Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/WJBscribe

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008‎ | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Larno Man (talk | contribs) at 02:18, 2 December 2008 (→‎Support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WJBscribe

Note: A longer version of this statement is at /Full version

I confess to having always been rather astounded by the trust the community has shown in me and yet I find myself once again asking if I have your confidence. I have been a bureaucrat for roughly a year and an administrator for just under two. I have also been chairing Wikipedia's Mediation Committee since January. I am proud of my achievements in those capacities and now am offering to serve on the Arbitration Committee.

A lot of mistakes have been made by the Committee - especially in the past year - and there is little sign of it learning from them. The Wikipedia community is looking for a change of direction from the Committee and there are several areas where I believe learning from past failures is a particular priority:

Transparency. Whilst some deliberations may have to occur privately, I think it important that ArbCom give more thought to whether an issue truly needs to be discussed privately and, if not, move the discussion on-wiki.
Clarity. Clear wording and certainty of interpretation is essential in ArbCom decisions.
Appropriate sanctions. If a problem is such that ArbCom is being asked to intervene, targeted sanctions are needed. The overuse of article probation is becoming problematic – whilst it can be useful in some circumstances, it is not a magic solution to all content disputes – and frustration with “general amnesty” and “hugs all round” decisions is understandable.
Speed. This year there were comparatively few cases and yet some have taken months to resolve. It is crucial that cases do not languish unresolved for months.
Block reviews. Often blocked users are told that they should email ArbCom to appeal their block. The Committee should be providing a public log of what appeals it has received and what has been done in respect of them. Who has reviewed them, who have they asked for evidence and what was their conclusion?

Throughout my time at Wikipedia I have always been open to questions and willing to explain my actions. I don't promise you'll always agree with me but, were I to be elected, I will make myself available to discuss anything which you find problematic and I will listen carefully to your opinion. For me the ArbCom of the future is one less defensive and more open, willing to make difficult decisions even where these may be unpopular, and able to respond constructively when challenged.

Support

  1. 100% right attitude. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. Strong support. Would be an excellent ArbCom member.--chaser - t 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Avi (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No problem at all, he will make a good abrcom member.— Ѕandahl ♥ 00:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. DurovaCharge! 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. - filelakeshoe 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, level-headed, intelligent and hard working editor. Dreadstar † 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support Sam Blab 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Majorly talk 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. kurykh 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Best of all the candidates. Avruch T 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. – Toon(talk) 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Certainly qualified. Steven Walling (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. One of the more suitable editors on Wikipedia. Fair and logical.--Koji† 01:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. SupportSumoeagle179 (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Weak support. The issue with Peter Damian makes me go "eh", but I have not heard his story of you being involved echoed in any other place. I'd be fine with you on ArbCom. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Will be a great addition, good luck! RockManQReview me 01:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support - fair and level-headed. His experience as a crat will help too. Nsk92 (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. iMatthew 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - One of the most qualified to serve on the committee; a well-trusted, well-liked member of the community with ample experience in disputes resolution, given that he is chair of the mediation committee. I am making one vote these elections and it goes to WJB. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Tom B (talk) 02:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak Support: I have my doubts, but you can do. - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 02:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Good God, yes! One of the greats. --David Shankbone 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support. Cirt (talk) 02:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Second best candidate behind Jayvdb. Good luck! Daniel (talk) 02:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support JodyB talk 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support I suppose... J.delanoygabsadds 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Extra Strong Support. A man willing to stand by his principles in the face of oncoming wrongdoing is what we need more of. rootology (C)(T) 03:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Yep. Definitely has the right temperament. GJC 03:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong support In my view, the best candidate for nomination this time (with no offence to several other very worthy candidates running). Orderinchaos 03:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Epbr123 (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Burner0718 Wutsapnin? 03:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support most definitely. – RyanCross (talk) 03:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Because I dislike the rest more. Prodego talk 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. WJB is as level-headed as you can possibly find, and I trust his judgement thoroughly. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. B (talk) 04:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strongest possible support, outstanding candidate. Everyking (talk) 04:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Indeed. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Even though I'm no fan of "hat collecting", he is trustworthy and he earns my support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 05:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -MBK004 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Asset to the project. Andre (talk) 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Strong support. An excellent candidate. Sarah 06:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. –Moondyne 07:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 07:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. bd2412 T 07:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support – absolutely. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. Ironholds (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. Shows a welcome awareness of the perceived mistakes and problems with ArbCom, and a willingness to work to rectify them. Steve T • C 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Weak support. I like your stance, and your history shows a general tendency towards fairness and clarity. I am concerned, however, with how much time you spend on other 'backstage' WP things, and am worried that either those or ArbCom will suffer. // roux   editor review09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Obvious choice. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support - would make a fine arbitrator, and hopefully knows that he can put the requisite amount of time in Fritzpoll (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Of course. Stifle (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - have only ever seen sensible actions from this user. Ronnotel (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Horologium (talk) 11:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. --Conti|✉ 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support 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 13:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Graham87 14:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support inclusivedisjunction (talk) 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support: Experience as a bureaucrat, chair of the Mediation Committee and administrator leaves me to wholly support WJBscribe. seicer | talk | contribs 16:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. Lots of hats, yes, but I'm confident you can manage your time, or you wouldn't be running on a "speed" platform. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. --Kbdank71 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Tim Vickers (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. For excellent judgment, and my personal interactions with WJBscribe. Acalamari 18:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. AGK 18:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. I trust this candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. 'Support Dbiel (Talk) 19:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:31, 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) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. Has proven time and time again that he has the right skills and approach to be an Arb. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support — -- Suntag ☼ 21:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support The Helpful One 21:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. On balance. Davewild (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Too much on his platter but a worthy candidate ....--Cometstyles 21:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. No particular qualms, not inherently against "hat collecting." GlassCobra 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. A cool head and clear intentions. The best of luck. haz (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Nousernamesleft (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. For courage. Jehochman Talk 23:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Strong support. The best. Bearian (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support, even if it were only for speaking up with ethical reservations at the latest Giano II controversy. Intended as a vote for balanced ethical behavior and transparency.--Wetman (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. This is breaking my "only seven supports" rule, but I feel that, for his show of solidarity in unblocking Giano (as someone who got annoyed at him breaking parole, this time he actually didn't) and reminding fellow Arbs of the rules they've set... Luxembourg, deux points. Sceptre (talk) 00:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. support --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Privatemusings (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Whether we agree with him or not, unblocking Giano in the middle of his own running for ArbCom, in light of what happened to SlimVirgin, shows courage and conviction. We want arbs who won't be afraid to go against the others if they believe something is right. ElinorD (talk) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support--Joopercoopers (talk) 00:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support per Sceptre and ElinorD. Having the balls to do something unpopular if you think it's necessary is A Good Thing. – iridescent 00:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support - strong experience, very active in a number of areas but good performance in all of them. Very good statement. Warofdreams talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - fair-minded, willing to act. Tom Harrison Talk 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. — Deor (talk) 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Seems to have some sense. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 00:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support per above. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support -- Levine2112 discuss 00:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support Unblocking Giano while running for ArbCom shows a dedication to doing what's right despite political backlash. AniMate 01:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support Branson03 (talk) 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support ---Larno (talk) 02:18, 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) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HiDrNick! 00:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Voyaging(talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Caspian blue 00:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. krimpet✽ 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose Ottava Rima (talk) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Mr.Z-man 01:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. This is a tough one. I consider you to be completely qualified to be a member of the committee, but I am afraid that the time sink ArbCom is will adversely affect your excellent performance as a bureaucrat. I'd rather have you run for steward instead. I'll keep thinking about this one, but for now, weak oppose. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. See reasoning. east718 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Atmoz (talk) 02:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Dlabtot (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Has shown poor judgement as a crat. I have no confidence that arbcom activity would be impartial. Friday (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Nearly complete abandonment of mainspace work = he's got too much on his plate. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose per Separation of powers and plate is too full. We have more important things for him to do like 'crat and admin functions. It's better to keep 'crats separate from arbitrators. Will is certainly his is more than qualified and capable to do the role and he has my complete support in all other situations. Royalbroil 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose BJTalk 04:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. You need a breather for a year. Mike H. Fierce! 04:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppse: He was very aggressive towards me while defending a friend of his on the wiki and he took the wrong side of the issue. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. –Outriggr § 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose as I think the plate is too full. I also think that anyone working on Wikipedia should participate regularly in the upkeep and expansion of mainspace articles in order to keep grounded in the whole purpose of the site. Adding another responsibility on top of the pile of others will only make this more difficult. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Too much power concerntration is unhealthy. Pedro :  Chat  07:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose لennavecia 08:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Fear he may not be able to shake off preconceptions when looking at cases. Also, too many hats could lead to burnout. Brilliantine (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --Folantin (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Mailer Diablo 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose due to concerns about impartiality. Skinwalker (talk) 11:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Arbitrator requires fairness. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. oppose- too like the current arbs. He also allowed things he decided not to deem important, about an (at the time) politically popular wiki-individual, to be whitewashed- just like the current lot. (To clarify- I don't mean anything against the wiki-individual concerned, who has answered well and in full, and everything said about him may well be completely unfounded- what I dislike is WJB's seeming dismissiveness at the time and assistance or complacence over a possible cover up, especially surrounding election time.) Sticky Parkin 13:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose'''•CHILLDOUBT•' 13:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Pcap ping 13:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Overly bland. Something of a career Wikipedian. Moreschi (talk) 15:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. He's got too much shit on his plate. I will not take a chance on an editor, crat or no, that can potentially drag down the already crap productivity of the committee. SashaNein (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Verbal chat 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. GRBerry 16:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    RMHED (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. I'm afraid I agree with the separation of powers issue brought up above. Since we have no shortage of volunteers, I don't think piling up functions on one person is such a great idea, in terms of potential burnout if nothing else. >Radiant< 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Synergy 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 20:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Strong oppose Serious concerns about favoritism; too many other demands on his time; too much of an insider to effect the reform Arbcom desperately needs. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. oppose with one exception, I am opposing all 'crats for ArbCom, don't like the idea of having a few people with that much power.---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: when I wrote this, I thought there were 3 other 'crats running as well. Guess my memory of who is a 'crat isn't what I thought---but it's still the principle. I generally don't like the idea of 'crats being arbcom members. :(---Balloonman PoppaBalloon 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Mandarin, never seen sticking his neck out for anything, seems to believe Wikipedia is a community rather that an encyclopaedia. Skomorokh 22:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Regretfully Oppose While I respect Will's work, this strikes me as having a full plate of dinner in front of you and already asking for seconds. JPG-GR (talk) 23:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Was sitting on the fence here, but wheel-warring with an arb on a Giano block the type of drama-seeker we need[1]--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strange, I don't see a wheelwar. Care to point it out to me on my talk? Majorly talk 23:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is loan ranger tactics - and unnecessarily dramatic use of the tools. If the block lacked arbcom sanction, then let an arb undo it. Same thing Slim was slapped for. (But I don't think this is the place to debate this)--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose Colchicum (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose --Patrick (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I was going to say more or less what JPG-GR said, but why do that when it's been said already? Too many hats. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Just NO. Per Elonka, or rather, because of. Ceoil (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Rockpocket 02:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/WJBscribe&oldid=255336755"