Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Karmafist

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

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

Although my hope is that this won't be the case, I would consider this entire election to be invalid if

, which I am beginning to believe is not the case.

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

1. e ^(Talk) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. --
   Black 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. ESP 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Candidate has been through hell and deserves recognition. —
   FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK
   ) 00:13, Jan. 9, 2006
5. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Owen× ☎ 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Babajobu 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

25. Support. Good attitude. -- Michalis Famelis 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Has the experience. Banes 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support: initiative, experience, vision. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Reform candidate. —Nightstallion (?) 12:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support --
    Talk 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
30. Kafziel 13:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. SupportGator (talk) 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Gryffindor 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support You're the best! --Thorri 16:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support Agree with Jimbo should not have more of a saying in thisprocess than other wikipedians... Foant 16:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support Idea of mini-tribunals is just what is needed. Robert McClenon 17:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, fresh ideas and blood are just what Arbcom needs.Gateman1997 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support. Reform needed. - Xed 20:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support--MichaelSirks 21:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. T | @ | C 23:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
41. Support. Rangek 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support for platform (although possibly some of his changes are too bureaucratic, I'm sure those won't pass anyway :)). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. SupportObsidianOrder 09:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support. I had some interaction with him and he did some good as far as I can remember. __earth 12:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support User reform-minded while respecting current system. I like that. Extra processes may create bureaucracy, but sometimes that's necessary. Kerowyn 04:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support-- Lawyer2b 13:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support as Kerowyn and Simetrical. Robdurbar 11:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Solid candidate. -- Jbamb 16:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Jobe6 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support ---
    TCE – 05:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

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

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

Oppose

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

    Oppose -

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

    ]

    Account too new (created

    FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK

    ) 03:01, Jan. 9, 2006

32. --⟳ausa کui ^× 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose. Agree with platform, however. You know my rationale, karmafist. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Rob Church ^Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose. I dislike how he's handled disagreements with other users. kmccoy (talk) 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose -Greg Asche (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose - policy proposal is staggeringly impractical. ←Hob 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just don't think this role is the best fit. Jonathunder 04:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Strong Oppose Kmccoy states my sentiments well. freestylefrappe 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strongly. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. oppose Grutness...wha? 04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose. User has a good heart, but is not yet ready for Arbitration duties. —the preceding
    unsigned comment is by Evilphoenix (talk • contribs
    ) 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
46. Bobet 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose --Crunch 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. FOo 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose gren グレン 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose --Tabor 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose. android79 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Oppose. — Catherine\^talk 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose. zen master T 06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose per Hob. ～J.K. 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose ArbCom is not a seat for advocacy, nor is it an election of a political officer (para 3 of your statement).--Tznkai 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose--
    talk 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
58. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose nothing personal.--Alhutch 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose.
    siafu 08:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
61. Oppose - too much love of the mob rampant to be a good judge. Don't like his platform. --- Charles Stewart 08:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose Cmouse 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose. His reforms are completely unworkable. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 09:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 09:03Z
65. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose. Too quick to judge, and too vehement in his judgements. -- SCZenz 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose -- and ban him while you are at it for gross disruption of Wikipedia. DreamGuy 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose. I like him personally, but he's like Everyking. Just a bit too embattled to focus on the arbcom. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose. Fishy. --
    ?!? 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
70. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Oppose I agree with his statement about the election, and I think it's time Wikipedia stopped relying on a God-king. However, I think this user is too confrontational/political to be on ArbCom. --kingboyk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose Agree with others, he has good ideas but too controversial Davidpdx 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose Kingboyk hits the nail square on the head.  ALKIVAR™ 12:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose. Lupo 12:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Weak oppose.  Grue  13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose, running for ArbCom in protest in order to massively change it feels like
    WP:POINT. Radiant_>|< 13:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
78. oppose — Dunc|☺ 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. oppose need to learn to play well with others. novacatz 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose. ^BlankVerse 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Oppose. Nothing personal, b/c Karmafist is a great editor, but I don't support anyone who's whole intent in trying to get on the arb committee is to enact massive change. --Alabamaboy 15:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Oppose, nothing wrong with the process.
    t c 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
83. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Oppose. Cannot support; not with his attitude towards existing procedures.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Oppose
    dab (ᛏ) 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
88. Oppose Alanyst 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Oppose. any user exhibitng {{User allow fairuse}} on his userpage exhibits serious deficit of reason. --Wikimol 18:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose--Sjharte 19:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Oppose- Jim62sch 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (
      Cryptic (talk) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log.
        Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]
93. Oppose. History of poor judgment. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose --Pjacobi 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Oppose. Seems a reasonable fellow, given no conflict, but I don't care for his attitude when he's in a conflict. Hermione1980 22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose. --HK 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Splash^talk 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Oppose. Recent history. You don't "win trust" on an election platform. You win it before.
    Avriette 23:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
100. Oppose. Avalon 23:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Oppose. -- Krash 00:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Oppose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. oppose. BL kiss the lizard 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. older≠wiser 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Oppose --
     Interiot 03:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
106. Oppose --
     Alynna 04:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
107. Oppose - Cannot support given recent history of wheel warring and other unpleasantness I've seen around karmafist. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 04:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Oppose protest candidacy. Support people willing to arbitrate. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. oppose Kingturtle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Oppose He has the temperment of a legislator and this is a judicial position. The two do not go together. Caerwine Caerwhine 07:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. oppose
     ☎ 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
112. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

     TCorp's account was made on December 20th 2005. --

     ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 14:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

     ]

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

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

140. Oppose. Want someone prepared to actually arbitrate, not someone protesting against it.
     Talk 23:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
141. Oppose, I don't think you have the right temperament for this role, from what I have seen of your edits --
     Francs2000 00:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
142. Oppose. the sour smell of judicial activism --JWSchmidt 02:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Oppose, edit wars, POV, bad attitude. - ulayiti (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Oppose Dominick ^(TALK) 00:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Oppose Chooserr 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. --
     Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
147. Oppose I can accept standing in protest to the process but... Gnangarra 13:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Neutrality^talk 15:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Oppose Nothing personal, but this sounds like a bad reason to want to be on Arbcom--Omniwolf 19:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Oppose Vindictive, petulant, dishonest, hypocritical, aggressive, abusive and unable to use his admin powers responsibly. Massively unsuitable. Shouldn't even be an admin. Andy Mabbett 21:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Oppose, don't want an arbitrator whose "goal will be a drastic reform of the entire arbitration system". --Stormie 01:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 16:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Oppose Sunray 08:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Oppose —Phil | Talk 10:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Oppose. Monicasdude 12:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Oppose - kaal 17:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Oppose — some reform ideas have merit, but candidate appears temperamentally unsuited to an ArbCom position. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Oppose not suitable for the arb com Secretlondon 16:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Oppose too political - JustinWick 16:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Oppose Alex43223 19:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Oppose CDThieme 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Oppose. Alai 23:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

1. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]