I am an old-timer from mid-2001 and I was a member of the first group of admins ever appointed. My personal Wikipedia history is summarised at my user page (including links to my pre-Mediawiki contributions).

I participated heavily in the formation and/or development of a number the core philosophies that still underpin Wikipedia. But I will confess that I became very disillusioned on and off over the years as I felt that the 'pedia had lost it's way, and become mired in bureaucracy. I am delighted to see that in the past year the focus on "quality" has thoroughly regained precedence over "procedure".

My approach to being an arbitrator would be very simple. In any arbitration situation I just ask the question, "where is the best quality outcome for the Wikipedia"? Quality is to be found in the calm, impartial seeking of consensus and the delivery of swift resolution. The first priority is always the 'pedia, as it has been since the beginning of 2001. When one is focused on the quality of the 'pedia, making the "hard" decisions is never quite so difficult.

Before nominating myself I gave considerable thought to the question "Am I willing to give up the 'fun' side of the 'pedia"? Taking on an arbitrator role responsibly means giving it first priority, and scheduling it into one's life as a fixed and regular routine. This naturally implies that editing (and even basic adminship) must fall away. After sincere consideration, I am willing to genuinely make that commitment if elected.

Whether I am elected or not, I shall enjoy seeing the consensual process at work in this election, as this is the foundation of what makes Wikipedia so extraordinary. I am (like I hope you all are) extremely proud of my association with it over the years.

PS - I have taken the liberty of casting a few votes of my own. I have not voted for myself, and I will not cast any "oppose" votes. However there are a few outstanding candidates that I strongly desired to express my support for.

Manning ( talk) 09:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC) reply

• Manning Bartlett ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

1. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Reasonable enough. W.marsh 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Completely satisfied with his answers to the questions about the arbitrators' ethics. -- Irpen 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
4. east.718 at 00:33, December 3, 2007
5. YES!   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Tim Q. Wells 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
7. – Gurch ( talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Answers to questions are excellent. Gracenotes ^T § 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Baka man 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Experianced.-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Woody 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
12. looks good— Random832 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
13. "I just ask the question". Yes. -- drini ^[meta:] _[commons:] 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
14. -- Ned Scott 01:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
15. -- Core desat 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
16. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
17. DGG ( talk) 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
18. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
19. Cryptic 02:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
20. B 02:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
21. RMHED 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
22. -- Duk 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
23. I don't know a lot about you, but your statement is top-notch and you clearly have a lot of experience and good perspective. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 03:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
24. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
25. Better perspective than a lot of the candidates. JayHenry 03:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
26. Support - Dureo 03:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
27. Although we have recently disagreed with each other about the "line" of civil and uncivil comments, I believe that Manning would be an excellent member of the Arbitration Committee. Daniel 05:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
28. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
29. Bob Mellish ( talk) 05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
30. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
31. AniMate 06:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
32. Tvoz | talk 07:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
33. Support for long term perspective. ~  priyanath  talk 08:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Support. A young project needs as much historical perspective as it can get. Relata refero 09:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Relata refero does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

34. Support. Seems to prefer quality and content over process. edward (buckner) 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Indef blocked user Secret ^account 21:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Vote restored per AN/I. The user was in good standing when he voted and his subsequent block was unrelated to this vote. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

35. Throwing my hat in... 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 11:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
36. <<-armon->> 11:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
37.  Grue  14:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
38. KTC 15:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
39. Support. For me, this is the only vote I make without hesitation or need of deep introspection or investigation of the candidate. I know the person well enough from his involvement in wikipedia, though he likely doesn't know me. I don't think I need to say more than that. For me this vote is a slam dunk. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 18:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
40. Davewild 19:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
41. Support - yes, let's focus on the encyclopaedia. -- Schneelocke 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
42. — Ruud 21:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
43. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 22:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
44. Rockpocke t 22:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Support Shot info 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Oppose (see below) reply

45. Inactivity no problem. He'll catch up with ease. — Dan | talk 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
46. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
47. EconomistBR 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
48. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
49. Greg Jones II 02:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
50. support Kingturtle 03:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
51. Support Xdenizen 06:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
52. Support, good answers (clearly the edit count is misleading), and has committed sufficient hours per week to be productive in the role. John Vandenberg 09:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
53. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 13:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
54. Bobet 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
55. No large concerns. Acalamari 17:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
56. Support ➥the Epopt 20:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
57. Support. — CComMack ( t– c) 20:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
58. - Zeibura ^{( Talk)} 22:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
59. Support because we need people to refocus on what mead Wikipedia great in the first place. Guy ( Help!) 22:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
60. Support - appreciate the long-term perspective and focus on content. JavaTenor ( talk) 22:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
61. Best candidate yet.-- Doc^g 22:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
62. Support. -- RG ² 23:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
63. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
64. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
65. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
66. Support Wetman ( talk) 09:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
67. Support. Eluchil404 ( talk) 09:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
68. Sluzzelin talk 09:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
69. I'm Mailer Diablo ( talk) and I approve this candidate! - 14:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
70. Support semper fictilis 15:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
71. This could be interesting. Phil Sandifer ( talk) 17:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
72. Support. -- Delirium ( talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
73. I support the idea of what's good for the 'pedia, and the longer perspective that Manning would bring. SilkTork * ^SilkyTalk 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
74. Support Alæxis _¿question? 18:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
75. Support - jc37 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
76. ~ UBeR ( talk) 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
77. Experience is valuable. Neutrality ^talk 00:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
78. Kusma ( talk) 09:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
79. Terence ( talk) 17:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
80. Support Interesting suggestion about policies being locked, there's been a few times where i've tripped over myself using an old version of policy....nice answer concerning SPOV as well. Homestarmy ( talk) 17:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
81. Tony Sidaway 18:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Impressive. reply
82. I (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
83. Switching to support. On first impression this candidate appeared inexperienced and inactive and wasn’t one of my initial picks. On closer look, there's much more than meets the eye, there’s old history here and Manning edits 90% anonymously for reasons he satisfactorily explains. His core philosophies expounded here and answers overall convince me he is strongly invested in the success of the project and has knowledge, experience and deep insight to be a very valuable asset to Arbcom. -- MPerel 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
84. Support `' Míkka >t 05:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
85. Support-- Russianname ( talk) 09:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
86. Support - Aatomic1 ( talk) 11:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
87. Support -- RelHistBuff ( talk) 15:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
88. Support — An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
89. Support, has unique insights about the project because of his experience when Wikipedia was in its infancy. -- Graham 87 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
90. Support KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
91. Support --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 23:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
92. Support. Deor ( talk) 16:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
93. Jab843 ( talk) 21:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
94. < eleland/ talk edits> 02:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
95. Weak Support SPOV isn't enough to dissuade me. -- \/\/slack ( talk) 04:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
96. Bless sins ( talk) 04:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
97. Support per MPerel. High quality of the candidate overcomes concerns about inactivity. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 17:15, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
98. Support - will be interesting to see how a user frustrated with bureaucracy fares in one of the most bureaucratic parts of Wikipedia. Very extensive experience, honest and open answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 19:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
99. Strong Support - the arbitration committee needs members with experience and fairness who will not get bogged down in bureaucracy. Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
100. the wub "?!" 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
101. Mike R ( talk) 20:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
102. Well thought out and researched replies to questions. Clear focus on what's good for Wikipedia. Good ideas - such as the idea for WikiProjects. (I'm not convinced about the NPOV/SPOV stance, but nobody is perfect.) — Sebastian 00:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
103. Some good question answers. He has low activity only because he hasn't been logged in. —— Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:43, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
104. I'm in. Ling.Nut ( talk) 08:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
105. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
106. Support. Bacchiad ( talk) 14:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
107. Support Saudade7 22:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Nice statement of purpose. Seems ethical. reply
108. Support. This is the best-written statement I've seen of how ArbComm needs to work. Accounting4Taste: talk 01:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
109. Support. For, as has already been said, an old-timer's perspective and a very well-written statement. -- Watchsmart ( talk) 02:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
110. Support Mayalld ( talk) 11:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
111. Absolutely. K issL 16:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
112. Support wbfergus ^Talk 21:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
113. Yes MateHow can a doctor go wrong:) you'll make a great one Taprobanus ( talk) 00:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
114. Support: experience, experience, experience. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
115. Support: We need more old-timers high up in the wikiranks. Dreamyshade ( talk) 11:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
116. Suppport - positive interactions with this user. Admirable commitment to the project. Would be a useful voice on the ArbCom. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
117. Support John Carter ( talk) 15:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
118. Merovingian ( T, C, E) 22:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
119. Maxim _(talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
120. Support Chris.B ( talk) 10:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
121. Support Deb ( talk) 15:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
122. Support NoSeptember 20:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
123. Support dv dv dv d 22:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
124. Support The Evil Spartan ( talk) 05:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
125. Support Although his activity level is a concern for me, he's clearly shown that he'll approach ArbCom cases with a clear head and a fresh, innovative perspective. Plus, he created the WikiProject, which has likely accomplished more in improving the encyclopedia than anything else. szyslak 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
126. Support maclean 09:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
127. Support - what a find! David Lauder ( talk) 19:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
128. Might as well. DS ( talk) 23:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
129. – Steel 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Too inactive This is a Secret ^account 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
2. spryde | talk 00:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Chaz ^Beckett 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
5. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 01:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Alex fus co5 02:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
7. A tough call, but I think I have to agree with "too inactive" :( Zocky | picture popups 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
8. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Too inactive, given that is one of the problems we're trying to fix; as well seems to be a bit out of touch with today's wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10. Hús ö nd 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
12. Fascinating user, but not quite right for ArbCom. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
13. Unfortunately I'm not convinced that you are really ready to commit to significant activity over a three year period. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
14. BobTheTomato 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
15. futurebird 04:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Primarily due to activity level. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
17. Spebi 05:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
18. Only 500 edits since 1 February 2007 - WAS 4.250 07:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
19. Crockspot 08:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
20. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
21. Excellent answers, demonstrates sound judgment, but inactivity is a problem. Shem ^(talk) 09:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
22. Too out of touch. Only oppose I am sorry about. Neil  ☎ 10:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
23. We have enough inactive arbitrators :( Stifle ( talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose for his relative inactivity. Xoloz 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
25. Weak Oppose Man, if it weren't for his inactivity, he would be alright. Mindraker 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
26. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
27. Come back, edit the pedia for a while and apply next year. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
28. As above. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Edivorce 17:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
30. You seem like a good guy, but you haven't really been around the past 12 months, and we can all agree a lot has changed since. My platform is activity, which you don't show, unfortunately. Wizardman 18:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
31. Your last 1000 edits go all the way back to 2004, long before I joined... I guess I would prefer someone more consistently active and in touch with what's going on. Grand master ka 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose Ripberger 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
33. Weak oppose - Only due to your Inactivity or else you were a perfect candidate...-- Comet styles 20:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose Jd2718 21:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
35. Insufficient activity. GRBerry 23:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
36. WjB scribe 23:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose: didn't remember seeing this editor around, so reviewed edits and have to agree with Grandmasterka and others. Jonathunder 02:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
38. Not this year due to inactivity but maybe next year if candidates recent editing spurt is sustained. -- A. B. ^(talk) 03:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
39. A bit inactive. Atropos 05:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Biophys 15:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
41. Strongly oppose. I am disquieted by the candidate's position that all policies on WP should be completely locked and not subject to editing by anyone, including admins within the WP itself. There is more to this discussion; see the talk page Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Candidate's response and further discussion moved to talk page -- ZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence

42. -- Cactus.man ✍ 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. Viriditas 03:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. -- MPerel 04:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC) change to support. -- MPerel 04:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

44. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 11:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose Skinwalker ( talk) 18:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
46. Joe 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
47. SlimVirgin ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen ( talk) 03:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose In the strongest possible terms, this candidate must not be allowed to be an arbitrator as he is so anti-science as to make his statements regarding SPOV almost anachronistic. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    See candidate's response Manning ( talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

50. Sorry, but if you're such a long-term user and I haven't even heard of you, I must conclude your activity level is too low to be an effective arbiter. >Radiant< 23:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
51. Dekimasu よ! 00:19, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose, with regrets. I think you're a decent guy but your statements give the impression of being a little out of touch with what things are like here. answer to SPOV question is horrifying. Raymond Arritt ( talk) 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    See candidate's response Manning ( talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

53. Weak oppose, due solely to inactivity. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 08:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
54. oppose. -- Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 15:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
55. Utterly Not. Candidate's views on SPOV are not only intellectually reprehensible, but the logic behind them is so inherently flawed that I'm left speechless. -- Action Jackson IV ( talk) 20:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    See candidate's response Manning ( talk) 03:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

56. Oppose Shot info ( talk) 04:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
57. Wily D 05:42, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. R. Baley ( talk) 07:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
59. oppose -- Mcginnly | Natter 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
60. Don't know you, inactivity is a concern (we already have enough inactive arbcom members), arbcom is a serious time commitment. -- Aude ( talk) 19:34, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo ^^^ 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose - nothing personal; we need new blood. ( Sarah777 ( talk) 23:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)) reply
63. Oppose = perhaps when you have more time? --健次( derumi) ^talk 02:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose - Unacceptable interpretation of NPOV as it pertains to science. Ante lan ^talk 03:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
65. Tyrenius ( talk) 13:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose MikeHobday ( talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Oppose -- Lucretius ( talk) 03:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, users need 150 edits to article before 1 Nov to vote in this election. WjB scribe 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

67. Oppose Concerns over dealings with science (after reading response). - Francis Tyers · 09:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
68. Terribly sorry to be such a kind person, but I oppose due to lack of time commitment, lack of recent activity, and a big need for new blood. Bearian ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
69. Sarah 12:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
70. PeaceNT ( talk) 16:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
71. Strong oppose. Too few recorded edits. Anonymous editors should not be arbitrators. -- Vision Thing -- 20:54, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 12:47, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose - Too inactive. Risker ( talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose Per Risker. Too inactive, too much of a Jimbot and has failed to answer several questions.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) ( talk) 22:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose on basis of inactivity. JERRY ^talk _contribs 00:59, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
76. Lack of recent activity. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose (weakly). It's difficult for me to fully assess this user's suitability, since by his own admission a large percentage of his contributions have been anonymous. -- Muchness ( talk) 00:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose: The lack of activity is not a thing indifferent. Geogre ( talk) 12:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose As many others have noted, insufficient activity.-- Bedivere ( talk) 13:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Tewfik ^Talk 18:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
82. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose. Inactivity and there are other better candidates. -- Alecmconroy ( talk) 19:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply