Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dbiv

Dbiv (signs as David)
I have decided, with reluctance, to stand in the election. The reluctance was because I might win and have less time for what I really enjoy, writing articles (two to which I contributed were in DYK? this week). I'm realistically looking to be in a pool of replacement Arbcom members, should members stand down mid term. I've been an editor since March 2004 and an admin for a year, and have over 7,000 edits. I'm very proud that I've never been accused of making a personal attack.

My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors.

My biography is in the article space, despite my efforts (I may be the first Wikipedian to nominate themselves for deletion but see the article kept). I think I have good conflict resolution skills. You may not consider it important but in real life I'm a published author and an elected local councillor.

A codicil
I notice a few voters making reference to my stated reluctance to stand, and I fear some may have grasped the wrong end of the stick. My reluctance is absolutely not to be understood as an unwillingness to serve, and I give a pledge to play an active part in ArbCom and devote to it all the time necessary. The reluctance comes only because every minute spent on ArbCom business is a minute not spent writing new articles, or improving existing ones. I hope this makes the situation clearer, at least. Perhaps it's just my good old-fashioned English modesty getting me in trouble again. David | Talk 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ask me another question!

Support

 * 1) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Good answers to questions, would make an effective and positive contibution to ArbCom. Batmanand 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes  (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support.--ragesoss 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - Evil Eye 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) brenneman  (t)  (c)  00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support — Omegatron 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support - Agnte 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, SqueakBox 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Answers to questions are convincing. Ambi 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --Duk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Looks good. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, although I have not previously interacted with this editor, his contributions and answers to the questions are impressive. Jonathunder 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - quality makes quality- Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:10, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Support - This was an easy decision... → P . M a c U i d h i r   (t)  (c)  02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support older&ne;wiser 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, very experienced, kept cool in heated situations, save one. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Convincing statement. Dave 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support &#8592;Hob 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly support - highly experienced editor who is one of the few candidates with a featured page to his name. - Stevecov 04:48, 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) 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Good answers. 172 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Tony the Marine 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Kit 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Thoughtful and gentle. &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support novacatz 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Fred Bauder 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Chick Bowen 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. -- Scott ei&#960;  06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support He diffused my anger quite well, and it was directed in part against him. WAvegetarian (talk) (email)   (contribs) 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. android  79  06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support, balanced and reflective. —LeFlyman 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Dislike politics like approach to arbcom, but stablility and thoughtfulness of statement and answers convinces me. I also always support reluctant suitibles.--Tznkai 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support--cj | talk 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. utcursch | talk 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 07:54Z 
 * 19) Support. Jmabel | Talk 08:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support, strong record of community service/involvement in and outside of WP (per bio). -- M P er el ( talk 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support why? ++Lar: t/c 08:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. --Kefalonia 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Lupo 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support as Batmanand. Dbiv seems qualified, thoughtful, and certainly has wikipedigree. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --Nick Boalch?!? 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, despite Oleg's oppose (I hate it when rollback is used for non-vandalism reverting), as his qualities more than offset that one incident. Dan100 (Talk) 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Obviously IMO. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Admission of reluctance is good and realistic.  Morwen - Talk 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) support: Ombudsman 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. A user I trust to put commons sense above technicalities. Thryduulf 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support very levelheaded. Seems to see ArbCom as "no big deal". I dont think this user will wind up power-tripping.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) MARINGAL Support I have my concerns vis-a-vis regard his views, especially POV pushing. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support, sensible and level-headed. And yes, a rollback is "no different in its fundamentals to a manual revert" so I wouldn't hold that against him. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support per Everyking. Tom e rtalk  13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support, I think the below comments about rollback are a little too sensitive. Sensible, and being willing to cut to the chase makes him awesome like thunder. Proto t c 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support The Literate Engineer 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Angr ( tɔk ) 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support per Radiant. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support Masonpatriot 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support  TestPilot  19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Jkelly 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Weak Support. He is dedicated to Wikipedia, but his current line of work, and his initial reluctance to stand for the position, yields uncertainty.  I would be more inclined to support him in a by-election for vacancies later in the year. --KHill-LTown 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support - if he's sure he wants the job!  BD2412  T 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Splash talk 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. Wally 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) JYolkowski // talk 00:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support reluctance to stand is indicative of a considered approach. Warofdreams talk 00:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. H e rmione1980 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. Vsmith 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support. Good answers, hope he has the time.  Velvetsmog 02:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support --JohnDBuell 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support. Neutralitytalk 04:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support Joaquin Murietta 06:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support --Alan Au 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support Wizzy&hellip; &#9742;   11:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support. Sounds good. enochlau (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Support.  Grue   16:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Support-- Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  18:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Support Comes across as a suitable candidate doktorb | words 18:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Support. Seems good. --G Rutter 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support--AndriyK 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support. maclean 25 00:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Appears knowledgeable and thoughtful. redprince 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Redprince has 35 edits, as of this timestamp. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  00:49, Jan. 11, 2006
 * 1) Support . His position in government seems to demand a good deal of general knowledge, thus equiping him for the position. -- User:Alvinrune 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Timrollpickering 01:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support KTC 04:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. --Bhadani 09:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support David 13:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * David Fuchs does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:52, 12 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 122 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support: Appears to be a well-liked user, and I enjoy his appeal.Dr. B 18:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support: He gave a useful response on how to dwal with the situation on the anarchism page.Harrypotter 18:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, changed from oppose. HGB 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support wise and worthy.--Henrygb 00:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Was a bit concerned about reluctance to stand, but his clarification helped. Superm401 | Talk 02:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support pfctdayelise 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support simply 'like' him Bjrobinson 10:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Bjrobinson does not have suffrage; he had only 125 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support,--George Burgess 15:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support – ABCDe ✉ 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Gmaxwell 19:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support - Seems very experienced, however, if you enjoy writing articles more, why not just stick to it? I decided not to nominate myself because of precisely that reason. --NorkNork 19:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support for answers to my form questions (which I ended up not copying to him for some reason, hmm). &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support, Since contacting me, I realize that he would be a good part of the commiteeAlex43223 00:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support, very down-to-earth as politicians go, didn't realize how often I'd encountered him in discussions and assumed he was a different David. Agree also with the storm in a teacup thing. &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:58, Jan. 13, 2006
 * 8) Support. jni 08:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 12:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) support William M. Connolley 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) support --Irpen 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 01:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support because of his/her humility and longstanding, quality service. Rohirok 02:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Ruy Lopez 05:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 11:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support I have withdrawn my opposition vote. My reasoning is that Wikipedia is still new and still rising, so there is no need to worry about "balances of power" quite yet.  This canidate is very qualified and will be a fine ArbCom member. Deckiller 16:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Gnangarra 17:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) support Wikityke 21:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. (SEWilco 04:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 21) Support - good answers --SarekOfVulcan 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Indeed, seems to take a delight in being as neutral as possible. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. firm devotion to the encyclopedia --JWSchmidt 03:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. I thought his view on IAR was too liberal, but a very level headed and sensible clarification on his views on my talkpage showed that Dbiv is a good man for ArbCom responsibilities. Sjakkalle (Check!)  06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support. I like his pragmatic view on IAR, plus he is well-reasoned in answers, even when I disagree with his positions. Youngamerican 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support --JesseBHolmes 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * User does not have 150 edits and most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Harry Hayfield 22:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) (In other words, I support the candidature of David Boothroyd for this position)
 * User did not have 150 edits at the start of the election, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note? ) 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. --Muchness 11:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --LifeStar 14:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) --Doc ask? 16:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems to understand the functioning of Wikipedia pragmatically and thoroughly. Ingoolemo talk 18:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) supportevrik 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)Liked the candidate's statement.
 * 6) Support absolutely. PedanticallySpeaking 16:53, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support - kaal 17:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Rattletrapmusicman 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rattletrapmusicman does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 11 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Pete.Hurd 05:47, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Proteus (Talk) 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, despite apparent lapse of judgement in the George Galloway content debate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support.  Bratsche talk 04:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Secretlondon 15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support - Changed my vote, I misunderstood his statement.  Like real life creds - JustinWick 00:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Nortonew 02:30, 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) 05:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:18, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. moof 04:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Lerdsuwa 09:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) NSL E (T+C) 10:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support FreplySpang (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Seems an excellent candidate. Good answers to questions. --Spondoolicks 20:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Good, sensible editor & admin.  +sj + 23:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support CDThieme 23:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) – ugen64 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) The Land 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Everyking 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. When asked to not use the admin rollback button against well-meaning editors, Dbiv claimed that it is "fuss over nothing", and also found "this sort of debate sterile, enervating and pointless". Admittedly it was a minor matter, however, the response was not appropriate for a future arbitrator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose there should be no reluctance when standing for a position. --Angelo 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Shanes 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Raven4x4x 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. -- Миборовский U 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose per Oleg, and other reasons. Grace Note 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong Oppose per Oleg, and the answer to my question. Xoloz 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose Bobet 03:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose candidate statement appears to treat the process as judicial, not arbitrarial. Fifelfoo 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose per Oleg —Locke Cole • t • c 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose I'm not sure on this one. May change my vote later.  Grue   06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, though I feel as Grue does above. Reluctance in standing for this position is also confusing. siafu 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Truly an excellent admin, but interpretation of IAR is too liberal. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Vote switched to "support". Sjakkalle  (Check!)  06:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too political. --kingboyk 10:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose I feel he lacks committment to Wikipedia process and policy. His membership of controversial orgs like SEIG also make too politcal and thus too partisan. All users need to feel they can trust ArbCom. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a member of anything called SEIG and do not know to what this refers. David | Talk 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Sarah Ewart 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - if you are reluctant to stand, then you are not fully committed.--Ahwaz 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahwaz does not have suffrage; he had only 130 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Too controversial. Davidpdx 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Per Oleg.  Ban  e  s  15:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I cannot support someone who is 'reluctant' to run. H e rmione1980 21:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Clarification received on my talk page, changing vote. H e rmione1980 00:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -- HK 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems likely that he'll burn out early, and if he does, he might not go back to editing articles. --Carnildo 08:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Given the nature of the position, I will not support someone who doesn't appear to want to do the job (the risk of him dropping out mid-term is too high). Rje 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, reluctant candidate. HGB 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) changed my mind, my concerns are satisfied. HGB 23:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose, per Oleg, and the possibility of dropping out mid-term. Ral315 (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, too partisan. --Mais oui! 23:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. If you state that you don't really want to do this job in your candidate statement, I am not going to support you. Pretty simple. Dr. Cash 01:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Reluctance, showed improper behavior on the Talk:George_Galloway thing by threatening to revert legitimate edits. JoaoRicardotalk 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * His linking to a disambig page above may indicate that checking where a link takes to is not a habit for him, which is bad editing procedure. JoaoRicardotalk 18:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose--Masssiveego 07:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --Svartalf 18:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) If he's reluctant to take office, let's humor that. I don't heel he's the proper kind of person for office.
 * 3) Oppose. --Viriditas 11:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose As per Oleg. --Ignignot 17:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose It kills me to cast this vote since his candidate statement and answers are both very intelligent and well-written, but his opinion of WP:IAR is just way too liberal. -- Hinotori(talk) 22:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose just for the sake of a balance of power. Deckiller 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose his opening statement I dont want to be here but... opposition with drawn due solely to my misunderstanding of the candidates reluctance to standGnangarra 16:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Chooserr 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Preaky 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) oppose Kingturtle 21:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Too political. Wanted to delete a page about him (and I just don't like deleters ;)). --pankkake 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:31, 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? ) 00:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Itake 23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Dannycas 00:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, because he has knowingly recreated properly deleted content, even after he attempted and failed to get undeletion consensus. That's enough for me.  Postdlf 22:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * This is untrue. David | Talk 22:39, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Category:Causes célèbres voted for deletion here, failed undeletion here, and recreated by Dbiv here without any intervening undeletion consensus. Res ipsa loquitur.  Postdlf 22:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Postdlf. --Kbdank71 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose He doesn't want the post enough. - JustinWick 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) Clarification on my talk page, vote change. - JustinWick 00:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose You're reluctant to do a job and you want us to vote for you to do this job? (Bjorn Tipling 06:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC))
 * 3) Oppose I have voted instead for a couple who actually want to be arbs Moriori 20:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)