The last thing I wanted to do is run for arbcom, but from my dealings with the system at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing, I feel that it's necessary to enact some change.

My running is basically a protest against the arbitration process as it is, not against any particular member of the arbcom itself since I deeply respect all of them i've talked to individually. My goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system.

Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if Jimbo Wales interfered in any way, unless he truly does look down upon other Wikipedians, thus destroying the idea that Wikipedia is Egalitarian, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.

You can see some of my ideas for reforming Policy creation and enforcement here. I wish all the other candidates the best of luck, and ask all the voters to let me know what I can do to gain your trust.

Questions

1. Sceptr e ^{( Talk)} 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Candidate has been through hell and deserves recognition. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 00:13, Jan. 9, 2006
5. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
7. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Babajobu 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Cyberprog 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Cyberprog does not have suffrage; he had only 50 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

9. Support has extensive experience with ArbCom processes, for good and bad. Would be an interesting member, with different views to the other members. Would be a useful asset. Batmanand 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support experienced user, which would represent a significant part of Wikipedians in the ArbCom -- Angelo 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support Arbcom reform -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support Karmafist is a dedicated WPian; in general, he upsets only the unjust. Xoloz 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

14. Support. Of the strongest possible type. We need ArbCom reform, this user is dedicated to that. Ronline ✉ 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Yeah, ditto that. Unbelivably strong support--this is exactly the kind of person we need on arbcom; not another member of the old boys network. Pity that too many people won't let him in. =/ Oh well, that's life. Better luck next year. :) Matt Yeager 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support per Xoloz and Matt Yeager. -- Heah ^talk 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. Down with the cabal ;) Kaldari 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support -- Saikiri ^Remixed? 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support Brian | (Talk) 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- Angr ( tɔk) 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support after dealing with the trolls he has faced, I see him to be an excellent arbitrator.-- MONGO 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support - Akamad 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support per Kaldari. Open-minded, and would provide much-needed balance. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • I wanted to vote support, but changing my vote to nuetral after further review. I don't feel this editor is sufficiently dedicated to our goals. -- Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 22:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

25. Support. Good attitude. -- Michalis Famelis 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support Has the experience. Ban e s 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support: initiative, experience, vision. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Reform candidate. — Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Kafziel 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support Gator (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support Gryffindor 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support You're the best! -- Thorri 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support Agree with Jimbo should not have more of a saying in thisprocess than other wikipedians... Foant 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support Idea of mini-tribunals is just what is needed. Robert McClenon 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support, fresh ideas and blood are just what Arbcom needs. Gateman1997 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support. Reform needed. - Xed 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support-- MichaelSirks 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. Rangek 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support for platform (although possibly some of his changes are too bureaucratic, I'm sure those won't pass anyway :)). — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support ObsidianOrder 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support. I had some interaction with him and he did some good as far as I can remember. __earth 12:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support User reform-minded while respecting current system. I like that. Extra processes may create bureaucracy, but sometimes that's necessary. Kerowyn 04:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support-- Lawyer2b 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support as Kerowyn and Simetrical. Robdurbar 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support Solid candidate. -- Jbamb 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Job e 6 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support ---  Guðsþegn –  U T C E – 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Pintele Yid 22:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

52. Support. Lord ViD 02:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support. Preaky 07:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support'. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). I do have some mild concerns about Karmafist's behaviour concerning POTW, on an absurdly molehill question of geography. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support, from Oppose, after some discussion with candidate on my talk page. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support, though I have some reservations, I'm also curious to see how this user would impact the ArbCom in a postive manner -- Masonpatriot 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support. Every parliament needs its George Galloway. Youngamerican 16:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support, one of the few editiors during my un-fair block situaton who actually cared to analyze the situation properly. Certainly deserves a smidge of reconigtion. - Zero ^Talk 18:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. -- Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa ( talk • contribs)
60. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support Tuohirulla 22:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support Jacqui ^★ 20:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support. I like the candidate's statement, and agree with the sentiment. ElectricRay 22:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support I agree that Wikipedia should be for Wikipedians, not élites, cabals and overlords Cynical 22:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Sadly Oppose -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose -- Doc ^ask? 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose SqueakBox 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Strong Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Dmcdevit· t 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose-- nixie 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Shanes 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. TacoDeposit 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose-- Duk 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Raven4x4x 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose -- SusanLarson ^{( User Talk, New talk, Contribs)} 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose Karmafist is objectively unfit to be an admin, much less ArbCom because he is objectively mendacious and abusive. he has personally harrassed me beginning with [1]. more information at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rbj. r b-j 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Weak oppose - proposed reforms are too bureaucratic, but Karmafist is otherwise a levelheaded fellow. Johnleemk | Talk 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose.-- ragesoss 02:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose -- Sarah Ewart 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose, per Johnleemk though I have little interaction with Karmafist the reforms are too bureaucratic. Kit 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose -- Arwel ( talk) 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose Rx StrangeLove 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [2]) — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:01, Jan. 9, 2006

32. -- ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Agree with platform, however. You know my rationale, karmafist. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Rob Church ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. I dislike how he's handled disagreements with other users. kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose - Greg Asche (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose - policy proposal is staggeringly impractical. ← Hob 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just don't think this role is the best fit. Jonathunder 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Strong Oppose Kmccoy states my sentiments well. freestylefrappe 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Strongly. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. oppose Grutness... wha? 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. User has a good heart, but is not yet ready for Arbitration duties. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Evilphoenix ( talk •  contribs) 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Bobet 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose -- Crunch 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. FOo 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose gren グレン 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose -- Tabor 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. android 79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose. — Catherine\ ^talk 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. zen master T 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose per Hob. ～ J. K. 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose ArbCom is not a seat for advocacy, nor is it an election of a political officer (para 3 of your statement).-- Tznkai 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose nothing personal.-- Alhutch 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. siafu 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose - too much love of the mob rampant to be a good judge. Don't like his platform. --- Charles Stewart 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose Cmouse 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. His reforms are completely unworkable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 09:03 Z
65. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. Too quick to judge, and too vehement in his judgements. -- SCZenz 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose -- and ban him while you are at it for gross disruption of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. I like him personally, but he's like Everyking. Just a bit too embattled to focus on the arbcom. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. Fishy. -- Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose I agree with his statement about the election, and I think it's time Wikipedia stopped relying on a God-king. However, I think this user is too confrontational/political to be on ArbCom. -- kingboyk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Agree with others, he has good ideas but too controversial Davidpdx 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose Kingboyk hits the nail square on the head.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose. Lupo 12:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Weak oppose.  Grue  13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose, running for ArbCom in protest in order to massively change it feels like WP:POINT. R adiant _>|< 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. oppose — Dunc| ☺ 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. oppose need to learn to play well with others. novacatz 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose. ^{Blank Verse} 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose. Nothing personal, b/c Karmafist is a great editor, but I don't support anyone who's whole intent in trying to get on the arb committee is to enact massive change. -- Alabamaboy 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose, nothing wrong with the process. Proto  t  c 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. Cannot support; not with his attitude towards existing procedures.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose Alanyst 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose. any user exhibitng {{User allow fairuse}} on his userpage exhibits serious deficit of reason. -- Wikimol 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose-- Sjharte 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose- Jim62sch 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose. History of poor judgment. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose -- Pjacobi 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose. Seems a reasonable fellow, given no conflict, but I don't care for his attitude when he's in a conflict. H e rmione 1980 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose. -- HK 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Splash ^talk 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Oppose. Recent history. You don't "win trust" on an election platform. You win it before. Avriette 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose. Avalon 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose. -- Krash 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. oppose. BL kiss the lizard 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. older≠ wiser 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose -- Interiot 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose -- Alynna 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
107. Oppose - Cannot support given recent history of wheel warring and other unpleasantness I've seen around karmafist. -- Cyde Weys _vote ^talk 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Oppose protest candidacy. Support people willing to arbitrate. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
109. oppose Kingturtle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose He has the temperment of a legislator and this is a judicial position. The two do not go together. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
111. oppose Wizzy… ☎ 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     oppose based on political edit wars and his blind eye to Wikipedia policy TCorp 12:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     TCorp's account was made on December 20th 2005. -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 14:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

113. oppose as per Radiant! et al. Thryduulf 14:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Oppose. I do not believe that Karmafist being made an arbitrator would benefit Wikipedia. Rje 14:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose platform and conduct. Conscious 16:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose Bad attitude. -- EMS | Talk 16:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Oppose. Edit-warrior, PoV-pusher. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose. Recent wheel-warring leaves a bad taste in my mouth. howch e ng { chat} 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Oppose, too inexperienced for arbitrator role, really didn't even start editing until July [3]. HGB 18:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Oppose not really suited by temperment for this role; more suited as advocate than arbitrator. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Oppose - Strongly disagree with reform proposal. Awolf002 20:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Oppose: I don't agree with your reform, so sadly, I vote no. Sorry. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose, Vsmith 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Oppose - Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 04:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 14:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Oppose. Andre ( talk) 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose, statement. KTC 19:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
132. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
133. Oppose-- Carabinieri 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Oppose Fad (ix) 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Oppose protest candidates; be for something, not against everything. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Oppose - not suited, no real goals except disturb arbitration, might slow down arbitration instead of helping. -- NorkNork 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Oppose - goals seem incompatible with the intent of the arbcom. Jakew 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
138. Reluctantly Oppose. Although I agree that ArbCom needs overhaul, your ideas I feel would ensnarl the body in bureaucracy. Velvetsmog 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Oppose. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 22:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose with regret. If anyone could shake up ArbComm, it's K. But does it need that much shaking? No. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) struck by ++ Lar: t/ c 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

140. Oppose. Want someone prepared to actually arbitrate, not someone protesting against it. Superm401 | Talk 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
141. Oppose, I don't think you have the right temperament for this role, from what I have seen of your edits -- Francs 2000 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
142. Oppose. the sour smell of judicial activism -- JWSchmidt 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
143. Oppose, edit wars, POV, bad attitude. - ulayiti (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
144. Oppose Dominick ^(TALK) 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
145. Oppose Chooserr 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
146. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
147. Oppose I can accept standing in protest to the process but... Gnangarra 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
148. Neutrality ^talk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
149. Oppose Nothing personal, but this sounds like a bad reason to want to be on Arbcom-- Omniwolf 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
150. Oppose Vindictive, petulant, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive, abusive and unable to use his admin powers responsibly. Massively unsuitable. Shouldn't even be an admin. Andy Mabbett 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
151. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
152. Oppose, don't want an arbitrator whose "goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system". -- Stormie 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
153. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
154. Oppose Sunray 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
155. Oppose — Phil | Talk 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
156. Oppose. Monicasdude 12:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
157. Oppose - kaal 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
158. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
159. Oppose — some reform ideas have merit, but candidate appears temperamentally unsuited to an ArbCom position. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
160. Oppose not suitable for the arb com Secretlondon 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
161. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
162. Oppose too political - JustinWick 16:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
163. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
164. Oppose Alex43223 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
165. Oppose CDThieme 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
166. Oppose. Alai 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply