Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews

Charles Matthews
I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Wikipedia is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.

I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.

I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda. Charles Matthews 11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. Tosha 15:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Antandrus  (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Ancheta Wis 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Fredrik | tc 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. Impressive answers to questions. Batmanand 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Gdr 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Carl Hewitt 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support absolutely.  +sj + 22:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Madame Sosostris 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Outside the great contributions to the mathematics projects, I have seen Charles Matthews keep great cool in dealing with difficult users, a feature most necessary for an arbitrator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support, with few reservations. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. &mdash;Ruud 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support.--ragesoss 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support — Omegatron 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support --Angelo 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Ambi 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) TacoDeposit 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support --Duk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support: impressive experience and well-thought answers to the questions. Jonathunder 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. --Viriditas 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support' -- Arwel (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - This guy is good - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:09, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Guettarda 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support → P . M a c U i d h i r   (t)  (c)  02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. He hit it on the nose with his answers to his questions.  --Vortex 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) King of All the Franks 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. I think he will make an excellent ArbCom member. Paul August &#9742; 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - BanyanTree 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - Bobet 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Crunch 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Cool and thorough. Knowledgeable in the edits. Listens to others. --BACbKA 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Very, very, very experienced, looks willing to work. Great answers to questions. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) older&ne;wiser 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Good experience. Dave 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support A knowledgeable and scholarly content editor. 172 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Thoughtful answers indicate ability to analyze based on encyclopedic goals rather than wikilawyering on policy. FCYTravis 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Rhobite 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 5) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - good answers. &#8592;Hob 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support - a very experienced contributor with a mature outlook. - Stevecov 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support linas 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support &larr;Humus sapiens&larr;ну? 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Tony the Marine 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Intelligent and level-headed. &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support: impresses as an editor of intelligence and integrity. --Muchness 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support--cj | talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Good candidate statement. I hope we can hold you to it. Hamster Sandwich 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support – I've known and respected this editor for a long time. He'll do well. – ClockworkSoul 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Chick Bowen 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Fred Bauder 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. -- Scott ei&#960;  06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. android  79  06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support don't know this user, but it seems that ppl trust him.  Grue   06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --EMS | Talk 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. siafu 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support - really superb editor, ArbCom couldn't do better. My only reservation: does ArbCom deserve him well enough to waste his time like this? --- Charles Stewart 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. jni 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Sam Vimes 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Isomorphic 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support just going with the flow, seriously, a level-headed user, good answers, dedication. feydey 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 07:37Z 
 * 25) Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support, low involvement in project namespace, but highly involved w/community via enwiki-l mailing list and obviously dedicated w/53K+ edits. -- M P er el ( talk 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. --Kefalonia 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Lupo 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support No-nonsense, good answers. --kingboyk 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support I agree with descriptions like "intelligence", "integrity", "respectable" and "level-headed." Fg2 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support definitely gets my vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Sarah Ewart 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support --Nick Boalch?!? 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, my top choice. Dan100 (Talk) 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support &mdash; MikeX (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) support: Ombudsman 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support: --Stephan Schulz 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Being aware of systemic bias and interested in countering it is a big plus, and he seems well-rounded and professional. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support Good editor, we're lucky to have standing. Morwen - Talk 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Strong support. The best candidate statement and answers to questions I've yet read. Thryduulf 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support very levelheaded, I would trust this candidate to work for the community as a whole.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support: He seems always to make fair and reasoned, and non-confrontational assessments of a situation whenever I have run across him Giano | talk 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Strongest Support This guy is probably one of the best candidates for the ArbCom --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support -- Michael Slone (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support, good no-nonsense approach. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. All his contributions that I've seen show he clearly knows what he's doing. --Last Malthusian 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Kafziel 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. I like the answers. --Frelke 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. Good candidate. — BrianSmithson 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support: Level headed and careful. Geogre 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support - Good answers. Awolf002 14:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support. Good statement, good answers.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. --Angr ( tɔk ) 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support - Feels strongly about systematic bias. Good candidate. Gflores Talk 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support, one of the strongest candidates here. Proto t c 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Support The Literate Engineer 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support, for your evident ability to recognise trolls --Doc ask? 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support Masonpatriot 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support NatusRoma 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Support Rhion 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Support --Wikimol 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Support --Petros471 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Support Jkelly 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Support  TestPilot  19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support based on candidate statement and answers to questions. Terra Green 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support - Xed 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Support - Leibniz 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Support. Well knowledgeable and determined to further enhance Wikipedia. --KHill-LTown 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Support -- Polaris999 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Support (This is obiter dicta, but I'm astonished that someone casting an "oppose" vote suggested that this candidate may not be one of the best-known Wikipedians.) Michael Hardy 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Support Experienced, level-headed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Support --Pjacobi 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Splash talk 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Support --Daniel11 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Support Will make a wonderful ArbCom member. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Support. &lt;KF&gt; 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Sopport Candidate will put in the time and he's well known to many. I only wish he hadn't come down so hard on the questioner who didn't spell so well. Smmurphy(Talk) 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Support - at least in part *because* of the answer about spelling. The arbcomm gets a lot of cr*p: it needs to be able to answer robustly when appropriate. William M. Connolley 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 84) Support--Confuzion 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Support. Answers demonstrate impressive grasp of what is required.--cjllw | TALK  23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Support Marskell 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Support Warofdreams talk 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Support. Very impressed by his summary and answers to questions. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) Support. The first Wikipedian I met here, and a fine example of why I want to stay. Dmharvey 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 91) Support. Vsmith 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 92) Support. Strong answers on questions and great statement.  Velvetsmog 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 93) Support --JohnDBuell 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 94) Support --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 95) Support. Neutralitytalk 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 96) Support abakharev 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 97) Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 98) Support Joaquin Murietta 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 99) Support --Carnildo 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 100) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 101) Support Delirium 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 102) Support Adrian Buehlmann 10:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 103) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 104) Support. Charles answered the questions well, I have also always been impressed by his interactions with others (at least those I have seen). Rje 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 105) Support Kosebamse 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 106) Support, good statement, experienced -- Gurch 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 107) Support-- Birgitte§β  ʈ  Talk  18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 108) Support. HGB 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 109) Support.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 110) Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 111) Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 112) Support. I'm sure will do a good job. --G Rutter 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 113) JoaoRicardotalk 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 114) Support - Solipsist 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 115) Support Fad (ix) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 116) Support David 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 117) Support Prodego  talk 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 118) Support --Loopy e 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 119) support dab (&#5839;) 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 120) Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 121) Support David Hoag 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 122) Support Dr. Cash 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 123) Support Timrollpickering 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 124) Support KTC 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 125) Support --Jaranda wat's sup 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 126) Support. JSIN 06:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 127) Support--AndriyK 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 128) Yes - --Bhadani 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 129) Support - Sietse 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 130) Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 131) Support --Terence Ong Talk 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 132) Support. Andre (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 133) Support &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 15:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 134) Support --Hurricane111 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 135) Support --Denis Diderot 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 136) Support One of Wikipedia's most eloquent members Cormaggio @ 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 137) Support Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 138) Support Elle vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 139) Support mikka (t) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Thesocialistesq 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thesocialistesq does not have suffrage; he registered at 01:27, 8 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 119 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support --Ragib 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Guus 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) SupportAlex43223 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support I like the experience and the international perspective --Ignignot 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Kusma (討論) 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – ABCDe ✉ 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support - Very experienced, long-time user, has a good style, good views. --NorkNork 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. ntennis 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support.  Smerdis of Tlön 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Well-qualified, and has earned my trust. Jwrosenzweig 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Nothing makes me think that putting this user on the committee would be a poor decision --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. From his track record and answers to the questions, I believe Charles would be an excellent ArbCom member. Sunray 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 12:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Seems level-headed and very familiar with the Wikipedia process.  --Elkman 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Strong support - very trustworthy user -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Strong support - outstanding user. Deckiller 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. Knows why we are here. --JWSchmidt 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Recognises whats needed, knows what to expect Gnangarra 15:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) support absolutely Derex 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support. RadicalSubversiv E 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Although I don't agree with many of the answers, I like his reasons for them.  (SEWilco 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 23) Support. Preaky 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support -- good answers on the wikilawyering topics. --SarekOfVulcan 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support Liked your answers to questions –Comics (Talk) 08:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) support Kingturtle 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) support --angusj 01:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support --nixie 01:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support per answers. Youngamerican 14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support - David Gerard 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support - Vulturell 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support --Fastfission 22:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Me likey. Detriment 00:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - Good stances, and I hate verbosity :) DrIdiot 01:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Mcpusc 01:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support &mdash; John 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * V-ball does not have suffrage; he had only 131 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 08:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support -- in the strongest possible terms.--CSTAR 05:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support —Phil | Talk 09:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support - clearly the sort of person we need on ArbCom - RachelBrown 12:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support --LifeStar 14:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - kaal 16:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Reluctant support. Shows a strong and pragmatic understanding of Wikipedia's policy and functionality.  He is, however, admonished to refrain from personal attacks, as he made against -Ril-, and to keep his alleged temper under control.  Ingoolemo talk 18:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support absolutely. Well reasoned editor. Could use a bit of extra effort to come accross as more friendly at times. - Taxman Talk 14:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Sjc 07:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support Tuohirulla 22:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Dannycas 00:15, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Zachjones4206.196.142.192 01:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Anons don't have suffrage. Even if Zachjones4 was just logged out when he made this edit, he does not have suffrage either; he had only 15 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong Support A cool and froody guy, I must say. - JustinWick 03:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  Bratsche talk 04:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Jared 11:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Secretlondon 15:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - &#91;&#91;User talk:Wrp103&#124;Talk]] 18:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nortonew 02:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nortonew does not have suffrage; he had only 138 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Deb 10:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. (Bjorn Tipling 06:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 5) NSL E (T+C) 10:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support – Smyth\talk 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Extremely Strong Support Good Luck! Pacific Coast Highway |Leave a message ($.25) June 29, 2024
 * 8) Probably OK GangofOne 16:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support FreplySpang (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support WLD 17:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support FeloniousMonk 18:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- DS1953 talk 18:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, tolerant of "outsiders" Kappa 22:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Alai 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) – ugen64 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) WhiteNight T 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose -- Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Sorry, support for unilateralism not inspiring. Otherwise, would have endorsed him. Grace Note 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. (If you haven't contributed much in 2005, that's probably why I haven't encountered you, as I've only been here since May.) Best regards, &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't know Charles Matthews? Maybe I've been on the site too long! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose on policy grounds, due to support for unilateralism, disdain for a code of wikipedian rights, and the deflection of tough, but fair, questions as 'trolling'. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Grace Note and genitive Davidpdx 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. -- HK 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. the hostility in the self description serves as warning. Avriette 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - although he is a very dedicated contributor, he lacks arbitration skills. This became obvious on Sensei's Library where he showed the same qualities described by others above. This was some time ago, but it doesn't look like he changed. (He gets a point for being so honest as to use the same nick, though.) &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, short fuse. Gazpacho 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. First para, a little too eager to ban users. enochlau (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose--Masssiveego 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Hostile towards questions.  I believe such hostility will harm his ability to settle other's disputes. Cedars 10:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose: Don't like his appeal.Dr. B 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Seems much better editor than ArbCom member. Superm401 | Talk 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose Lapinmies 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Strongly oppose Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. Engages in personal attacks, and defends them by calling them objective.  Kevin baas 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are? Matt Yeager 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Responses to questioning (see the questions link in the statement section above) suggest that he is extremely biased, won't respond to legitimate concerns about fairness, self admittedly obstinate, completely ignores Assume good faith and No personal attacks, and likes throwing red herrings around to deflect attention from criticism. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Unsettling approach to resolving disputes. --Omniwolf 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Itake 23:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose — despite thoughtful and intelligent responses to questions (and answers whose content I largely agree with), brusque and occasionally rude manner does not bode well for arbitration skills. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose User:Ejrrjs says What? 01:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose, tone in some answers --AySz88 ^ -  ^  00:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose - Has great experience (both in Wikipedia and in the real world), is intelligent and has a clear writing style but this is outweighed by his sometimes evasive or spiky answers to questions. --Spondoolicks 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutralevrik 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Wasn't impressed with the candidate's statement.