It has now been some years since I resigned my membership in the arbitration committee, and I think I'm ready to return. I have followed most of the arbitration cases brought in the meantime, and believe I can therefore provide consistency and continuity of decisionmaking. Most of my recent work (last six months or so) has been related to answering the Foundation's email, which has given me a new appreciation for the impact our articles make on the real world.

In general, I'm hoping that Wikipedians will offer their support to potential arbcom members based on their dedication to the project, judgment, and ability to keep cool -- not based on a platform. To the extent I can be said to have a platform, it is made up of these planks:

• The arbcom should not be involved in legislating policy - that's for the community alone
• Any reasonable means of speeding up the process should be adopted. Justice delayed is justice denied.
• I believe that strong, good-faith contributors should continue to be given every opportunity to mend their ways. However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests.
• While I believe that partial remedies such as "probation" and article bans do have a place, I think they are overused and detract from the sense of fairness for people who go to the trouble to bring a case.

Questions

1. Support - No reason why anybody else should be an arbitrator when we have a 3-year veteran with previous arbitration experience. (Wikimachine 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
2. Support - strong Jd2718 00:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. DarthVader 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support - a very thoughtful Wikipedia who has been very helpful in the past. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support - Titoxd^(?!?) 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Majorly 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. bainer (talk) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. jaco♫plane 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Gurch 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. MER-C 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Guy (Help!) 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Coredesat 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. As per MPerel. Ourai ^т _с 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. TacoDeposit 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    BhaiSaab ^talk 00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

19. easy one Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Phil Sandifer 00:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - crz crztalk 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Switch to Oppose. - crz crztalk 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Thatcher131 01:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Hello32020 01:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Khoikhoi 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Peta 01:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. SuperMachine 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. ²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Awolf002 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Rx StrangeLove 01:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Always considered matters thoughtfully during the time I served on the ArbCom with him, and I have no doubts he'd do the same if he were on the committee again. --Delirium 01:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 02:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. pschemp | talk 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Bishonen | talk 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
35. Geogre 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. --Robth^Talk 02:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. cohesion 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Mark 02:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. --Rory096 02:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Strong. Snoutwood (talk) 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. —Mira 03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Alex Bakharev 03:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Delta Tango • Talk 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. KPbIC 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Húsönd 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    - despite some nuttiness :^) Crum375 03:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind per same set of incidents - actually not that funny. Crum375 04:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

48. Tankred 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. One of my easiest voting decisions. Serpent's Choice 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 04:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Terence Ong 04:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Particularly impressed with explanation for previous resignation. Warofdreams talk 04:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Per this statement: "However, at present the arbcom is too lenient with troublemakers, especially those whose contributions are weak. This is unfair to those Wikipedians who have to deal with troublemakers, who are targeted by them, and who share their editing interests." --Cyde Weys 04:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Unreserved support per Cyde. Opabinia regalis 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support per above Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. alteripse 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Glad to see UC volunteer. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Of course --Srikeit 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support. Bucketsofg 05:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. --Spangineer^ws (háblame) 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. One of the best that I have dealt with. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. ATren 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. semper fi — Moe 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. -- AuburnPilot^talk 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
66. Support. Antandrus (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Shanes 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support --Riley 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Dylan Lake 06:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. feydey 06:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Absolutely. - Aksi_great (talk) 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Nufy8 07:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Sm1969 07:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Beit Or 07:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. -- Tawker 07:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Risker 07:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Good judgement. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. 6SJ7 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for renomming after a decent break. I'm glad you pre-empted potential burnout. You've got my nod! per discussion on IRC changed to neutral.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

79. Strongly, best candidate. Christopher Parham (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. A good pick. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Will restore confidence in the Arbcom. Giano 08:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Weakly. – Chacor 09:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Martinp23 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. cj | talk 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Kusma (討論) 11:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Per Jaranda. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support Charles Matthews 12:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 12:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Neigel von Teighen 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. --Muchness 13:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Shyam ^(T/C) 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support — Seems like a very good candidate, an excellent example . thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Strong Support Has previous experience and good judgement.--§hanel 14:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Strong support excellent as one of Wikipedia's first arbitrators, also a high quality content editor. 172 | Talk 14:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support --CBD 14:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support A safe pair of hands. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Agree whole heartedly with the statement.--Zleitzen 15:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support-- danntm ^T _C 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Tewfik^Talk 15:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. yes. -- Drini 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support Carom 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. Eloquence* 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Strong support. This guy should be an arbitrator again. 1ne 17:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support Ge o. 17:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support IronDuke 17:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. --Conti|✉ 18:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. --Doc^g 19:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. pgk 19:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. --Pjacobi 19:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. Jonathunder 21:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support David D. (Talk) 21:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support LordHarris 22:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support --Ancheta Wis 22:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - Definitely should have his old seat back. :) Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support -- will bring a lot of good qualities to Arbcom. --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 00:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. 'Support based on platform. JYolkowski // talk 00:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Jkelly 00:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support - this candidate has been entrusted with a variety of responsibilities and performed them all well, and can be trusted now with this one. I do wonder wistfully how much more smoothly the past two and one-half years might have been if he had been an arbitrator all along. Newyorkbrad 00:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. --Yarnalgo 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-05 02:12Z
130. Support, experienced and smart --humblefool® 02:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support. One of the original stalwarts, who had a hand in the very existence of ArbCom. Obviously qualified. Grandmasterka 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support - fully qualified. // I c e d K o l a ^(Contribs) 03:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 05:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support Glen 05:31, December 5, 2006 (UTC)
136. Strong Support. Great editor, great candidate, great statement. I'd encourage more transparency for the arbcom, though. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support - Nothing but respect for UC. – ClockworkSoul 07:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support Duja► 08:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support Bryan 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. —Ruud 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. Strong Support --Zouavman Le Zouave 10:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support ×Meegs 10:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support. —Serein 11:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. robchurch | talk 12:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support - very strong candidate who has been there before. Metamagician3000 12:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Jon Harald Søby 12:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support. Certainly - Taxman ^Talk 15:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. --Endroit 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 19:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support. Michaelas10 (Talk) 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support Hut 8.5 20:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support. Nishkid64 20:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Should be automatic. Andre (talk) 22:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. SupportMaunus 22:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. I guess he would be invited even w/o my vote however! :-) Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Steel 00:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. --*Kat* 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support. I am pleased with this candidate's answers to the questions submitted. NatusRoma | Talk 02:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support. I believe UC has the experience and the temperament for the job. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 05:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. MaxSem 09:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. Support Fred Bauder 15:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support. Seasoned, calm, wise. I trust the judgment of this candidate. — mark ✎ 16:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support, although I think deleting the Flavor Flav article may have been a violation of WP:POINT. Other than that, I wholeheartedly agree with the candidate statement. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. Yes Spartaz 18:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Who said former arbitrators can't get a second chance? Scobell302 18:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support -- EdJohnston 21:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. ∴ here…♠ 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support —Fournax 01:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Strong Support. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support All that and more. Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 04:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
176. silsor 08:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support. skip (t / c) 09:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's clearly thought about the important issues and apparently has the time and energy to devote to them. --Merlinme 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support--Aldux 15:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
180. Strong Support - Kyra_~(talk) 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
181. Lovelight 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
182. Weak support. Like his approach generally, slightly worried by the hint of stronger sanctions generally, but think he will do OK. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 20:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support --Yono 21:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support -- if he's willing to do this essentially thankless work, he's certainly qualified. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
185. SupportLectonar 00:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support. Paul August ☎ 02:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support --Leifern 02:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
188. support Pete.Hurd 03:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support. Aucaman^Talk 05:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
190. strong support: Ombudsman 07:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support -Kristod (talk) 14:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support--JuntungWu 14:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support CJCurrie 03:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
194. Weak Support' Some over-harsh and weird deletions/reactions, as per opposition below, but highly experienced, knowledgable, and mature. Plus anyone who can play on three registers at once is worth something. GLShagmaestro 11:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support --G Rutter 12:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support Has previous ArbCom experience and wants to keep ArbCom out of policy making. Alan Pascoe 16:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support —FlashSheridan 21:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support - Shushruth ^{\talk page \ contribs} 22:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support. enochlau (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support--Jiang 08:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support.  Grue  09:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
202. Cryptic 13:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
203. Support. jni 13:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
204. Picaroon9288 21:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
205. Support - good history of good judgement. Badbilltucker 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
206. Tra (Talk) 22:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
207. More than enthusiastically. Jwrosenzweig 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
208. Support with reservations about authoritarian tendencies. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
209. Support. Rhobite 01:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
210. Support. It's high time someone recognizes that vandals are getting away with murder here. Xiner 03:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
211. older ≠ wiser 03:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
212. support (closed my rfa against me, *must* be a sensible chap...) William M. Connolley 11:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
213. Support. --Gphoto^talk 14:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support. Coemgenus 17:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
215. Support. Screw whether he's an "insider" or not, he's an experienced veteran with a proven track record. (It's also funny reading the comments of people who oppose him for being "too" experienced and are opposing others for being too INexperienced.) Ravenswing 17:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support. Experienced and reasonable. Mangojuice^talk 18:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support --  Mikedk9109  (hit me up)  23:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
218. Merovingian ※ Talk 07:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
219. Support. --MichaelMaggs 22:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
220. Sarah Ewart 01:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
221. Support. However, I'll admit to being biassed in favor of another old-timer. -- llywrch 01:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
222. Saravask 05:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
223. Support Susanlesch 07:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
224. Support. Welcome back. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
225. Strong support Fantastic user Oskar 19:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
226.  Satori Son 22:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
227. Support Shows maturity, and a willingness to both stick around, and even spend time dealing with complaints from outsiders. Ansell 22:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
228. Support Wetman 23:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
229. Support. the wub "?!" 20:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
230. SUpport. --Aude (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
231. Support. UC has my complete trust. Bastiq▼e ^demandez 17:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
232. Support. --Túrelio 22:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
233. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
234. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
235. Support KaElinKaElin 05:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
236. Support Alex43223 ^{Talk | Contribs | E-mail} 06:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
237. —Centrx→talk • 07:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
238. Support --Cactus.man ✍ 09:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
239. — Dan | talk 18:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
240. Trustworthy Samir धर्म 20:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
241. Strong Support —Xyrael / 23:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
242. DVD+ R/W 00:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
243. Excellent contributions. theProject 01:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
244. Support --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
245. Support. szyslak (t, c, e) 10:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
246. Support Forward thinker, sees problems before they come, committed to the ideals and able to get them incrementally implemented. Stirling Newberry 10:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
247. Support NoSeptember 14:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
248. Support. In my assessment, UninvitedCompany is ideally suited to serve on the ArbCom. I've long been impressed by his integrity and non-cabalish conduct, and his candidate statement and responses to questions are equally impressive. —David Levy 15:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
249. Support. HGB 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
250. John254 21:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
251. Support Kiwidude 22:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
252. Carson 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
253. Support. Experienced and even-tempered. -Will Beback · † · 23:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
254. Support Has always seemed reasonable, and Paul August recommends. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose strongly. Everyking 08:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose. Though I first thought Univited was a very good candidate, leter I realized he has too extreme blind trust in admins. Justice should not be blind but fair. --Sugaar 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak Oppose due to concerns about low importance of transparency, details moved to talk. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Weak oppose at this time Dragomiloff 18:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Haukur 21:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose. Irresponsible behaviour when dealing with vandalism. (see this edit and Talk:Chai_Ling#Stubbed) —Babelfisch 06:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak Oppose Gizza^{Chat ©} 08:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose--ragesoss 09:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Just seen too many odd lapses in judgement, such as deleting Flavor Flav [1] instantly without a helpful explanation just because someone complained about it. This general type of behavior from an arbitrator would really freak me out. --W.marsh 16:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sorry. I'm hoping more of to see some "new blood" in ArbCom. - Mailer Diablo 14:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Would prefer new blood. While there is no Cabal, we should not create the appearance of there being a Cabal. GRBerry 18:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose.Must^TC 11:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. Although you'd no doubt make a perfect arbitrator, I'd prefer a new candidate. yandman 13:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose Deb 17:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Per AnonEMouse - crz crztalk 00:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose in the strongest terms. Would help entrench what is bad and would not bring anything good. Nice enough guy and all though. Grace Note 01:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Perhaps weakly; per AnonEMouse and, I imagine, Sugaar. Joe 05:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Weak Oppose. Seems like a good editor, but I just don't think he has the right personality for arbcom. --Danaman5 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose as I oppose inner-circledom. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 07:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose. ugen64 08:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose--Brownlee 13:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Gentgeen 23:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose--Londoneye 23:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose per concerns addressed above, particularly non-helpful deletions RFerreira 03:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose per Babelfisch and W.marsh — coelacan talk — 06:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - Gnetwerker 07:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per RFerreira. VegaDark 23:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose, Mallanox 00:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose Tizio 12:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose Davewild 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose -- Longhair\^talk 09:28, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose: A bit too "law 'n' order". — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:02, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose -- Response to SPOV question was so anti-science as to be ridiculous. The question was not "does science answer everything", the question was related to the SPOV issues related to controversies about science. This kind of answer makes me think that candidate will be a terrible accomodationist arbitrator, unable to make evaluations based on reliability or verifiability and will always fall back on personal prejudices. --ScienceApologist 17:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. With great regret as UC is a nice person in person and I believe he means well. However his activism at Category:Administrators open to recall makes me concerned that he may not respect the views of admins that choose to voluntarily make themselves more accountable to their peers than is strictly required, and makes me concerned that he may not be an accurate judge of character, and is possibly prone to not assuming good faith. Also, per Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006#Boycott I am not sure I trust his long term committment to, and vision of the ArbCom, or his ability to stay committed to the task. Perhaps we should take him at his word. ++Lar: t/c 17:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose ~ trialsanderrors 06:34, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose. per W.marsh. Gimmetrow 22:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:33, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]