela. 10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. As ras52 said, no. We don't need drama queens on arbcommittee...--Cometstyles 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. -- lucasbfr talk 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Can't support as an ArbCom candidate after the drama wilfully created over the Durova email affair. --Stormie 11:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. ArbCom needs less drama, not more. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose - Mostly the right ideas. Entirely the wrong personality. --CBD 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Brilliant contributor and excellent debater, but too hot-headed. The Durova affair has not swayed my opinion either way. Peter Isotalo 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - wrong temperament, too quick to condemn, and prone to unjust extreme solutions. A bad judge. David Lauder 12:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. --Counter-revolutionary 12:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Strenuously oppose. A useful irritant to keep "open" the "spirit" of WP but spectacularly lacking in common sense & human empathy. Lacks the judicial temperament to start with an open mind and come to a conclusion based on evidence...comments moved to talk page.  W. Frank talk ✉  13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose, ten minutes examining this bloke's contributions history and his sarcastic comments leads me to think he would be an appalling arbitrator. Too self-opinionated and too keen to force his views on others. --Christchurch 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. OpposeAddhoc 14:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: Any candidate who admits the following faults: "I have strong views, and don't suffer fools, at times I am abrupt and tactless" (preamble above) and "is nasty and bad tempered" (header warning at [9]) should not be putting themselves forward as a candidate here. Chelsea Tory 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose Too much drama, not enough focus on improving the project. KnightLago 14:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Absolutely not. Grave incivility concerns. PeaceNT 14:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. oppose an excellent editor who has contributed greatly to the encyclopedia but his behavior demonstrates a temperament not suited to ArbCom. JoshuaZ 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Excellent editor in many respects, but way too dramatic for arbcom. Friday (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose. An extremely valuable contributor, but not an ideal candidate for ArbCom. Sorry. — Satori Son 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. ~ trialsanderrors 15:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Though happy to work with this editor in other venues. Dekimasuよ! 15:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Controversy the downfall here. ArbCom should not be controversial in an ideal world. GDonato (talk) 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Oppose. Too drama-driven for me. - JodyB talk 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. See comments on sig link. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose - Behavioral issues. Space Cadet 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose - Lack of tact, a much needed trait in ArbCom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jossi (talk • contribs)
  92. Oppose, I like Giano, but Friday absolutely hit the nail on the head.--Isotope23 talk 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Regrettably oppose. I commend Giano for his willingness to improve the function of the community; however, as GDonato says above, Arbcom members should not be a figure of controversy, lest Arbcom be made controversial. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose - AvruchTalk 17:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose — utterly inappropriate ➥the Epopt 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose - Giano has many talents (writing among them), but I'm afraid this would not be an effective use of them. Regretfully - Philippe | Talk 18:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Cannot trust to be impartial Mark Hasker 18:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
  97. Oppose - Darwinek 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose. Hardworking, but not suited for the level of trust required. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Weak Oppose - I like Giano. I believe he's beneficial to this project as an editor, and, like me, he's something of a non-conformist, and doesn't always follow the crowd like a sheep where controversial wiki-decisions are concerned. But he does have a tendency to be controversial, and I don't see him as the right person to resolve highly contentious disputes in a tactful manner. WaltonOne 19:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Sorry. MookieZ 19:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Kbdank71 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102.  Folic_Acid | talk  20:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. Should stick to writing. - Taxman Talk 20:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Confrontational attitude would not work with ArbCom. Pagrashtak 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. --Malcolmxl5 21:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. - controversial and a tendancy to launch personal attacks Astrotrain 22:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose Good editor, but too much controversy and a long block log for the very things undesirable in an arbcom member.--Sandahl 22:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Mathsci 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose Shot info 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose. Bright mind and impressive answers to questions. But being "abrupt and tactless" is a no go for ArbCom. --Ligulem 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. By no means. — Dan | talk 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Strong oppose I would never support anyone with so many blocks in the log. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose. Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Arbitrators set an example, and I'm not really comfortable with this particular example. I don't see this reducing the drama level. MastCell Talk 23:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. refused to provide portfolio. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links! — Sebastian 00:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Not only no, but HELL NO. βcommand 00:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. No. The whole campaign to humiliate Durova is enough on its own to oppose; the extensive history of disruption only adds to reasons to oppose. Horologium (talk) 01:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose. BastunBaStun not BaTsun 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose - This is a good editor in contributions, but I believe an Arbcom role wouldn't be best. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose Handled the Durova/!! fandango in a manner intended to maximize both on-Wiki drama and personal damage to Durova. Arbcom requires greater maturity and discretion. Raymond Arritt 04:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Incivility problems as well as a ill temperament. --DarkFalls talk 04:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. I respect Giano, but I think this would increase the drama, and the drama is what I like least about Wikipedia.--Kubigula (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose Civility issues and an unnecessary amount of controversy would arise from this appointment. Xdenizen 06:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Anynobody 06:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose --DHeyward 06:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose. Are you JOKING? Giano?! --ffroth 06:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. This user actually abanonded his original account due to a dispute he had and has garnered too much ill will for my liking.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose. Giano is a star editor, may be the most liked on Wikipedia, he also spends a lot of energy righting the wikiwrongs and protecting wikiabused (that have created him many friends and foes). Still I strongly believe that arbitrators should be admins first, also IMHO Giano's psyche is better suited for an advocate rather than an unbiased judge Alex Bakharev 07:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Jeffpw 09:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Oppose.Biophys 15:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Oppose. The demeanor of Judge Jeffreys is not a recommendation for ArbCom, regardless of the causes in which it is employed. Choess 15:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oppose. Great editor certainly , good lawyer probably, but I wouldn't like him as a judge Fram 15:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose per Alex Bakharev. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Excessive tendency to be totally wrong. Phil Sandifer 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose - Galloglass 18:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Oppose - Skinny McGee 18:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose No. Has not demonstrated the ability to judge things objectively. Also per Phil Sandifer's reasoning. 1 != 2 18:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Oppose, sorry, can't support. Too much drama. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Oppose - many positive aspects for the user in general, but someone with strong views is exactly what ArbCom does not need. An arbitrator (sort of like a member of the Supreme Court) needs to be completely impartial on any subject and rule only according to Wikipedia's policies, and sound judgement and common sense. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose Giano has a long term track record of serious misconduct, a terrible temper, and a lack of respect for other users. Postlebury (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Oppose I do think Giano should have involvement with Arbcom in some sort of consultant type role, but he's such a good content writer I would leave him to do that. If it were possible to be Neutral, that is how I would be voting. Nick (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose. Doesn't always show the cool head that is required of arbitrators and can be snippy/bity. It doesn't help he's been an involved party in multiple arbcom cases. - Mgm|(talk) 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose, too controversial. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Michael Snow (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose: doesn't seem to understand enough about the breadth of issues surrounding arbcomm. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose. Epbr123 (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Oppose - Spawn Man (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. I'm sorry, but I think that civility is a very important trait, especially when it comes to positions of power. Giano is quite right quite often, but being right doesn't mean that you can act however you please. --Conti|✉ 01:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose - Source of too much drama to be effective. FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose - Admits he doesn't know things, which is a good trait. The problem is that some of these specific things are crucial for an arbitrator to know. Antelan talk 05:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose VanTucky talk 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. No. Especially not after reading Acalamari's diffs. Grandmasterka 08:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose. --Commander Keane (talk) 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Oppose Unsuitable personality type. Alex Middleton (talk) 11:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose Save the drama for your mama. Ronnotel (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Almost wish I could support, I like several of Giano's answers. However, there is simply too much of a history of incivility and lack of discretion, unacceptable qualities in an arbitrator. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Giano_II&oldid=175971586"