Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Alex Bakharev

Statement
Hi, I have been editing since July 2005 and have been an admin since February 2006. I was a reasonable editor (my brag list is on my user page) a reasonable P:RUS gnome and a reasonable admin. I did many small mistakes but I believe I have not yet made unforgivable ones (I think this is because of my good understanding of wiki policies and a common sense).

Having some experience in many wiki-roles I realized that Arbcom is very important for the project. Wikipedia is done by volunteers; if it is a comfortable place for productive work - people will come here to do productive works, if it is a comfortable place for trolling, vandalizing and disruptive editing - trolls, vandals and tendentious editors will be in and productive people out. If it will be a comfortable place for abusing administrative tools and biting newbies then again power hungry megalomaniacs will be in and workers out.

Administrators handle obvious vandalism. Since the introduction of the community blocks some cases could be solved by the admins acting as a large committee, the new Community sanction may increase their number even more. Still many complicated cases could only be solved by Arbcom. There is a domino effect here - one wrong decision will lead to much more of the same. Good decisions create precedents and diminish future conflicts. Since the small Arbcom committee manage to handle their load despite the growth of wiki they must be doing the right thing most of the time. I believe I could help to separate rights from wrongs.

I am an admin open for recall, I intend to be an arbitrator open for recall as well, so it should be feasible to recall me if you want it.

Thank you for your attention, I am happy to answer questions.

Questions

Support

 * 1) First to support. Great admin and will make a great ArbCom member :) -- Grafikm   (AutoGRAF)  00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. -- M P er el ( talk 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Moral Support, Arbitrator cannot be open to recall. It's a ridiculous notion. - crz crztalk 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) DVD+ R/W 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support. Utmost decency, wisdom, level-headedness, integrity combined with the strong trend to contribute content in the Mainspace. The latter is extremely important for an Arbitrator to be in touch. --Irpen 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) —dmytro/s-ko/ 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Khoikhoi 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) — Mi  ra  02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) ←Humus sapiens ну? 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Warofdreams talk 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) John254 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Based on my experience with that user, I was always impressed how neutral he tried to stay in various content debates we had. Such neutrality is important and a rare value in an increasingly political ArbCom setting.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support - I will support most anyone who is open to recall. Alex has done a great job as an administrator and I think his answers are among the best I have seen. BigDT 05:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) THB 05:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) I concur largely in Piotrus's assessment. Joe 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Aminz 06:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. — CharlotteWebb 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Makes sensible and reasoned comments and edits. Giano 08:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per Piotr's and Giano's opinions + answers to questions. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. I like his disponibility for recall, it speaks of an administrator compromised with the Community, not greedy. I also like his stand for common sense and not abuse of discipline. --Sugaar 10:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Good luck. --  Szvest   Ω Wiki Me Up ®  10:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support arbcom engineering approach. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Kusma (討論) 12:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Neigel von Teighen 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --CBD 13:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak Support (based on answers to my questions) Anomo 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Weak Support - he once blocked me and wasn't very communicative, but I appreciate the fact that he is willing to put himself forward for recall (which should be the case for all admins) and as such is willing to stand by the will of the community - it's a good attitude.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 16:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that the recall concept is something of a bold experiment that may or may not work. If it does work well, then perhaps it will lead to a change in policy for the better. If it fails, he will pay the price - he is putting his neck on the line. I think Alex Bakharev tries to think outside the box and that is surely a good thing. I appreciate what he is trying to do and think it is in the ethos of Wikipedia - something that some elitist minded admins have forgotten.--الأهواز &#124; Hamid &#124; Ahwaz 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. I might not agree with some of the candidate's statements, but from what I learned from my past interactions with him he would make a great arbitrator.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Always keeps a cool head. - Mauco 23:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Another one of those "no-doubt" supports. You would make quite a fine Arbcom member.  Matt Yeager   ♫  ( Talk?  ) 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. (Igny 00:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC))
 * 5) Support I know and trust the user. TSO1D 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support He is a good Wikifriend. He is very helpful and devoted to Wikipedia. He has made numerous edits to Russia-related pages, helps fight vandalism, and works on organizing Wikipedia. --Ineffable3000 04:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Mhym 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support `'mikkanarxi 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support ajdlinux 07:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Duja ► 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support fair and intelligent, excellent editor of Russia-related topics. But the comment about 'admin recall' concerns me. 'Admins recall' could be used as a means of intimating admins who act in good faith to reduce the damage caused by users who undermine the goal of the project-- writing encyclopedia articles. 172 | Talk 08:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Errabee 09:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support ST47 Talk 11:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Unconditional Support - This admin is a text-book case in civility, neutrality, and the handling of authoritative power. Jidan 11:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Bobet 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Level-headed. (But ditch the "open to recall", it only comes in the way of making right decisions when they may alienate people, a recall would come in at most 3 years anyway.) Sjakkalle (Check!)  15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Watermint 16:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Advanced 19:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Alex and I share viewpoints on free-use in Wikipedia and therefore I support him. here--Jeff 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Good editor, solid admin. Has been credible and level-headed in all my interactions and observations.  Durova Charg e!  20:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support.  Nish kid 64  20:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - has what it takes. Durova Charg e!  21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - oops, intended elsewhere
 * 1) Support. The recall concept has been misinterpreted, I think. It shows maturity, not insecurity. Andre (talk) 21:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. "The open to recall" idea is treated wrong by the most voters; it means that he is very dedicated indeed. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support with the reservation that I think the recall concept is a very bad idea. Metamagician3000 23:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I got nothing but positive memory about this user. Not afraid to admit his error.--Certified.Gangsta 03:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Great. --McTrixie/Mr Accountable 04:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Strongly Support I love that you open yourself to recall, and that you are on the top of the list.  For that reason alone, you will win.  :)  munboy 05:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I'm impressed. Gazpacho 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Addhoc 10:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong Support Kind, reasonable, trustworthy, and helpful all the time. E104421 14:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support Neutral,kind, looks for truth. Must TC 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. --Ruziklan 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Jakew 21:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Wikiolap 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Strong Support Very positive - I am impressed with brag page - Great contributor and fighter of JUNK. Markco1 00:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support per useful participation in the Giano case workshop, and despite the well-intentioned but potentially troublesome "recall" promise. Newyorkbrad 00:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Montco 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support In a project where the norm among administrators seems to be taking action then defending it at all costs, the fact that Tovarisch Bakharev took the time to reconsider a potential problem I noticed, and to conclude that his original action was an "overreaction."  Anyone who can put aside the universal inherent bias to consider one's own actions right clearly demonstrates the best qualities of a neutral arbitrator.  --Ssbohio 05:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) clear support. dab (𒁳) 07:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Good candidate. Fram 10:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support, because of his objectivity and skill; but I can't say the "arbitrator recall" clause strikes me as a very good idea.--Aldux 11:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Tennis expert 19:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support --Beaumont (@)  20:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. Xoloz 21:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Lmcelhiney 11:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support Dragomiloff 13:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Great admin, would make a fine member of ArbCom Baristarim 19:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support per Irpen. KNewman 21:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support per Irpen. SDogan 09:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Dogansolen does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC) (though he does not appear in the user creation log) and he had only 29 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 01:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support The offer to be open to recall demonstrates confidence that his judgements will be sound enough to be supported by the reasonable majority. Alan Pascoe 23:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Sensible and well-balanced, with pleasant overtones of modesty. (Sounds like I'm evaluating a wine rather than a potential arbitrator.)  Anyway, всего хорошего. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.Mmoneypenny 00:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) — freak([ talk]) 02:12, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, Mallanox 03:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Orderinchaos78 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, don't see why not. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, I like what I see.  James E. Zavaleta T  C   E 16:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support Excellent admin, excellent contributor. --Kuban Cossack 16:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, Ioakinf 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ioakinf does not have suffrage; he registered at 09:57, 2 October 2006 (UTC) and he had only 42 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 20:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Michael 21:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- H eptor   talk 22:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support K. Lástocska 22:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Good admin who supports facts when they are presented. --alidoostzadeh 01:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong support    /FunkyFly.talk_  01:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Kmorozov 09:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) riana_dzasta 09:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Switchfo0t813 11 December 2006
 * 9) Support Has always behaved professional even in heated debates, always debated contents, not taking it personal. Whether he is a suitable arbitrator is yet to see, but going by his edits so far I fully support him. / Fred-Chess 22:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) support Krupo 03:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Very level-headed and sincere in his approach. Definitely an excellent candidate for ArbCom! metaspheres 10:41, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Saravask 16:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Not my first choice, but would do well.  GRBerry 22:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support--Pejman47 20:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --rogerd 02:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support? Think outside the box 09:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Best wishes!   Jenolen    speak it!  10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support fully, for the utmost fairness, for professionalism, for the ability to stay calm and maintain neutrality along with the never ceasing hard work in the main article space.  For being kindhearted yet showing no leniency, nor carelessness, when protecting against disruption. -  Introvert  •  ~  03:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support--MONGO 07:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. the wub "?!"  11:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Ksbrown 17:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Anyone that is open to a vote of no confidence shows they are not simply interested in the power of the role and everything elese seems ok.
 * 22) Support Prudent and thoughtful. -- Shunpiker 19:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) User:Zoe|(talk) 22:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Among other things, this user shows that he can calmly and correctly explain his actions. WODUP  contribstalk 03:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong support – neutral and responsible user who respects checks and balances in the system, which is very important in the case of the Arbitration Committee. I particularly approve the recall concept. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 07:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. An encyclopedia needs plurality, it can't stay between anglo-saxons guys. Please correct me. -- DLL .. T 11:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. I trust this user's judgment.  Bastiq ▼ e demandez 12:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Max S em 17:38, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Samir धर्म 20:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) &mdash;Xyrael / 22:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support *someone42* 00:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * * someone42* does not have suffrage; he had only 4 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 21:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Krich (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Kathryn NicDhàna ♫ ♦ ♫ 02:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) —Centrx→talk &bull; 10:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support, Candidate seems to suffer from a chronic case of Good Judgementitis. My perscription; give him one ArbComm seat and call me again in 3 years.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Clearly a thoughtful, experienced candidate. --Stevecov 14:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support NoSeptember  14:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support --Aude (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. --JJay 22:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Very good answers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support ++Lar: t/c 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --Oden 23:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Nothing personal, but I can't say I'm enamoured with the idea of arbitrator recall, for much the same reason that I dislike administrator recall, except stronger. The power entrusted to arbitrators is great, and I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea of an arbitrator that can be recalled. (I did read your response to the question presented you, but I really think only a supermajority of arbitrators should be able to remove an arbitrator, if at all.) theProject 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Core desat  01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Jd2718 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Vote was hasty. Active editor. Answers were good. Will review contributions more carefully and decide to support or leave as neutral based on how deliberative editor's actions appear to have been. Jd2718 00:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Avi 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Jaranda wat's sup 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Hello32020 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) KPbIC 02:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose.. TheProject nails some of my concerns; the support for community sanction is a significant issue. What really concerns me, however, is that I'm not sure he's the right person for the job - while he's a nice guy, the likely work of an arbitrator these days is more along the lines of weeding through two hundred pages of comments to work out what is going on and what to do about, and his statement seems rather black and white. Rebecca 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Dylan Lake (t·c) 03:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) I think Request for solutions shows distint lack of understanding of dispute resolution at WP. -- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) In substantial agreement with Rebecca and BirgitteSB. Serpent&#39;s Choice 03:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Ter e nce Ong 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Nufy8 04:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Srikeit 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) semper fi —  Moe  05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) GizzaChat  &#169; 06:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Aksi_great (talk) 07:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) cj | talk 09:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) – Chacor 09:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Not sure he is a neutral person.--MariusM 12:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 12:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 13:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Doesn't communicate well here - an essential skill. "I believe I could help to separate rights of wrongs."??? --Mcginnly | Natter 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. "Arbitrator open to recall?" In a position of such weight, there's already such an option open---resignation. I question the judgement of one who would need community recall to tell you when it's time to resign. Mackensen (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) pgk 19:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) A sad oppose due solely to suggesting "arbitrator open to recall". Feel free to discuss it with me, as I'd really like to change my vote on this. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 23:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Michael Snow 23:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Conn, Kit 00:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conn, Kit does not have suffrage; he had only 147 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 00:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. --Bryson 01:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm all for Admin's open to recall, but I don't think it's wise for Arbitrators to be open to recall. The workload is large, and it's probably one of the most backlogged jobs on-wiki. Having an arbitrator resign any time ahead of their 3 years isnt' good for the process. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Christopher Parham (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Kiwidude
 * 5) Reluctant oppose While your actions as editor and admin are not an issue, I am not enamored with the idea of "arbitrator recall." Arbitrators must be willing to make unpopular decisions when necessary, and must be free of both outside interference and fear of concerted retribution by disgruntled RfAr parties (if they can do anything about it). Worrying too much about how others will react to your judgements will only serve to cloud your judgements. --210 physicq  ( c ) 06:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Weak Oppose per MacKensen. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose ×Meegs 11:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Don't like the recall concept. --Andy Blak 22:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) AniMate 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk 03:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose Fred Bauder 14:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Sorry. - Mailer Diablo 16:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose Essentially I can't accept the concept of arbitor recall. Spartaz 17:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. I do not support the idea of "arbitrator recall", as the nature of the office requires some independence, in my opinion. --Danaman5 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. I don't like the idea of an arbitrator open to recall, it is cheap populism in my view. I think Alex is a great guy, but perhaps not for the arbcom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. AucamanTalk 04:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Gentgeen 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main qualification for any wikipedia editor or officer should be the ability to write well. TheScotch 09:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * TheScotch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:58, 12 November 2006 (UTC). - Aksi_great (talk) 09:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose. I find the nominee too far away from  neutrality and too close to Wiki trolls and Wiki propagandists. Wikipowers abuses by Bakharev haven't been registered, but widely expected among editors who are not fans of Russia. AlexPU 21:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cocoaguy (Talk)| (Edits) 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Cocoaguy does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - poor grammar could hinder ease of communication, also don't like arbitrator recall — Mets501 (talk) 02:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Cryptic 12:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Tra (Talk) 22:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) In the United States, judicial appointments are for life, and for good reason. I do not like the idea of arbitrator recall and I see it potentially leading to way too much politicking.  -- Cyde Weys  19:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. I would go with Cyde here. Plus I think that Alex is a bit too lenient to be a member of the arbcom. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, sorry, I cannot support the idea of an Arbitrator open to recall. It's far too much trouble to get arbitrators elected to allow one to step down just because some may disagree with his actions, which should be expected for arbitrators.  Mango juice talk 15:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose with regret-- I find much to the good, and consider the willingness to stand for recall of an ArbCom as merely another good character recommendation. He is entitled to an opinion, and the policy is another matter. I suspect having his international views, experiences, and engineers brain would be a great assist, but I don't think he has the depth of experience yet to stand for such an important office. Sorry -- run again next year and I'll be glad to change about. Best wishes // Fra nkB 21:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) per arbitrator open to recall. Sarah Ewart 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose -- in response to question regarding SPOV, this person evinced a poor understanding of the unique requirements of an encyclopedia that covers a wide range of topics including scientific consensus. --ScienceApologist 16:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose with regret -- I can far too easily see much time wasted by a sockpuppet trying to get a recall. Your intentions are correct, but I see the potential problems outweighing your noble spirit. That said, you are a much better editor than I. \/\/slack  ( talk ) 23:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose, disagree with the idea of arbitrator recall. Voretus talk  15:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, I wish that there was an option of neutrality.--Anglius 03:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Zsero 23:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose What we don't need is another layer of wheel warring. Stirling Newberry 11:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose - my vote comments Carcharoth 23:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)