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

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

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

ArbCom agenda:

• Transparency, integrity, and accountability.
• Prompt responses
• Shared decision drafting
• Effective, enforceable remedies

ArbCom decisions should be:

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

Questions

Note: I've also responded to specific issues at:

• User talk:theProject#ArbCom vote question
• User talk:NathanDW#Admin abuse?
• User talk:Scandum#meat puppet?
• User talk:Freakofnurture#POV pusher?

1. Mike Dillon 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. support Jd2718 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Strong support Great user. Helpful and calm. Excellent record of working with problem users. AnnH ♫ 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. Despite our differences and disputes in the past, I have learned to appreciate Will's good judgment and commitment to this project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Strong. -- Core desat 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   BhaiSaab ^talk 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   This user is banned. -- Srikeit 08:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply

8. Weak - crz crztalk 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Thatcher131 01:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Hello32020 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Duk 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
12. SuperMachine 01:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Khoi khoi 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Bishonen | talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC). reply
16. -- Michael Johnson 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Strong support AniMate 02:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Strong support. Excellent editor and admin; very fair; will make a great arbitrator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. — Mi ra 03:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. Crum375 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support: displays patience and good judgment. - Che Nuevara 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. KPbIC 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Strong Support involved, pro-active, consistent; if Wikipedia had a Top Gun school Will Beback would be an instructor.-- Hokeman 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Ter e nc e Ong 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Warofdreams talk 04:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Merzbow 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support Xoloz 04:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Peace. -- Nielswik _(talk) 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
31. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
32. semper fi — Moe 05:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Antandrus (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
34. -- BenBurch 06:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
35. -- Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Aminz 06:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Dylan Lake 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support Mytwocents 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Another candidate I think is quite tough, but also fair. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Tough choice, but I'm leaning towards weak support.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
41. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support. Candidates who have been through the arbitration process themselves are valuable. ArbCom needs people who have 'been there'. Fys. “ Ta fys aym”. 10:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Weak Support A good candidate overall, but I don't like your list of "problem users" as THB said. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support Charles Matthews 12:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. — Viriditas | Talk 12:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
46. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 13:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support.-- Muchness 13:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Weak Support Patstuart ^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Weak Support based on answers to my questions. There's a lot to ponder over with this guy and I know some people don't like him and I think some of the stuff he used to do that people didn't like of him he doesn't do anymore (like the following of people's contribs, but now that's so common even mentioing your name on IRC and somebody digs through and says "why were you blah blah? or made this edit?" and I think Will doesn't go through contribs like crazy anymore and is a good guy whereas now most wikipedia is doing that instead), although I didn't dig through his contribs to see what he does but mainly went from what I asked him and from them he seems diplomatic enough. Weak because he seemed not fully commital to a number of them. Anomo 14:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Strong support. Will Beback contributes consistently high quality work as a content editor, often on contentious subjects, giving him an especially strong ability to stays focused on the goals of the project when acting as an administrator. Unfortuantely, many members of the governing bodies of Wikipedia and the administration lack his experience and expertise as a writer of articles. Will Beback will be an effective proponent on the arbcom. 172 | Talk 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Fair; good at resolving disagreements. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
53. -- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support -- CBD 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support-- danntm ^T _C 15:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Regretfully, withdrawing support.-- danntm ^T _C 23:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply

56. Tewfik ^Talk 15:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Avi 16:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
58. gidonb 16:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Excellent candidate! reply
59. Support IronDuke 18:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 18:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Gzuckier 18:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Elizmr 18:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Beit Or 19:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
64. 6SJ7 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 20:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support Willing to get his hands dirty dealing with problem users (ArbCom's main function) and behaves with admirable restraint, all things considered. JChap2007 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support IZAK 20:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support Proactive, balanced, fair. Perfect candidate. -- Chabuk ^{[  T •  C ]} 21:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support Seems to be an ideal candidate. -- Hyperbole 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support. ITAQALLAH 21:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support. Jonathunder 22:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support. Evolver of Borg 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Strong support Guettarda 22:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support Onefortyone 23:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Strong support. Has lots of common sense. Stompin' Tom 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Stompin' Tom does not have suffrage; he registered at 14:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Conn, Kit 00:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Conn, Kit does not have suffrage; he had only 147 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply

76. Support -- tickle me 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-12-05 02:13Z
78. Support -- Verkhovensky 02:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support Amoruso 03:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Strong Support per 172. -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 06:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
81. -- ragesoss 09:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support. — An gr 10:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Strong Support -- Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Weak support, despite evidence presented by TheProject, below. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support. With alternatives like Nandesuka and Jpgordon, Will gets my vote. Justforasecond 21:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support FeloniousMonk 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Andre ( talk) 22:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support. Nishkid 64 01:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Support. NatusRoma | Talk 02:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Support Has been civil and rational in our encounters, and has not imposed his point of view. Haiduc 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Support -- SteveMcCluskey 05:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support -- I've seen some of your contributions to and statements about some of the controversial articles that I've worked on, and they've convinced me that you know how to deal effectively with problem editors. -- WGee 06:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support Agne 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Strong Support. ^{Blank Verse} 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Support Fred Bauder 15:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support. Good experience. -- Merlinme 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Support - While Will has shown some strong opinions in the past, I have been impressed by his ability to withdraw from situations where there is a Conflict of Interest or personal involvement. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{( Talk to Me) ( My Contributions) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 18:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
98. support Andries 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Support -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Strong Support — we need more veteran Wikipedians in the ArbCom. — Vesther ( U * T/R * CTD) 23:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Strong Support Good contributor Markco1 00:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Support JoshuaZ 02:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Support Montco 04:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Support `' mikkanarxi 04:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Support. -- El on ka 06:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Support. He has been involved with controversial editors and articles and is just the sort of experience that the ArbComm needs. 06:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
107. Support. -- Cactus.man ✍ 12:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Support, Will is a thoughtful and truly great editor.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Support A very good candidate with, unfortunately, a pretty lousy statement, which I'm ignoring given my knowledge of his work here. At worst clumsy once. -- jpgordon ^∇∆∇∆ 23:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Support. Isarig 01:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
111. GabrielF 02:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Support -- Leifern 02:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
113. To be entirely frank, I was inclined to oppose weakly per Opabinia regalis and the Project, but the diffs adduced by Doc glasgow in opposition to evidence sound judgment and a firm grasp of policy. Joe 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Strong support. On the Kaiser Permanente article, Will was an invaluable resource to help calm the tension and refocus everyone on constructively editing the article. Having encountered his work briefly in other articles, each encounter reaffirmed for me his professionalism and ability to help build a better Wikipedia. Justen 06:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Support. Seems to have a good grasp of policy and dispute resolution. -- Danaman5 06:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Support. Will is good at explaining and applying Wikipolicy, plus he's fair-minded and always civil. I haven't always agreed with him, but the more I see of his work, the more I respect it. Karen | Talk | contribs 07:21, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Support. Candidate seems thorough, credible and tenacious. Alan.ca 10:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Support Kristod (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Support The list cited by THB was an honest attempt for transparency. I also find the reaction cited by theProject very sincere - he showed his feelings, but did not commit an attack. — Sebastian 05:48, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Support schi ^talk 08:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Support Always been fair and very helpful --- Melca 12:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Support as per all of the above. An even-handed honest broker.-- Mantanmoreland 15:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Support. He has provided even-handed oversight of controversial articles. John Foxe 15:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Support Has sensible views about how ArbCom should conduct itself. Alan Pascoe 16:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Support evrik 17:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Support A great contributor! -- ArtAsLife 21:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Support, Mallanox 00:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Strong support. They don't come better! -- Fyslee 01:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Strong(est) support ...he had an impressive command of the facts and answered points courteously and cogently up and down the gamet of the discussions with ever present patience courtesy and diplomacy. His investigative abilities and capabilities of organizing a case supporting his points, frankly, began to awe me... (Full comment at [2]) // Fra nkB 05:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Support he has been shown to have good judgment and in my encounters with him I have never detected a hint of incivility or any kind of bias. Has made a great admin and will make a great arbitrator.-- Jersey Devil 07:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Strong Support. I've witnessed the candidate's ability to remain amazingly cool, calm, and fair even when other editors are being completely unreasonable. One reason he's good at settling disputes is that no matter which side he lends support to, both sides respect his decision because they know he's being completely fair and not playing favorites. I recognize only one other candidate in the list, and I haven't seen nearly as much of that person's edits or discussion, so I can't compare this candidate to the others, but on the other hand, I can't imagine anyone seeming more fit for the job to me than this candidate. - MichaelBluejay 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Support, and if everyone else set out their achievements and statistics in a list like Will, I'd support them too. Stifle ( talk) 15:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
133. Strong Support. Will is a model Wikipedian, fair and levelheaded. He will make a great arbitrator. Soltras 17:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Support has been helpful in the past. - MSTCrow 01:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Strong Support Will is an excellent Wikipedian Enkrates 02:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Strong Support Will is "fair and balanced;" I have appreciated working with him ProfessorPaul 02:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Support Shlomke 03:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
138. older ≠ wiser 03:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Support Antaeus Feldspar 03:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
140. Strong Support. The candidate has been phenomenally patient, cool and good-humored in the face of outrageous harrassment. He is fair and even-handed, and sticks by the rules --using them intelligently-- in complex and difficult situations. In my book, he is one of Wikipedia's superheroes.-- Sojambi Pinola 04:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
141. Support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
142. Strong support. Candidate may even understand that it's only an encyclopedia. Vizjim 13:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
143. Approve. Bubba ditto 00:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
144. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 01:05, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
145. Support Will is one of the fairest Wikipedians I know of. Considered, thoughtful and perfect for Arbcom. -- Woohookitty ^(meow) 03:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
146. Support Krupo 04:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
147. Strong support Kaldari 07:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
148. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
149. Support Calm guy. We need more calm people. metaspheres 10:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
150. Support · j e r s y k o talk · 14:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
151. Support. Dozenist talk 15:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
152. Support.-- Zantastik talk 19:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
153. Support. I like the platform. Calton | Talk 05:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
154. Support. I like his statement, and I've seen good things from him - I think he'll make a good, fair ArbCom member.-- TheOther Bob 16:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
155. Support. Spot-on every time I've come across him. — Wknight94 ( talk) 17:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

     support varuag doos, 20:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Varuag doos does not have suffrage; he had only 80 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 23:23, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply

156. Support: Sounds sensible, and has the Wikibackground for it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish ( talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
157. Support. Levelheaded, should do fine. Herostratus 18:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
158. Derex 06:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
159. Support. Active, probably overly judgemental, but interested and moving things along -- Ctatkinson 11:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
160. Support. -- Túrelio 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
161. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
162. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
163. Support Susanlesch 13:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
164. Strong Support In all my dealings on WP with this user, Will has always demonstrated a desire to make WP a better encyclopedia, and I think W will be an excellent addition to the ArbCom. Drett 16:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
165. Support Anthonyd3ca 05:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
166. — Xyrael / 09:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
167. Support. Any claims of "POV pushing" by opponents are inevitable, given his willingness to edit in controversial subject areas. szyslak ( t, c, e) 10:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
168. Support Stirling Newberry 11:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
169. Support MarkBA ^{talk/ contribs} 13:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
170. Support -- Philosophus ^T 21:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
171. Support Fair-minded and experienced. Gimmetrow 21:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
172. Support. HGB 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
173. John254 21:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
174. SUpport without reservation. Kiwidude 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
175. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. AmiDaniel ( talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   Oppose has not come across as an arbitrator should. KazakhPol 03:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

   • KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Very weak oppose. Rebecca 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. The statement sounds way too much like someone running for a political office. Political arbitrators are bad. - Amarkov ^blah _edits 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Ral315 ( talk) ( my votes) 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Weak oppose nomination statement reads like his wikipedia resume; it's a little off-putting. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose Strongly dislike llist of "notable problem users". - THB 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. As THB. Naming names as detailed responses to candidacy questions might be one thing, offering a "roll call" of people he's been involved in DR with -- in the candidacy statement -- is entirely another. Serpent's Choice 06:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Appears to have a substantial history of controversy. Scob e ll302 06:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose I agree with Opabinia regalis and Amarkov. -- Riley 06:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose per THB.-- John Lake 07:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Nufy8 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply

    I dislike this reaction by the candidate to the above-mentioned admonishment by the Committee, which seems insincere. If I am missing something else and evidence can be given to suggest that the incident was in fact resolved, I may reconsider. theProject 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) —— I strike my reasoning and my vote, given the candidate's assurance (which I have no qualms believing) that said reaction was not intended in such fashion. theProject 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply

12. Oppose per above. — CharlotteWebb 07:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
13. – Ch acor 09:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose strongly. Everyking 10:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. cj | talk 12:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Per this string he started on the admin noticeboard — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Permanent link. — Centrx→ talk • 01:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Weak oppose diplomatic but too opinionated on some topics and too slow to admit wrongdoing Dragomiloff 17:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Strong oppose Although he's civil, when I was responding to an OTRS complaint, I found him more concerned with his POV in the article than giving due consideration to WP:LIVING. See [3] and [4]. -- Doc^g 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. — Cel es tianpower ^háblame 20:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose CComMack ( t– c) 22:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Michael Snow 23:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Mild Oppose Wiki eZach| talk 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
26. per Doc. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose see above. Kiwidude 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose -- Mcginnly | Natter 12:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Mexcellent 18:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose Yanksox 02:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Peta 04:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose - Francis Tyers · 10:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose has very strong views about his list of interests that could lead to bias. Addhoc 11:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Weak oppose as per THB. -- Schnee ( cheeks clone) 17:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose -- Runcorn 19:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose, abuses admin powers to push POV. ArbCom would be worse. -- NathanDW 21:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Am I missing something but the amount of involement with 'problem' users seems disproportionate to routine admin activity? Spartaz 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose per above comments on problem users list and response to admonishment. Sam 23:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. — Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Must ^TC 11:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Weak oppose - the list of problem users looks like bad judgment to me. Zocky | picture popups 11:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose-- Brownlee 12:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose---- Holdenhurst 13:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose -- Nuclear Zer0 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Never. Grace Note 01:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose - Gnetwerker 07:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose; I share Serpent's Choice's concerns. -/- Warren 23:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose E104421 00:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Strongest possible oppose, unrepentant POV-pusher. — freak( talk) 01:13, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
51. Cryptic 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Tra (Talk) 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Deizio talk 00:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
54. ArbCom does not seem to need tigers. It's a dispute resolution body, not a court of law, with arguing lawyers and such. I think you'd make a great advocate in such a place, but alas, that's not what this election is about. -- Cyde Weys 19:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Weak Oppose Experienced, but too political. Anom8trw8 20:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Weak Oppose. It's probably not fair to vote against someone because of a long-standing disagreement over a content issue, but I guess I'm petty that way. john k 07:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose on grounds of personal experience with this user.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 21:44, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Sarah Ewart 01:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Weak Oppose Lost Kiwi ^(talk) 20:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose POV pushing and engaging in meat puppetry. --Scandum 01:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
61. Oppose SPOV response was stock and vague not evincing any sort of confidence in candidate's ability to adjudicate disputes regarding scientific controversies. -- ScienceApologist 17:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose Ansell 22:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
63. Oppose -- not good in a difficult situation - makes matters worse. Sophia 22:31, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose Huldra 21:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply