Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/Can't sleep, clown will eat me

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Statement[edit]

Hello everyone. It has been an honor to work closely with Wikipedia for over a year now, and I look forward to this opportunity to serve on this committee. In addition to contributing as an administrator on the English Wikipedia, I also assist with the unblock-en-l mailing list and OTRS queries as well. I cannot say with any certainty how many edits I've accrued; the edit counters tend to crash after passing the 50,000 mark. ;-)

Simply put, I will always try my best to carefully consider all sides of an arbitration case, to be as fair as possible, and do what is best for the continued existence of our encyclopedia. Thanks for your time, I look forward to any questions you may have. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 00:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. Very active Samuel 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support: From what I've seen, you are a reall good choice. MelicansMatkinTalk to me! 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support: I interacted MANY times with CSCWEM and I am sure he will do a great job. --Deenoe 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. (edit confict) Support - MER-C 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Alex Bakharev 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -- AuburnPilottalk 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support I have seen Clown will eat me doing the rounds many a time and despite never interacting with him, I believe he is a strong candidate and he will do a great job.Steve355 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Grafikm (AutoGRAF) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. DVD+ R/W 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BhaiSaab talk 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. CSCWEM seems to have popped into many pages I have worked on in the past, and his contribution has always been postive as far as I remember. Support. Grouse 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. --210physicq (c) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - crz crztalk 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Switched to Oppose - crz crztalk 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Nufy8 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Hello32020 00:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Titoxd(?!?) 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support Librarianofages 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support Sam 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Khoikhoi 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Coredesat 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Alphachimp 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 01:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ars Scriptor 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. --Darkdan 02:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. KPbIC 02:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. ßottesiηi (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. —Mira 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. --Michael Johnson 02:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support MojoTas 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    Less than 150 edits Jaranda wat's sup 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support. I'm not awfully familiar with this contributor, but he seems a reasonable candidate, and there's such a lack of really good candidates that I'm prepared to take the chance. Rebecca 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Húsönd 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support: from what I've seen of him, he's intelligent and reasonable. - Che Nuevara 03:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Clown works hard and does a good job.--Hokeman 03:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support, responsible and trustworthy. Wouldn't offer himself for the job if he wasn't prepared to take it on. Dekimasu 03:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -THB 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support -- Funky Monkey  (talk)  04:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support -EnsRedShirt 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support -Ethicalhacker 04:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 edits Jaranda wat's sup 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Go ahead. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Terence Ong 04:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 05:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Support I'm sure he will do a great job! --Phenz 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Weak support. I don't see all that much experience with edit wars or mediating, but a lot of other experience. Maybe that will turn out to be a good thing. --Gwern (contribs) 05:25 4 December 2006 (GMT)
  46. Weak support - an excellent, reasoned, and consistent contributor to AfD, although I can't vouch for him in other contexts. --Hyperbole 06:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support -- Tawker 07:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support -- MatthewMastracci 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support -- Mytwocents 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Strong Support  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. — CharlotteWebb 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support. Dr Debug (Talk) 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. --Bduke 10:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support Impressive admin. --Dweller 10:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω Wiki Me Up ® 10:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Martinp23 10:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Warofdreams talk 11:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. As far as I know, the clown knows more about policies and the process than many of our present admins. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Coulrophobic Support :) Glen 12:21, December 4, 2006 (UTC)
  61. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support yandman 13:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support --CBD 13:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support --Thomas.macmillan 14:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support Dina 15:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Ge o. 17:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support ... I don't always agree with this user, but he's usually right. User:Pedant 18:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support. Must agree with what Grouse said. When I see him contribute, he contributes well. Erath 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. --Myles Long 19:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. Interactions with this user have been good in the past, and that counts for everything with me. Plus, I always appreciate short and sweet statements. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. —JeremyA 20:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. --Howrealisreal 20:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Mega-Support -NickSentowski 20:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Strongly Support CMacMillan 21:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support - Unfortunately don't know him that well, but like everything I do know. Badbilltucker 22:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support Generally positive interaction with user--Wehwalt 22:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support--Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support - I have seen this user's edits pop up on numerous articles I watch and am very much in favor. -Porlob 22:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support great anti-vandal in my experience. Travb (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support •Jim62sch• 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support RFerreira 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Gurch 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Great job as an admin. WikieZach| talk 00:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. JYolkowski // talk 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. TSO1D 01:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support - Kevin 01:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Yarnalgo 01:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Seems to be everywhere at once! Royalbroil T : C 02:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support Agent 86 03:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. riana_dzasta 03:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support IrishGuy talk 03:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. Single-handedly keeps Wikipedia running smoothly. Kaldari 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support. Silensor 06:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support. Shinhan 07:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support - I hope in your time, if successful, you will find time to write more articles. Mkdwtalk 07:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support 101 ~ trialsanderrors 07:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support - Already a fair admin when it comes to AfD debates. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support ST47Talk 11:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. —Serein 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Evan C (Talk) 11:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. —Nightstallion (?) 13:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support.--Splette :) How's my driving? 14:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support . Carptrash 14:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Everytime i run into his work i like what i find.[reply]
    Support :Is it Steak?<Xiaden's Homepage> 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC) same reason as above[reply]
    • Xiaden does not have suffrage; he had only 53 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 15:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support A name I really recognize around here. Seems to understand what this is all about. -Drdisque 15:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. If we were ranking our choices, this user would be hands-down my #1 pick. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support. --Muchness 15:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support.--Isotope23 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - While I sympathise with the hesitancy of the opposers below, in my experience, this Wikipedian has shown a good atiitude, has performed some difficult closures on AfD, and has dealt rather well with vandals and vandalism. I have little doubt that, if elected, he will be a thoughtful, discerning member of the arbitration committee. - jc37 16:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support - per Jc37. Rlevse 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Advanced 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support. Seems to have an open mind. That's exceedingly rare among menu items today. --JJay 20:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support Per JJay and the fact that I too have recognized this user name before--looks like a great choiceBenje309 21:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Seems like a good enough guy. No obvious editor abuse even though appears all over the place. Justforasecond 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. Sahasrahla 21:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Andre (talk) 21:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support - has my confidence. Metamagician3000 23:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - as level headed as I've seen on this site.-Localzuk(talk) 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support --*Kat* 01:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Yamaguchi先生 01:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support —ptk✰fgs 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support - you've got my vote, I don't like vandals.--Just James 04:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support- Very active vandal remover.schgooda 04:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Septentrionalis 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support EOBeav 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • EOBeav does not have suffrage; he had only 110 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 09:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support. DMacks 06:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. supportDGG 07:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. support --Lukobe 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support I echo Localzuk's sentiment about level headedness which is a priority for Arbcom members. Agne 08:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support Ruthfulbarbarity 08:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Xtra 09:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support. He amuses me. __earth (Talk) 10:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support In addition to his sterling record here on Wikipedia, he has helped protect me on long nights by standing as an eternal reminder of what cruel circus-y fate would await me should I fall asleep. Pseudo Intellectual 10:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support DemosDemon 12:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support Fred Bauder 14:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support. The sort of persons that do things right quietly. --14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pkchan (talk • contribs) 14:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 16:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support The Fox Man of Fire 16:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support A superb admin who wil ldoubtless be a superb arbitrator.--Runcorn 18:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support A very good sensible civil user that works hard to protect Wikipedia ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 18:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support he's very active and appears to be totally dedicated to wikipedia. Taco325i 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. SupportI have found him to be a fair, wise and a balanced (looks at the facts) Admin. Not to wordy with a “Judge” like demeanor and yet very human and accessible. PEACETalkAbout 20:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. Kafziel Talk 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support I've seen this user in a few disputes and I've been impressed by how he carried himself. I think CSCWEM's dedication to the project will translate well to arbcom. ---J.S (T/C) 20:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Sakurambo 桜ん坊 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support. Wikiolap 22:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support Dirtydan667 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Always been level headed and reasonable as far as I know. delldot | talk 22:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Can't vote, Wiki will eat me (or support) Georgewilliamherbert 00:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support - Bumped in the clown, working at all hours, and the clown scares me. We all need a sense of humor to get through all the JUNK out there. Markco1 00:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. support, he does good work as far as I can see. --Kt66 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 01:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support My personal interactions have been good. Thesmothete 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Mallanox 01:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. support Yuckfoo 03:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support Montco 04:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support Subwayguy 04:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support `'mikkanarxi 04:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support Fresh and persistent positive force who keeps The Right Thing in mind. — EncMstr 05:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Fram 10:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support I can't imagine why anyone would be questioning his experience. James086Talk | Contribs 11:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support Very experienced guy.--Indianstar 12:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support I certainly trust him to do a good job.--Brownlee 12:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support - yay CSCWEM for President!!--Holdenhurst 13:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support - OK by me. Deb 17:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support - go for it. Ronnotel 18:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support - Kyra~(talk) 19:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support - fdewaele, 7 December 2006, 21:01
  175. Support Oldelpaso 20:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support - has been very fair in past dealings SteveHopson 20:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support Excellent admin and widely respected which is important for ArbCom members. Pascal.Tesson 22:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support. --Gene_poole 23:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 01:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support HGB 07:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Support Gasheadsteve 11:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support --Andeh 13:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support Futurix 13:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support. utcursch | talk 14:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Kristod (talk) 14:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Gentgeen 22:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support - Tireless worker, obviously available, good answers to the questions. One negative: edits so much may need to recuse more than normal. — edgarde 23:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support -- Renesis (talk) 23:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support Zotel - the Stub Maker 00:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support -- FireSpike Editor Review! 04:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support I think you could be a great ArbCom member! -- lucasbfr talk 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support Always had a positive opinion of this editor. Quite involved in various aspects of Wikipedia maintenance, and I have never seen a comment or decision that was not even handed and well thought out. I give my full support. --Jayron32 06:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support Canadian-Bacon 07:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support. Although I understand the hesitancy that some "oppose" voters have expressed due to CSCWEM's lack of mediation experience, CSCWEM has shown excellent judgment in other areas of Wikipedia and would, in my opinion, be a fine arbitrator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support.. I'd support him on a boat, in a moat, while I float, etc. ... aa:talk 09:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support. enochlau (talk) 12:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support. Met you on IRC, have dealt with you before. Good person, good manner, very fair and balanced. Will make an excellent ArbCom member. Thor Malmjursson 15:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. Soccer fan 15:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support.John Foxe 15:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support.Ucanlookitup 16:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support. He's contributed well to a number of articles I watch. Grika Ⓣ 18:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support.--Ioannes Pragensis 19:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support Shamess 21:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support Kevin Baastalk 21:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support Tyson Moore es 22:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support--Eva bd 22:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support I see this guy EVERYWHERE. –The Great Llamamoo? 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support I can't count the number of times I've gone to look into a thorny issue, and found it resolved by this editor. Waitak 01:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  211. —freak(talk) 02:04, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
  212. Support Good man to have in a storm, he can be counted on. TomStar81 (Talk) 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support.  Grue  09:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Very active, very positive, very balanced. Odd name but then so's mine, I suppose. Skyemoor 10:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support CJCurrie 11:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support James E. Zavaleta T C E 16:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support CSCWEM ftw! Yes opposers he is anti-vandal, but also very level-headed, good-humoured and fair. FiggyBee 17:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support He's active, responsive and merciless with serial vandals. A credit to wiki. I elliot 17:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I elliot does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 20:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support --ManiacK 20:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support - C mon 22:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support Brian | (Talk) 22:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support - I'm always impressed by this editor's actions. --Kubigula (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support. Rhobite 01:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support. AucamanTalk 04:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support -blue520 06:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  227. Support Seen quite a few edits, knows what's going on. Fr0 09:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Mexcellent 13:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support Tends to be right about things. Vizjim 13:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support. I'm unimpressed with the knee-jerk Oppose votes; "more experience" matters if the editor has more to learn about Wikipedia. CSCWEM doesn't. Ravenswing 17:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Support. A.M.962 19:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Tis true, we haven't seen much of his dispute resolution skills on mainly (mainly anti-vandalism stuff), but, I do believe that he has them, and that they will be put to good use on the Arbitration Committee. --Cyde Weys 19:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  233. Support, perfect candidate for ArbCom. haz (talk) e 19:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  234. Support, I have nothing but good things to say about this user's contributions. Anom8trw8 20:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  235. Support. I disagree with this candidate's response to question 4 from AnonEMouse; in my opinion, writing very good articles is more valuable than being an administrator, though I do agree that each person should be treated fairly and evaluated on their own merits. My interactions with this user have been uniformly great and I believe he would be a valuable and productive member of the Arbitration Committee. Were I ever "brought before the Arbitration Committee", I would feel happier with this person on the committee. --Yamla 20:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  236. Support Eusebeus 21:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  237. Support --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  23:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  238. Support based on prior experience with this editor. --Aranae 01:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  239. Support A great Wikipedian. Regards, Nick—Contact/Contribs 02:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  240. Support Good judgment. Fantailfan 02:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  241. Support One of my favorite Wikipedians in terms of the fine work he does. --Woohookitty(meow) 03:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  242. Support. Peyna 06:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  243. Support. Gargaj 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  244. Support My only criticism is the freakish picture of the clown on his userpage. Yes, I have a problem with clowns. ;) metaspheres 10:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  245. Support Have often seen his good work on articles I've edited. --JimmyTheWig 10:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  246. Support. Lincher 12:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  247. Support -- weirdoactor t|c 19:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  248. Support. Style is all. AJD 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  249. Support. -- Based on recent positive experience with this Administrator. Gryffon 05:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  250. Support. I've always seen good work from him. I'm sure he'll rise to the occasion.'--Bkwillwm 05:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  251. Support. I too have only seen good work from him with an equally good sense of humor. --The Way 07:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  252. Strong support an almost ideal arbcom candidate --rogerd 12:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  253. Support. Intelligent, sensible administrator with unquestionable dedication to the project. Lack of answers to voter questions is a bit off-putting, but consideration for Real Life must be given, even to ArbCom. A Train take the 16:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  254. Support, very active and seems reasonable. bbx 17:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  255. Support, a lot of energy and a seemingly open mind.--Stephan Schulz 17:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  256. Support,SammytheSeal 18:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  257. Support I have often seen activity from this user. Prolific and dedicated. LittleOldMe 18:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  258. Weak Support The edits I've seen made by this editor have been helpful. I don't know enough about this person though to give my unconditional support yet. Jsw663 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  259. Support Oskar 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  260. Support dedicated, hates vandals, what more could one want?! ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d(Suggestion?|wanna chat?) 20:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  261. Support Ansell 21:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  262. Support Good luck. Robovski 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  263. Support. Has done some excellent work in the past. Valley2city 03:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  264. Support The answers seem a bit too pat, but the overall output indicates a lot of dedication. Haphar 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  265. Dedicated + reasonable + knowledgeable + trusted = support. the wub "?!" 11:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  266. Support--Twintone 15:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  267. Support-- candidate understands the issues with controversies regarding science on Wikipedia well. --ScienceApologist 16:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  268. Support-- Diligent and diplomatic. -- Shunpiker 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  269. Support. 'nuff said - HammerHeadHuman 18:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  270. Support. Hall Monitor 18:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  271. Support. Freshacconci 20:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  272. --Kbdank71 21:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  273. Support I don't care if he seems to focus on specific problems; so long as he does that well. Bladestorm 00:28, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  274. Support Definitely one of the good guys. SteveBaker 07:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  275. Support --Dan027 12:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  276. Weak support, great editor, but answers could have been much better. Voretustalk 14:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  277. Support I trust this user. Bastiq▼e demandez 20:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  278. Support a candidate who knows which questions are worth answering ;-) - Marcika 20:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  279. Support. --Túrelio 22:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  280. Support. Does a very good job. --MPD01605 (T / C) 22:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  281. Support. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 23:16, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  282. Can we get this one up to 300? Scobell302 00:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Cleo123 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  283. Support Definitely. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail 05:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  284. Support - this is the only candidate I recognize by name. As for the opposition - I think a focus on policy is not needed to be an arbitrator, as one can read and digest the relevant policies and precedents as each case comes up. This is especially true given how fluid some policies are. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  285. Shows good judgement. —Xyrael / 22:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  286. Support Homestarmy 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  287. Support Bless sins 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  288. Support Krich (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  289. Support I have seen this member around a lot and have seen some great work out of them many times. I think this member will be an excellent arbitrator.  Orfen User Talk | Contribs 03:01, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  290. Support --WinHunter (talk) 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  291. Support Stirling Newberry 10:24, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  292. Support After reviewing his contributions and committment to accuracy. BillMasen 12:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  293. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  294. Support. Have run into many times and seems like a very active and fair user. --Czj 16:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  295. Support I've seen good things from this user. Stardust8212 17:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  296. Support --Chris S. 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  297. Support -- Lowris 19:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  298. Support --Bondego 20:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
  299. Support --Mikecraig 21:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  300. Well, I'm not editing regularly anymore, but having seen this page, I've decided to cast support vote number 300! Editor88 21:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  301. John254 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  302. Support. Somebody else above said that this is the only candidate they know by name; I guess that comes from having such a memorable handle. I, for one, recognize a few others, but I do think he's worthy of support. *Dan T.* 22:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  303. Support. Everytime I notice this admin he's doing good. -Will Beback · † · 23:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose Drizzt Jamo 00:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Good guy, but I'm concered if he knows alot about policy, all I see is vandal reverts and AFDs, May change vote later but for now. sorry. Jaranda wat's sup 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose Jd2718 02:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose AmiDaniel (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. pschemp | talk 02:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda hit it. Does great work, but I'm not seeing the right sort of experience for this job. --RobthTalk 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Jaranda and Robth ^demon[omg plz] 03:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't see any answers to questions. If I am missing something tell me and I will reconsider. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Excellent admin, but needs more breadth of experience on policy level for arbcom. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. semper fi — Moe 05:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Strong oppose because no questions have been answered (I have reviewed CSCWEM's answers, but still do not support.) BigDT 05:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. A failure to answer questions in a timely manner here presages a failure to respond to the demands of ArbCom in a timely manner. ArbCom does not need more silent partners or long turnaround times. Serpent's Choice 05:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Certainly an editor and admin whom I think anyone would do well to emulate, but perhaps not yet well suited for ArbCom. Joe 05:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Refusal to answer questions - not just on the arbcom subpage, but on his talk page - inspires no confidence at all in his wisdom or communication skills. —Cryptic 06:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Until questions are answered. GizzaChat © 06:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. CSCWEM is my favourite admin. But as Jaranda says, all I see is vandal reverts. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Same concern with seemingly single-purpose focus on vandals. —Doug Bell talk 08:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. cj | talk 09:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. – Chacor 09:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. My impression is of someone in too much of a hurry to do a good job on ArbCom. I don't recall seeing an AfD close that included an explanation. There was also a failure to answer questions here until after the voting began. ArbCom is a deliberative body. GRBerry 12:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --MariusM 12:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. SuperMachine 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. —Viriditas | Talk 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Shyam (T/C) 13:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose Love the name, but inexperienced. --Mcginnly | Natter 13:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose Came in too late to get much Q&A done. Anomo 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. Inexperience. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose Carom 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose Write more articles besides doing reverts? --mh 17:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I am concerned about inexperience in policy deliberations, and lack of answers to questions. Xoloz 18:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Impressive contribution count, but on a narrow range[reply]
  34. Oppose, not enough article writing experience. Gazpacho 23:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Michael Snow 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Evidence of edit-warring. Stompin' Tom 23:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Not eligible to vote. --JJay 00:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Conn, Kit 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Conn, Kit does not have suffrage; he had only 147 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose, I'm sorry, genuinely good editor and great person, but I think you need more articlespace experience to gauge issues of content. Samir धर्म 00:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 03:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose per above reasons Kiwidude 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose - Good guy, but above reasons && answer to #1 is troubling - he should know COPPA is not applicable in this case. --Wooty Woot? contribs 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose per Gazpacho, but still a good user 172 | Talk 09:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support maybe next time with a little more experience. 172 | Talk 12:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose ×Meegs 11:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Great editor, sadly just lacks the experience - come back again. Giano 13:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Bobet 14:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Very reluctantly. CSCWEM is definitely one of the big "grunts" on Wikipedia, tirelessly fighting off all sorts of nonsense and protecting Wikipedia's integrity. Main trouble is the relative lack of experience with dealing with possible conflict situations and policy issues compared with other candidates in the field here, and I'm not sure how he would arbitrate big conflicts so I don't think ArbCom is the most suitable place. By no means a travesty if he is elected however. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Really, a great guy, but a disruptive vandal-magnet username (IMHO) combined with being here only about a year is not the right way to represent arbcom. --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 19:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. A great editor, but there are better candidates for this particular position. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose I really do hate doing this, but it just seems like (from my experience) that you just float around and "do things." I know this sounds vague, but it seems like the treatment towards Wikipedia is similar to the attitude taking towards a multiple choice exam as opposed to an open ended argumentative essay. Sorry. Yanksox 02:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose great editor, but not suited to this task in my opinion. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 03:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Peta 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Excellent admin, nice guy, but lacks gravitas. Addhoc 11:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose - people's questions haven't been answered. Doing so is important in an election; and if you didn't answer because you didn't have the time, then I'm not sure how you'll find the time required for ArbCom duties, either. Sorry! -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 13:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - I don't see much prior dispute resolution experience, certainly not enough to qualify for ArbCom in my opinion. Why not try MedCom or MedCab first? Also, the lack of proper process with AfDs and the questions here, leaving the questions unanswered and the AfD deletions unexplained, is not something I'd want in n Arbitrator. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 17:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose. His answers to questions are too short and slow in coming. I know that he is a great editor and admin, but arbcom tends to be a more public role that requires explanation. --Danaman5 21:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Not enough experience with dispute resolution or policy. Too new. The reason supporters see him "everywhere" is because he reverts vandalism like crazy, which is good but does not demonstrate the experience or understanding necessary for the Arbitration Committee. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. a little bit more experience neededMustTC 11:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Weak oppose - support voters mention almost nothing but vandal fighting. Vandal fighting experience is not useful for ArbCom, in fact, it can be detrimental. ArbCom doesn't deal with vandals, it deals with editors, and I'm worried that CSCWEM will look at problematic editors as vandals and prefer to deal with them the same way. Zocky | picture popups 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose - a very nice editor, but too vandalism-fighting centered, and too new.--Aldux 12:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose - commendably active vandal fighter, but this edit, described as rvv, deleted several good external links. Viewfinder 13:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - Had nothing but good experiences with this user in passing, however their experience is not really in dispute resolution which is needed. --NuclearZer0 14:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - FairHair 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - I like him as an editor and as an admin, but his answers to the questions could have been longer and better thought out. The fact that he didn't answer the questions promptly also concerns me, since it suggests that he will not help cases move more quickly. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 20:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose Dragomiloff 13:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Morton devonshire 22:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose; Wikipedians all over are extremely grateful to this editor's ongoing vandal-fighting, but it's not the kind of experience that prepares one to be ArbCom. -/- Warren 22:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose I think CSCWEM lacks some of the skills and policy understanding that an Arbitrator needs. Prodego talk 22:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose A weak statement; the candidate gives no reason why he should be an arbitrator. It creates the impression that the candidate wasn't prepared to put in the required effort to write a proper statement, which indicates there would be a similar level of effort put into ArbCom work. Alan Pascoe 11:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose Good editor, but unfortunately lacks the experience. E104421 22:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose Very anti-vandalism centred. One of his blocks (of an NHS server) has been placed for six months!Mmoneypenny 01:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. I don't think he's been here long enough or that he has the experience. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose, lack of statement. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Voice-of-All 18:08, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Tra (Talk) 22:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong oppose, based on the user name alone. Let a couple names like this in, and media will eat us. Just imagine a headline like "'Clown will eat me', the arbitrator on the English Wikipedia, banned an editor writing on abortion". This is just to silly, sorry-- Heptor talk 23:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Weak oppose and willing to be talked out of it. Nothing wrong in statement or questions but responses are pithy to the point of uninformativeness about candidate's approach. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 23:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose. — xaosflux Talk 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose; overzealous in blocking editors -- once blocked my IP address with no more reason given than "please log in if you wish to edit, thank you." -- BlastOButter42 See Hear Speak 00:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Shanes 11:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose: experience seems too concentrated on quick-on-the-draw vandal fighting; too little on mediation and dispute resolution, which is what this assignment requires. Jonathunder 18:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose: --Joe Jklin (T C) 02:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 09:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose. Admirable anti-vandal work, but not enough experience with dispute resolution. Answers to questions aren't satisfying. — mark ✎ 09:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Saravask 16:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose -- what they say, and name needs an professionalism injection. Cute, but says little good about mature judgement. Sorry. I've no bad experiences with you, but that's the way it regretably is in the bigs. // FrankB 21:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. - crz crztalk 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Sarah Ewart 23:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose -- until my question is answered. (Question was answered) BillMasen 01:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Dr Zak 11:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Insufficient breadth of experience HeartofaDog 11:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. per above. Bubba ditto 18:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Dbratton 22:27, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Ksbrown 17:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. oppose per Mark Derex 00:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose. Several questions remain unanswered. Axl 19:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose. Valuable contributor, but I don't see that you're quite ready for ArbCom. -- Norvy (talk) 02:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose User name implies contempt for readers who expect rational discourse. Saignomore 06:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose. You know why. Fun idea though. Grace Note 11:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose (Did not provide example for good work. I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose As per Jaranda and some others. This user is not very overwhelming in the field required by a arbitrator. AQu01rius (User • Talk) 18:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose While the user has done an incredible amount of vandal reverts, it's not obvious what the user has done in writing and working on article content. The answers to questions lack enough substance to satisfy my concerns. I also have to agree with Jaranda and Robth. Also, with the such vast number of edits in the past year, I wouldn't be suprised to see burnout at some point with arbcom demands now placed on the user. --Aude (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose Some questions still unanswered, may not be a fit with ArbCom at this time. Gimmetrow 21:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. The candidate does very good work on Wikipedia, but I am not sure ArbCom is the right job for the candidate. Of note, the candidate's contributions to Wikipedia-namespace are almost solely limited to AfD work. theProject 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/Can%27t_sleep,_clown_will_eat_me&oldid=1089209868"