Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Mindspillage

Mindspillage
I see the job of the Committee as to sort out problems that have gotten so bad that no one else can deal with them, and that are wasting the time of editors who are here to write, and to seek the ideal solution: the one that ends up with the least damage and lets the people who are here to work cooperatively and productively on articles do just that.

I believe strongly in keeping a civil and productive atmosphere on Wikipedia, and not being overly bound by precedent in search of a proper outcome. I also believe in using no firmer a touch than is necessary to remedy a problem.

There are certain issues I am firm on, including civility and respect as well as the proper use of admin powers. I also am a strong supporter of ignoring all rules, which makes me all the more disturbed when that guideline is abused for ends it wasn't meant for.

As a temporary appointee I believe most of my time on the AC so far has been spent "learning the ropes", and have found I would rather write articles than serve on the AC; what sane person wouldn't? But it hasn't made me want to snap yet, either, so I will fill the post if I am wanted back. Questions welcomed.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) M A Mason 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Friday (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6)  Voice of All T 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) -- a.n.o.n.y.m  t 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Doc ask? 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Shanes 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Antandrus  (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support. - Seth Ilys 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) – ugen64 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Sean|Bla ck 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16)  Jtkiefer T  00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. One of the best. Ambi 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) The Land 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Cryptic (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- PRueda29  / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Strongest support. She is intelligent, kind, extremely helpful, and has excellent judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support — Omegatron 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support - Sango  123   (talk)  00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) brenneman (t) (c)  00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Speedy Support --Jaranda wat's sup 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Dmcdevit·t 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Nunh-huh 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support ➥the Epopt 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. &mdash;David Levy 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support. -- Dragonfiend 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. An outstanding editor and arbitor, long may she continue. Batmanand 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. &mdash;Ruud 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Strong support. Carbonite | Talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support–Gnomz007(?) 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. -- Миборовский U 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support - Mark 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support, a good editor who has done a fairly good job. JYolkowski // talk 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support - Mackensen (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. --Golbez 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support --Angelo 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support - no question.-gadfium 01:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support--Duk 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) -- ( drini's page &#x260E;  ) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support -- one of the finest. --Wgfinley 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support Bjelleklang -  talk 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Let's just clone 15-20 Mindspillages and end this election now. karmafist 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Anytime, "Kat" is one of the most honest persons I know in Wiki. What I like about her is that she is fair in her judgement and if your wrong she will not hesitate to tell you even if you have a friendly relationship with her (I know from experience).  Tony the Marine 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Borderline support. Tries to be fair at least. Grace Note 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Prompt resolutions and excellent communications!!! A+++++++++++++++ &mdash; 0918 BRIAN &bull; 2006-01-9 02:54
 * 4) SupportKillerChihuahua?!? 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) -- ⟳ ausa کui × 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) King of All the Franks 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Bigtime Support. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support - BanyanTree 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support--ragesoss 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Fred Bauder 03:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support- Very level headed, has been an excellent ArbCom member. Paul August &#9742; 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. Indeed. kmccoy (talk) 03:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by GregAsche (talk &bull; contribs) 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support One of the best choices we've got by far. --InShaneee 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. --Viriditas 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support 172 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. Thought she already was one. ;-) Jonathunder 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Rhobite 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Strongly. &mdash; Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support Dottore So 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. Past containment. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) uh-huh Grutness...wha?  04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support --Crunch 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Bobet 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. --Aaron 05:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support --Hurricane111 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support Dysprosia 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support, very good answers and good work on ArbCom. feydey 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Good work so far in the role of arbitrator. Hamster Sandwich 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support -- SaikiriRemixed? 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support. Calm, rational user. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. —Cleared as filed. 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support – ClockworkSoul 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support --Tabor 05:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support--cj | talk 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support. android  79  06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Trust implicitly, both character and judgement.--Tznkai 06:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Rob Church Talk 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support. &mdash; Catherine\talk 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. --Angr ( tɔk ) 06:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support. Isomorphic 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Pileon Support, we don't agree on everything, but I feel this user is fair —Locke Cole • t • c 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Support. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Support Best overall candidate--MONGO 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Support Charles Stewart 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Support. utcursch | talk 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Support, proven record as arbitrator. -- M P er el ( talk 08:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Support. Nandesuka 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Support Sarah Ewart 08:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Support -- Rama 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Support Solid arbitrator. -- SCZenz 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Support - Physchim62 (talk) 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Support. --Kefalonia 09:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Support. --MJ( &#x260E; 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 64) Support, in part, for ideal stance on IAR. &mdash; Saxifrage | &#9742; 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Support'. --Missmarple 10:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Support Geogre 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Raven4x4x 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Support. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Support. 'I also am a strong supporter of ignoring all rules, which makes me all the more disturbed when that guideline is abused for ends it wasn't meant for' -- Amen. --Nick Boalch?!? 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Support. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) support: Ombudsman 11:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Support. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs [[Image:Flag_of_Germany.svg|25px|Germany]] 11:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Strongly support intelligent supporters of IAR. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Support Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Support this user GETS what WP:IAR is about.   ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Support - Mindspillage is reasonable, level-headed, and possessed of sound judgement. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Suppport -- Michael Slone (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Support Mindspillage's not evil.  Grue   13:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Troppus noelip emertxe. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 80) Support. Friendly and reasonable.--Eloquence* 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 81) Support. — BrianSmithson 14:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 82) Support. Thought she already was one... oh wait... the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 83) Support. --Alabamaboy 15:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 84) Support The Literate Engineer 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 85) Support. Cberlet 16:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 86) Support --kingboyk 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 87) Support. Keep it up.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 88) Support -- Ferkelparade &pi; 17:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 89) Support Demi T/C 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 90) Support Rhion 18:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 91) Support per IRC cabal ... errr ... I mean, There is no Cabal. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 92) Support --Ixfd64 19:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 93) Support Garion96 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 94) Haukur 19:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 95) Support. BD2412 T 19:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 96) Support. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:37Z 
 * 97) Support --pgk( talk ) 20:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 98) Support: --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 21:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 99) Support. Gamaliel 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 100) --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 101) Support Theo (Talk) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 102) Support Naturenet | Talk 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 103) Support --EMS | Talk 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 104) Support. siafu 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 105) Support Excellent stuff so far. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 106) Splash talk 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 107) Support due to behavior in the past, and Everyking's oppose. Avriette 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 108) Support good job so far, and seems to have the right attitude for the job. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 109) Support Rangek 23:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 110) "Support' Smmurphy(Talk) 23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 111) Support. Wally 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 112) Reluctant support; reluctant for no other reason than that it might take him away from editing articles. One of the Wikipedians I respect most. Matt Yeager 00:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 113) Support. Bishonen | talk 00:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC).
 * 114) Support. Remarkably sane, and definitely "new blood". Her position on the "riots" isn't the best, but makes enough sense. Oh and Matt, Mindspillage is a she :-P N (t/c) 00:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 115) Strongly support; cool headed, intelligent collaborator. Antonio Not Throwing the Towel Myself Martin 01:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 116) support BL  kiss the lizard  01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 117) Support. Mindspillage seems to be someone who continues to treat others with respect after she is given more power. What higher compliment could I pay? AnnH (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 118) Support. trustworthy, fine job so far.--cjllw | TALK  01:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 119) older&ne;wiser 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 120) Support. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 121) Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 122) Support Maltmomma (chat) 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 123) support --Irpen 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 124) Support Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk   03:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 125) Support Olorin28 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 126) Support - please note that user shows obvious evidence of insanity by seeking re-election, however. :) -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 127) Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 128) Support Good contributor &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 129) Support. silsor 05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 130) Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 131) Support.  JeremyA 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 132) Support. --Fire Star 07:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 133) Support. -- Curps 08:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 134) Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 135) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 136) Support. Wikipedia needs more common sense. Kosebamse 13:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 137) Support. I have had nothing but positive experiences with her, and she has done a good job since joining the ArbCom. Rje 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 138) Support  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 139) Support. No explanation necessary.  Ral315 (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 140) Support, can identify dicks on wikipedia that need circumcision. Something we lacked efficency on the last arbcom team when I had a hearing. I wasnt too satisfied with that one. I am not criticising all past arbcomers, just perhaps a spesific one who knows who he/she is. -- Cool CatTalk 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 141) Support Damn straigt! Oskar 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 142) Support. Seems to be doing a good job. --G Rutter 20:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 143) Support. I highly value the inclusive view of the ArbComm task. JFW | T@lk  21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 22:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Surprisingly, the vote fraud detected directly above would not have changed anything. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 23:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Well-respected user. -SocratesJedi | Talk 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. HollyAm 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Vsmith 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. &mdash;David Wahler (talk)  02:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. enochlau (talk) 05:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. -- King of Hearts | (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Sunray 08:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: delayed as I was verifying her from her photo identity card. --Bhadani 10:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --Terence Ong Talk 13:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Andre (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Cormaggio @ 18:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 16) Support KTC 20:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support--A Y  Arktos 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support, appointed ArbCom member. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support All in 22:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support DreamGuy 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Sharpdust 02:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Carnildo 05:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support At last, a sensible candidature!!! Sjc 05:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support pfctdayelise 07:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support -Huldra 09:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - She kicks more butt than the others. -Wonderfool --Nightsleeper 15:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nightsleeper does not have suffrage, he's a sockpuppet of a user banned by arbcom. --Phroziac . o ºO (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 16:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Palmiro | Talk 16:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Dr. B 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – ABCDe ✉ 18:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Perfection is out of this world, but this is the only candidacy in this whole elections that I can support without reservations. Phil s 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) support William M. Connolley 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Solid statement, proven record (even if slightly tarnished) Velvetsmog 23:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support --Loopy e 00:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support --Ancheta Wis 02:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support ntennis 04:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support for admin policy. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support: all the right enemies. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support -- Ze miguel 08:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Alphax 14:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Bahn Mi 19:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Zebruh 20:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your account is newer than 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150, so your vote cannot count. --TML1988 21:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support, a kind and considerate user who believes in and uses common sense. Thryduulf 21:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, a very trustworthy user -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. maclean 25 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. can we clone this candidate?  --JWSchmidt 02:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Wiki (and the world) needs more hot libertarian chics. - Lawyer2b 05:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Chl 18:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) With some misgivings why?, Support. ++Lar: t/c 00:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support Knowledgable, and charming! Dominick (TALK) 00:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Mushroom 01:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Good that he has been in the arbcom before, and has performed well in his time there. Borisblue 23:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support --W.marsh 02:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13)  freshgavin TALK    03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support: 1) 250 people can't be wrong. 2) 42 always was my lucky number. 3) Previous experience on the arbcom (which obviously didn't leave too bad of a taste in other people's mouths) 4) Clear signs of insanity (agreeing to run for arbcom again), but of the good kind. crazyeddie 04:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support -- Masonpatriot 05:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support --mav 06:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support Marskell 12:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Aphaia 07:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --james   °o  12:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Mark1 15:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support --Supercoop 16:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support - David Gerard 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Support. I like the user's take on IAR. Youngamerican 18:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support sannse (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --M7it 22:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Robert McClenon 22:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support --Randolph 03:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Support -- Jacoplane 05:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support Pete.Hurd 07:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support —Phil | Talk 10:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. Monicasdude 12:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support - kaal 17:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support Wildyoda(talk) 17:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Support Nuff said. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 03:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Support of course. Great editor, understands policy and says the things that need to be said when others are afraid to.  -- Pakaran 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Support. --Stephan Schulz 23:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Weak Support Weak, because too good to be true from the answers to the questions, and support because assume good faith. :) Fad (ix) 03:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support - 上村七美 13:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support. Eminently reasonable. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support fair. Derex 20:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support  Jacqui ★ 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support. --Neutralitytalk 00:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support. NatusRoma 03:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support jnothman talk 03:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support good fit.--Alhutch 04:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. Love the WP:IAR bit. Bratsche talk 05:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Support --Durin 15:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Support --DanielCD 19:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Haven't been here long at all and already I've seen the extent of this editor's good work. KrazyCaley 08:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * KrazyCaley does not have suffrage; account was created on January 5 2006.--Alhutch 16:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Vote withdrawn, newbie mistake. KrazyCaley 03:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Jonpin 20:34, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support – Smyth\talk 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. &#8227;<font size="+1">&#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ <font size="+1">&#5200; ] 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Good performance so far, and seems to be able to put in lots of time without burning out! FreplySpang (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Onefortyone 18:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) An excellent candidate. I've seen very good things from Mindspillage. encephalon  19:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Alex43223 20:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support. +sj + 22:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. Alai 23:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Canderson7 (talk) 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Everyking 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) WhiteNight T 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Refusal to take Arbcom action to stop the "war wheel" show bad judgment. Xoloz 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. zen master T 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Conflict of interest — is a member of the Wikimedia PR department. Also refuses to address questions after supporting a severe ban which is widely condemned - Xed 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Weak Oppose - Good user, but I feel that new blood is needed Brian | (Talk) 22:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. -- HK  23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Durova 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Clicked the wrong link, sorry.
 * 1) Oppose. Need new ArbComm.  SEWilco 04:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Very reluctantly oppose. I do not like to cast a negative vote, as I have strongly supported Mindspillage's RfA back in April, and I do hold her judgment quite highly in general. However, her actions in the recent Xed case (which also showed the lack of accountability of the current arbcom as a whole) give me the impression that there isn't enough passion to get it right and to further our ultimate goal of writing an encyclopedia. I do not think an arbitrator should support too harsh remedies that easily. &mdash; mark &#9998; 12:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose as per Mark. --BACbKA 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose.  With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter.  Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility.  Fifelfoo 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose--Gozar 17:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose -- Davidpdx 12:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Jared 12:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) oppose Kingturtle 20:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Unable to tell fact from fiction. Andy Mabbett 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Preaky 23:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. Some questionable decisions. Vulturell 17:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose per User:Vulturell - RachelBrown 12:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 15:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, very reluctantly, lazy or unwilling to thoroughly research her decisions. Wyss 17:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. I would support except that the question of neutrality is too vaguely answered by Mindspillage. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral A kind person, but I cannot support her beliefs, which seem to be feeding into the current atmosphere of fear on Wikipedia. karmafist 04:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * What beliefs would those be? 128.192.236.246 14:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * karmafist, could you please elaborate? Your statement is a bit vague for those of us not familiar with the material you are referring to. I would like to hear more about your opinion. --DanielCD 19:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Neutral - if you prefer writing articles, then maybe you should just do that? --NorkNork 21:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You'd prefer someone who has not contributed in writing articles? What do you expect? Wikipedia is before anything else, about writing articles (and I'd expect someone prefering to write articles) and previous experiences on articles contribution is I believe primordial when dealing with a content dispute. Fad (ix) 03:37, 19 January 2006 (UTC)