Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Snowspinner

Snowspinner
I have a good amount of experience with the arbcom from the outside, and I feel confident saying that the single biggest thing it takes is wading through evidence pages - often confusingly ordered and worded evidence pages. It involves reading diffs, and a huge amount of dedication to piecing together what's going on.

This is a change from what the arbcom needed last year. Last year, the arbcom was dealing with cases like Lir, Plautus, and Irismeister regularly, and dragging at them. That's not the case this year - the last slam dunk malevolent user the arbcom dealt with was Plautus, which took them a week.

It doesn't take anyone special to ban Plautus or Lir - I doubt there's a person running in this election who wouldn't have done that. What we need are arbitrators who are willing and able to put in the commitment to the harder cases - to the ones that involve the well-meaning editors with a legitimate disagreement that need to be disentangled, not smashed with a banstick.

Different circumstances require different kinds of arbitrators. And I promise to be one of those different kinds of arbitrators. If elected, I promise to review evidence carefully, and to look at situations with the larger Wikipedia community in mind. Like it or not, arbcom decisions are cited as justifications in policy debates now, and the arbcom needs to be careful about what it says in light of that. A recent near-disaster is the Coolcat case, when the arbcom nearly made a ruling that could easily have been interpreted as shutting down informal mediation. I was one of the ones who pointed out that problem, and if elected, I intend to keep problems like that from happening - without abandoning the need for effective rulings that minimize the need for repeat cases.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2)  --Ancheta Wis 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Someone has to do the dirty work around here, which Snowspinner excels at. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) The Land 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Madame Sosostris 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, SqueakBox 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Only if you get to be co-chair with Karmafist. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Phil is abrasive, but he gets the job done. The only people he offends tend to be POV pushers or trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Has an innate sense of doing the right thing and the courage of his convictions. Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support He is capable of playing a different role Fred Bauder 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Calton | Talk 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC). Change of vote. --Calton | Talk 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Strong support Snowspinner has long been Wikipeida's sword and shield defending encyclopedic standards from POV pushers and trolls. 172 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support --Crunch 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) &mdash; Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. --maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Justforasecond 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. android  79  06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support -- had good experience with Snow in one messy case. anyone Karmafist opposes is likely to be real good. r b-j 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support, not afraid to take the heat for standing up for WP principles. -- M P er el ( talk 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. Elle vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support Xtra 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support Meekohi 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support mdmanser 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support per Jimbo. Tom e rtalk  14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support --Habap 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Support Robert McClenon 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support deals with problems very well through process.Gateman1997 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong support he held his own against J.G. last year --CDN99 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support, strong committment to the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. Exploding Boy 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Coolgamer 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --nihon 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Rob Church Talk 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Support Un  focused  05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Support -- disagree with thinking on policy and actions, but understand a consistent viewpoint and a feeling on what wikipedia should be. Avriette 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 07:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Support --Thorri 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Support Sayeth 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Support, offset unwarranted feeding frenzy. HGB 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Weak Support, controversial but a good user and seems like decent arbitration material. Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Support. Should be reserved for situations where morosity and stubbornness are the main ingredients to the arbitration case - cuts straight through the accumulated nonsense. JFW | T@lk  21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Support --Carnildo 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Support. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Support. --Masssiveego 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Support. Fine line but think I come down on support side.--JK the unwise 12:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Guettarda 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Support Cormaggio @ 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 37) Hedley 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Support Ashibaka tock 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Support. Experience and statement outweighs any regrets about recent history (see list of oppose votes). — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Support -- nae'blis (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Support - experienced, good policy. --NorkNork 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Support - Product over policy! &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Support Rohirok 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Support Lawyer2b 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Support, good editor, would make an excellent arbitrator. - ulayiti (talk)  13:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Support Knowledgeable, experienced, a good thinker. Dominick (TALK) 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Support. siafu 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Someone mentioned abrasive, and that's exactly what the ArbCom needs: someone to tell it straight. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cernen does not have suffrage; he registered at 07:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support. Preaky 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - David Gerard 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support &mdash;Lowellian (reply) 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) support — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley (talk • contribs)
 * 5) Support - Jake 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support (I liked his handling of the Webcomics dispute) Samboy 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) SupportHomey 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Likely to do the work, argue positions, and add balance to the Committee. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 03:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Support CJCurrie 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support. Josh 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Strong support  Jacqui ★ 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. Unafraid, courageous. Neutralitytalk 01:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Carptrash 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Has a lot to contribute to the arbitration system.-- Oni Ookami AlfadorTalk 08:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oni Ookami Alfador does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support KTC 12:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Very weill answered questions have removed any doubt I had. Thryduulf 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Friday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Haukur 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Ben 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Shanes 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Cryptic (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12)  Voice of All T 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) – ugen64 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14)  Jtkiefer T  00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) brenneman  (t)  (c)  00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose because of recent wheel wars. Unacceptable behavior for a future arbitrator, regardless of who was in the right. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. &mdash;David Levy 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. --Dragonfiend 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Strong Oppose per his actions at WP:RFC/KM. He's basically just running to attempt to get more influence in his never ending crusade to get whatever he wants. karmafist 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. --AySz88 ^ -  ^  01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. -- Миборовский U 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) WhiteNight T 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) -- Run e Welsh | &tau;&alpha;&lambda;&kappa; 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) JYolkowski // talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) TacoDeposit 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) 'Oppose. RfC conduct not becoming of a potential ArbCom member. Batmanand 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose--Duk 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose --Angelo 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfCs. Xoloz 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose per Oleg. Kit 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose-- Dl yo ns 493  Ta lk  02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Strongest possible oppose. Already thinks he is the judge round here. Grace Note 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - wow - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). &mdash;  F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:35, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose  Feed them. Then they cross the line and you can get rid of them. "Trolling for the forces of good," I call it. ... Getting my oppose vote is what I'd call it. --Gmaxwell 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) -- ⟳ ausa کui × 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Too confrontational, involved in too many disputes. Paul August &#9742; 03:11, 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). &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose -- per gmaxwell. kmccoy (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose, too many confrontations; Arbcom should be about resolving disputes, not starting more. We need bold editors, but not there. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - involved in too many disputes. [[Image:European flag.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Bobet 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose.--ragesoss 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. Rhobite 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose More heat than light. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just probably not the best fit at this point in time. Jonathunder 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) &#8212;Charles P. (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Dottore So 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose --Heah talk 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - Intention seem good but track record suggests too adversial for Arbcom. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Novacatz (talk &bull; contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose No confidence in this editors abiltiy to check his ego at the Wiki door, so to speak. Too adversarial, too many problems with other editors. Hamster Sandwich 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose – Doesn't work well with others. – ClockworkSoul 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) FOo 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Too divisive. Kaldari 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose --Tabor 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - However with a bit more seasoning this may change. Netkinetic 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose per Netkinetic. --Aaron 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose unacceptable behavior.  Grue   06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose such transparent campaigning leaves a sour taste in my mouth.--Tznkai 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. You gotta be kiddin'... Probert 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Did not like the users conduct on RfC Brian | (Talk) 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. --Angr ( tɔk ) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Strongest Possible Oppose, this guy is dangerous just being an admin —Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Not a good fit for an arbitrator. Danny Yee 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. I respect his work here, but not a good fit for ArbCom. &mdash; Catherine\talk 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, mainly per RfC/Snowspinner 3; an unacceptable attitude for a future arbitrator. &mdash; mark &#9998; 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. No. Way. Too confrontational, too much abusive behaviour as an admin. Blu Aardvark | (talk) 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose Sarah Ewart 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose Somewhat reluctantly. why? ++Lar: t/c 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. Too quick to buck consensus, not wary enough of ArbCom being used as a platform for ruling on policy. -- SCZenz 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose. -- Michalis Famelis 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose -- No surprise, I know. Geogre 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. Too embattled. --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose Ciao ciao! Same as Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway, really. -- Peripatetic 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Dan100 (Talk) 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose David.Monniaux 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Policy. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Very Strong Oppose Sorry but I must oppose. Snowspinner just does not show consistantly good judgement when it comes to interaction on WP.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Sad oppose. History of vandal-fighting and troll-killing is solid, but too many recent wheel wars, too much unilaterial action without consensus, and too much WP:IAR tips the scales into the oppose side.  Sorry.  Let's hope 2006 is better.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.--Eloquence* 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Too block-happy. See this block, which was for a user who had made "personal attacks" only in the most loose interpretation possible. — BrianSmithson 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose improper temperment. Would do poor work and make controversial matters only worse. Sorry.Gator (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, the remedies he has proposed in past cases are way too harsh. Also, lack of respect for community consensus. Radiant_ >|< 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Mark1 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, too controversy-prone. Proto t c 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose dab (&#5839;) 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- Ferkelparade &pi; 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. --Conti|&#9993; 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose Demi T/C 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Rhion 18:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Arrogant and disrespectful. Ill-suited for arbitration role. - Xed 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Way too confrontational. Pilatus 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose.   &#08492;  astique  &#09660;  par &#08467; er  &#09829;  voir  &#09809;  21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. Gamaliel 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 22:12Z 
 * 21) Unbehagen 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Splash talk 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose CarbonCopy (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. A POV warrior who abuses admin powers and scorns Wikipedia policy. -- HK 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose per above. --Dschor 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose: Rather than appoint to ArbCom, this is one admin I'd recommend de-adminning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose, strikes me as a rogue admin. N (t/c) 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Is often right in his numerous conflicts, but is far too confrontational older&ne;wiser 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose per recent RFC. &mdash;Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose Olorin28 04:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. silsor 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Raven4x4x 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) * Oppose --Kbdank71 14:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) --note this vote was cast by 
 * 36) **Note, this was not me. --Kbdank71 14:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Strong oppose: this is supposed to be an arbitration committee. Let us not forget what the word is meant to mean... &mdash;It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. Recent wheel-warring leaves a bad taste in my mouth.  howch e  ng   {chat} 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose Septentrionalis 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose far, far to confrontational Oskar 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Keith D. Tyler &para; 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose --BACbKA 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Vigorous Oppose. For many of the same reasons already mentioned. Confrontational, has a piling-on mentality and is arbitrary and unjust in the use of his admin authority. deeceevoice 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose--Gozar 17:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose --EMS | Talk 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose--MichaelSirks 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose --Rye1967 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose All in 22:55, 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) 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. civility is needed even when dealing with dicks --JWSchmidt 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose -Huldra 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose - Constant problems with incivility, lack of experience with writing of articles. Zocky 11:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Hot tempered, abuses administration powers. Kevin baas 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Jared 12:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - Liberatore(T) 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Has demonstably abused administrative privileges more than once.  Bahn Mi 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Dr. B 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose, too controversial for the position, imo -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Community concerns. Velvetsmog 01:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 13:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. I have concerns about your methods of arbitrating as displayed on your talk page Gnangarra 16:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Strong oppose. He is controversial and for good reason.  On repeated occassions he's blatantly violated Wikipedia policies to delete articles he didn't like which clearly didn't fall under speedy deletion criteria.  In WP:COMICS has explicitly stated that he personally is allowed to override consensus whenever he thinks the consensus is wrong.  He's had a block on me reversed because it was a) obviously wrong and b) a complete conflict of interest (he refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest).  He has personally threatened to block me for simply inserting a straw poll on a talk page.  Read Requests_for_comment/Snowspinner_2 for a good idea of how much he doesn't care about Wikipedia civility and no personal attacks policies despite strong enforcing them.  In short, he rules with his temper and not in slightest bit with objectivity.  His philosophy is "the ends justify the means and screw anyone who thinks otherwise" (see []).  SO many people know he his a problem and should have his admin privileges revoked, it's really just support from a few powerful admins, namely current arbitrators, that he hasn't.  Nathan J. Yoder 17:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) *Rest of comment moved to talk page ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) oppose brought an essentially frivolous case before arbcom (without first filing RFC). Derex 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Mrfixter 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Love the experience and the statement. Abhor the contentious tone in some of the 4 (!) RFCs this year. --William Pietri 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose --  max rspct  leave a message  23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Strong oppose. His recent behaviour is an abomination. Additionally, he thinks it perfectly ok to be one sided in arbitration decisions. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. I read the question answers, and there was too many plausibly deniable statements and not enough answering the question. Superm401 | Talk 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose. Not the right place for this valued wikipedian. Youngamerican 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose -- Frankly, he should be banned completely... proudly violates policy, gets in wheel wars, is completely the opposite of what we need. DreamGuy 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose, Intellectually unqualified and the worst of roleplaying. The Witch 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Witch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose - kaal 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. -- Lumijaguaari  (моє обговорення)  20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa (talk • contribs)
 * 3) Oppose from what i have seen creates problems. Not a calming influence. David D. (Talk) 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. After seeing his Template:Expert recovery -- and his statement on TfD that he'll ignore the voter's will and impose his own bias, Wikipedia principles on verifiability and citation be damned -- I can't imagine how he'll be able to act fairly in a judgment role. --Calton | Talk 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Gentgeen 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose -- Pakaran 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose' Arbitrators must only be those unlikely to every by subjected to arbitration.  --Rob 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, role-player. Wyss 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose --Loopy e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10)  Bratsche talk 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Much like universities require publications for continuing tenure, Wikipedian admins should continue contributing to the articles. All I really see in your 500 most recent contributions are Wiki administrative business edits and very little, if any, edits on encyclopedia articles. Author782 08:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates! ) 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Kolokol 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. Statement and questions show a good mind, but appears temperamantally unsuited. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. &#8227; &#5339;&#5505;  [[Image:Venus symbol (blue).gif|&#9792;]] [ &#5200; ] 16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. --Grouse 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) A very poor candidate for the arbitrators' bench. encephalon  19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose I liked the answers to the questions but this user seems to lack sufficient diplomacy. --Spondoolicks 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose CDThieme 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Alai 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. I haven't liked what I've seen from Snowspinner lately, but I've liked what I've seen in the past and I like his candidate statement. These two factors balance out and equal zero for me. H e rmione1980 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) neutral that sums up my feelings too. BL  kiss the lizard  01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)