Jump to content

Stewards/elections 2010/votes/Thekohser

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Warning
English: The 2010 steward elections are finished. No further votes will be accepted.
Suomi: Vuoden 2010 ylivalvojien vaalit on loppu. Uusia ääniä ei hyväksytä enää.
العربية: انتخابات المضيفين لعام 2010 انتهت. لا أصوات أخرى سيتم قبولها.
Deutsch: Die Stewardwahlen 2010 sind beendet. Weitere Stimmen können nicht mehr berücksichtigt werden.
Español : Las elecciones a Steward del año 2010 han concluído. No se aceptan más votos.
فارسی: .رای‌گیری در مورد انتخابات ویکیبدهای جدید پایان یافته است.رای‌های جدید مورد قبول واقع نخواهد شد.
Français : Les élections de 2010 pour Steward se sont conclues. Aucun vote au-delà de cette date ne sera compté.
Gaeilge: Tá na toghcháin Maoir 2010 dúnta anois. Ní féidir aon vótaí eile a glacadh as an am seo amach.
Galego: Xa remataron as eleccións a steward do ano 2010. Non se aceptarán máis votos.
Alemannisch : D Stewardwahle 2010 sin umme. Du chasch nimmi abstimme.
עברית: בחירות הדיילים לשנת 2010 הסתיימו. הצבעות נוספות לא תתקבלנה.
Magyar: A választás lezárult, további szavazatokat nem fogadunk el.
Italiano: Le elezioni del 2010 a Steward sono terminate. Nessun voto ricevuto dopo questa data sarà preso in considerazione.
日本語： 2010年のスチュワード選挙は終わりました。今後の投票は受け付けられません。
Nederlands: De stewardsverkiezingen van 2010 zijn gesloten. U kunt niet meer stemmen.
Polski: Wybory stewardów w 2010 roku zakończyły się. Nowe głosy nie będą akceptowane.
Português : As eleições para Steward de 2010 estão encerradas. Nenhum voto lançado a partir desta data será computado.
Русский: Выборы стюардов — 2010 завершены. Дальнейшие голоса не будут приняты.
Svenska: 2010 års val av stewarder är avslutat. Ingen ytterligare röstning kommer att accepteras.
中文： 2010年监管员选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（简体）： 2010年监管員选举已经结束。逾期投票将会作废。
中文（繁體）: 2010年監管員選舉已經結束。逾期投票將會作廢。
Ελληνικά: Οι εκλογές επιτρόπων για το 2010 έχουν τελειώσει. Δεν γίνονται δεκτές άλλες ψήφοι.
Türkçe: 2010 kâhya seçimleri tamamlanmıştır. Daha fazla oy kabul edilmeyecektir.
Azərbaycanca: 2010 eşikağası seçkiləri tamamlanmışdır. Daha çox səs qəbul olunmaz.

Thekohser (Gregory Kohs)

[edit]

Thekohser talk · contribs · SULutil / stalktoy · globalcontribs · crosswiki-ness · confirm eligibility
translate: translation help, statement, template, headings

English:
  • Languages: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Personal info: An affable volunteer who has achieved admin status at Wikimedia Laboratories. Prolific researcher into the dynamics of corporate governance at the Foundation level. Significant (primary) designer of the 2009-10 Fundraising Survey, overseen by Rand Montoya of the WMF staff.
čeština:
  • Jazykové znalosti: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Osobní informace: Vlídný dobrovolník, který dosáhl dosáhl statusu admina na Wikimedia Laboratořích. Plodný výzkumník dynamiky společné vlády na úrovni Nadace. Významný (hlavní) designér přehledů shromážďování finančních prostředků, na které dohlížela Rand Montoya z dozorčí rady WMF.
Deutsch:
  • Sprachen: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Informationen zur Person: Ein umgänglicher Freiwilliger mit Adminstatus auf Wikimedia Laboratories. Ein produktiver Forscher auf dem Gebiet der Dynamik der Betriebsführung auf Foundation-Ebene. Bedeutender (Primär-)Designer der Studie zur Spendenkampagne 2009-10, betreut von Rand Montoya (Mitarbeiter der WMF).
Ελληνικά:
  • Γλώσσες: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Πληροφορίες: Είμαι ευγενικός εθελοντής που έχω γίνει διαχειριστής στο Wikimedia Laboratories. Δημιουργικός ερευνητής στην δυναμική της εταιρικής διακυβέρνηση σε επίπεδο Ιδρύματος. Ήμουν σημαντικός (ο κύριος) σχεδιαστής της εκστρατείας συγκέντρωσης πόρων 2009-10, της οποίας επιβλέπων ήταν ο Rand Montoya του προσωπικού του WMF.
español:
  • Idiomas: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Información personal: Un voluntario afable que ha obtenido el estatus de administrador en los Laboratorios Wikimedia. Investigador prolífico en la dinámica de gobierno corporativo a nivel de la Fundación Wikimedia. Diseñador significativo (primario) del estudio de la recolección de fondos 2009-2010, supervisado por Rand Montoya del staff de la Fundación Wikimedia.
suomi:
  • Kielet: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Henkilökohtaiset tiedot: Rakastettava vapaaehtoinen, joka on saavuttanut ylläpitäjän aseman Wikimedia Laboratories -wikissä. Tuottelias yhtiöjohtamisen dynamiikan tutkija Foundation-tasolla. WMF:n henkilökuntaan kuuluvan Rand Montoyan valvoman kauden 2009–10 varojenkeruukatsauksen merkittävä (pääasiallinen) suunnittelija.
français:
  • Langues : en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Renseignements personnels : Un volontaire affable qui a obtenu le statut d'administrateur sur Wikimedia Laboratories. Chercheur prolifique dans la dynamique de la gouvernance d'entreprises au niveau de la Fondation. Designer significatif (principal) du Questionnaire de collecte de dons 2009-10, supervisé par Rand Montoya du staff WMF.
Gaeilge:
  • Teangacha: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Eolais pearsanta: Oibreóir deonach cairdiúil is ea é, agus tá stádas riarthóir aige ar Saotharlanna Viciméid. Taighdeoir bisiúil is ea é faoi dhinimic na rialachas corparáideach ag leibhéal an Fondúireacht. Dearthóir bunús suntasach é an 2,009-10 Suirbhé Tiomsaithe Airgid, faoi mhaoirseacht le Rand Montoya as an foireann WMF.
עברית:
  • שפות: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • מידע אישי: מתנדב ידידותי וגם מפעיל מערכת על מעבדת ויקיפדיה. חוקר פורה לתוך הדינמיקה של ממשל תאגידי ברמת קרן ויקימדיה. מעצב משמעותי הראשי של התרמה הסקר 2009-10, בפיקוחו של רנד מנטויא מצוות של קרן ויקימדיה.
Bahasa Indonesia:
  • Bahasa yang dikuasai: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Informasi pribadi: tuliskan pernyataan Anda di sini
日本語:
  • 言語: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • 候補者の情報: 気さくなボランティアで、査読機能の検証用ウィキで管理者権限を頂いています。財団レベルの企業統治力学に関して、多作な研究者です。財団の Rand Montoya 氏監修のもと、2009 - 10年の寄付募集活動の調査計画を策定しました。
русский:
  • Языки: en-N, de-2, fr-1, pl-1, cs-1
  • Личная информация: Приветливый волонтёр, достигший статуса администратора в Wikimedia Laboratories. Профиль — исследователь в сфере корпоративного управления на уровне Фонда. Значимый (первый) проектировщик Обзора Фонда 2009-10 под надзором Рэнда Монтоя (Rand Montoya), сотрудника Фонда Викимедиа.

Questions: See Stewards/elections 2010/Questions#Thekohser

Yes

[edit]
  1. RMHED 00:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: Is that account elligible ? it seems to be blocked on his home wiki and have little edits anywhere else. DarkoNeko 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    According to http://tools.wmflabs.org/meta/accounteligibility/8/RMHED at least yes. —DerHexer (Talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Because everybody's voting against him. Seriously that's the only reason - everybody should have a few support votes. --Xania 01:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strong support George The Dragon 13:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support because Wikimedia needs critical, objective voices in leadership positions -- Robster2001 22:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Szalakóta 20:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Because he had balls to become a candidate :) --Millosh 22:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No

[edit]
  1. Jon Harald Søby 00:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC) ...[reply]
  2. Oppose Oppose not a team player Laaknor 00:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. Katerenka (d) 00:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. (ec) No. Blurpeace 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Absolutely not. No. No. No. I see nothing that could make me ever trust this user. X! 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Any administrator on Labs should automatically get stewardship. Microchip08 sewb
  8. --Aqwis 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Being steward means to serve others and to help, I doubt the candidate knows either of them. --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. JamieS93 00:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absolutely not. --Philippe 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Gribeco 00:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The Wikimedia Foundation would veto him anyway, on the 1/1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance he were to have a suffisant support. DarkoNeko 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No --Egmontaz♤ talk 00:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Answers to the questions don't inspire much confidence in ability to use the tools properly. Being an administrator at Wikimedia Laboratories, where anyone can obtain advanced user rights, doesn't strike me as being a particularly noteworthy achievement; history of disruption at other wikis is also disconcerting. Sorry, Tempodivalse [talk] 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. No comment needed --Church of emacs talk 00:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. --Taichi - (あ！) 00:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. No. -Barras talk 00:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Obviously just more of the same from a known troll & vandal. Should be banned from our projects at the earliest opportunity.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. It may be freezing outside but i am not in hell. No. If for no other reason than you asked if you could buy your way into the position.[1] delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ + jh0367 ☯ ~hugs~ 00:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. --Closedmouth 01:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. M.nelson 01:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per all the other stewards voting no. An interesting and charming dinner companion, but thoroughly unsuited to Stewardship ++Lar: t/c 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Nope. OlEnglish 01:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Very Strong Oppose. Willking1979 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -FASTILY (TALK) 01:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. RP459 01:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Jack Merridew 01:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —§ stay (sic)! 02:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not even if you bought me :P  fetchcomms☛ 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are inelligible. Pmlineditor ∞ 13:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per all the above. Dank 02:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  32. idem --Coyau 02:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. There's a reason why they're blocked on en-wiki. Patar knightchat/contributions 03:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Octahedron80 03:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Themfromspace 03:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose Oppose as above. --Shirik 04:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Oppose - I'd sooner vote for Willey on wheels. Bawolff 04:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --auburnpilot talk 04:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Oppose NO.--Sandahl 04:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Per all criteria on stewardship, absolute oppose. Blocked, reblocked, among other for vandalism, trollism, strong suspicions of buying a sysop account, that is so not what we need as a steward, not even as a mascot... Alphos [bother me] 04:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Absolutely not -MBK004 05:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Oppose per below >:D --MisterWiki 05:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Wow, he is a labs admin. I have a high level of trust for him... Pmlineditor ∞ 06:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. --Roberto Segnali all'Indiano 07:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. iAlex 07:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. You were brave enough to persist running for steward anyway. Nifky? 08:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. This isn't a game. --Bsadowski1 08:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Oppose - Tiptoety talk 08:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Litlok 08:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Opposition: why did the Foundation let him be a candidate, while the problems caused by this person were known for a very long time? Is it useful to have a candidate who would not be acepted by the contributors and by the Board? Hégésippe | ±Θ± 09:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the extremely unlikely event of a successful vote, the Board can also reject him after the election. I figure the boards wants to spare the drama of disqualifying this users beforehand because it's almost certain the community will reject him anyway --Church of emacs talk 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. I cannot conceive of a parallel reality where this would be appropriate. --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. ZorroIII 09:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Hipocrite 09:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Vyk 10:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. --WizardOfOz talk 10:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Galandil 10:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  57. --Treublatt 10:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    cassius1213 10:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Greg does have a role to play with Wikimedia, but being a steward isn't such a role. Nick 11:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  59. I don't want to see a steward who can do whatever he wants instead of helping others — NickK 11:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  60. vvvt 11:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  61. no personal info - no yes. Marcus Cyron 11:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  62. sysop only in a test wiki, no sysop flag in a "serious" wiki, blocked infinitely in enwiki and strategywiki. -- Tofra Talk contributions 12:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Not enough experience. --Erwin 12:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Strong oppose. For starters, introducing subtle misinformation into BLPs as part of an experiment is incompatible with running for a position of trust. And that does not even start to describe his activity which got him banned and re-banned. Sjakkalle 12:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  65. nope notafish }<';> 13:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Blanket 'NO' votes for all candidates as a form of protest against open balloting. Riffic 13:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  67. --MF-W 14:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Cenarium (Talk) 16:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Not enough previous experience. –Ejs-80 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Never. --Harald Krichel 16:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Of course not. Chick Bowen 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Absolutely not, and I say that with conviction. 1ForTheMoney 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Obviously. Kv75 18:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  74. AniMate 18:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  75. A Stop at Willoughby 18:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  76. The first question was enough for me let alone the answer Chaosdruid 19:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  77. No trust. VonTasha 20:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Obelix 20:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  79. WereSpielChequers 20:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Your answers and candidate speech didn't satisfy me, Thekohser. You don't seem to me you are the right one for this position (no offence intended). Regards, مر. بول مساهمات النقاش ‎ 20:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Barraki 21:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Absolutely not! You're blocked indef on the english wikipedia! Ks0stm (T•C•G) 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  83. I have no confidence in this user's ability to be a sysop, much less a steward. -- Adrignola 23:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Woudloper 23:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC) bad cooperator, incapable for a responsible function[reply]
  85. The last time I interacted with Greg he said that he had no further interest in the Wikimedia projects. Would that he would take that heart and stop wasting time. JoshuaZ 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --Lucas Nunes 00:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  87. --თოგო (D) 01:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC) strong untrustworthyness[reply]
  88. Seriously... Finn Rindahl 01:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  89. MBisanz talk 01:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  90. No. — Coren (talk) / (en-wiki) 03:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  91. No, thanks. Nsk92 03:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Tim Song 05:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Miyagawa 09:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Nemo 10:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  95. If he seriously thought he'd become a steward, he has grossly underestimated the Wikimedia community. --FiliP ██ 11:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  96. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 11:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Fruggo 15:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Horologium (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  99. William Avery 19:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Razorflame 21:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Nihiltres(t.u) 21:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  102. It isn't an election without him. bibliomaniac15 21:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Pharaoh of the Wizards 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  104. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  105. statement in yes vote ... "Wikimedia needs critical, objective voices in leadership positions" very true, and that isn't evident from this candidate from his statement or responses to questions, even from the people with whom aspiring to join billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Hesperian 01:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Wonder when he will get tired of this. -Djsasso 05:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Assuming we ignore the past history of multiple blocks, sockpuppetry, and trolling, the open hostility towards the most basic of questions about this history tells us that he either isn't the least bit serious about this candidacy or the least bit qualified in terms of temperament and stability. Gamaliel 05:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Sorry, no. --Aphaia 08:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Lymantria 11:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  111. While Kohs may often be correct in many of his critiques of Wikipedia and Wikimedia in general and for the most part I applaud and encourage his scrutiny... Steward Kohs? In my Meta? Heck no. David Fuchs 13:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Same old, same old... -- lucasbfr talk 13:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Never. ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) 13:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Xavier Combelle 15:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  115. --SUL 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --Stefan Bernd 18:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose Oppose Normally, I don't "pile on" when a candidacy is obviously going to fail anyway, but the responses to the questions are so egregious that I must go on record. JGHowes talk - 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Secret 21:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  119. - Kaare 21:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  120. oppose - oscar 21:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  121. just to make sure --Sargoth 22:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --Griffinofwales 22:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  123. THIS is Wikimedia Foundation now. So much far from the basis, from its users. A WMF collaborator who doesn't know what stewardship is! It's so depressing... --FollowTheMedia 22:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Entrepreneurs are not necessarily suitable stewards. Durova 23:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  125. The Candidate is fined £50 for wasting the Community's time. Kameraad Pjotr 15:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Tony Fox 17:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Guettarda 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Why isn't he banned from here? Pohta ce-am pohtit 17:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Lolwut? Is this some sort of a joke? I'd rather have Willy on Wheels as a steward. (And he's actually a reformed vandal too...) The Thing That Should Not Be 17:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Good grief. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Fred Bauder 21:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Banned from the only project where he has significant contributions. John Vandenberg 21:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  133. "I have not given straight answers to all of the questions that I've been asked here, largely because the Wikimedia Foundation that owns this site and its servers is frequently prone to delivering less than straight answers. I'm just trying to fit in, you know?" Just another joke, like his candidacy. - InvisibleSun 22:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  134. --Ziko 11:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  135. CactusWriter 15:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Sandstein 21:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Completely unsuitable. --Apoc2400 22:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Throwawayhack 23:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  139. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 23:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  140. --Flopy 09:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Juwena 11:20 12 February 2010 (UTC)
    You are not eligible to vote. Maedin\talk 17:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  141. No. --Irønie 16:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Candidate does not seem serious. --Specious 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Comte0 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Hell no. Not today, not ever. Beeblebrox 01:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  145. 'oppose HELL NO! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! FAIL! ☉ Fail 06:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  146. No, can't even handle editing privileges, how could we trust him with far greater ones? Seraphimblade 02:02, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  147. No Banned across so much of the Internet that he should buy up some dark fiber and create the Kohsernet - from which he would probably be banned for self-promotion, spamming, and socking. Stanistani 03:52, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  148. No way on earth. NawlinWiki 21:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  149. No. --Bejnar 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  150. obviously. JzG 13:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Laser brain 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Ed (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Will Beback 08:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  154. No Sole Soul 10:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  155. 2 indefinite blocks. ...Aurora... 13:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Especially with some recent drama on WP. Collect 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Hello no; not a chance, with the way he's constantly trying to give Wikipedia a bad name on random sites across the internet. You can't have your cake and eat it too. — Coffee // have a cup // 12:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Nope.  --Lambiam 15:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  159. No. Cardamon 18:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Per Mike Lifeguard. Good god these games are tedious. --JayHenry 21:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  161. --Stepro 05:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC) blocked on 2 projects[reply]
  162. Is this a joke? OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:34, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Decltype 06:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Really? Connormah 00:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  165. No. This is an inappropriate candidacy. I am concerned that you may not understand the values and ideals at heart for this project, or this team. It appears this is evidenced by a pattern of your past behavior recorded on this and other wiki projects within Wikimedia. I do not have confidence in your candidacy... nor do I believe that it was ever a viable candidacy. NonvocalScream 21:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  166. As above. Sarah 02:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  167. No. Arsehole. If dickishness was a good element for positions of power, this man would be God-Emperor of Earth and I his Prince Ironholds 18:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  168. LeinaD (t) 19:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  169. The very fact that he has nominated himself means he thinks he has some kind of bond with the community, strong enough to see him pass. And, frankly, he doesn't.  f o x  (formerly garden) 20:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Prodego talk 00:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  171. No thanks.--MONGO 02:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  172. For many reasons already stated above. Yann 07:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Unreliable. . Dave souza 20:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

[edit]
  1. Only because I don' want to add to the "no"-pile, but dude, your question-answer session is a mess... Seb az86556 09:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. User:Juanjosemarin1 23:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I can't say that I understand what that write-up means.Botteville 19:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stewards/elections_2010/votes/Thekohser&oldid=9579659"