My experience is extensive, I have handled more cases before the ArbCom than I can easily remember, all but one decisively successful, and I mediate contentious pages on a daily basis.

I oppose the ArbCom deciding based on its own precedent, and favor rather an interpretation of wikipedia:policy most effective in producing and sustaining an encyclopedia and its editorial staff.

I will be especially severe with administrators who violate policy, misuse their status, and disgrace their office. I will be particularly lenient with new users who clearly mean well, and I am particularly inclined to allow experienced users to act as mentors in such cases.

Rather than thinking of myself as a judge determining guilt and punishment, I will adjudicate based on the needs of the encyclopedia, mindful of the mechanics of Group dynamics and behavior modification.

Questions

1. Haukur 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. BorgQueen 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. – ugen64 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Suuport. KHM03 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. A human being with human faults, opinionated, but I've always seem him make the best effort to be fair. -- DanielCD 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support May be a bit impulsive at times but his heart is in the right place. Haiduc 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Your ideas about recusal are some of the most sensible things said here for a while. Even though, according to your biases, I disagree with you on pretty much everything, I still think you would make a good ArbCom member. Batmanand 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support. Staffelde 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. View of IAR made me fall in almost love with him. Xoloz 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support.-- ragesoss 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. I like his policy platform, and I think that WP:IAR has gotten way out of hand recently, especially with regard to the user box fiasco (which I deliberately tried to stay out of). Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support. I belive on him. He is so open minded, and never narrow, i am sure Wikipedia will surely be safe on his hands. HappyApple 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support kinda crazy and biased, but for some reason i think he'll make an excellent arbcom member- Sam looks out for the little guy. -- Heah ^talk 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support Very intelligent and does not let dogma restrict his thinking. RJII 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Justforasecond 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

17. Support has some interesting views.  Grue  06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- 上村七美 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. — Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support.-- Alabamaboy 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support-- Buridan 16:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support Gryffindor 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support. I'm confident SS would be a very thorough case reviewer. BD2412 T 17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support.Agree with all above, and I have no experience of that below. EffK 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • EffK likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 08:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

25. Support. Dunemaire 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support DTC 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support. Sam has shown unswerving commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia. -- HK 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. Based on my experience in working with Sam or Human ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Good Wikipedia citizen. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Very helpful. Rkevins82 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support for policy. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support: Very levelheaded. — Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support 'es got a level head on is houlders., longf as he keeps his cool Gimmiet 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. I'm going to extend an olive branch here, and say that Mr. Spade is "being bold", and consistently (in)sane in his actions. We don't necessarily agree, but I like consistency and sticking to principle. Really the hardest vote I've cast yet. Avriette 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support. He welcomed me to the wikipedia one year ago and I was watching him for some time what helped me understand it better. I agree with his platform and I liked how he answered the questions. Ben ^T/ _C 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support Ben 10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support, as Heah.  It's is not a genitive  13:41, 10 January 2006.
39. Strong Support Great user that dereved to be an arbitrator since long. -- Neigel von Teighen 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support: a candidate with a vision. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 20:31, Jan. 10, 2006
41. Strong support When there is a person who has no or little experience, you vote "oppose". When there is a person who has extensive experience, you vote "oppose", quarrelsome or not. I give up. I simply don't understand you people. -- Thorri 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support wholeheartedly. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support I rather like the idea of decisions based upon sustaining an encyclopedia rather than precedent. Also, I have found Sam to be a good Wikipedian, and note that most of the oppose votes below are on merely ideological grounds. Vonspringer 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, I was unaware of the 150 edit rule and withdraw my vote. However, if anyone else wants to consider my reasons when deciding their own votes, be my guest. Vonspringer 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

43. Support Morris 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support. Corax 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. Lawrence King 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support-- A Y Arktos 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support, very experienced. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support-- Mceder 03:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support I do not agree with this user's politics, but he has been an effective thorn in the side of the Synarchist faction which controls key articles on Wikipedia, the Chip Berlet- Jeremy Shapiro- Adam Carr- White Dawg axis and their cronies 172, SlimVirgin, willmcw, and Snowspinner. We need more fighters like this on arbcom. Cognition 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Seems like a balanced human being. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Shivraj Singh does not have suffrage; he registered at 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

51. Support -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support - good policy. -- NorkNork 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support - especially like the statement. keith 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support -- Wootonius 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Wootonius does not have suffrage. Only 18 edits before January 9, 2006. — TheKMan ^talk 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

54. Support -- Davidpdx 12:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support - I tend not to agree a lot with him, but he is far from Vindictive, and would should be on the Committee -- Irishpunktom\ ^talk 12:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support. We could use a maverick on Arbcom. I'm not a big fan of Sam Spade but I think he would provided a much-needed differing perspective to the rest of the committee. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support. maclean25 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Velvetsmog 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Lawyer2b 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Strong Support → Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support. Juan Ponderas
63. Support. *drew 02:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Strong support. I was expecting to be opposing Sam strongly, but was pleasently surprised by his responses (see the questions link in the statement section), and it seems that much of the vitriolic nastiness aimed in his direction by more agressive editors is without merit, and the editors responsible should be ashamed. Reading his responses, Sam strikes me as well adjusted, balanced, and neutral. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support-- Wikityke 00:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support Vincent 04:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support Has strong analytical skills and a principled commitment to an evidence based fair process.-- Silverback 06:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support Tiles 09:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support. Has always been helpful. Youngamerican 18:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Ben 23:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    User has voted twice (see vote 36). Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

70. Support. -- Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa ( talk • contribs)
71. Support KTC 12:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 16:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support CDThieme 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Antandrus (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Absolutely not.-- Sean| Bla ck 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Nunh-huh 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. -- nixie 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. No -- Doc ^ask? 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose - IAR is not a joke. Bensaccount 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose -- Duk 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose no way -- Angelo 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose - absolutely not. -- Arwel ( talk) 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. I think not. Johnleemk | Talk 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:31, Jan. 9, 2006

27. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. Don't trust his judgment. Calton | Talk 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose: nothing personal, just not right for this role. Jonathunder 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose Per Ambi and Calton. 172 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose Never ever, not in a million years. Sam Spade is the longest-running and most successful (in terms of the amount of other people's time wasted) of the legion of Wikipedia trolls. Should have been hard-banned ages ago. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose strongly. Rhobite 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Bobet 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose based on questions and temperament. ← Hob 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose -- Daniel 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. RadicalSubversiv E 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Too divisive. Kaldari 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration. Fifelfoo 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration. We need someone with a milder temperament in AC. An An 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose -- Crunch 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. android 79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose per Ambi.-- cj | talk 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose I've heard too many things about this user that I do not think will be characteristic of a good arbitrator. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. Definitely not a troll, but too controversial for an Arbie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose - I think he's got ArbCom potential, but I'd like to see some months of admin experience under his belt before. I opposed his last RfA, I'd support it now. --- Charles Stewart 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. — mark ✎ 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose no way. Because of recent RFC behaviour, and this ridiculous demand: [2]. Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose . — Rama 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Biased, too involved with too many other disputes, would be too distrusted. Axon ( talk| contribs) 10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose From his POV-pushing on controversial topics without even an attempt at NPOV, can only imagine things would be much worse on ArbCom. DreamGuy 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. You have to be kidding. He's basically anti-arbcom. No. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose: Kind of a Pat Paulson candidacy, really, given his behavior. Geogre 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose policy and track record -- kingboyk 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose Xtra 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose David.Monniaux 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose has not handeled disputes well outside of arbcom.-- Bkwillwm 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Strong Oppose would be one of my nightmare trifecta (EK,KM,SS) on arbcom.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose no way.— Dunc| ☺ 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Supercallifragilistic Oppose per Duncharris. Tom e r ^talk 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose, too abrasive. R adiant _>|< 14:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose (vote given by Markalexander100 ( talk · contribs) - EnSamulili)
70. oppose EnSamulili 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. ^{Blank Verse} 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Cberlet 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose. History of POV-pushing. -- Rbellin| Talk 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose Uh, remember you from some articles where you where highly POV and pushy. Foant 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose, per most of the points above.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose quarrelsome. Robert McClenon 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose IZAK 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose Wikimol 18:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose -- Goodoldpolonius2 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose. Exploding Boy 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose Jim62sch 21:41, 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) 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 22:25 Z
87. Oppose -- Pjacobi 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Splash ^talk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Dear God do I STRONGLY OPPOSE. Utterly untrustworthy in every respect. Wikipedia is poorer for him exerting the powers of a user; for him to be given the authority of ArbCom is simply a sickening joke. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose -- Krash 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose. -- Ghirla | talk 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose. Sam generally finds something to stand against no matter where he is - and so do I. Wally 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose. Saravask 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Rob Church ^Talk 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Raven4x4x 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. older≠ wiser 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. oppose -- Irpen 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. oppose Olorin28 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. oppose - behaviour modification? group dynamics? Judge based on the encyclopedia's needs rather than some principle such as Justice? Sorry. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Strong Oppose per Fennec. WikiFanatic 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose Delirium 10:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose - in memory of FuelWagon and Uncle Ed-- ghost 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose - have seen some POV edits on the part of this user. -- Pierremenard 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose — no sense of neutrality, objectivity, or justice (or, indeed, honesty), and a long history of edit-warring, PoV-pushing, and vendetta-pursuing. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
107. Oppose - crossed swords with him one too many times in an edit war. Means well, but aren't up to the job.-- Fangz 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Oppose, too anti-establishment to function as an arbitrator. HGB 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Oppose. Nice guy; he welcomed me, but on the whole I think not. Septentrionalis 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose for the obvious reasons. Although I do give him some credit for actually standing given the inevitable outcome. Rje 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose. Lincher 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Oppose Oskar 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Oppose. Long history of controversy. JFW |  T@lk 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Oppose, but kudos to Sam for standing. -- Solipsist 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. -- Carnildo 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose. His edits and boldness are much appreciated but I worry about his character in an ArbCom role (see some minor personal attacks: [3] and [4]). -- Ds13 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Oppose. A good editor, but his bold personality would probably not be good for an AbCom member. - SocratesJedi | Talk 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Oppose. siafu 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Oppose. Arm 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Oppose. Ultra strong POV Sunray 08:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose. -- Woggly 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose. "My way or the highway" attitude would not be useful.-- Primalchaos 11:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Oppose. Not right for this role.-- JK the unwise 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Oppose. Andre ( talk) 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose. CG 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Oppose. – BCorr| Брайен 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Oppose. Strong oppose btw. Another axe-grinder. Sjc 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose (weak) -- has tried to "claim" some pages in the past. Please don't take this personally. Ashibaka tock 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Oppose. Peter ^Isotalo 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
133. Oppose. -- Viriditas 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Oppose. much too immature for any position above normal Wikipedian status -- LGagnon 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose Not favorable towards his statement. It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Dr. B 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)After reviewing the statement again, I am changeing my vote to Neutral Dr. B 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

135. Oppose, too much controversy -- Francs 2000 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Oppose. -- Optichan 18:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Oppose. Mrfixter 19:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
138. Oppose - he defends racists -- max rspct leave a message 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Oppose. record of decisions/positions does not inspire my trust -- JWSchmidt 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
140. Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
141. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
142. Oppose -- BernardL 13:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC), he is far too dogmatic, not only has he a strong ideological bias, but in the past he has displayed a strong tendency to remain steadfast in his dogmatic pronouncements without any serious consideration or reflection upon dissenting views directed at him. In fact he has been active in campaigns of suppression of independant views on wikipedia. Since wikipedia is plagued by this unrecognized problem, more Sam Spades are the last thing it needs. reply
143. Oppose seems to enjoy argueing rather than mediating. even in the answers to questions about this election he attacks people. didnt even look into his editing history, its a bad attitude for a mediator to be so aggresive.-- Omniwolf 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
144. Oppose. I generally find Sam Spade to a be a intelligent and reasonable person. However, it concerns me greatly that he refused to provide past user names without explaining why. It does not comfort me that "When elected or appointed I will disclose such info to Jimbo and the other arbiters." That makes things significantly worse, because it shows a disdain for transparency, and nothing could be more anti-wiki. Superm401 | Talk 00:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
145. Oppose. Preaky 01:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
146. Oppose. Too many wikipedians with too many questions -- Masonpatriot 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
147. Oppose. Too much POV controversy. -- Donar Reiskoffer 12:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
148. Oppose. Nothing personal. Anyway I suspect he would prefer to be a gadfly. Fastfission 22:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
149. Oppose. Per above. -- WB 02:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
150. Oppose didn't like answers to questions, some concerns over past behaviour Pete.Hurd 04:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
151. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 08:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
152. Oppose - kaal 17:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
153. oppose William M. Connolley 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
154. Oppose - Samboy 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
155. Oppose - CJCurrie 04:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
156. Oppose -- Hoary 09:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
157. Oppose — Phil | Talk 12:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
158. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
159. Oppose -- Hurricane111 20:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
160. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
161. Oppose Oh god no. Secretlondon 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
162. Oppose .:. Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
163. Oppose Don't mean to be pedantic, but he can't even be bothered to spell his statement correctly. The Arbcom requires a bit more attention to detail. Cynical 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
164. Oppose. Pschemp | Talk 07:12, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
165. Oppose Wendell 20:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
166. Oppose User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
167. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
168. Oppose. Appears thoughtful and well-intentioned, but temperamentally unsuited to ArbCom position. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
169. Oppose. -- Angr ( tɔk) 16:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
170. Oppose. Alai 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. weak neutral per Haiduc: His heart is in the right place, but may be a bit impulsive at times. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
3. Neutral: Changed from Oppose. Dr. B 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Neutral bordering on oppose. Thryduulf 22:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply