I have a good amount of experience with the arbcom from the outside, and I feel confident saying that the single biggest thing it takes is wading through evidence pages - often confusingly ordered and worded evidence pages. It involves reading diffs, and a huge amount of dedication to piecing together what's going on.

This is a change from what the arbcom needed last year. Last year, the arbcom was dealing with cases like Lir, Plautus, and Irismeister regularly, and dragging at them. That's not the case this year - the last slam dunk malevolent user the arbcom dealt with was Plautus, which took them a week.

It doesn't take anyone special to ban Plautus or Lir - I doubt there's a person running in this election who wouldn't have done that. What we need are arbitrators who are willing and able to put in the commitment to the harder cases - to the ones that involve the well-meaning editors with a legitimate disagreement that need to be disentangled, not smashed with a banstick.

Different circumstances require different kinds of arbitrators. And I promise to be one of those different kinds of arbitrators. If elected, I promise to review evidence carefully, and to look at situations with the larger Wikipedia community in mind. Like it or not, arbcom decisions are cited as justifications in policy debates now, and the arbcom needs to be careful about what it says in light of that. A recent near-disaster is the Coolcat case, when the arbcom nearly made a ruling that could easily have been interpreted as shutting down informal mediation. I was one of the ones who pointed out that problem, and if elected, I intend to keep problems like that from happening - without abandoning the need for effective rulings that minimize the need for repeat cases.

Questions

1. Support. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Ancheta Wis 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Someone has to do the dirty work around here, which Snowspinner excels at. -- NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. The Land 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support, SqueakBox 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Only if you get to be co-chair with Karmafist. -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Phil is abrasive, but he gets the job done. The only people he offends tend to be POV pushers or trolls. Johnleemk | Talk 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support -- Arwel ( talk) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support Has an innate sense of doing the right thing and the courage of his convictions. Rx StrangeLove 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support He is capable of playing a different role Fred Bauder 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Calton | Talk 03:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC). Change of vote. -- Calton | Talk 00:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

15. Strong support Snowspinner has long been Wikipeida's sword and shield defending encyclopedic standards from POV pushers and trolls. 172 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support -- Crunch 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Justforasecond 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

20. Support. android 79 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- had good experience with Snow in one messy case. anyone Karmafist opposes is likely to be real good. r b-j 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support, not afraid to take the heat for standing up for WP principles. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 10:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Xtra 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support Meekohi 13:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support mdmanser 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support per Jimbo. Tom e r ^talk 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support -- Habap 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support Robert McClenon 16:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support deals with problems very well through process. Gateman1997 18:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Strong support he held his own against J.G. last year -- CDN99 18:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support, strong committment to the encyclopedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Exploding Boy 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support Coolgamer 21:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support -- nihon 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Rob Church ^Talk 01:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support Un focused 05:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support -- disagree with thinking on policy and actions, but understand a consistent viewpoint and a feeling on what wikipedia should be. Avriette 06:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 07:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support -- Thorri 15:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support Sayeth 16:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support, offset unwarranted feeding frenzy. HGB 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Weak Support, controversial but a good user and seems like decent arbitration material. Ral315 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support. Should be reserved for situations where morosity and stubbornness are the main ingredients to the arbitration case - cuts straight through the accumulated nonsense. JFW |  T@lk 21:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support -- Carnildo 21:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support. enochlau ( talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support. -- Masssiveego 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support. Fine line but think I come down on support side.-- JK the unwise 12:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Guettarda 18:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support Cormaggio ^@ 18:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
56. Hedley 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support Ashibaka tock 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Experience and statement outweighs any regrets about recent history (see list of oppose votes). — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support - experienced, good policy. -- NorkNork 21:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support - Product over policy! — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support Rohirok 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support Lawyer2b 05:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support, good editor, would make an excellent arbitrator. - ulayiti (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support Knowledgeable, experienced, a good thinker. Dominick ^(TALK) 00:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support. siafu 01:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Someone mentioned abrasive, and that's exactly what the ArbCom needs: someone to tell it straight. Cernen Xanthine Katrena 06:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Cernen does not have suffrage; he registered at 07:40, 7 December 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

67. Support. Preaky 02:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support - David Gerard 16:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support — Lowellian ( reply) 18:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. support — Preceding unsigned comment added by William M. Connolley ( talk • contribs)
71. Support - Jake 22:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support (I liked his handling of the Webcomics dispute) Samboy 22:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support Homey 03:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support Likely to do the work, argue positions, and add balance to the Committee. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 03:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support CJCurrie 04:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support. Josh 19:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Strong support Jacqui ^★ 21:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support. Unafraid, courageous. Neutrality ^talk 01:24, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support Carptrash 05:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Has a lot to contribute to the arbitration system.-- Oni Ookami Alfador ^{Talk| @} 08:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Oni Ookami Alfador does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

81. Support KTC 12:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support. Very weill answered questions have removed any doubt I had. Thryduulf 22:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Friday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Haukur 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Ben 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Shanes 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Cryptic (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. – ugen64 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose because of recent wheel wars. Unacceptable behavior for a future arbitrator, regardless of who was in the right. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. — David Levy 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. -- Dragonfiend 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Strong Oppose per his actions at WP:RFC/KM. He's basically just running to attempt to get more influence in his never ending crusade to get whatever he wants. karmafist 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. -- AySz88^ - ^ 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. JYolkowski // talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. TacoDeposit 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. 'Oppose. RfC conduct not becoming of a potential ArbCom member. Batmanand 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose-- Duk 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose -- Angelo 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfCs. Xoloz 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose per Oleg. Kit 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose-- Dlyons493 Talk 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Strongest possible oppose. Already thinks he is the judge round here. Grace Note 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:35, Jan. 9, 2006

39. Oppose <Snowspinner> Feed them. Then they cross the line and you can get rid of them. "Trolling for the forces of good," I call it. ... Getting my oppose vote is what I'd call it. -- Gmaxwell 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. -- ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose - Too confrontational, involved in too many disputes. Paul August ☎ 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

42. Oppose -- per gmaxwell. kmccoy (talk) 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose, too many confrontations; Arbcom should be about resolving disputes, not starting more. We need bold editors, but not there. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose - involved in too many disputes. Ronline ✉ 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Bobet 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose.-- ragesoss 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Rhobite 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose More heat than light. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just probably not the best fit at this point in time. Jonathunder 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Dottore So 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose -- Heah ^talk 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose - Intention seem good but track record suggests too adversial for Arbcom. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Novacatz ( talk •  contribs) 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
54. Oppose No confidence in this editors abiltiy to check his ego at the Wiki door, so to speak. Too adversarial, too many problems with other editors. Hamster Sandwich 05:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose – Doesn't work well with others. – Clockwork Soul 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. FOo 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. Too divisive. Kaldari 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose -- Tabor 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose - However with a bit more seasoning this may change. Netkinetic 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose per Netkinetic. -- Aaron 06:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose unacceptable behavior.  Grue  06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose such transparent campaigning leaves a sour taste in my mouth.-- Tznkai 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. You gotta be kiddin'... Probert 06:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose Did not like the users conduct on RfC Brian | (Talk) 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. -- Angr ( tɔk) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Strongest Possible Oppose, this guy is dangerous just being an admin — Locke Cole • t • c 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. Not a good fit for an arbitrator. Danny Yee 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. I respect his work here, but not a good fit for ArbCom. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose, mainly per RfC/Snowspinner 3; an unacceptable attitude for a future arbitrator. — mark ✎ 08:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. No. Way. Too confrontational, too much abusive behaviour as an admin. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose Sarah Ewart 09:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose Somewhat reluctantly. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 09:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. Too quick to buck consensus, not wary enough of ArbCom being used as a platform for ruling on policy. -- SCZenz 09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose. -- Michalis Famelis 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose -- No surprise, I know. Geogre 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose. Too embattled. -- Woohookitty ^{(cat scratches)} 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Ciao ciao! Same as Kelly Martin and Tony Sidaway, really. -- Peripatetic 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose Dan100 ( Talk) 11:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose David.Monniaux 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Policy. — Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

87. Very Strong Oppose Sorry but I must oppose. Snowspinner just does not show consistantly good judgement when it comes to interaction on WP.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Sad oppose. History of vandal-fighting and troll-killing is solid, but too many recent wheel wars, too much unilaterial action without consensus, and too much WP:IAR tips the scales into the oppose side. Sorry. Let's hope 2006 is better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose.-- Eloquence * 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose. Too block-happy. See this block, which was for a user who had made "personal attacks" only in the most loose interpretation possible. — BrianSmithson 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose improper temperment. Would do poor work and make controversial matters only worse. Sorry. Gator (talk) 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose, the remedies he has proposed in past cases are way too harsh. Also, lack of respect for community consensus. R adiant _>|< 14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose Mark ¹ 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose, too controversy-prone. Proto  t  c 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose dab (ᛏ) 17:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Oppose. -- Conti| ✉ 17:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose Demi ^T/ _C 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose. Rhion 18:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose. Arrogant and disrespectful. Ill-suited for arbitration role. - Xed 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Oppose. Way too confrontational. Pilatus 21:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose. ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 22:12 Z
107. Unbehagen 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Splash ^talk 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Oppose CarbonCopy (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose. A POV warrior who abuses admin powers and scorns Wikipedia policy. -- HK 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose per above. -- Dschor 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Oppose: Rather than appoint to ArbCom, this is one admin I'd recommend de-adminning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Oppose, strikes me as a rogue admin. ~~ N ( t/ c) 00:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Is often right in his numerous conflicts, but is far too confrontational older≠ wiser 02:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose per recent RFC. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 03:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Oppose Olorin28 04:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose. silsor 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Raven4x4x 08:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
     • Oppose -- Kbdank71 14:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) --note this vote was cast by 128.192.128.123 ( talk · contribs) reply
       • Note, this was not me. -- Kbdank71 14:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Strong oppose: this is supposed to be an arbitration committee. Let us not forget what the word is meant to mean... — It's-is-not-a-genitive 15:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose. Recent wheel-warring leaves a bad taste in my mouth. howch e ng { chat} 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Oppose Septentrionalis 19:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose far, far to confrontational Oskar 21:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Oppose -- BACbKA 22:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose. Andre ( talk) 14:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Vigorous Oppose. For many of the same reasons already mentioned. Confrontational, has a piling-on mentality and is arbitrary and unjust in the use of his admin authority. deeceevoice 16:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Oppose-- Gozar 17:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose -- EMS | Talk 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Oppose-- MichaelSirks 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
133. Oppose -- Rye1967 21:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose All in 22:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

134. Oppose. civility is needed even when dealing with dicks -- JWSchmidt 03:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Oppose - Huldra 10:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Oppose - Constant problems with incivility, lack of experience with writing of articles. Zocky 11:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Oppose Hot tempered, abuses administration powers. Kevin baas 00:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
138. Oppose Jared 12:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Oppose - Liberatore( T) 12:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
140. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
141. Oppose. Has demonstably abused administrative privileges more than once. Bahn Mi 19:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
142. Oppose Dr. B 23:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
143. Oppose, too controversial for the position, imo -- Francs 2000 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
144. Oppose. Community concerns. Velvetsmog 01:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
145. Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 13:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
146. Oppose. I have concerns about your methods of arbitrating as displayed on your talk page Gnangarra 16:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
147. Strong oppose. He is controversial and for good reason. On repeated occassions he's blatantly violated Wikipedia policies to delete articles he didn't like which clearly didn't fall under speedy deletion criteria. In WP:COMICS has explicitly stated that he personally is allowed to override consensus whenever he thinks the consensus is wrong. He's had a block on me reversed because it was a) obviously wrong and b) a complete conflict of interest (he refuses to even acknowledge the possibility of a conflict of interest). He has personally threatened to block me for simply inserting a straw poll on a talk page. Read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Snowspinner_2 for a good idea of how much he doesn't care about Wikipedia civility and no personal attacks policies despite strong enforcing them. In short, he rules with his temper and not in slightest bit with objectivity. His philosophy is "the ends justify the means and screw anyone who thinks otherwise" (see [ [2]]). SO many people know he his a problem and should have his admin privileges revoked, it's really just support from a few powerful admins, namely current arbitrators, that he hasn't. Nathan J. Yoder 17:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
     • Rest of comment moved to talk page ++ Lar: t/ c 17:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
148. oppose brought an essentially frivolous case before arbcom (without first filing RFC). Derex 18:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
149. Oppose. Mrfixter 20:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
150. Oppose. Love the experience and the statement. Abhor the contentious tone in some of the 4 (!) RFCs this year. -- William Pietri 23:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
151. Oppose -- max rspct leave a message 23:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
152. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
153. Strong oppose. His recent behaviour is an abomination. Additionally, he thinks it perfectly ok to be one sided in arbitration decisions. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
154. Oppose. I read the question answers, and there was too many plausibly deniable statements and not enough answering the question. Superm401 | Talk 01:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
155. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
156. Oppose. Not the right place for this valued wikipedian. Youngamerican 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
157. Oppose -- Frankly, he should be banned completely... proudly violates policy, gets in wheel wars, is completely the opposite of what we need. DreamGuy 13:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose, Intellectually unqualified and the worst of roleplaying. The Witch 15:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • The Witch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

158. Oppose - kaal 17:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
159. Oppose. -- Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa ( talk • contribs)
160. Oppose from what i have seen creates problems. Not a calming influence. David D. (Talk) 00:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
161. Oppose. After seeing his Template:Expert recovery -- and his statement on TfD that he'll ignore the voter's will and impose his own bias, Wikipedia principles on verifiability and citation be damned -- I can't imagine how he'll be able to act fairly in a judgment role. -- Calton | Talk 01:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
162. Oppose. Gentgeen 18:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
163. Oppose -- Pak aran 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
164. Oppose' Arbitrators must only be those unlikely to every by subjected to arbitration. -- Rob 05:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
165. Oppose, role-player. Wyss 16:25, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
166. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
167. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose Much like universities require publications for continuing tenure, Wikipedian admins should continue contributing to the articles. All I really see in your 500 most recent contributions are Wiki administrative business edits and very little, if any, edits on encyclopedia articles. Author782 08:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

168. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
169. Oppose -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
170. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose. Kolokol 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

171. Oppose. Statement and questions show a good mind, but appears temperamantally unsuited. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
172. Oppose. ‣ᓛᖁ ᑐ 16:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
173. Oppose. -- Grouse 16:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
174. A very poor candidate for the arbitrators' bench. encephalon 19:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
175. Oppose I liked the answers to the questions but this user seems to lack sufficient diplomacy. -- Spondoolicks 22:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
176. Oppose CDThieme 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
177. Oppose. Alai 23:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. I haven't liked what I've seen from Snowspinner lately, but I've liked what I've seen in the past and I like his candidate statement. These two factors balance out and equal zero for me. H e rmione 1980 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. neutral that sums up my feelings too. BL kiss the lizard 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply