Though I doubt it'd make any difference, since Jimbo Wales has requested so, I hereby reopen this voting page. This means I have missed a few days' worth of voting; if statistics are anything to go by, I would have missed about twice as many support-votes as oppose-votes. See here for discussion and questions to the "election officials" on how to handle this. My apologies for the confusion. I was asked to explain this a bit more; I withdrew because I was under the impression that there were five seats available for election, and I wasn't even close to the five best-supported nominees, so the outcome was already clear. I changed my mind because Jimbo made a general request to everybody (linked above) that people should not withdraw nor make "tactical votes" for that reason. I trust Jimbo in such matters, and a few editors (including one who opposed me here) asked me on my talk page to reconsider.

Regarding the voting, I have two comments.

• First, I am admittedly bold, or as some would say, aggressive. However, considering the way the ArbCom makes decisions, no arbiter motion can pass without support from half the active arbiters. This means that even if I were to propose something overly bold or aggressive, nothing would actually happen unless four or five other arbiters back me up on it.
• Second, I am known to look into controversial issues, and to try finding a workable solution for them. In general, whichever way you handle a controversial issue, you are likely to step on somebody's toes. While toe-stepping should be avoided as much as possible, sometimes the only way to do so is to avoid the issue entirely. So ask yourselves, whether it's better for an arbiter to avoid controversial issues, or to toe-step if it's inevitable.

(Radiant) 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been active since December 2004, registered after a few months, and have been an admin since June 2005. My motto is that Wikipedia is not a Bureaucracy. Thus, I have done my best to make Wikipedia run more smoothly. I have never shied away from examining controversial issues, and use careful reasoning to cut to the heart of them. Indeed, I have been called a voice of reason and progress many times, even by those who disagree with me.

I've written an essay on my wikiphilosophy, or how Wikipedia should work. In my view, the ArbCom walks a fine line between guarding the encyclopedia by being lenient to good contributors, and guarding the morale of our volunteer editors by being even-handed. The aim is to be stern where necessary, fair where possible.

Together with a variety of other editors, I have been instrumental in solving or alleviating a number of issues in Wikipedia. The most well-known of these solutions is probably Proposed Deletion. Other frequently-cited ones include the present definition of policy and guideline, Centralized Discussion, Wikipedia is Not a Bureaucracy, and   n u m e r o u s   others.

Problematic users I have dealt with include Zen-master, Gabrichidze, and to some extent, Willy on Wheels. I've given my thoughts on the Giano case; a recent dispute I have dealt with is TV episode naming, which I looked into after a request for neutral opinion. I have attempted to defuse the situation, mainly using debate, but I felt it necessary to remove an inappropriate poll about one editor's personality, and to temporarily protect the page to stop a revert war over the disputedpolicy tag. I believe there is now a consensus with still some opposition, with the compromise of redirecting the minority name to the consensual name.

I believe I would make a capable arbiter, and if the community so desires I will aid the ArbCom to the best of my abilities.

Questions

1. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 00:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support Titoxd^(?!?) 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'm Amarkov and I endorse this candidate! -00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. jaco♫plane 00:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support - MER-C 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Majorly 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Alex Bakharev 00:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support Ourai ^т _с 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support --Salix alba (talk) 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. - crz crztalk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support per answers to questions and what I've seen of this editor. Excellent candidate. --Coredesat 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Per my interactions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BhaiSaab ^talk 00:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is banned. --Srikeit 11:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Hello32020 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Khoikhoi 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Peta 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. SuperMachine 01:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Awolf002 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Dakota 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Dr Zak 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Just a natural arbitrator! I'm delighted to see him on the list. Bishonen | talk 02:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
27. Mike Dillon 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. cohesion 02:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Húsönd 03:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Raven4x4x 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. —Mira 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Homestarmy 04:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Terence Ong 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Strong Support Radiant combines sound judgment and an inherent sense of fairness with a flair for innovative approaches to problem-solving. He's really quite close to the perfect ArbCom candidate. Xoloz 04:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. alteripse 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support the editor whose opinions in Wikipedia space I have learned to trust. --Irpen 06:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Strong support --Riley 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Dylan Lake 06:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Nufy8 06:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong support. Excellent candidate. --Alecmconroy 07:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. — CharlotteWebb 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Ah yes, Radiant!, the first person I nominated for adminship and one of my favorite admins. Like Nandesuka, Radiant is a tough candidate but I trust him to be fair and reasonable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Thumb's up. —Doug Bell ^talk 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Radiant and I didnt always see eye to eye in the past... especially on AFD. But other than the deletionist/inclusionist debate I trust his judgement. changed to neutral  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

45. The most trustworthy arbitrator I can imagine. Opposers should be ashamed. Support! --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. SchmuckyTheCat 09:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support had only a brief view of Radiant!'s activities. Like what I've seen.--Zleitzen 09:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. --Interiot 10:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support --Van helsing 10:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Charles Matthews 12:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Strong Support --Neigel von Teighen 12:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Nandesuka 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - I've disagreed with some recent actions which seemed like 'unnecessary strong-arming' to me, but have found him otherwise consistently well above par in all regards. Addendum: While your analysis that MONGO's misuse of admin tools was infrequent and view that he should not be de-sysoped synch with my own, I believe you got some other aspects of the situation horribly wrong... most notably MONGO's harassment and blocking of Pokipsy76 was absolutely inexcusable. I continue to support, but with reduced enthusiasm. --CBD 13:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. From what I've seen, capable enough for the job. -Jeske ^{(Yell at me)} 14:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Tirronan He has my support. Tirronan 14:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Tirronan does not have suffrage; he had only 99 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 15:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

60. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support --Mcginnly | Natter 15:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support Carom 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Radiant has been very involved in in many facets of Wikipedia and he is very familiar with how Wikipedia works. In my experience he is also very considerate and his comments are always constructive and insightful. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support absolutely Dragomiloff 17:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. --Conti|✉ 18:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Without hesitation--Doc^g 18:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support Ehheh 19:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support a good user overall and has good insticts. I would trust him to arbitrate fairly. Eluchil404 19:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. Working to make Wikipedia a more stremalined machine can only be a good thing! Wikiwoohoo 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support well qualified and familiar with administrative issues.-- danntm ^T _C 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support ~ trialsanderrors 21:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support -- ßottesiηi ^(talk) 21:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support David D. (Talk) 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Strong Support - clearly spoken, level-headed and knowledgable, which are really all that matter. Badbilltucker 22:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support --Agεθ020 (ΔT • ФC) 22:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Demonstrates an interest in fairness that should be a model for all Wikipedians. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support, would make a good arbitrator. JYolkowski // talk 00:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support, strong candidate ... good judgement. Lincher 02:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. best of luck. Lincher 17:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support, fair and balanced (no irony intended) --humblefool® 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support —JeremyA 04:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support --hydnjo talk 04:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support Glen 05:31, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
88. Strong Support. Understands policies well. utcursch | talk 05:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support hadn't run into him much, but from the brief amount of work I've seen of him, seems to be a knowledgeable candidate --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. A long history of positive interactions with Radiant! (though I still don't whether to say "he" or "she" in reference to him/her) lead to my support. —Angr 10:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. ABSOLUTELY. —Nightstallion (?) 13:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Suport Thε Halo ^Θ 14:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Bobet 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Yanksox 15:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. A bit surprised and concerned about some of the things mentioned below by users I trust especially given my long standing very good impression of Radiant and his level headedness. Overall the good outweighs the bad by a long ways. - Taxman ^Talk 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. W.marsh 16:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Mackensen (talk) 16:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. I think he could bring a good voice to the Arbitration Committee. We shouldn't be electing a committee of drones who all think in lockstep. --Cyde Weys 19:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. pgk 19:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Outstanding editor, will make a great member of the ARBCOM. SkerHawx 20:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support down with bureacracy! -Drdisque 22:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. You're quite likely to either be the worst or the best of the arbitrators we select, and I'm leaning towards the best. Good luck. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. Should be a good choice for ArbCom. Nishkid64 01:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. This user has shown leadership and general good sense in a number of areas. NatusRoma | Talk 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. -- tariqabjotu 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Chensiyuan 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. You shall go to the ball. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 09:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. Liked his answers to the questions. Has good experience. --Merlinme 17:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Jakew 21:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. ∴ here…♠ 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. —Ruud 23:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. dab (𒁳) 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. Fram 10:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. Possesses systemic vision. Zocky | picture popups 11:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. --Cactus.man ✍ 12:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Levelheaded and aways courteous, and still willing to grab hot irons others won't touch a ten-foot-pole. CharonX/talk 15:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 00:27, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Cryptic 00:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Glad to see that you've reinstated your candidacy. Picaroon9288 00:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Donald Albury 01:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC) I think you have what it takes, even if you do think I was too bureaucratic on policy discussions. :-)[reply]
124. older ≠ wiser 03:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support--VirtualDelight 09:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Tizio 12:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support. --Gphoto^talk 14:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Highly intelligent user has a good comprehension in wikipedia policies and is able to apply common sense to them, is proficient in a good number of namespace areas, wherein conflict may arise.▪◦▪≡ЅiREX≡^Talk 15:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. -- Renesis (talk) 16:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support -- Samuel Wantman 20:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Conscious 21:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:53, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Eusebeus 01:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. —freak(talk) 02:06, Dec. 12, 2006 (UTC)
135. Support Fantailfan 03:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. maclean 03:23, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. support Krupo 04:43, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Strong support. Radiant! has a clear understanding of Wikipedia policies and, what's more important, the reasons behind them. He is also very good at cutting through bullshit. (Can I say "bullshit" on this page?) Would make an excellent arbitrator. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support You're late! Get to Arbitrating! --InShaneee 06:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support Kaldari 07:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Definitely. metaspheres 10:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
143. Support Without reservation. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. —Centrx→talk • 17:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support — Omegatron 21:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support based on Radiant's answers concerning the MONGO desysopping. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support also based on the MONGO evidence, not meaning just because I agree on his position on the merits of the case but rather based on the demonstrated ability to analyze evidence and arguments in detail. Newyorkbrad 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Gamaliel 00:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support --rogerd 00:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. I was on the fence regarding this candidate, but am persuaded to support per Newyorkbrad. TacoDeposit 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support; based on his cogent analysis of the Seabhcan arbcom case.[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support because of his careful investigation in response to Zoe's question. I think his experiences here give him a perspective we need. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support (logged in this time :) Vsmith 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support in general, but especially based on his statement at [2]. --Aaron 02:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support based on his excellent analysis of the bizarre episode that is the Seabhcan arbcom case. Kind Regards - Heligoland | Talk | Contribs 02:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. DVD+ R/W 02:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support per Newyorkbrad. --Aude (talk) 03:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. I like Support bras. I also especially like the meticulous reasoning behind his question of Mongo's desysopping. --kizzle 03:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support. Calton | Talk 05:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support Changed from oppose per Newyorkbrad and Radiant!'s evaluation of the MONGO case. Sarah Ewart 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support. I actually liked his decisive but reasoned style even before the Mongo analysis; but I can't say it hurt. :-). AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support. Spot-on every time I've come across him. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support Wetman 23:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support--MONGO 07:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support, the embodiment of WP:BOLD. Though I don't agree with him on a lot of things I believe his hard work, knowledge and dedication to the project will be invaluable on ArbCom. the wub "?!" 20:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support --Kbdank71 21:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support Changed to support after reading Radiant!'s response to Zoe's question. I obviously underestimated Radiant!'s ability to act as an arbitrator. AuburnPilot^talk 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Total 100% Support Tyson Moore es 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support Clio the Muse 00:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • Clio the Muse does not have suffrage; he registered at 05:48, 22 October 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 04:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

170. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support. I trust this user's judgment. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 12:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. —Xyrael / 22:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support Krich (talk) 03:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support per Cyde Weys. I haven't always agreed with Radiant, but even in disagreements his logic is respectable and rational. -- Ned Scott 04:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support -- Dragonfiend 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support, I'm glad you rejoined the race.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
177. Tony Sidaway 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Has the right idea. Needs more experience at the pointy end. Which is where I propose to put him by supporting this candidacy.[reply]
178. Support. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support with above reasoning. Kiwidude 22:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support Experienced admin with good judgment. -Will Beback · † · 23:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
181. Friday (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose Jd2718 02:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Actions like turning WP:CREEP from an essay to a guideline without consensus or seeking community approval are not appropriate for an arbitrator. pschemp | talk 02:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Interactions have left me with an impression of someone who likes to boss others around. Not one to have in a position of influence. Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose - I didn't like some of his activities on the policy pages. ATren 03:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Strangely, I agree with Samsara. Wrong temperament, too much of a warrior. Rebecca 03:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. KPbIC 03:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose per Rebecca. KazakhPol 03:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • KazakhPol does not have suffrage; he registered at 16:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose Stepping on toes on purpose to make a point should not be a first step for a member of ArbCom. THB 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Too often involved with ArbCom level disputes which wears down on his reputation, but I think he's a really good user and admin other than that. semper fi — Moe 05:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    -- AuburnPilot^talk 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. See explanation above, support 167. AuburnPilot^talk 21:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

11. Opposition by self-imposed standard regarding recent ArbCom case principles. No prejudice against future candidacy. Serpent's Choice 06:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. 6SJ7 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose. Everyking 08:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. – Chacor 09:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. cj | talk 10:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 13:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). Shows no understanding that admins can abuse their power. Anomo 14:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose If I were to make a WP:Point I would delist this candidate with a claim of WP:SNOW --BostonMA ^talk 18:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 19:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose. Sorry Radiant, I'm concerned about the recent several-times reverting of long-standing content policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. I would have expected a "silent period" during the arbCom elections. His recent interactions at policy pages worries me. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Guettarda 22:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (per answer to Zoe's question re MONGO)[reply]

23. Oppose per recent dispute involvement RFerreira 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Michael Snow 23:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per Anomo and SlimVirgin. bbx 00:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose I wish you luck, but I don't fully agree with your policies. WikieZach| talk 00:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. —Viriditas | Talk 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. --- RockMFR 01:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose Yamaguchi先生 02:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose. Silensor 05:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose, per this user's recent edit warring at WP:CHILD. I would not call Radiant a "voice of reason" in that dispute. This prolific editor has made many excellent contributions to Wikipedia, but I do not believe this user is an arbitrator. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Gizza^{Chat ©} 07:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose 172 | Talk 09:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose--ragesoss 09:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - an arbitrator needs to have firmness, which he has, but also needs to see things from other people's viewpoints. He doesn't seem to be sufficiently open and tolerant to different views. Metamagician3000 09:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC) Withdrawing my opposition - at least some of my misgivings are relieved by his approach to the MONGO dispute. I am neutral for now and will consider whether to shift to support or abstain. Metamagician3000 05:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

37. Oppose •Jim62sch• 11:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC) per answers concerning the findings on MONGO here[reply]

38. Oppose. Andre (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Per this diff; a look at the associated talk page will reveal that the user decided to single-handedly, pre-emptively end the (STILL semi-active) debate and, <sarcasm>strangely</sarcasm>, also seems to have been opposed to the proposal. I therefore strongly agree with the "not open" assessment. Srose (talk) 22:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose. Bahn Mi 23:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose - similar reasons to Samsara, Rebecca, and several others, past interaction struck me as someone who has increased (rather than diffused) conflict or has seemed heavy handed/overcertain a little too often. Has not yet shown the level of respect under pressure which I would look for, nor inspired me with quiet certainty and trust in his assured neutral and fair interaction, which the best of the community show in all their work on Wikipedia. Needs to learn to listen a little more, be a little less self-assured, ask if others might have a point more often. If he hasn't achieved this off arbcom then arbcom membership is not the place to develop it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. ^BlankVerse 15:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Reluctant oppose. Experienced and intelligent editor but also makes a lot of unilateral decisions about policies, guidelines, and essays. While bold decisions can sometimes be good for Wikipedia, I don't think they're compatible with ArbCom. Kafziel ^Talk 20:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose, the impression I have is that the candidate does not listen to the opinions of others. Mallanox 01:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Weak Oppose. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose --Elonka 06:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: long comment from Elonka moved to talk page per the voting instructions. --bainer (talk) 10:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48. Oppose. For ALL the reasons listed by the other oppose votes. 06:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC) gK
49. Oppose. --Ligulem 10:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose. Feels too strong about his views on Wikipedia policy. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 10:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose.Must^TC 11:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Oppose, seems to be confused regarding how policies and guidelines are formed and created, which concerns me regarding arbitrating based on them. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, not so much for any specific reason, but rather there are at least four other active candidates that I would rather see on arbcom. If some of them quit the race, however, this may change to support. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I have withdrawn my opposition, as new seats have opened up. I am now undecided. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 20:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

53. Oppose. Axl 08:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Oppose. A very reluctant (but not weak) oppose -- I have a lot of respect for Radiant!, and I hope that we can continue to work together constructively in the future. IMHO, Radiant! has been very agressive in developing and expanding policy over the past few months, and I have some doubts about how his/her philosophy regarding policy and guideline would carry over into Arb Comm. I think I would probably support Radiant! next year, once he/she has had a little more seasoning, and I have had some additional time to see how his/her philosophy plays out. TheronJ 14:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Tra (Talk) 19:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Weak oppose per pschemp, Samsara et al. Radiant! knows policy quite well, which is necessary for ArbCom, but Radiant!'s actions in promoting his preferred interpretation or version of policy overreach at times. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Strongly oppose. He engages in edit wars and deletes other people's comments from from talk pages which he doesn't personally agree with. When I left comments on his talk page asking him not to do this, rather than responding, he deleted those comments, as well. As such, I feel he is completely unqualified to act as an arbitrator: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. StuRat 15:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose E104421 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. 'Oppose --Zantastik talk 19:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose John254 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Sarah Ewart 01:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Changed to support. Sarah Ewart 12:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

61. Oppose Based on past interactions, I started out with a positive perspective on Radiant!. His analysis in support of MONGO was brilliant politically, but was unfortunately a work which causes me significant doubt of his ability to be a fair and effective arbitrator. The evidence page includes many dozens of claimed examples of abuse. Radiant! limited analysis to the tiny number of pieces of evidence linked directly from the findings, and based *solely* on that evidence he concluded that the decision was in error. I would not disagree that that arbcom did not pick the best possible difflinks for inclusion, but even a cursory glance at the evidence page was enough to remove my any doubt about the quality of the arbcom's decision. Even the bulk of the MONGO support on the lists appear to agree that MONGO has been behaving inappropriately (but they contend that we should overlook these mistakes because of his excellent work). These factors have caused me to conclude that Radiant!'s analysis was colored by either political expedience or a lack of qualification, either of which would make him an unacceptable choice.--Gmaxwell 01:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose. Too concerned with traditional policy and not practical enough to appreciate common sense. --froth^{T C} 02:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose. Radiant could have helped find common ground in the discussion around Ref Desk rules/gudielines. Instead, he fanned the flames of division. Then he poured on petrol and organised a firework display. After seeing this, I have no confidence in his ability to handle controversial or sensitive issues. Gandalf61 10:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose.nids(♂) 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose. After reading this user's "wikiphilosophy" and examining some past actions, I'm convinced that there is a complete lack of the common sense and humility required of arbcom members. The last thing we need are bold/aggressive arbcom members who believe they are right and everyone else is wrong.--JJay 19:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose Does a wonderful job overall on Wiki but hasn't shown ability to view things from different point of views Lost Kiwi^(talk)21:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Oppose My experience with the user is that they are a willing editor, but they do not understand how to mediate discussions. They would prefer to have their view and would not fit on a panel of arbitrators. I also have NPOV concerns simply per their lack of edits to encyclopedia articles. Ansell 21:18, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
68. Strong Oppose. Wikipolitcians don't belong on the ArbCom. Was labelled an "aggressive" editor by the very ArbCom he's seeking to join. Has changed Essays to alleged Guidelines without consensus at least three times (WP:N, WP:DDV, WP:CREEP), and took similar but opposite (Rejected-labelling) actions against other proposals. While I believe Radiant is quite intelligent, he seems more interested in getting his way, sport-arguing simply for the (apparent) fun (for him) of it, and promoting his own views, than on developing genuine consensus. Rarely actually addresses issues raised with the ideas he promotes or with is own behavior. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 16:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose -- Candidate does not understand the issues surrounding scientific controversies to adjudicate in such matters. --ScienceApologist 17:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose. Dictatorial mindset. Emotional and excitable. Mouth open, ears shut. Always right, thinks disagreement == personal attack. Loathes the very idea of democratic process to an alarming degree. Excellent knowledge of policy, though. Quite intelligent in some ways, although still not as smart as he thinks. Overall: don't inflict this person on the rest of us, please. Please! Herostratus 18:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose -- Shows a lack of respect for domain knowledge, and though it may be just a rhetorical idiosyncrasy, states personal opinions as if they were uncontroversial facts. Other comments from opposing voters make me think this is not just a defect of style. -- Shunpiker 20:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. no wrong temperment.Derex 22:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Oppose. I have my reasons. Loomis 03:01, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Regretful oppose. I've worked with and around you in the past, and believe you generally do good work. However, your somewhat radical approach to policy making gives me some heavy worries about your presence on the ArbCom. --tjstrf talk 13:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Samir धर्म 20:40, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. As per most above — non-hostile oppose. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose ×Meegs 03:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose by default. (Example for good work was opinon, not description of evidence, as the title said. I also didn't like that he kept the wording about Jimbo even though he had been told it could be misunderstood. Granted, these are minor points. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose --John Seward 16:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]