Hello all. I've been an arbitrator now for almost 3 1/2 years. I was elected back in August of 2004. The reason I wanted to become an arbitrator was I was very unhappy with how the (then-newly created) dispute resolution process was working. In particular, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654 left a very bad taste my mouth. Plautus was ultimately banned, but only after weeks of unbelievably outrageous behavior that caused several good users to permanently leave. I wanted to join the arbitration committee to make it better serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia - to favor those who do good work, rather than bending over backwards to give 3rd and 4th chances to users who do not share our goals of building an encyclopedia. How far we have come since then.

In the early years of the committee, I authored many cases - not as many as Fred Bauder, but certainly more than my fair share. Owing to time spent on the other work I do here - as an administrator, checkuserer, oversighter, member of the press committee, featured article director, and contributor to the encyclopedia - in the last year or two I have not authored as many cases as I used to. However, I have made it a point to take the lead on some of the more controversial ones (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war). I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on WikipediaReview detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

Just to lay out a few of my other accomplishments:

• It was at my suggestion that the three-revert rule became enforceable. (I wanted to propose it as a principle in a case, but James F. suggested we do it through Jimbo. This was ultimately what was done) It may not be perfect, but it is certainly an improvement over the 100-revert war we were dealing with at the time. (And I mean that literally)
• I created the clerks system. It started out a bit rocky, but I think the program has turned out to be a very useful tool for the arbitration committee, helping to spread out the more mundane activities over a larger group of users.
• I set up the Arbitration Committee mailing list. (We used to use one provided by user:Nohat. After a wikimedia.org mailing list allocated, I set it up, and, along with others, administer it to this day)

I stand by my record as an arbitrator, and if re-elected, I will continue to do so in the same fashion.

• Raul654 ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

1. Support— trey( wiki) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
2. Paul August ☎ 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Full Support-- U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Tim Q. Wells 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
8. BLACKKITE 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9. Support. IronDuke 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10. — Charles P._ (Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
12. Conflicted Support, as I'm not sure we want arbitrators who have/give so little time to the job. But at the end of the day, I still think Raul's independent thinking is needed as a counterweight to certain existing forces and currents within the committee. Bishonen | talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC). reply
13. I trust his reasoning, the only problem I have is his inactivity, and his thoughtfulness thoroughly counteracts that problem. Kei lana 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
14. – Gurch ( talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
15. same thoughts as Bishonen. -- W.marsh 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Chaz ^Beckett 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
17. spryde | talk 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
18. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
19. Experience, trust. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
20. Per Bishonen and Keilana. —  TKD:: Talk 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
21. Gracenotes ^T § 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
22. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
23. 哦， 是吗？( review O) 00:31, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
24. Nufy8 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
25. -- Duk 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
27. Support 'nuf said Mbisanz 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
28. Totally. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
29. Prodego ^talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
30. Baka man 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
31. Quality is more important than quantity. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
32. Statement convinced me.-- Sandahl 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
33. Sluzzelin talk 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
34. Support. R. Baley 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
35. — Elipongo ( Talk contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
36. — Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
37. Star dust 8212 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
38. Captain panda 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
39. Support -- Avi 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
40. Raul was a voice of reason on the Badlydrawnjeff Arbcom case. He actually had the nerve to say that BLP does not apply to dead people. Kla’quot ( talk | contribs) 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
41. Weak Support - Inactivity is a concern, but not enough to oppose or be neutral and not vote. - MBK ₀₀₄ 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
42. A lot of valuable institutional memory would be lost if none of the sitting arbitrators were re-elected. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
43. Prolog 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
44. Carnildo 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
45. Alecmconroy 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
46. Support. Experienced, though I'm a little concerned about inactivity. Nwwaew ( Talk Page) ( Contribs) ( E-mail me) 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
47. Needed for continuity, and I am sure he now realises the need for more active use of his unmatched knowledge. DGG ( talk) 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
48. Weak support per inactivity. Still a fairly fine candidate. -- Core desat 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
49. Raul's commitment and dedication is beyond question in my opinion. Manning 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
50. - Royalguard11( T· R!) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
51.  — master son ^{T - C} 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
52. Support -- Cirt 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC). reply
53. Alex fus co5 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
54. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
55. Support- Dureo 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
56. ~  priyanath  talk 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
57. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
58. Absolutely. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
59. < DREAMAFTER> ^{< TALK>} 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
60. Support. Raul has been a solid voice of reason on the arbitration committee list. Rebecca 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
61. — bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
62. I'm not impressed with his sporadic activity, but he's still far and away the most reasonable sitting arbitrator. — Cryptic 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
63. John254 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
64. · AndonicO ^Talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
65. More activity would help though. KTC 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
66. Cool-headed, reasonable and fair. Peter ^Isotalo 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
67. Support I'm confident Raul is a voice of reason. Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
68. Per Bishonen. Picaroon (t) 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
69. Gotta go with experience. One of our best editors for the longest time. Glass Cobra 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
70. Bob Mellish 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
71. Strong support. Raul is very often right when the rest of the committee is wrong. He has already taken steps to reduce his time commitment at FAC. JayHenry 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
72. One of the few current Arbs who seem to get it. -- Bdj 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
73. Shalom ( Hello • Peace) 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
74. Complete support. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
75. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
76. -- Meno25 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
77. ¿Amar៛ ^{Talk to me/ My edits} 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
78. — Mira 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
79. RyanGerbil10 (Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
80. Guettarda 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
81. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
82. 6SJ7 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
83. Banyan Tree 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
84. TMF ^{Let's Go Mets - Stats} 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
85. If Raul is stupid enough to still want this job, he is welcome to it. Dragons flight 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
86. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
87. Cautious support. I don't know what Raul was thinking in his statement over the Danny RFA, but on ArbCom he has tended to stand up for the correct principles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
88. It would be nice if he were a bit more active, but when he participates his judgement is good. MastCell ^Talk 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
89. Support -- Reinoutr 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
90. Support. A voice of reason. henrik• talk 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
91. Support. After looking at some of the diff links provided by critics below, I have become even more confident in Raul's ability. - Joshuapaquin 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
92. Davewild 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
93. Raul is sane. Sane is good. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
94. Delegation to Sandy should ease the pressure somewhat. MER-C 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
95. Even after a term on ArbCom, he still makes wise decisions that reflect the will of the community. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
96. One of the few people who helped me when I was a newbie. Has the right attitude for building the encyclopedia, it's an honour to support you! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
97. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
98. WAS 4.250 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
99. Support --★ čabrilo★ 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
100. Good judgment, and Raul was absolutely correct when he pointed out the COI issues in the THF case. Shem ^(talk) 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
101. Viriditas 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
102. Solid judgement. -- Stormie 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
103. Stifle ( talk) 11:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
104. Rami R 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
105. He is the only "Old Blood" that we should keep..and a really colorful and friendly character..-- Comet styles 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
106. Support Recent events changed my mind on this candidate, but request he be a little more active in cases. -- Marcsin | ^Talk 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
107. Support. Excellent arbitrating so far, and the only sitting arbitrator who had the nuts to sign a note of dissent to the BLP decision. Splash - tk 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
108. Support Some reservations, including consolidation of power; but, sound judgment trumps many things. Xoloz 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
109. Support Asset to the project and the Arbcom. But please spend more time on Arbcom matters in the future. KnightLago 14:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
110. JoshuaZ 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
111. ~ trialsanderrors 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
112. Support This candidate develops constructed means for conflict resolution. Better than some of the other choices we have. Mindraker 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
113. Support. I appreciate the experience here and his history of good judgement. Mango juice ^talk 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
114. Raul654 is probably the only current ArbCom member who never makes me say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?" when I see their votes. Wily D 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
115. Orderinchaos 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
116. Guy ( Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
117. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
118. Support – AB C D ✉ 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
119. Dalekusa 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
120. Experience and consistently good judgement. the wub "?!" 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
121. daveh4h 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
122. --- RockMFR 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
123. -- Mcginnly | Natter 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
124. Ral 315 — ( Voting) 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
125. I have found Raul654 to be a great user who is trustworthy. Acalamari 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
126. Support. Generally sane, continuity is beneficial. Martinp 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
127. Support Good judgment evident as arbcom member. As for concerns about his level of activity, the fact that he has delegated some FAC director tasks to User:SandyGeorgia will allow him to spend more time on Arbcom matters. -- Aude ( talk) 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
128. Support. - JodyB _talk 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     Support for continuity and institutional memory as much as proven track record. Avruch ^Talk 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     Avruch does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply

129. Support for this comment. It hasn't turned out as badly as Raul feared, but that's partly because he was listened to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
130. Kaly99 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
131. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
132. Support the incubment. Has done a fine job so far. MookieZ 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
133. Filll 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
134. Oldelpaso 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
135. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
136. Smokizzy ( talk) 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
137. Fabulous user. Regards, — Celestianpower ^háblame 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
138. I can't be neutral here; but term limits or institutional memory; sometimes the sole note of sanity or sometimes inactive. Very torn, but voting for sanity as anyone else elected has high odds of going inactive or resigning. GRBerry 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
139. -- Malcolmxl5 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
140. Support - sure. -- Schneelocke 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
141. Support - Shudde ^talk 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
142. — Ruud 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
143. Sometimes the sole note of sanity is right. He's not very active, but when he is active, he is invaluable. One vote from him is worth a dozen from others. -- AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
144. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
145. Zginder ( talk) ( Contrib) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
146. Support Shot info 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
147. Support and good luck! — CComMack ( t– c) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
148. Certainly. — Dan | talk 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
149. On balance, WjB scribe 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
150. Support. Corvus cornix _talk 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
151. VivioFateFan ^{( Talk, Sandbox)} 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
152. Support × Meegs 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
153. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
154. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
155. Wikiacc ( °) 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
156. Keegan ^talk 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
157. COGDEN 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
158. Strong support. @pple complain 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
159. Support. Jonathunder 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
160. Support. I thought this guy was second in command next to Jimbo himself. Marlith ^T/ C 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
161. Support If you love bullshit, you'll hate Raul. And vice versa. Raymond Arritt 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
162. Support - Thoughtful and composed. FCYTravis 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
163. Support - A true force of levelheadedness when everyone else doesn't realize they need to calm down and do the right thing. — Dark•Shikari ^[T] 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
164. — Ryūlóng ( 竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
165. Raul is not, to my mind, a perfect arbitrator, but I suppose that he must be amongst the best candidates whom we have, having, at the very least, stood on several occasions against the Committee's adopting some particularly pernicious remedies. Joe 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
166. Arvind 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
167. User:Krator ( t c) 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
168. Support. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
169. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 13:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
170. JoJan 13:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
171. Support. -- Eloquence * 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
172. Strong Support. However, I'd almost prefer his focus be on the FAC process, which is critical to this project. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
173. Support. Biophys 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
174. -- Y  not? 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
175. Per Splash. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
176. Though I wish Raul were more active on the committee, his perspective is invaluable. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
177. Support-- Aldux 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
178. Support ♫ Cricket02 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
179. Support; this guy has the experience needed for the job. -- Spangineer ^ws  (háblame) 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
180. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
181. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
182. Greg Jones II 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
183. RuneWiki ⁷⁷⁷ 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
184. support - I have found Raul654 to be a good user. Jaakobou ^{Chalk Talk} 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
185. Support for a highly experienced, thoughtful and fair-minded Arb. He may not be the most active on the AC, but he is far from the least. He chooses his battles carefully and renders generally solid decisions. He and I may not see eye-to-eye on all issues, but I respect his opinions and appreciate his hard work.-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
186. Support knows Wikipedia very well and has made significant contributions which had to do with the very way Wikipedia works. Good editor who seems rational and able to remain neutral on ArbCom cases. -- Ynhockey ^{( Talk)} 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
187. Support. Has the experience. I believe his naming a FAC deputy will address any inactivity issues mentioned. - Mgm| ^(talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     support A man in space ( talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     A man in space does not have suffrage. -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

188. Support. -- RG ² 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
189. Michael Snow ( talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
190. Support - Spawn Man ( talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
191. Support - good sense. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
192. -- Conti| ✉ 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
193. Support - Coming out of the woodwork for this one. Raul's had a long run, and his judgement --- although it can be disagreed with from time to time, as any of ours can --- remains a sound foundation. -- Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
194. Support - As this user is one of the bureaucrats running, I had intended a "knee-jerk" support, though after reading the concerns, I did a bit more thinking. While I understand the concerns about activity level/wearing many hats by those below, the arguements of those above (among other things) swayed me. - jc37 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
195. Support-- danntm ^T _C 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
196. Support what could i possibly say that hasnt already Esskater11 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
197. -- MPerel 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
198. Daysleeper47 ( talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
199. Support, Stepp-Wulf ( talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC). reply
200. Support FeloniousMonk ( talk) 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
201. Support -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
202. Support VanTucky ^talk 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
203. support definitely William M. Connolley ( talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
204. Support. Wetman ( talk) 09:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
205. -- MONGO ( talk) 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
206. Trebor ( talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
207. Support semper fictilis 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
208. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
209. Support Lectonar ( talk) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
210. Support The inactivity concerns are understandable, but when all's said and done, he has sound and independent judgement. Desperately needed. PeaceNT ( talk) 16:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
211. Support. Ceoil ( talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
212. Support in the interests of maintaining at least some continuity. -- Delirium ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
213. Support Lack of activity is a concern, but seems to be one of the few current arbitrators sensitive to POV pushing in areas of pseudoscience. Skinwalker ( talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
214. Support Somewhat concerned by inactivity, but I think he's an important independent voice. Iain99 ^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
215. Support Sagredo ^Discussione? 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
216. Strong support. MaxSem^{( Han shot first!)} 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
217. The rock of Wiki. Neutrality ^talk 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
218. Support Modernist ( talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
219. Support - Merzbow ( talk) 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
220. Support — BillC ^talk 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
221. Support Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
222. Support Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
223. Support Grahame ( talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
224. Support -- Action Jackson IV ( talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
225. Support Grandmaster ( talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
226. STRONG SUPPORT -- Mike Searson ( talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
227. Support ~ I don't normally approve of such a spread of power/influence, but has demonstrated rational thought to me, even when surrounded by a lack of it. -- DeLarge ( talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
228. Support -- Absolutely. ScienceApologist ( talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
229. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
230. Terence ( talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
231. Support qp10qp ( talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
232. Tony Sidaway 18:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) An experienced arbitrator and a good, original thinker. We need his voice. reply
233. Kusma ( talk) 19:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
234. Support - Branson03( talk) 21:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
235. Beit Or 21:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
236. Support - need a strong voice on pseudoscience, which is a chronic source of disputes JQ ( talk) 21:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
237. Support - Mature and vastly knowledgeable about the community. BusterD ( talk) 23:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
238. ˉˉ ^anetode ╦╩ 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
239. Support Brusegadi ( talk) 07:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
240. Weak support. I'd prefer you spent your limited time and energy to satisfy your duties as FA director, and I seriously considered opposing as a result of that, but the loss of institutional memory that would ensue is too large to absorb. However, that issue still gives me pause. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 08:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
241. Support-- BozMo talk 10:22, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
242. Support- dave souza, talk 13:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
243. Support — An gr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 16:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
244. Mrabbits ( talk) 20:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
245. Support. Ceiling Cat sees all. -- Gwern (contribs) 21:37 7 December 2007 (GMT)
246. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
247. I dislike such drastic concentration of powers and inactivity, but I agree that his judgement and institutional knowledge is invaluable. Now that you've delegated FAC, I hope you will increase your activity here. I (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
248. I wish there was more activity, but ultimately he gets it right more often than not. AniMate 09:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
249. Hiding T 17:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
250. Support Tony Fox (arf!) 19:18, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
251. Support Trilobitealive ( talk) 21:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
252. Support Zagalejo ^^^ 22:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
253. Support   jj137 ♠ Talk 00:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
254. Support -- Kim D. Petersen ( talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
255. Support Naveen ^{( talk)} 07:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
256. Support changed from oppose so that some particular candidates would have less chance of qualifying.  Grue  10:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
257. Support youngamerican ( wtf?) 13:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
258. Support Ben ja min 15:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
259. Support -- Mark (Mschel) 21:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
260. Support ugen64 ( talk) 06:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
261. Support - concentration of power is bad. But Raul has proven benevolent so far. Warofdreams talk 19:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     Support Experience is a good thing. : Albion moonlight ( talk) 19:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     Albion moonlight does not have suffrage -- uǝʌǝs ʎʇɹnoɟ ʇs(st47) 23:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply

262. Support as an incumbent with an excellent record of accomplishment, with which I hope he can do even more. Bearian ( talk) 20:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
263. — Encephalon 04:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
264. Support The Bethling ^(Talk) 09:35, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
265. Support. Was sitting on the fence for a while, but Septentrionalis and GRBerry reminded me why Raul can be a voice of sanity. Carcharoth ( talk) 11:04, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
266. Support - J Logan ^t: 11:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
267. Support, per Bishonen, Christopher Parham and others. / Fred- J 18:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
268. Support -- Trödel 20:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
269. Saravask ( talk) 04:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
270. Support -- TFCforever ( talk) 05:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
271. Support -- Commander Keane ( talk) 07:19, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
272. Support Has done a good job. Metamagician3000 ( talk) 09:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
273. Support -- Storkk ( talk) 12:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
274. Support Slrubenstein | Talk 13:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
275. Support — Tony (talk) 14:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
276. Support-- Alf ^melmac 21:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
277. Support -- Done a fine job. American Patriot 1776 ( talk) 01:12, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
278. Support -- Watchsmart ( talk) 02:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
279. Support One Support per year; I respect the concerns raised, but Raul has taken steps to resolve his time commitments and his voice of experience will benefit ArbCom. Raul's visibility makes him more vulnerable to opposes than newer candidates; I hope Jimbo will resolve some of the community concerns evidenced in weaker support levels this year by growing the size of ArbCom. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
280. Support --Akhilleus ( talk) 06:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
281. Support--exceptionally trustworthy candidate. Philwelch ( talk) 17:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
282. Support, but am concerned about participation rate. Hopefully if he is reconfirmed he will be more active. Horologium (talk) 18:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
283. Support wbfergus ^Talk 21:32, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
284. Support The incumbent advantage. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
285. Support John Carter ( talk) 15:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
286. Support -- Pjacobi ( talk) 19:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
287. Merovingian ( T, C, E) 22:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
288. Support - Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
289. Maxim _(talk) 00:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
290. Support I have concerns about inactivity, but he has addressed these to my satisfaction. JERRY ^talk _contribs 01:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
291. Support dv dv dv d 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
292. Support Experience. Independent voice. IronGargoyle ( talk) 04:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
293. Support Yahel Guhan 05:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
294. Support, I thought long and hard about an oppose vote for Mark Pellegrini, primarily due to the "us" and "them" theme at the heart of his candidacy statement, but since I think, on reflection, that is merely a brash outer shell, behind which hides the shy and thoughtful real Raul, in the end, I have no hesitation in voting support. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. ( talk) 10:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
295. Support-- nids (♂) 17:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
296. Support NoSeptember 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
297. Iamunknown 22:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Overall, I am in agreement with Raul's judgment; I would appreciate his continuing input as a member of ArbCom reply
298. Support Esrever ^{( klaT)} 07:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
299. Support but worried: Heed not flatterers; flatter none; content trumps format; there are no friends among such dross. Geogre ( talk) 12:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
300. Support-- A Jalil ( talk) 12:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
301. Support his judgments and non-wikilawyering. Abecedare ( talk) 13:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
302. Support clearly a great candidate. Tewfik ^Talk 18:01, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
303. Support — An all around good Wikipedian, with many positive attributes... I especially love what he does at WP:FA. Raul654's voice in Arbcom is absolutely essential in keeping Arbcom (and Wikipedia) on the right course, especially during the divisive cases.-- Endroit ( talk) 18:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
304. Support. Seems the most experienced. Mill cleaner ( talk) 19:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
305. Support. - though "power" concentration and inactivity concern me, overall, good candidate. Woody ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
306. Support. -- JWSchmidt ( talk) 20:48, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
307. Support-- Cailil ^talk 20:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
308. Support -- has kept himself neutral in everything he has done over the years -- T- rex 21:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
309. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
310. Support Batmanand | Talk 22:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
311. Support Tra (Talk) 22:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
312. Full Support You deserve it. -BlueAmethyst .:*:. ( talk) 23:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
313. Support' Yilloslime (t) 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
314. Weak support, primarily because of concerns about inactivity. But given a choice between Raul or some of the others that are running, I would still clearly choose Raul, so I must support. -- El on ka 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
315. Support Giano ( talk) 23:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
316. His soul hasn't been destroyed by his tenure on Arbcom. Let's give him another shot. DS ( talk) 23:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
317. – Steel 23:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Little too inactive for my tastes, also concerns over some recent edit warning This is a Secret ^account 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
2. No thanks.-- Doc^g 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
3. Raul has not been active enough over his past term to justify reelection. Also, he has enough on his plate as Featured Article Director.-- ragesoss 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
4. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
5. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
6. Too inactive on arb cases lately. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
7. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
8. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
9. too inactive.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
10. sorry, but too inactive. ~Sasha Callahan _(Talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
11. Ρх₥α 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
12. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
13. -- Agüeybaná 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
14. Not really comfortable with your COI comments in relation to the THF case. sh ¤ y 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
15. Fred Bauder 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
16. Step hen 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
17. I'm really sorry, but, I agree with all the above. SQL ^{Query me!} 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
18. Anthony 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
19. ➪ HiDrNick! 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
20. B 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
21. Inactivity, time for new blood. Monsieurdl 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
22. too inactive, and the COI comments trouble me. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
23. He should have recused from the THF case. Also, he freely admits he doesn't read the Workshop page, which I think is inappropriate. ATren 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
24. FAC needs him more. Dihydrogen Monoxide ^♫ 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
25. Regrettably, his inactivity as a sitting arb has been troubling. -- krimpet ⟲ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
26. Inactivity is the problem with the current committee. Why perpetuate the cycle? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
27. Simply has too much on his plate, and I have trouble believing he would be able to dedicate the needed time. Otherwise, I would support fully. AmiDaniel ( talk) 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
28. futurebird 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
29. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
30. Aboutmovies 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
31. Per rather low activity only. Hús ö nd 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
32. Sorry, too inactive. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
33. on low activity. Johnbod 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
34. Not very active on ArbCom; already busy with FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
35. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
36. Per his RFA. Too often uses tools to block people disagrees with in an edit conflict; as such, it's hard to trust his impartiality. The Evil Spartan 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
37. Marvin Diode 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
38. I  dorftrottel I  talk I 05:33,  December 3, 2007
39. Inactivity. Isarig 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
40. Raul did a lot of good work, but overall I don't trust his judgement much. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
41. Spread too thin with his FAC commitments as well. Without FAC, I'd support this but FAC needs him more. -- ROGER DAVIES  ^talk 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose : Not fit for any position of authority on Wikipedia : [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] and such more... ~ UBeR 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
43. Thanks, but prefer change. Jack Merridew 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
44. Magnet for drama. < eleland/ talk edits> 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
45. Crockspot 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
46. Too much power. Immature. Punctured Bicycle 08:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
47. Regrettably, he's just too inactive and I'd prefer to have him focus on other areas, and let someone else have a crack at this. Nothing wrong at all otherwise. Grand master ka 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. -- Itub 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
49. Already has too many titles. Poorer judgement than time on the project would suggest. Neil  ☎ 10:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
50. Time for a change. Eusebeus 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
51. -- Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
52. Awadewit | talk 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

     Grue  14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC) changed to support reply

53. -- Cactus.man ✍ 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
54. Friday (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
55. Too inactive on Arbcom in past. Mattisse 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
56. A great user but inactivity has been a downfall of ArbCom in the past and activity is an issue a take seriously for this role. FAC + ArbCom activity is not going to happen in my opinion. Sorry, GDonato ( talk) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose Porcupine ( prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
58. Has been a great voice of reason on ArbCom (Fred Bauder opposing this pretty much proves just that) but we need to try something different this time. EconomicsGuy 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
59. -- Toffile 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
60. I echo the idea that it is time for a change. -- Isotope23 ^talk 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
61. Per FAC, inactivity and need of newer people. — Rudget _{contributions} 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
62. Excellent candidate, but we need some fresh blood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
63. oppose seems a bit judgemental or forthright to have the, in my view, need for sensitivity in an arbitrator. Merkinsmum 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose Edivorce 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
65. Reluctant oppose due to arbcom inactivity. Plus not being on it will give you more time to be featured article director. Wizardman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
66. Too many jobs to juggle. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
67. Strong Oppose. Extended comment moved to talk page Walton ^One 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
68. I firmly believe that term limits (here or anywhere) exist for a reason, and that as a matter of principle positions of responsibility should pass onto others after a given amount of time. >Radiant< 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
69. Kbdank71 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose Ripberger 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose per Mailer Diablo.-- Bedivere 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    AniMate 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

72. Oppose Bramlet Abercrombie 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    No. Chido6d 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret ^account 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

73. Hardyplants 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC) reply
74. non-support -- Rocksanddirt 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
75. EconomistBR 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
76. Too inactive, partisan. Cool Hand Luke 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

    -- arkalochori ^|talk| 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply

77. Disturbing tendency to try to vote his political opponents off the island, per THF and Childhoodsend incidents. Groggy Dice T | C 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
78. RxS 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
79. Dekimasu よ! 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose I like you though. Atropos 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose -- DHeyward 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
82. kmccoy (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
83. Cronholm ¹⁴⁴ 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
84. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
85. John Vandenberg 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
86. Good guy, but time to de-concentrate power. -- Robth ^Talk 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
87. An asset to the project in many of his roles, but not the best for ArbCom. -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose Great candidate, but already overworked. -- Bfigura ^{( talk)} 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose, too much power. Give up your adminship or featured article directorship.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
90. Excellent credentials, but has too many hats and not spent enough time in this one. Everyone has been complaining about the inactivity of the current arbcom, so why perpetuate the problem? Give him a break and maybe he will come back keener next time. Gatoclass 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose Good guy, overworked. -- SECisek 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose Noor Aalam 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose as per inactivity concerns and concerns over some dubious admin incidents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
94. Sorry, but edit warring and blocking IP's you don't agree with is not something I like to see in an arbitrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
95. Sorry for opposing, but you need to drop one or two of your other jobs, you're way too overworked-- Phoenix-wiki ^{( talk · contribs)} 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
96. - Zeibura ^{( Talk)} 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose Haber ( talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose Noroton ( talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
99. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord ( talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose Ruy Lopez ( talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose Peter morrell 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
103. Very strongly oppose. Per UBeR's very telling diffs, The Evil Spartan, Ryan Postlethwaite, and Fred Bauder... Extended comment moved to talk page Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
104. Strong oppose. Abuse of power. Exactly the kind of cop you don't want to deal with on the road. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose Andrwsc ( talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose. While I think it is remarkable that you still want the job (seeing as most people bow out after much less than 3 years), I am concerned that you do not have enough time to devote to ArbCom. I'm also still amazed that Ernest Emerson made it to the front page, and that you defended it. -- Fang Aili ^talk 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
107. Oppose, per above concerns. Dreadstar † 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
108. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Sorry Raul, if I could support any candidate, it would be you. Gentgeen ( talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
109. SashaNein ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose Alæxis _¿question? 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
111. Thatcher131 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
112. Tintin 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
113. Samsara ( talk •  contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
114. Oppose I remember an occasion where you opposed a principle chastising someone for insulting another editor, on the grounds of WP:SPADE, and I don't think that kind of attitude is something an arbcom member should have. Homestarmy ( talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose I do find problem in the attitude based on your election statement pruthvi ( talk) 20:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply
116. Strong STRONG Oppose You were the mastermind behind the secret ArbCom list? That frightens me. Sukiari ( talk) 01:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
117. D_arkF_alls ^talk 04:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose Hey, take a break. There are over thousand of admins here. Not that I am afraid of gerontocracy, in addition to all other stupid accusations towards wikipedia cabals, but really, the strength is in multitudes, not in veterans. `' Míkka >t 04:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
119. Oppose - Jeeny ^(talk) 05:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
120. Oppose - Miranda 21:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
121. Wolfman ( talk) 22:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose for 3RR block, incivility, and questionable use of power; he protected a page in which he was involved in a content dispute; closed as successful an RfA at 69%, and resysopped without RfA a user who shortly after giving up adminship had been blocked for disruption. Tim Smith ( talk) 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply
123. You've done credit to yourself and arbcom, but I think it's time for some rotation.-- Kubigula ( talk) 05:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose per Ragesoss -- Graham 87 06:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose KleenupKrew ( talk) 13:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
126. I like the suggestion of rotation. SilkTork * ^SilkyTalk 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply
127. Oppose - Perhaps when you're not so busy? --健次( derumi) ^talk 02:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose. One reason for my oppose is the number of articles that Raul654 created but are completely unsourced. This puts into question the candidate's understanding of WP:V. Otherwise, however, he is a good wikipedian. Bless sins ( talk) 03:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
129. Oppose, To many reasons to state here. Prester John ^{-( Talk to the Hand)} 05:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
130. Oppose -- activity concerns. - Longhair\ ^talk 11:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose -- I tend to agree with UBeR that he is not fit for any position of authority on wikipedia, but I give 2 specific Reasons for this vote: 1. Too many titles and positions and he has been so inactive on Arbcom that he does not merit a return and 2) he is sometimes a vicious antagonist in disputes calling opponents names and then justifying his bad behavior as "good" contrary to wikipedia standards of conduct. This is not the perspective we should see from an Arbcom member. -- Blue Tie ( talk) 15:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
132. Oppose, because of the latest turmoil related to Durova's misuse of powers. Wikipedia has stalled for now, Raul654 won't bring anything good. DariusMazeika ( talk) 18:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
133. Oppose due to inactivity and deep disappointment in his name-calling. Admins and ArbCom members should be above the fray instead of deeply stuck in the mud. - Krakatoa Katie 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
134. Oppose FlashSheridan ( talk) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
135. Oppose Ealdgyth | Talk 19:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
136. Oppose per harassment of editors he disagrees with and pointy actions at times. David Fuchs ^{( talk)} 20:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
137. Oppose Eóin ( talk) 22:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
138. Chrislintott ( talk) 23:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply
139. Oppose - this editor is overworked in other areas Sarah777 ( talk) 00:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
140. Oppose I'd be neutral, but we need a fresh face. -- \/\/slack ( talk) 04:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
141. Oppose Been there too long, and been too inactive. Time to step down for a while. Ashdog137 ( talk) 05:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
142. Oppose I'm inclined to see long-term incumbents take some time off from ArbCom. Sχeptomaniac ^{χαιρετε} 17:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC) reply
143. Oppose - not so much because I think that there is any particular problem with you being on ArbCom, but because I would like to see more rotation on the committee and less centralization of power on the wiki - and you have been on ArbCom for over three years with the additional post of Featured Article Director. Nihiltres^{{ t. l}} 00:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
144. The only time I would ever vote Yes to Raul is if we got the chance to deadmin him. I strongly oppose his being given positions of power of any kind. Grace Note ( talk) 04:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
145. Power concentration and rotation puts me on the ropes. hbdragon88 ( talk) 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
146. Strong Oppose - overly restrictive and intolerant of opposing perspectives. strongly oppose giving Raul any power on Wikipedia. Luqman Skye ( talk) 06:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
147. Oppose Raul654 has been rather inactive recently; FAC needs him more. Moreover, feedback from others (and his conduct on global warming-related articles) suggests that I cannot trust him. -- J.L.W.S. The Special One ( talk) 10:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
148. Very strong oppose - per Grace Note, Krakatoa, Bless sins, Luqman Skye, and others. Cri du canard ( talk) 12:16, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
149. Oppose I respect Raul for all the work he's done (and done as well as could be). However, I am in both the "need new blood in ArbCom" and "FA needs you more than ArbCom does, dude" camps. Ling.Nut ( talk) 15:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
150. Oppose - He is spread too thin for both FA and Arbcom. -- Allen3  ^talk 16:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
151. Strongly Oppose Not sure how Raul can be expected to arbitrate anything. He was invloved in a content dispute and instead of using any sort of arbitration methods, assuming good faith, and trying to discuss the issue in a civil manner he simply left talk page messages that added fuel to the fire: [7], [8], [9]. I also completely agree with oppose vote numbers 36, 42, 44, 46, 63, 67, 77, 93, 94, 103, 104, 131, 144, 146. Elhector ( talk) 19:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
152. Mike R ( talk) 20:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply
153. Oppose -- Pixelface ( talk) 03:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC) reply
154. As I am looking for conflict resolution skills, I am troubled by "I consider it a badge of honor that many [trolls] detest me". These "trolls" are doing a better job at backing up their claims with links here than the candidate and his supporters. — Sebastian 20:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC) reply
155. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 23:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply
156. Oppose on the evidence alone, we need cooler heads. Rgds, -- Trident13 ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
157. Oppose Participated in Arbcom kangaroo court including voting on items for which no evidence was introduced. -- SEWilco ( talk) 04:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
158. Oppose. Met the man in actuality. His personality seems a bit too domineering for a role which requires cooperation among several members and a clear view of truth, and I am not enthused that he seems devoted to promoting adversity with people who are not even on the site. Sorry! eszett ^talk 13:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
159. Oppose. Seems like a nice person but not as good for the job as Rebecca. Mrs.EasterBunny ( talk) 17:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply
160. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen ( talk) 01:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
161. Oppose. -- MediaMangler ( talk) 05:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
162. Oppose not active enough. Hut 8.5 15:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
163. -- Vintagekits ( talk) 18:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
164. Oppose. Too much on his plate. Inactivity's a concern. -- Wikipedical ( talk) 21:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
165. Oppose -- Peta ( talk) 22:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
166. Oppose. Sweetfirsttouch ( talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC) reply
167. Oppose - Does not seem active enough to help speed up cases. Garion96 (talk) 22:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
168. Oppose I think Raul doesn't have enough time to dedicate to Arbcom, and should only participate if he can give 100%. I don't believe he can. LuciferMorgan ( talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
169. Nigosh ( talk) 22:53, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
170. -- Aqwis ( talk – contributions) 23:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply
171. Oppose deeceevoice ( talk) 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply