Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Will Beback

Statement
The Arbcom should provide predictable and prompt decisions that further the mission of writing a free encylopedia. Along with the AN/I, mediation committees, community forums, etc, the ArbCom exists to keep disputes and other problems from impeding the project. The ArbCom needs members who are fair, trusted, active, and solution-oriented.

To the ArbCom I'd bring the dedication that I've demonstrated over the past two years. I've edited more than 8,000 unique pages across a broad range of topics, including some of the least popular, and am among the 50 most active editors. Through it all I've maintained good humor and focus. I'm offering to devote all of that time and energy to ArbCom matters.

Other candidates are more qualified to be ArbCom members than me and I'm honored to run with them. It's great that there are so many good applicants for this job and that's a credit to the project. I'm running only because I may possibly be the fifth-most qualified editor.

ArbCom agenda:
 * Transparency, integrity, and accountability.
 * Prompt responses
 * Shared decision drafting
 * Effective, enforceable remedies

ArbCom decisions should be:
 * Rare - a last resort.
 * Carefully decided - ArbCom decisions have major short- and long-term consequences.
 * Timely - some cases have dragged on so long that they seemed to prolong their disputes rather than settle them.
 * Modest - focused on individual behavioral problems as mch as possible.

Questions

Note: I've also responded to specific issues at:
 * User talk:theProject
 * User talk:NathanDW
 * User talk:Scandum
 * User talk:Freakofnurture

Support

 * 1) Mike Dillon 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) support Jd2718 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Strong support Great user. Helpful and calm. Excellent record of working with problem users. AnnH  ♫  00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) 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 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Despite our differences and disputes in the past, I have learned to appreciate Will's good judgment and commitment to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Jaranda wat's sup 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong. --Core desat  00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * BhaiSaab talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Weak - crz crztalk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Thatcher131 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Hello32020 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Duk 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) SuperMachine 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Khoikhoi 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Bishonen | talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 9) --Michael Johnson 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Strong support AniMate 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong support. Excellent editor and admin; very fair; will make a great arbitrator. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) — Mi  ra  03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Jayjg (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Crum375 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support: displays patience and good judgment. - Che  Nuevara  03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) KPbIC 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong Support involved, pro-active, consistent; if Wikipedia had a Top Gun school Will Beback would be an instructor.--Hokeman 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) ←Humus sapiens ну? 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Ter e nce Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Warofdreams talk 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Merzbow 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Xoloz 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) semper fi —  Moe  05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support.  Antandrus  (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) --BenBurch 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) --Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Aminz 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Dylan Lake 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support Mytwocents 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. Another candidate I think is quite tough, but also fair. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Tough choice, but I'm leaning towards weak support.   ALKIVAR &trade; ☢ 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) -- Ghirla  -трёп-  08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Candidates who have been through the arbitration process themselves are valuable. ArbCom needs people who have 'been there'. Fys. Ta fys aym. 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Weak Support A good candidate overall, but I don't like your list of "problem users" as THB said. | A ndonic O Talk 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support Charles Matthews 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support.--Muchness 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Weak Support Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€  13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Weak Support based on answers to my questions. There's a lot to ponder over with this guy and I know some people don't like him and I think some of the stuff he used to do that people didn't like of him he doesn't do anymore (like the following of people's contribs, but now that's so common even mentioing your name on IRC and somebody digs through and says "why were you blah blah? or made this edit?" and I think Will doesn't go through contribs like crazy anymore and is a good guy whereas now most wikipedia is doing that instead), although I didn't dig through his contribs to see what he does but mainly went from what I asked him and from them he seems diplomatic enough. Weak because he seemed not fully commital to a number of them. Anomo 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Strong support. Will Beback contributes consistently high quality work as a content editor, often on contentious subjects, giving him an especially strong ability to stays focused on the goals of the project when acting as an administrator. Unfortuantely, many members of the governing bodies of Wikipedia and the administration lack his experience and expertise as a writer of articles. Will Beback will be an effective proponent on the arbcom. 172 | Talk 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Fair; good at resolving disagreements. Tom Harrison Talk 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) --Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support --CBD 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support-- danntm T C 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Regretfully, withdrawing support.-- danntm T C 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Tewfik Talk 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Avi 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) gidonb 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Excellent candidate!
 * 4) Support  IronDuke  18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Gzuckier 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Elizmr 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Beit Or 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) 6SJ7 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Willing to get his hands dirty dealing with problem users (ArbCom's main function) and behaves with admirable restraint, all things considered. JChap2007 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support IZAK 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Proactive, balanced, fair. Perfect candidate. -- Chabuk [ T • C ] 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Seems to be an ideal candidate. --Hyperbole 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support.  ITAQALLAH   21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Jonathunder 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Evolver of Borg 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong support Guettarda 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Onefortyone 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong support. Has lots of common sense. Stompin&#39; Tom 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Stompin' Tom does not have suffrage; he registered at 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Conn, Kit 00:16, 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 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --tickle me 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:13Z 
 * 3) Support -- Verkhovensky 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Amoruso 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Strong Support per 172. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --ragesoss 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. —Angr 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Strong Support  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Weak support, despite evidence presented by TheProject, below. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.   With alternatives like Nandesuka and Jpgordon, Will gets my vote.  Justforasecond 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support FeloniousMonk 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Andre (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support.  Nish kid 64  01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. NatusRoma | Talk 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Has been civil and rational in our encounters, and has not imposed his point of view. Haiduc 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support -- I've seen some of your contributions to and statements about some of the controversial articles that I've worked on, and they've convinced me that you know how to deal effectively with problem editors. -- WGee 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Agne 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Strong Support. BlankVerse 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Fred Bauder 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Good experience. --Merlinme 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - While Will has shown some strong opinions in the past, I have been impressed by his ability to withdraw from situations where there is a Conflict of Interest or personal involvement. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) support Andries 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Strong Support &mdash; we need more veteran Wikipedians in the ArbCom. &mdash; Vesther (U * T/R * CTD) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Strong Support Good contributor Markco1 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support JoshuaZ 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support Montco 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support `'mikkanarxi 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support. --Elonka 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. He has been involved with controversial editors and articles and is just the sort of experience that the ArbComm needs. 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
 * 32) Support. -- Cactus.man  &#9997;  12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support, Will is a thoughtful and truly great editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support A very good candidate with, unfortunately, a pretty lousy statement, which I'm ignoring given my knowledge of his work here. At worst clumsy once. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. Isarig 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) GabrielF 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support --Leifern 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) To be entirely frank, I was inclined to oppose weakly per Opabinia regalis and the Project, but the diffs adduced by Doc glasgow in opposition to evidence sound judgment and a firm grasp of policy.  Joe 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Strong support.  On the Kaiser Permanente article, Will was an invaluable resource to help calm the tension and refocus everyone on constructively editing the article.  Having encountered his work briefly in other articles, each encounter reaffirmed for me his professionalism and ability to help build a better Wikipedia.Justen 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Seems to have a good grasp of policy and dispute resolution. --Danaman5 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support. Will is good at explaining and applying Wikipolicy, plus he's fair-minded and always civil. I haven't always agreed with him, but the more I see of his work, the more I respect it. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. Candidate seems thorough, credible and tenacious.Alan.ca 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Kristod (talk)  14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support The list cited by THB was an honest attempt for transparency. I also find the reaction cited by  theProject very sincere - he showed his feelings, but did not commit an attack. &mdash; Sebastian 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support schi talk  08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Always been fair and very helpful --- Melca 12:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support as per all of the above. An even-handed honest broker.--Mantanmoreland 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. He has provided even-handed oversight of controversial articles.John Foxe 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support Has sensible views about how ArbCom should conduct itself. Alan Pascoe 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support evrik 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support A great contributor! --ArtAsLife 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support, Mallanox 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Strong support. They don't come better! -- Fyslee 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Strong(est) support ...he had an impressive command of the facts and answered points courteously and cogently up and down the gamet of the discussions with ever present patience courtesy and diplomacy. His investigative abilities and capabilities of organizing a case supporting his points, frankly, began to awe me... (Full comment at ) // Fra nkB 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support he has been shown to have good judgment and in my encounters with him I have never detected a hint of incivility or any kind of bias. Has made a great admin and will make a great arbitrator.--Jersey Devil 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Strong Support. I've witnessed the candidate's ability to remain amazingly cool, calm, and fair even when other editors are being completely unreasonable.  One reason he's good at settling disputes is that no matter which side he lends support to, both sides respect his decision because they know he's being completely fair and not playing favorites.  I recognize only one other candidate in the list, and I haven't seen nearly as much of that person's edits or discussion, so I can't compare this candidate to the others, but on the other hand, I can't imagine anyone seeming more fit for the job to me than this candidate. -MichaelBluejay 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support, and if everyone else set out their achievements and statistics in a list like Will, I'd support them too. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Strong Support. Will is a model Wikipedian, fair and levelheaded. He will make a great arbitrator. Soltras 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support has been helpful in the past. - MSTCrow 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Strong Support Will is an excellent Wikipedian Enkrates 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Strong Support Will is "fair and balanced;" I have appreciated working with him ProfessorPaul 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support Shlomke 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) older ≠ wiser 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Support Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Strong Support. The candidate has been phenomenally patient, cool and good-humored in the face of outrageous harrassment.  He is fair and even-handed, and sticks by the rules --using them intelligently-- in complex and difficult situations.  In my book, he is one of Wikipedia's superheroes.--Sojambi Pinola 04:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Support. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;   &spades;  05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Strong support. Candidate may even understand that it's only an encyclopedia. Vizjim 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Approve. Bubba ditto 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support Will is one of the fairest Wikipedians I know of. Considered, thoughtful and perfect for Arbcom. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Support Krupo 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Strong support Kaldari 07:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Merovingian ※ Talk 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Support Calm guy. We need more calm people. metaspheres 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Support ·  j e r s y k o   talk  · 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Support. Dozenist talk  15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Support.-- Zantastik  talk  19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Support. I like the platform. Calton | Talk 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Support. I like his statement, and I've seen good things from him - I think he'll make a good, fair ArbCom member.--TheOtherBob 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Support. Spot-on every time I've come across him.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * support varuag doos, 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Varuag doos does not have suffrage; he had only 80 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: Sounds sensible, and has the Wikibackground for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Levelheaded, should do fine. Herostratus 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Derex 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Active, probably overly judgemental, but interested and moving things along --Ctatkinson 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --Túrelio 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Cpuwhiz11 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Susanlesch 13:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong Support In all my dealings on WP with this user, Will has always demonstrated a desire to make WP a better encyclopedia, and I think W will be an excellent addition to the ArbCom. Drett 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Anthonyd3ca 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash;Xyrael / 09:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. Any claims of "POV pushing" by opponents are inevitable, given his willingness to edit in controversial subject areas. szyslak  (t, c,  e ) 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Stirling Newberry 11:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support MarkBA talk/contribs 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support --Philosophus T 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support Fair-minded and experienced. Gimmetrow 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. HGB 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) John254 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) SUpport without reservation. Kiwidude 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) AmiDaniel (talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose has not come across as an arbitrator should. KazakhPol 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Very weak oppose. Rebecca 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) The statement sounds way too much like someone running for a political office. Political arbitrators are bad. -Amarkov blahedits 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Weak oppose nomination statement reads like his wikipedia resume; it's a little off-putting. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Strongly dislike llist of "notable problem users". -THB 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) As THB.  Naming names as detailed responses to candidacy questions might be one thing, offering a "roll call" of people he's been involved in DR with -- in the candidacy statement -- is entirely another.  Serpent&#39;s Choice 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Appears to have a substantial history of controversy. Scob e ll302 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose I agree with Opabinia regalis and Amarkov. --Riley 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose per THB.-- John Lake  07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Nufy8 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I dislike this reaction by the candidate to the above-mentioned admonishment by the Committee, which seems insincere. If I am missing something else and evidence can be given to suggest that the incident was in fact resolved, I may reconsider. theProject 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) &mdash;&mdash;  I strike my reasoning and my vote, given the candidate's assurance (which I have no qualms believing) that said reaction was not intended in such fashion. theProject 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) – Chacor 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose strongly. Everyking 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) cj | talk 12:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Per this string he started on the admin noticeboard &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) *Permanent link. —Centrx→talk • 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Weak oppose diplomatic but too opinionated on some topics and too slow to admit wrongdoing Dragomiloff 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Strong oppose Although he's civil, when I was responding to an OTRS complaint, I found him more concerned with his POV in the article than giving due consideration to WP:LIVING. See and . --Docg 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Cel es tianpower háblame 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose CComMack (t–c) 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Michael Snow 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Mild Oppose Wiki  e Zach|  talk  00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) per Doc. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose see above. Kiwidude 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose --Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Mexcellent 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Yank sox  02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Peta 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose - Francis Tyers · 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose has very strong views about his list of interests that could lead to bias. Addhoc 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Weak oppose as per THB. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose --Runcorn 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose, abuses admin powers to push POV. ArbCom would be worse. --NathanDW 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Am I missing something but the amount of involement with 'problem' users seems disproportionate to routine admin activity? Spartaz 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose per above comments on problem users list and response to admonishment. Sam 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. Must TC 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Weak oppose - the list of problem users looks like bad judgment to me. Zocky | picture popups 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose--Brownlee 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) OpposeHoldenhurst 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose --Nuclear Zer0 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Never. Grace Note 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose - Gnetwerker 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose; I share Serpent's Choice's concerns. -/- Warren 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose E104421 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Strongest possible oppose, unrepentant POV-pusher. — freak([ talk]) 01:13, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Cryptic 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Tra (Talk) 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Dei</FONT> zio  talk 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) ArbCom does not seem to need tigers. It's a dispute resolution body, not a court of law, with arguing lawyers and such.  I think you'd make a great advocate in such a place, but alas, that's not what this election is about.  -- Cyde Weys  19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Weak Oppose Experienced, but too political. Anom8trw8 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Weak Oppose.  It's probably not fair to vote against someone because of a long-standing disagreement over a content issue, but I guess I'm petty that way. john k 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose on grounds of personal experience with this user.&mdash;Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Sarah Ewart 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Weak Oppose Lost Kiwi (talk)20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose POV pushing and engaging in meat puppetry. --Scandum 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose SPOV response was stock and vague not evincing any sort of confidence in candidate's ability to adjudicate disputes regarding scientific controversies. --ScienceApologist 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose Ans e ll  22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose -- not good in a difficult situation - makes matters worse. Sophia  22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose Huldra 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)