Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Deskana: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Vote Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:30, 4 December 2007 editMichael Snow (talk | contribs)Administrators19,338 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 23:32, 4 December 2007 edit undoජපස (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers60,473 edits →Oppose: nope.Next edit →
Line 253: Line 253:
# As @pple. --] (] – ]) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) # As @pple. --] (] – ]) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#] (]) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC) #] (]) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal an bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story. ] (]) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:32, 4 December 2007

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

Deskana

Hi, I’m Deskana. For those of you unfamiliar with me, I am an administrator and a bureaucrat. I was also appointed by the current Arbitration Committee to help as a checkuser and oversighter. I am also member of the mediation committee, an OTRS respondent and more importantly, a Wikipedian.
What do I think I can bring to the Arbitration Committee? I am capable of seeing situations in a neutral and impartial way, and several administrators use me as their first point of reference if they require a second opinion on an assortment of user conduct and other matters, and I receive private requests from users regarding a wide variety of issues. I answer mail for the foundation (via OTRS), which requires a great amount of discretion, especially when answering complaints in the "Quality" queue which come from the subjects of articles or designated agents. The community also entrusted me with the responsibility to close Requests for Adminship, which similarly requires discretion and judgement. I also deal with Requests for Checkuser, where I must weigh the release of non-public data against the Wikimedia Foundation’s Privacy Policy.
I have significant knowledge of Misplaced Pages’s policies and (more importantly) the community’s standards with regards to user conduct, meaning I can effectively arbitrate and help to produce remedies which are acceptable to the community, as well as knowing when to hand matters over the community to resolve. I am very contactable so I can provide an easy and quick method of contacting arbitrators to discuss cases and other issues that require arbitrators.
My decision to run for the Committee was an easy one, given the amount of support I received from people whose advice I trust and problem solving skills I admire. Having participated in a case recently, I see the shortcomings of the current arbitration process, which is mainly the speed with which cases are dealt. I would hope to respond quickly to cases in every aspect possible, if I am elected.
In my opinion, arbitration is a very successful last resort in dealing with issues, and the committee has my full trust. If the community would like me to arbitrate for them, I would be honoured to devote a significant portion of the time that I spend on Misplaced Pages to the arbitration process, and overall increase the amount of time I devote to Misplaced Pages.
Thank you for your consideration. --Deskana (talk) 02:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PS: Please note that I will be resigning from active duty in the Mediation Committee should I be elected to the Arbitration Committee.

Support

  1. Avinesh Jose 06:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Daniel 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Mackensen (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. 32 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Kurykh 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. BLACKKITE 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Mr.Z-man 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Snowolf 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. — Coren  00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Keilana 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Icestorm815 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. spryde | talk 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. ragesoss 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Cbrown1023 talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Chaz 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Rjd0060 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. – Gurch (talk) 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Nufy8 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. AniMate 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  25. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. (Extended comments moved to talk page per guidelines). Nick 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Support trusts their judgement in time-management Mbisanz 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  28.  — master son 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Gracenotes § 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. - auburnpilot talk 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support BobTheTomato 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. futurebird 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. --Doc 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Yamanbaiia 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. -MBK004 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. - Jehochman 00:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. - Scarian 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Unless his account gets hacked into. :) Prodego 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. — Edokter • Talk • 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. sh¤y 01:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. -- drini 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Captain panda 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Support -- Avi 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. CIreland 01:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. JavaTenor 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Strong support. --Coredesat 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. Stardust8212 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. krimpet⟲ 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Support. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Carnildo 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. SQL 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. DGG (talk) 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Full Support Alexfusco5 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  55.  M2Ys4U 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Stephen 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    --Charitwo 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Charitwo does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. WODUP 02:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Rebecca 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Thatcher131 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Húsönd 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. · AndonicO 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. John254 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. Trustworthy, hard-working, knowledgeable, and polite. Has my full support. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  69. Mercury 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Support --InkSplotch 03:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Hell, yes. Videmus Omnia 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. ♠TomasBat 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Strong Support -- Cobi 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  74. — madman bum and angel 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  75. <shrugs> --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  76. — xaosflux 04:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Spebi 04:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. Support. -Hit bull, win steak 04:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. --Meno25 05:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:20, December 3, 2007
  81. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. Athaenara ✉ 05:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. TMF 06:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. Yes. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 07:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support' — Jack Merridew 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  86. Keegan 08:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  87. Lara❤Love 08:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  88. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  89. Jmlk17 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  90. MaxSem 10:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  91. Neil ☎ 10:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  92. It might make sense for Dan to drop some of his other commitments to address the concerns below, but either way I think he would make a good arbitrator. Angela. 10:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  93. I agree with Angela, he has a lot to offer and Arbcom job should be taken really seriously..--Cometstyles 11:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  94. --Vassyana 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  95. If you find the time to that TOO! -- lucasbfr 11:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  96. Support but only because you will leave MedCom if elected. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  97. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  98. Support I share the concerns of Splash; but, on balance, I trust the candidate with this duty. Xoloz 13:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  99. Support  Grue  13:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  100. the wub "?!" 13:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  101. Addhoc 14:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  102. KnightLago 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  103. --barneca 14:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  104. JoshuaZ 14:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  105. VivioFateFan 14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  106. ElinorD (talk) 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  107. Jeffpw 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  108. KTC 15:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  109. Per Xoloz. Dekimasuよ! 15:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  110. Mangojuice 15:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  111. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  112. Really no questions at all over this user's ability to do the job. Having dealt with him over a detailed matter some time ago, I would emphasise his ability to maintain confidentiality of all parties while allowing those who have a job to do to do it as being a critical quality. Orderinchaos 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  113. Of course. — Rudget contributions 16:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  114. Mattisse 16:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  115. Support. Concerns about concentration of power in few hands are valid enough. On the other hand, if a person already has n jobs and has shown that he can do them very well, then I guess we can trust him with the n+1st too. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  116. Deskana has shown he can be trusted many, many times. Also, I have no concerns regarding judgement whatsoever. GDonato (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  117. No problems here - Alison 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  118. Support - JodyB talk 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  119. Support, I support this candidate.--Isotope23 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  120. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  121. Support. R. Baley 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  122. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  123. I strongly support this nomination: Deskana has had an excellent track record with his responsibilities, and he'll make a great arbitrator. Acalamari 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  124. Support Avruch 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  125. support --Rocksanddirt 18:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  126. 'Support, though my preference would be that he resign at least one other role (in addition to the MedComm). I worry about the ability to adequately handle all those duties. - Philippe | Talk 18:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  127. Support Sensible user. Spartaz 18:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  128. Thumbs up OhanaUnited 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  129. -- Tawker 19:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  130. Gets the Quadell Seal of Approval. – Quadell 19:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  131. NHRHS2010 talk 20:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  132. Kbdank71 20:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  133. Excellent Judgement, will be a great arb--Phoenix-wiki  20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  134.  Folic_Acid | talk  20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  135. ITAQALLAH 20:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  136. Davewild 20:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  137. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 21:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  138. Support - sure, sounds good. -- Schneelocke 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  139. Fabulous, fabulous user. Fabulous. (trippling for effect :P). Regards, —Celestianpower 21:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  140. —Ruud 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  141. Support Bramlet Abercrombie 22:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  142. Support FlowerpotmaN·(t) 22:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  143. Strong support Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  144. NF24 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  145. Toffile 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  146. Strongly, WjBscribe 23:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  147. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  148. β 01:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  149. --arkalochori 01:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  150. EconomistBR 01:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  151. Support --Brewcrewer 02:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  152. Adam Cuerden 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  153. Support Greg Jones II 02:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  154. Support. Horologium (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  155. Sephiroth BCR 03:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  156. Enuja (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  157. COGDEN 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  158. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  159. J-ſtanContribs 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  160. -Goodshoped 04:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  161. Yes. --DarkFalls 04:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  162. I'm torn. I completely agree with the opposers about having any one person wearing too many hats... but at the same time, I feel Deskana's good at all those jobs, and would do his usual excellent job at being an arbitrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  163. Yes. Xdenizen 05:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  164. Support - Sensible, shown trustworthy and level-headed under fire. All important attributes for an arbitrator. FCYTravis 06:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  165. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  166. Support -- Cirt 10:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC).
  167. Support -- Euryalus 10:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  168. Support Level headed and excellent judgement. Martintg 11:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  169. Support Arbcom members can get checkuser access anyway, OTRS is like reading junk mail with the occassional bill...crat vs admin, nope no concentration of power. Gnangarra 12:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  170. I only hope that Deskana does not become stretched too thin and as a result an inactive arbitrator. James086 13:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  171. Support While I have concerns about concentration of power, I trust this user's judgment to exercise these powers in a responsible manner --Versageek 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  172. Support, absolutely. Deskana is an excellent admin, helpful, fair, and knowledgeable; a great asset for Misplaced Pages. I think he'll make a great arbitrator. Dreadstar † 15:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  173. -- Y not? 16:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  174. Support Okay -- Marcsin | 16:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  175. Users trusted enough for OTRS access are, to my mind, sane enough to be arbitrators as well. Phil Sandifer 17:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  176. support Pete.Hurd 18:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  177. Support. - Cumulus Clouds 18:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  178. Conditional support - take what the opposers say into account; try not to take on too much. Wizardman 18:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  179. Support Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 18:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  180. Support Noor Aalam 19:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  181. Support Excellent admin. -- SECisek 19:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  182. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  183. Hardyplants 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  184. Ariel♥Gold 20:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  185. - Zeibura 21:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  186. Support. Had nothing but good experiences with this user and clearly has a solid track record (just don't overstretch yourself, Deskana ;) ) - Mgm| 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  187. Support - Merzbow (talk) 23:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No. See my rationale here. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Tim Q. Wells 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Oppose An arbitrator should be patient, not brusque. (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. I'm worried about if you could handle both Arbcom and being a bcrat at the same time, sorry This is a Secret 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. No.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  6. Ironically, my comment about Deskana being too tied to the bureaucracy was blanked due to some bureaucratic reason. See talk page I guess. --W.marsh 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    I have responded to W.marsh's concerns there, for all those interested. --Deskana (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  7. I've seen Deskana lose his cool, and he has been incivil to me (albeit on IRC) . I don't want to see that behavior from a person in a group that handles important issues. --(Review Me) R Contribs@ 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. MagneticFlux 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Too unilateral, impatient and bureaucratic. RxS 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Slightly too new for my taste. Maybe next year. Zocky | picture popups 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Even if this passes please do article work; it's sort of the main event here. Also per your behavior toward W.marsh who is an editor in good-standing, not some troll. --JayHenry 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Oppose -Dureo 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Per W.marsh. —Cryptic 03:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. Everyking 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Oppose regretfully. Eluchil404 (talk) 06:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. - Jeeny 06:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. ~ UBeR 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. - Crockspot 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. Regretful oppose. W.Marsh's comment regarding bureaucracy, combined with lack of encyclopedia building and power concentration worry me. henrik•talk 08:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Too much influence for one user to have. Shem 09:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. --Mcginnly | Natter 09:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. Worried about another E... Miranda 12:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. Awadewit | talk 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Dan Beale-Cocks 12:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Indented vote. Sorry, but 150 article edits were required by November 1 in order to vote in this year's elections. — TKD::Talk 13:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, though I'm thinking about this still. Over-concentration of influence in one pair of hands is worth being concerned about up-front, not post-facto. Splash - tk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Oppose PeaceNT 14:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Sorry but concentration of power and influence has proven to be a disastrous idea. Like Raul654 Deskana should be plenty busy as it is. EconomicsGuy 16:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Bakaman 18:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Honestly not quite sure why. Possibly being an arbitrator would distract from other, extremely necessary, duties. Moreschi 19:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Weak Oppose. Extended comment moved to talk page Walton 19:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Ripberger 20:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. GRBerry 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Too many roles. Lawrence Cohen 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Concentration of power, + w.marsh. Viridae 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Shot info 23:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. With regret. Keep up the bureaucrat work; we need the help. — Dan | talk 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 00:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  41. Weak oppose. Very weak. Don't like the idea of a checkuser/arbiter/admin/crat...that much power shouldn't be concentrated. If not for Deskana's other responsibilities, I would support. Sorry. ♠PMC♠ 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  42. Strong oppose Extended comment moved to talk page @pple complain 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per above comments.--D-Boy 03:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Per above. Atropos 05:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Oppose per Nishkid, the balance between "Active Editors" and "Process people" is already shifted to much from the editors Alex Bakharev 07:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Oppose OrangeMarlin 14:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. >Radiant< 17:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. --ROGER DAVIES  19:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Oppose' Excessive involvement with OTRS; opposed desysopping one of our worst admins; supported by many of our worst editors. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Which administrator was that? --Deskana (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. No Support - Per the above. Jaakobou 21:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. As @pple. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Michael Snow (talk) 23:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. Oppose Surprisingly, I found this user's answer to the question about SPOV to reveal an bizarre take on what is "neutral" and what is "fact". The issue is that a scientific point-of-view carries the most weight for describing observable reality. End of story. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)