Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kim Bruning

I'm changing my candidate statement (the original can be found on the questions page). No-one said that I couldn't, and several have stated that I should. :-P I'd prefer to be a quiet fellow who doesn't want to be noticed too much, but on the other hand, I do want to pass the election.

You're probably wondering if you know me. In a sense, you probably do. If you're new to wikipedia this year, you were probably welcomed, and pointed to the Simplified ruleset, Policy trifecta or Five pillars as your first introduction to the wiki. I started the simplified ruleset project, so that people joining wouldn't be utterly lost in the now truly byzantine body of rules we have on wikipedia. Welcome! :-)

But you're probably wondering why I'm applying for the arbitration committee today:

Early this year, the mediation committee basically just stopped working. If you look at how wikipedia dispute resolution is organised and see how arbitration policy is laid out, you'll see that one of the tasks of mediation is to act as a gateway to the arbitration committee. Without a mediation committee to mitigate their workload, the arbitrators started burning out, one after the other.

What I did this year is to rapidly set up the Mediation cabal, as a stopgap measure to shore up mediation. It wasn't 'till much later that someone finally managed to restart the mediation committee, but until that time the mediation cabal held the line. Today it still exists for when you want to solve some small dispute.

So in summary, I've been helping out people on wikipedia, and making sure that there was an environment there for them that was conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia in peace and quiet.

If you're an administrator, you get extra buttons to help you sort out problems. In the mediation cabal, you have to find your own diffs, interview people, do your detective work, advocate both sides at once, all while not trying to look TOO crosseyed, and then decide what you need to do, and then figure out ways to carry it out. On the arbitration committee, you get Infrastructure. You don't get yet even more buttons, but rather more organisation. It allows you to work on actually figuring out what to do about a situation, with a lot of the distractions taken away. So I'd still be doing what I've always been doing, but I'd be able to do it a lot more effectively.

Can you help me achieve that?

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Guettarda 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. – ugen64 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Support. Ambi 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Support. An ingenious, practical fellow; I owe the conception of the Medcab to him. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. The Land 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Sdedeo ( tips) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Antandrus (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support ➥the Epopt 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Quite a reasonable person in my experience. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. TacoDeposit 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Support has done more in regards to trying to fix our policies than anyone. We desperately need the efforts of people like Kim. karmafist 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Support we need a med cabalist on Arbcom! -- Wgfinley 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Support.-- ragesoss 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Support in the strongest possible way. Will moderate some of the more aggressive arbiter voices, one hopes. Grace Note 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Only positive experiences with this user. — 0918 BRIAN • 2006-01-9 02:48
  23. King of All the Franks 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Support Sarah Ewart 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Fred Bauder 03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Support Especially for his keen understanding of WP:IAR. kmccoy (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support. -- maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support. Experienced. Insightful positions. Bold, but temperate enough to be effective (far more so than I in any case :) ). -- Gmaxwell 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Bobet 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Support I implicitly trust him and his judgement to be fair and reasoned.-- Tznkai 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Support — Catherine\ talk 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Support, despite concerns about his IAR's stance, he is capable of reasoning. Sam Spade 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Strong Support — Locke Cole • t • c 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. siafu 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Support - skilled at the craft of resolving conflict --- Charles Stewart 09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Support. -- Viriditas 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Support, level-headed and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Support, as Jmaxwell. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Moderate voice. — Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Support. Wizzy… ☎ 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Support KillerChihuahua ?!? 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Support, good grasp of the spirit of things. R adiant _>|< 13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Trifon Triantafillidis 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Support, experienced and sensible. Proto  t  c 15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Support. -- Habap 15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Sorry Kim - I like you, but not enough to vote against you. Phil Sandifer 16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. In my experience, a calm and wise voice. — goethean ॐ 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Support -- metta, The Sunborn 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Support Jim62sch 21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Support. Good answers to questions, seems to be an excellent addition to the committee. Especially appreciate the realizing that ArbCom will be a full-time job and crowd out most other WP activity. We need someone that dedicated. Turnstep 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Support. Rangek 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Support. Wally 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Support Rayc 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Support Salsb 02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Support All who encounter ArbCom will benefit from his calm and rational style. Un focused 05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Support. -- Fire Star 07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Support. -- GerardM 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Support— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Support Rje 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Support. Always seems to be acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. howch e ng { chat} 18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Support Ucucha (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Support. Een Hollandse bioloog-computermuis! Good community knowledge, very much an ideal ArbComm candidate. JFW |  T@lk 21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Support. On the basis of prior service demonstrated, indicated potential to arbitrate. Fifelfoo 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Support. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Very well answered questions Thryduulf 00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Support. Dr. Cash 01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Support. - Vsmith 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Support -- Carnildo 10:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Support-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Support. Andre ( talk) 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  80. Support Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Robdurbar 12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Support Fad (ix) 18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Support – AB C D e ✉ 18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Support, seems to have taken concerns from the oppose side to heart, good experience. -- nae'blis (talk) 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Support. Best statement I've read so far. Seems to really get the structure of conflict resolution. Velvetsmog 21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. support William M. Connolley 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Support ntennis 03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Support with some misgivings. Hope Kim mellows a bit more. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Support Reason: his opposition to the way the ArbCom is conducted. ObsidianOrder 10:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Alphax 13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Support based on altered statement. Tom e r talk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Support, has some prior experience of process, a trustworthy user -- Francs 2000 00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. support iMb~ Meow 07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. -- dcabrilo 10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Support. Experience in dispute resolution. ～ J. K. 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Support. Neutrality talk 15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Support Superm401 | Talk 21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Support good experience with dispute resolution. Borisblue 23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Support crazyeddie 03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Support Masonpatriot 04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Support - particularly after I spent six months trying to convince him to run! - David Gerard 16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Support. No red flags here. Youngamerican 16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Support. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. Support sannse (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Support A Heart of Gold. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Support — Phil | Talk 10:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Support - kaal 17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Support - Homey 02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Support. Gentgeen 18:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Jared 20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. Support -- Loopy e 05:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Support. Just don't let it take up too much of your time! -- NGerda 06:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. votes for Wikipedians -- JWSchmidt 03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. Support. Appears to have a good mind and a good heart. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  118. Support -- W.marsh 03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Support I like his answers. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Jtkiefer T | C | @ ---- 05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. support seems to have good understanding of what's needed; seems to put forward direct solutions in a humble manner. Mozzerati 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Support. dave souza 09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. ‣ᓛᖁ ♀ ᑐ 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. Support per IRC. Ashibaka tock 21:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Support Simplified ruleset is a big plus. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Support. +sj + 22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Support CDThieme 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Oppose. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Owen× ☎ 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. brenneman (t) (c) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Recently inactive and concerned about incivility. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. Questions were not to my liking. Batmanand 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Raven4x4x 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose. — David Levy 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Weak oppose per questions. -- Angelo 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose. Unfortunately, the issue over Hamster Sandwich's RfA did not leave you sitting in too good a light with me. I admire your persistance and all, but your attitude in the matter is not what I would prefer to see in an Arbitrator. -- Vortex 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose Failed to address my question. Xoloz 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose - Too confrontational. Paul August ☎ 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose 172 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose Dottore So 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose -- Crunch 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose as per Paul August, Vortex, Dmcdevit. My personal experience with Kim has been less than pleasant. No confidence that he can retain the detachment that is necessary for arbitration duties. Hamster Sandwich 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. android 79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose Based solely on a lack of platform. Netkinetic 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose.  Grue  06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose. Excellent admin, but I feel he's a little controversial for an arbitrator. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose. Questionable behaviour. -- Blu Aardvark | (talk) | (contribs) 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose. Sometimes tends to make short, confusing remarks rather than explain views, a bad trait for an arbitrator. Too quick to change policy pages before seeking consensus. -- SCZenz 10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose: Six months ago, I might have supported, but, recently, I've known Kim to take stances on the activism of ArbCom that I simply can't pass over in silence. Geogre 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose, questions -- kingboyk 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    very weak mild oppose per GraceNote and SamSpade. Tom e r talk 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) changing my vote. Tom e r talk 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Oppose, for bizarre proposals such as changing the 3RR to permit three reverts per person reverting. Basically, if B and C revert A's edits, A could revert B's edits three times and could revert C's edits three times. Carbonite | Talk 13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose - Broad disagreement with the candidate's philosophy, as exemplified by [1]. Ξxtreme Unction| yakkity yak 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose. DES (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Sloppily written statement, unimpressive answers to the questions. Kim, you can do better than that!— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to "support" now the statement is re-written.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose -- Doc ask? 20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose after the CSD debacle. - SoM 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose I like Kim, but a better mediator than an arbitrator, I think. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose. -- HK 22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. An extraordinarily good mediator does not necessarily a good arbitrator make. - Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Oppose. Confrontational. Avriette 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Weak oppose. No clear position, seems to have a lackadaisical attitude towards this process. ~~ N ( t/ c) 01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. weak oppose older≠ wiser 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose : I cannot support anyone that makes comments such as, "I may want to help out with arbitration too." This statement is too, "wishy-washy." Either you really want to participate in ArbCom, or you don't. "I may want to,..." just doesn't cut it for me. Change vote to support based on the changes to the candidate statement. Dr. Cash 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose. Gazpacho 08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. The statement just doesn't sell it for me, given the high burnout rate of arbitrators I cannot support someone who does not appear to be too committed to the position. Rje 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) This comment refers to the original statement, I am moving my vote to support. Rje 17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Oppose Bensaccount 17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose per Nickptar -- EMS | Talk 18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, candidate statement makes case for being on medcom rather than being an arbitrator. HGB 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I don't want to penalize him for being involved w/medcom, abstain for now. HGB 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose, reluctantly. Too many dubious AfD decisions. Septentrionalis 19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose, too much in favor of IAR-type ideas. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose. Arm 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose -- 2004-12-29T22:45Z 09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose — Laura Scudder ☎ 16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Weak oppose KTC 19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose Dr. B 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Oppose - weak statement. -- NorkNork 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose. maclean25 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Oppose, sorry. - ulayiti (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Oppose. Mrfixter 20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose. But please do fix Mediation because a lot is broken. ( SEWilco 06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
  71. Oppose. Preaky 07:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Strong oppose. Several important questions (see the questions link above) were evaded, in particular those about neutrality, causing me great concern. Prior editing that only supported a minority viewpoint, creationism, rather than also including serious criticisms of it, adds to this concern, as does trying to get the Evolution article removed from front page display (FAC). -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. oppose Kingturtle 20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. oppose did not answer some questions Daniel Quinlan 22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose Robert McClenon 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose reluctantly. I like Kim a lot but his behavior over Hamster Sandwich's RFA was too much. FreplySpang (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose FeloniousMonk 18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose Alex43223 19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Kim_Bruning&oldid=1087298585"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE