My name is Dan Rosenthal, user User:Swatjester, and I would be an excellent choice for an Arbitrator. I have been an English Wikipedia editor since December 28, 2005 as an anon, and January 4, 2006 as a registered editor. In my time here, I've been promoted to administrator, accepted onto the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee (a.k.a. wmfcc/ComCom), OTRS, and from May 2007 through Sept. 2007, I served as a legal intern for the Wikimedia Foundation.

Arbitrators have to deal with sensitive matters and are given not only a public, but a private trust. I believe my time dealing with privileged material, such as OTRS legal complaints, and communications committee matters, shows that I can be trusted to have the information security required as an Arbitrator.

I'm also a law student, at American University in Washington D.C. I believe that this provides an interesting perspective of looking at things. Law school teaches one to think like a lawyer. It teaches one to draft solutions to often complex problems, to find broader principles from specific rulings, and to present arguments effectively and to the point.

I do NOT wish to bring the legal profession to Arbitration Committee cases. Law suits are slower than ArbCom cases. A recent case I've been following, a standard defamation case, was filed in July, and the "Evidence" (discovery) phase is not scheduled to end until January. In addition to expediency, Arbitration is simply not court. Though there is a panel of decision makers, similar to appellate courts in the United States, the Arbitration Committee is not usually bound by precedent, there is not an adversarial system of lawyers arguing, there are no complicated rules of civil procedure and evidence. It's a system unique to Wikipedia, and it deserves to be treated that way. I believe that I can make the Arbitration process faster, and in some cases more fair (for instance, recent cases have taken far longer than necessary due to lack of presence of some arbitrators, and some have been accepted, only to be later dismissed. While this is sometimes appropriate, other times it is not).

As a final word, I'm also familiar with the Arbitration process, and the stresses it entails. I've been a party in a couple of Arbitration cases, both as the requesting party, and as a requested against party. Arbitration creates a lot of stress on its participants, some would say in a manner similar to litigation, and I believe that it is important to have Arbitrators who understand what the parties are going through, and the causes that led them to that stage, rather than an aloof, distant decision maker.

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Swatjester (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

# Nice answers to questions This is a Secret ^account 00:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]

1. I still think he bungled the Lava lamp thing (yes it's about as trivial as it sounds). But his comments have made more and more sense lately, given the candidates this year we could do much worse. --W.marsh 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Daniel 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Anthøny 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. Nufy8 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
7. --Duk 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. – Gurch (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. - auburnpilot talk 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. Ρх₥α 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Bishonen | talk 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
12. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Bakaman 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Captain panda 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. krimpet⟲ 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. SQL^{Query me!} 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. Weak support. --Coredesat 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. · AndonicO ^Talk 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Mercury 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
21. Bob Mellish 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. — madman bum and angel 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Húsönd 03:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support -- Cobi^(t|c|b|cn) 04:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Stardust8212 04:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 04:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Athaenara ✉ 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. total trust Spebi 06:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Reasonable. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Tvoz |talk 07:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. - Crockspot 07:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. - More trustworthy than most candidates( Dan's the man..hehe..)..--Cometstyles 11:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. --Vassyana 11:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Sure. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. Awadewit | talk 12:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. -- Marcsin | ^Talk 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41.  Grue  14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. WilyD 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. EconomicsGuy 16:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Barely passing the threshold in convincing for a weak support. KTC 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
46. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. --Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 21:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. —Celestianpower ^háblame 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 22:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. WjBscribe 23:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support. Corvus cornix_talk 23:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. EconomistBR 00:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 01:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support --Brewcrewer 01:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Keegan^talk 02:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. @pple complain 03:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. I have disagreed with him, but found him to be fair and reasonable. He obviously does good work for the foundation. --B 04:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Mangoe 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. --D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Lsi john 10:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Automatically supporting all OTRS candidates. Phil Sandifer 17:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 21:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. SwatJester has been a consistently reasonable admin in all the work I've seen him do; I've seen him handle many situations with care and responsibility. ThuranX (talk) 00:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Formal support. He was right about the minimum age limit, and I was wrong. Supporting here is the least I can do, given that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 01:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Viridae^Talk 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. W/mint^-Talk- 07:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 08:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support. Wetman (talk) 09:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. — Rudget _{contributions} 16:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Johnleemk | Talk 16:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Dweller (talk) 16:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. Kwsn (Ni!) 16:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Andrwsc (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Support per CBD's oppose reason.SashaNein (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

83. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Convincing. Cool Hand Luke 06:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong Support --Mike Searson (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Tony Sidaway 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Experienced.[reply]
87. Ferkelparade π 17:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Homestarmy (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Branson03 (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Beit Or 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support •Jim62sch• 23:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
92. At this point, a moral support. He has his rough edges but also talks sense. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Tonywalton ^Talk 12:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support My experiences with him have been positive and his judgment or arguments appeared sound. I read through the opposes and where I could read difs they actually tended to confirm my feeling that he is ok for the job. --Blue Tie (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. --Legis (talk - contribs) 13:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. One of the calmer and more reasonable voices in the insanity that was the Derek Smart debacle. --Beaker342 (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support based on statement above, calm manner, others' votes. Bearian (talk) 21:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support TallMagic (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Sue Wallace (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Saudade7 23:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Would do alright. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. wbfergus ^Talk 11:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support mature and motivated for the position. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. MookieZ (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Grandmaster (talk) 07:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. petedavo (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. --Elonka 04:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Catchpole (talk) 11:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - Change my vote; opposed on basis of one mistake he made which is a bit unfair. - Sarah777 (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support Tewfik^Talk 18:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. For the record, I support this candidate despite the horrors it will wreak on his soul. DS (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Sarah 23:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sorry. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
3. Oppose with regret. Agree with him on many issues but a recent incident (see Picaroon's comment in the thread linked) shows that the candidate did not learn enough from the Miskin incident. Wrong attitude for an admin would quadruple as an Arbitrator. --Irpen 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cannot completely trust your judgement, per our recent interaction. Rjd0060 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think he is qualified, but there are better candidates out there. spryde | talk 00:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
6. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
7. I like the guy, but he's not really the kind of person I want to see on arbcom.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
8. Prolog 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sean William @ 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
10. A little too quick on the indef-block button and making blocks in areas where he is editorially active. Risker 02:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
11. Alexfusco5 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose Thatcher131 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
13. Events of the past year have shown him to be too thin-skinned to be trusted on ArbCom. -- ArglebargleIV 02:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
14. Too new. Maybe next year? Zocky | picture popups 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
15. Rebecca 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
16. Joe 02:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
17. John254 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
18. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
19. Too abrasive and confrontational for arbcom. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
20. Nishkid64 (talk) 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Erratic --InkSplotch 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    InkSplotch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

21. ATren 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose -Dureo 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
23. Per above. Picaroon (t) 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24. Everyking 04:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25. (Long Comment Moved to talk page)- Fedayee (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
26. My interactions with Swat lead me to believe he would be overly aggressive and punitive. Dragons flight 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
27. Agree with all above. - Jeeny ^(talk) 06:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose — Jack Merridew 07:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
29. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30. Needs a bit more seasoning. Or less cowbell. I'm not sure which. (More seriously, SWATJester's temprament strikes me as unsuited to ArbCom work.) ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 07:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
31. Davewild 07:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
32. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 09:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
33. Your intervention concerning Genteen's votes isn't indicative of the right temper for an arbitrator. Shem^(talk) 10:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
34. Angela. 10:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
35. Neil ☎ 11:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose — RolandR 12:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose Temperament questions are troubling. Xoloz 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
38. Addhoc 14:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
39. KnightLago 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
40. His role in the Miskin Arbcom case and a few other incidents don't fill me with confidence in his judgment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
41. Orderinchaos 15:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
43. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
44. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
45. --Cactus.man ✍ 17:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per use of outrage and demagoguery in resolving disputes. Avruch^Talk 17:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Avruch does not have suffrage 24.0.64.193 (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    On what basis does this user not have suffrage?Epthorn (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

46. Oppose Edivorce 18:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose I generally oppose overlaps between OTRS and ArbCom; and SwatJester has always struck me as a heavy-handed admin. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
48. Made a speedy deletion of the Rhianna article under WP:CSD#A7 in October, and that deletion was speedy overturned and restored at DRV as the article clearly did not fall under A7: arbitrators must fully understand CSD. Acalamari 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
49. Telling users that his counting the days until they are banned is a no in my book VartanM 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
50. Non-support - I wish him the best, but I'd like to see more time under his belt and see if he's going to mellow out a touch. I've found him a bit strident sometimes. - Philippe | Talk 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose Ripberger 20:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose - you seem nice enough, but I'm not sure we really agree on what Arbitration is supposed to be, and what it's not supposed to be. -- Schneelocke 22:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose WP:ANI discussion on this user left a sour taste in my mouth. Cheers,JetLover (Report a mistake) 23:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose Too confrontational and too much into requiring "deference" from others. However, his admirable enthusiasm for Wikipedia makes me hope he'll find a more suitable position here.[1] — Sebastian 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose, albeit weakly. A discussion about his contributions on UCfD makes me question his understanding of policies. Horologium (talk) 01:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    --arkalochori ^|talk| 01:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked indef Secret ^account 01:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

56. Oppose ×Meegs 01:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
57. Willingness to play revert wars with "vandalism" edit summaries suggests that user is not calm and dispassionate enough to be an Arbiter. Enuja (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose, sorry. Jonathunder 05:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose per Alkivar. Atropos 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose Soleil (talk) 07:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose IMHO he is to block-happy admin to be a good arbitrator Alex Bakharev 08:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
62. John Vandenberg 10:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose, sorry.Biophys 14:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose, from what I've seen, I believe he's too gullible for arbcom. - Bobet 15:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
65. Hardyplants 15:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
66. He's a fightah, not a lovah -- Y not? 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
67. oppose Pete.Hurd 18:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose his behaviour in the Miskin arbitration case hasn't impressed me.--Aldux 18:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose -- SECisek 20:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
70. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
71. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
72. Michael Snow (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose. Viriditas 03:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
74. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
75. oppose VanTucky ^talk 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
76. OpposeFerrylodge (talk) 11:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
77. Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
78. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 15:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose. There are simply better candidates in this election cycle. Sorry. — Satori Son 21:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
80. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
81. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
82. Icestorm815 (talk) 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose - Sbowers3 (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 04:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose Eusebeus (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
86. Strong oppose Seems like too much of an insider. ARBCOM should be composed of neutral folks. Ideally they should'nt even want to be ON it!Sukiari (talk)
87. Oppose - I don't want anyone who thinks or acts like this anywhere near ArbCom. --CBD 12:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
88. Oppose Actually thinks those who vote differently than he'd like are committing WP:POINT violations.[2] Firsfron of Ronchester 17:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
89. Terence (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
91. While I agree with his comment on Gentgreen, he should have never been involved as an current candidate, also CBD diff is very alarming and shows inexperience with the project, sorry This is a Secret ^account 23:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubba ditto (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Bubba ditto does not have suffrage 24.0.64.193 (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

92. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
93. Oppose --BorgQueen (talk) 02:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose per Arglebargle and AmiDaniel. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
95. Oppose, unnecessary abrasiveness. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose -- phoebe/(talk) 08:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
97. Too assertive and dismissive. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 12:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99. Oppose. I have to agree with a lot of the above. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
100. Oppose per Trialsanderrors -- Graham87 06:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
102. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 00:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
103. Oppose, sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
104. Rather no. Yury Tarasievich (talk) 10:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
105. <eleland/talkedits> 02:27, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
106. Oppose, but with regret. --\/\/slack (talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
107. Dekimasuよ! 08:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
108. Vagary (talk) 11:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
109. Oppose - very useful editor, but too much focus on confrontation for me to be happy with them on ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 19:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
110. Oppose Sorry, but agree with many of the above comments... Bjewiki (Talk) 02:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
111. Sorry no. Grace Note (talk) 04:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
112. Oppose per poor unblock review which ultimately resulted in the following incident. Bendono (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
113. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
114. Oppose. Fundamental disagreement following the incident CBD refers to. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
115. jonny-mt 13:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
116. poor judgment, will be a detriment to the project if on ArbComm GRBerry 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
117. the wub "?!" 19:19, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
118. Mike R (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
119. Poor judgement. Friday (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
120. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
121. SashaNein (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
122. Mindraker (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Extended comment moved to talk page, vote left in place. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
123. Oppose This RFC represents very poor judgement. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2‎ I expect more common sense for Arb com members. David D. (Talk) 18:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
124. Too confrontational for my comfort in a dispute-resolution role. Shimgray | talk | 00:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
125. Strong oppose [3], [4] Tim Q. Wells (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
126. Oppose. Nah. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
127. Very regretfully. Swatjester endorsed a request for comment that said someone's participation in RfAs was a violation of Neutral Point of View. NPOV is as fundamental as it gets and we simply can't have arbs who do not understand basic policy or who endorse summaries that they've not actually read. --JayHenry (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
128. --Pjacobi (talk) 19:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
129. Maxim_(talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
130. Oppose - cooler heads required. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
131. --Major Bonkers (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
132. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
133. ElinorD (talk) 09:31, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
134. Oppose despite WCL attendance (off-wiki, but I happen to know it's an impressive school). I am disturbed by this candidate's views and rationales on disenfranchising votes for admins and arbcom, as noted above by JayHenry with regards to Kmweber. Epthorn (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
135. Oppose : Tendency to make mountains out of molehills. Too concerned about Gentgeen's votes here and Kmweber's votes at RFA. I did vote for some passionate candidates, but don't wish for an arbitrator to expend his passion on trifles. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
136. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]