Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Rebecca

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Rebecca

[edit]

I realise that it's a late stage in the nominations, but I've decided to throw my hat into the ring. So, for those of you who don't know me, I'm Rebecca. I've been around Wikipedia since 2003, and I've been involved in most areas of the project, including serving a previous stint on the arbitration committee in 2005. I've changed quite a bit over these last three years - I'm older, wiser, albeit surlier, and though I once swore that I'd never go near the place again after I stepped down, I've been convinced to nominate once more.

I'm running again because I'm frustrated with the current state of the committee. I believe the committee should be here to facilitate the work of writing an encyclopedia, and at the moment, I think it's doing as much to hinder as to help that goal. I think some of the members of the current committee have lost touch with the community, especially with those of us who primarily work on writing articles. My perspective is to some extent affected by my presence on the arbitration mailing list (which I have access to as an arbitrator emeritus), as I've felt that the deliberations on some recent cases have been a little bit bizarre. I'm running because cases are once again taking far too long to process. Most of all, though, I'm running because I'm frustrated that many of the editors I respect have lost faith in the committee as it now stands to do its job. I ran on a similar platform three years ago, and for a time, we managed to get the committee running smoothly and effectively. Three years later, I'd like the chance to help do that again - although hopefully with a more lasting effect this time around.

As a final point, I also want to note that I've recently been appointed as one of the English Wikipedia's ombudspersons to handle complaints over abuses of the privacy policy and CheckUser. I don't think this poses a conflict of interest if I were to be elected, as UninvitedCompany previously held both positions simultaneously. However, if necessary, I would be prepared to resign from that position in order to avoid any perceptions of a conflict of interest.

Later update: I've noticed a number of opposes based on claims of a conflict of interest with my position as a checkuser ombudsperson. Can I just reinforce what I said in my original candidate statement - that I am quite prepared to resign from the former if elected to the arbitration committee? I'm also a bit bemused as to why a couple of people have opposed based on supposedly not answering all the questions, because I've answered every single question put to me so far. Rebecca 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Later update #2: I've noticed a number of people opposing based on the fact that I chose to vote in the election. I've voted in the arbitration elections every other year, and as I care about who I'd be serving alongside if elected, and who would be doing the job if I am not, I don't feel that there is any reason not to this year. I've currently supported all but one of the candidates who are currently in contention for positions on the committee - and I initially supported him too. I'm just concerned that some people seem to be assuming that because I voted I did so as some sort of campaign tactic, when I'm actually supporting all the people I stand to potentially lose to. Rebecca (talk) 06:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. Support Tim Q. Wells 00:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kurykh 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. One of the most qualified. This is a Secret account 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Full Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Clearly qualified and trustworthy. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. --W.marsh 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – Gurch (talk) 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Strong Support two years ago Rebecca made a tough decision to help me despite universal opposition from powerful editors and opposition from her own friends. Someone like this, who can make tough unpopular decisions is what the arbcom needs. Travb (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. IronDuke 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —Animum § 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. --Stephen 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support, sorely needed. Bishonen | talk 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  20. Support---Sandahl 01:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Duk 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Swtitch to oppose 21:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Daniel 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Captain panda 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support -- Avi 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -MBK004 01:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. sh¤y 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. RxS 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. SQLQuery me! 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Coredesat 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. -- Manning 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. — TKD::Talk 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33.  — master sonT - C 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Risker 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) On reading your user page, I see that you do not have internet at home; not certain how you could be responsive and effective without regular internet access. I will not oppose, however. Risker (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. DGG (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support- Dureo 02:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. bibliomaniac15 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Thatcher131 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Told you so. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Unquestionably qualified. -- ArglebargleIV 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. krimpet⟲ 02:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Paul August ☎ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. --InkSplotch 03:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Húsönd 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Johnbod 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. See no reason not to support. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Pharaoh of the Wizards 04:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support Ealdgyth | Talk 04:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 04:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 04:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. support Gnangarra 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. —Mira 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. utcursch | talk 05:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. I'm sold.--Kubigula (talk) 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. BanyanTree 06:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support with pleasure. --Irpen 06:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong Support — Jack Merridew 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Jd2718 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Strike vote to move to oppose. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Please try to be more civil in your language. Support, in spite of incivility. WAS 4.250 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Crockspot 08:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Davewild 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. ~ priyanath talk 08:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. AniMate 09:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Absolutely. henrik•talk 09:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. John Vandenberg 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Unqualified support for anyone who supports editors. edward (buckner) 09:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User blocked indef Secret account 21:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Vote restored per AN/I. The user was in good standing when he voted and his subsequent block was unrelated to this vote. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. Easy! --★čabrilo★ 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support An obvious choice. Geogre 10:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Experienced arbitrator and very trustworthy. Angela. 10:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Great editor and very experienced...--Cometstyles 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. --Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Worthy goals, and the experience to hopefully succeed in them --Stormie 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Conditional on resigning as CU ombudsman to avoid COI. Stifle (talk) 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. if you resign from the ombudsman commission. My opinion is that ombudsmen (?) should stay as far as possible from the people having the CU tools. -- lucasbfr talk 13:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support - Modernist 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Yes, please. I was so pleased to log on today and discover that Bec had decided to nominate; an excellent candidate. Sarah 13:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support, though I would appreciate it if you would note in your candidate statement your previous username (unless you do not for privacy reasons). Splash - tk 13:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 13:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Certainly, excellent candidate. PeaceNT 14:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Addhoc 14:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support per Angela. ElinorD (talk) 14:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support JoshuaZ 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. KnightLago 14:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Jeffpw 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support is not conditional on resigning ombudship, but I think you should to avoid any appearance of COI. --barneca 14:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Enthusiastic support Very solid candidate with past experience in this role and on Wikipedia more generally. Good answers and goals too. Orderinchaos 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Yes, absolutely. We need Rebecca's perspective. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. With no condition on ombudsman attached. KTC 16:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Mattisse 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Ral315 — (Voting) 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) -- Strike vote. Ral315 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Absolutely. — Rudget contributions 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. --MONGO 17:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. support --Rocksanddirt 19:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Like the focus on content. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 19:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Carolmooredc sounds good
  105. Support. I've had my share of conflicts with Rebecca in the past, but I can't deny her hard work or her dedication to the project. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Kbdank71 20:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 20:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - yes, let's gain sight of our goal of writing an encyclopaedia again! -- Schneelocke 22:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Cool, level headed, fair. Lester 22:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. 6SJ7 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Changing from oppose to support, conditional on Rebecca giving up Ombudsman if elected. Otherwise, fine candidate. Lawrence Cohen 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Changed from oppose per Lawrence Cohen. I dorftrottel I talk I 23:12, December 3, 2007
  114. Support. Can do more good for the community on ArbCom than OmbudsCom. —CComMack (t–c) 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. — Dan | talk 23:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support --David Shankbone 23:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Hesperian 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. WjBscribe 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - SatuSuro 00:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support - users are still free to ask her questions. Cool Hand Luke 00:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. EconomistBR 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. VMS Mosaic 00:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 01:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Greg Jones II 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Keegantalk 02:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Mackensen (talk) 02:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    @pple complain 03:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 03:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. COGDEN 04:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. I like Australians. ;) <<-armon->> 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support - No interest in making arbitrary deadlines when real ones already exist. --健次(derumi)talk 04:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support. Jonathunder 04:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Excellent editor, and has a strong knowledge of arbitration processes. --DarkFalls talk 04:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support Good candidate Alex Bakharev 08:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support. She will bring integrity back to the ArbCom. - Mark 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support -- Cirt 10:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  136. Support -- Euryalus 11:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support -- Alecmconroy 12:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Bobet 15:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support, per Sarah, looks like an excellent candidate. Dreadstar † 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support per GRBerry. I trust Rebecca to defend the better interests of the encyclopedia, not those of bureaucracy, rules-lawyering, and (I must say) a rather perverse approach to "quality control". — CharlotteWebb 16:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. I disagree strongly with Rebecca on a number of issues, but I think her perspective would be invaluable on the arbcom, and she perfectly fulfills my desire to have a few more crazy old-timers there. Phil Sandifer 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support Noor Aalam 19:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Jon Harald Søby 19:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support -- SECisek 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Jerry 20:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The above signature looks like my user name, but it is a different unrelated user (User:Jerrch). JERRY talk contribs 03:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support - Fabulous user. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Voting against those who will not make good Arbitrators shows responsibility; opposition to MOScruft, as questioned here, show common sense. Note her comment on the talk page that this is not tactical voting, not that there's anything wrong with that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support good answers to candidate questions; clearly knows what she's letting herself in for. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Hardyplants (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - was already part of the committee and clearly knows what she's doing. No major points to oppose on. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support--Aldux (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Per Phil Sandifer. Rebecca seems like she's willing to put her nose to the arbcom grindstone. --Bfigura (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support.-- danntm T C 02:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Switching to support per this. --MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  157. Support Mbisanz (talk) 05:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Suppport. She has said she will take Arb over checkuser. Antelan talk 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. W/mint-Talk- 07:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. JRDarby (talk) 07:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Reconsidering based or further reflection. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support. Hal peridol (talk) 14:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Full support Alæxis¿question? 19:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. I truly didn't believe that I'd support Rebecca, but it happens that she is one of the better candidates whom we now have, and so I support, although weakly. Joe 20:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Raystorm (¿Sí?) 21:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support Andrwsc (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. For two reasons: my note on her talk page, and because I agree with SlimVirgin and MONGO. Acalamari 22:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. One of the top candidates. Neutralitytalk 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support Eusebeus (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support seems practical, would be a fresh quality on arbcom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Peter morrell 06:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Kusma (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support Grahame (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strategic Support - I'm not at all sure about Rebecca as an arbitrator, but this is a strategic support to prevent some of the other candidates getting in. (Note: I may change my mind about this, as it doesn't necessarily seem a great reason to support.) WaltonOne 10:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    On second thoughts, I don't think this is a sufficient reason to support. Given Rebecca's controversial history and the fact that I know little about her, I won't vote on this one for the time being. WaltonOne 11:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support Chuq (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support We need arbitrators who admit up front that there really isn't any difference between NPOV and SPOV. Thanks, Rebecca. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support I liked your election statement by User:Pruthvi.vallabh [1]
  178. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 21:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Strong support - Mature and pragmatic. BusterD (talk) 23:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support on principle. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 01:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support - Kleinzach (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support I have greater faith in few other editors.--cj | talk 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support Sound prior arbcom judgments, good answers to election queries. -Kain Nihil (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support — Springnuts (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Mrabbits (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support--D-Boy (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Wolfman (talk) 21:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. --RobthTalk 04:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support -- Graham87 06:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. ~ UBeR (talk) 22:50, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support -- Mattinbgn\talk 04:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support youngamerican (wtf?) 12:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. RMHED (talk) 19:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. support William M. Connolley (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Showers (talk) 02:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. Ashdog137 (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support ugen64 (talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support--Russianname (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support User:RyanFreisling @ 18:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support A good candidate that has taken criticisms and questions well, concerns raised do not concern me. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support - good track record, has responded to objections in a calm and informative manner. Warofdreams talk 19:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Strong Support eminently qualified to be an arbitrator; better still: pleasant and fair. Luqman Skye (talk) 09:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support - well qualified, demographics of Arbcom can do with a bit of new blood, and besides, she likes Canadians :) Sfacets 12:42, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support AgneCheese/Wine 20:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support --Trödel 20:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support Sue Wallace (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Tony Sidaway 08:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC) On careful thought, I now think Rebecca's experience should be put to work in arbitration.[reply]
  212. Has been a fine arbitrator in the past. Support. MookieZ (talk) 21:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support Saudade7 23:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Yay! A Woman! (Where are all the women arbitrators on Wikipedia?)[reply]
  214. Support. Seems like a fair and reasonable candidate. Good luck. wbfergus Talk 10:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Merovingian (T, C, E) 22:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support ArbCom is a better use of this candidate's resources than OmbudsCom. JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. I (talk) 03:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support -- Feer 13:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support Seems like such a good candidate that I am opposing some other fine candidates. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support dv dv dv d 22:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support Esrever (klaT) 07:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support, just as Raul, this candidate definitely has some baggage. But I am in particularly impressed by her answers to Georges questions, and believe, that should Raul be lected, Ambi/Rebekka would be a valuable countervailing influence on the arbitration committees composition. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 09:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Absolute support szyslak 17:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support TewfikTalk 18:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support Philcha (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support --Peta (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support -- Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support Carcharoth (talk) 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  233. ➪HiDrNick! 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. east.718 at 00:29, December 3, 2007
  3. Nufy8 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Docg 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Fred Bauder 01:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Prolog 02:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alexfusco5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologetically. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. BobTheTomato 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Unapologetically. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (change to support) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:34, December 3, 2007
    I would have supported, but you're a checkuser ombudsman and this may lead to a conflict of interest. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) vote withdrawn. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 10:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A good contributor, but makes a lot of comments in bad faith. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No. Failure to disclose previous account (User:Ambi) and last-minute registration are problematic, as is general attitude. Neil ☎ 10:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a previous account. The account was renamed through the proper channels, so it's the same account. It's all in the logs and was done on the up and up, thus there's no non-disclosure here. - Taxman Talk 20:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Chaz Beckett 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose In my experience, candidate lacks civility far too often. Xoloz 14:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Seems to be a rebranding of User:Ambi, so definitely oppose.  Grue  14:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Starting the campaign a day before the voting begins and avoiding most questions strikes me as problematic.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Nothing personal but no per above concerns. EconomicsGuy 16:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose Edivorce 18:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. You monitor arbcom, being a member of it too would make it hard to be neutral. Justforasecond 18:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Ripberger 20:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Cactus.man ✍ 21:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose Not enough time for candidacy questions, not enough time for Arbcom. Mindraker 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Bramlet Abercrombie 22:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Marvin Diode 22:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose due to late candidacy. Corvus cornixtalk 23:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. oppose - was originally just a comment ("I think it is bad practice to run for ArbCom *and* to vote in opposition against one's opponents") but now I've seen that Rebecca has voted in opposition against many opponents. IMHO, that's a major etiquette faux pas. Kingturtle 04:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Atropos 05:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. kmccoy (talk) 06:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Of course. Changed from support. Your characterization of fellow hard-working candidate FayssalF as "inexperienced" seems highly unusual, Ambi. Shem(talk) 07:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. No. Mailer Diablo 11:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Voting against her rivals and entering the election as late as possible to avoid questioning tells you everything you need to know. Dan100 (Talk) 12:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Guettarda 15:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Temperament. -- Y not? 16:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Strong oppose Came the closest to mass wheel warring without sanction that I've seen when she undeleted several shopping mall articles without researching the deletions or discussing with any of the deleting admins. See the Westfield Warrawong discussion. GRBerry 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Voting against nearly all one's opponents doesn't sit right with me. --MPerel 16:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) I've reconsidered per this. --MPerel 03:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Does not appear to work well with others, as suggested by both civility problems and voting against most other candidates. >Radiant< 17:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Going and opposing most of the other candidates is not what I want to see in any candidate. I do, however, believe that Rebecca is an excellent editor. Acalamari 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Withdrawn in accordance with discussion. Acalamari 23:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Glen 19:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strong oppose In general, I don't care about civility, but someone on the Arbitration Committee ought to be above the fray. And voting against rivals shows a lack of maturity. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose GizzaDiscuss © 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Wheel-warring in User:Giovanni33's block log. Lack of maturity per above. - Merzbow (talk) 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. -- RG2 23:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per behavior outlined above. Viriditas 23:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Michael Snow (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Epbr123 (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Opposeopiumjones 23 (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Filll (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. ViridaeTalk 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. I think voting against other people in the election was an error of judgment. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Too politically correct, therefore incapable of neutrality. Alex Middleton (talk) 11:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. User:Krator (t c) 12:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. SashaNein (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Too uncivil, and has a habit of wheel-warring. Nothing personal, I like Rebecca, but I just can't support given those. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose. Fresh face required. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Convinced by some of the arguments above.--Bedivere (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose per GRBerry. --Fang Aili talk 23:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Huldra (talk) 08:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weak oppose I generally respect Rebecca as an admin, but I feel that her willingness to wheel war over a copyright tag casts serious doubt on her impartiality with respect to issues concerning Australian editors. Physchim62 (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Terence (talk) 17:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose No difference between SPOV and NPOV would lead to some very problematic, well, problems :/. Homestarmy (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Wizardman 20:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. semper fictilis 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Catchpole (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose; civility, wheel-warring, voting against opponents. --John (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose --Borgardetalk 03:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose In brief encounters I had, I saw him/her jumping at conclusions without listening all sides first. `'Míkka>t 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose - "albeit surlier" and especially if one is on the wrong side of the argument. David D. (Talk) 07:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. (On a minor note, it also doesn't speak for a calm and open mind that Rebecca semi-protected her user talk page.) — Sebastian 07:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Brusegadi (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. dave souza, talk 14:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Agree with #60. Grandmasterka 20:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 23:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Changing to oppose. The wheelwarring in Giovanni33's block log is troubling. - Crockspot (talk) 05:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose - A former arbitrator who burned out on it is hardly the kind of person we need. --Hyperbole (talk) 08:52, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose I re-read the answers you provided, and I appreciate your honesty. However I'm not sure you won't avoid burnout this time around. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Nothing personal, but there are specific candidates (who I know and have my trust) that I would like to be on arbcom. I don't know you well or really at all, and not convinced with your statement, the answers to questions, and concerns that others have. --Aude (talk) 00:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose I think most observers would agree that there are simply no reasons here for a second chance; there is also no reason to believe she won't get burned out and quit a second time. Nothing personal, but we need to strive for the highest standards. Frank Pais (talk) 02:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Frank Pais does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Strong oppose - per my question at her questions for candidate page. Wheel warring was unquestionable in Giovanni33 incident, enough grounds for having sysop removal. I am worried this candidate will not tackle wheel warring enough (I believe the current Arbcom has been partisan or negligent to do so). I may consider downgrading to a simple oppose based on response. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. I remember her when she was Ambi, and whatever her other merits, I don't remember thinking she made/would-make a good Arbcom member. --Gwern (contribs) 06:06 9 December 2007 (GMT)
  93. Oppose No =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. daveh4h 09:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. effeietsanders 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC) - I don't think it is good if someone is recently appointed in the OmbudsCommittee, that she shortly resigns to join another one...[reply]
  96. After reading and verifying some of the comments left above. Cla68 (talk) 03:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose NOt bad, but I want others. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Voting against other opponents is my main concern, but some others touched upon above concern me as well. Ral315 (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose having gone through and rethought this, I must switch to oppose. Dureo (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Strong oppose—A strong tendency to be petulant, argumentative, and to engage in petty behaviour does not augur well for a positive contribution to ArbCom. Indeed, her history of dispute-mongering suggests that she will bring to bear existing grudges and obsessions. Tony (talk) 10:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. A tough choice, but concerns outweigh strong points. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. As editor, positive. As admin, awful. As arbitrator, unthinkable. Grace Note (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Per negative feedback from others and seeing this user repeatedly swear on IRC. Arbitrators have to deal with many problematic users and must be able to stay cool when handling disputes; her incivility suggests that she will not be able to do so. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. the wub "?!" 18:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Mike R (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Far too hotheaded--I have seen too much bad faith from this user. Philwelch (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Strong Oppose. Sorry Ambi, but due to some of your actions (and inactions) as an admin and arb, I must oppose you. But judging from your previous, brief stint on the AC, you will only be unhappy once more in that unhappy place.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose: I'm not as active as I used to be on Wikipedia -- from user page, among other concerns that I will not list here. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Maxim(talk) 00:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose on the grounds that as she can't see that its (diplomatically) wrong to oppose other candidates, how will she be a cool head on ArbCom? Other candidates who have chosen to vote have voted Support only Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose -- @pple complain 15:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Picaroon (t) 21:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Iamunknown 22:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. petedavo (talk) 04:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Strong oppose. Civility issues, cliquishness, unrepentant abuse of admin tools, repeated examples of making strong accusations without proof, and tendency to edit-war about even minor issues. This is absolutely not someone whose judgment I would trust on ArbCom. --Elonka 05:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Opppose (weakly) in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose. Moved from support. Reasons here and analysis there. (Large number of opposes. The tranche is better off incomplete than with arbitrators without the fullest community confidence). Jd2718 (talk) 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose. I lack confidence in objectivity. --Blue Tie (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Opppose. Prefer Raul. Mill cleaner (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Opppose. --Padraig (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Weak Oppose Unfortunatly, since you said that you are not as active on Wiki anymore forces me to choose to oppose you. You're a great editor, but I feel that you aren't ready yet.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Rebecca&oldid=1252157188"