Now that it seems that the new ArbCom will be at least partly selected by the community, I've decided to unwithdraw. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:59, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Given the uncertainty over the selection/election process, a state of affairs that effectively renders these candidacies meaningless, I have decided to withdraw for the moment. If and when clarity is restored, I may reverse this decision. Filiocht | The kettle's on 09:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.

I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:

• Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.

• Wikilove: enough said.

• Assume good faith: ditto.

• Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.

• We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.

Beyond these, I have no preconceptions and would expect to grow into the role according to the needs of Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

1. --Sean|Black 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. – ugen64 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. – Quadell ^{(talk) (bounties)} 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support. Couldn't agree more with your Basic Principles. Batmanand 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Need more like him. Dmcdevit·t 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. A reasonable, pleasant, helpful editor with good judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Haukur 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Strong support. The best. Ambi 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support he's a good one. --Angelo 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. JYolkowski // talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - eminently sensible and level headed - I believe Filiocht would make an excellent artbitrator. Worldtraveller 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support -- Dragonfiend 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Shanes 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    KC. 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • KC. does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 20:17, 13 November 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. SupportStaffelde 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support.--ragesoss 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. TacoDeposit 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support --Duk 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. I will support anyone who demonstrates great levelheadedness, and I can think of no better example than Filiocht. Johnleemk | Talk 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support --Dlyons493 Talk 02:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Strong support. Worthy of trust. Grace Note 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support--Kf4bdy 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Kf4bdy does not have suffrage; he had only 62 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

29. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support - Has sense - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:15, Jan. 9, 2006

31. Support. I only hope the string is long enough that arbcom duties will not diminish this editor's truly impressive contributions. Jonathunder 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. brenneman^(t)(c) 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support - One of the very best editors I know of. Paul August ☎ 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. King of All the Franks 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Bobet 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. older≠wiser 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - ...based on his answers to the nomination questions and general contributions to Wikipedia. I like his style. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support. Rhobite 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support ←Hob 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support --Spangineer^es (háblame) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support --Crunch 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. uh-huh' Grutness...wha? 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support --Daniel 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Rx StrangeLove 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support Fred Bauder 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Kit 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support --Tabor 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support — Catherine\^talk 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. android79 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support. Level head. Sam Vimes 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Clear statement, been long on the project, openminded and good answers. feydey 07:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support --Wetman 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support. siafu 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support--cj | talk 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. Good principles. /blahedo (t) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. --Muchness 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support. utcursch | talk 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 08:25Z
66. Support. Trustworthy — mark ✎ 08:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Common sense wikipedian! -- Michalis Famelis 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support: He's proven to be fair minded, patient and sincerely committed to the project. Giano | talk 08:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support, "common sense wikipedian" says it all. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support. My toughest decision yet... hope my hunch isn't wrong. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support platform, experience --- Charles Stewart 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support. --Kefalonia 09:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. --Viriditas 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support as has been said above. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) (fixed my mistaken placement; shouldn't vote when half-asleep) JesseW, the juggling janitor 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
75. Support --kingboyk 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support as Jonathunder. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support you betcha. Geogre 11:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support --Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Demiurge 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Mais bien sur. -- Peripatetic 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. RobertG ♬ talk 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Enough XP. Basic principles are purr-fect. Bonus points for listing wikilove. ;) —Nightstallion (?) 11:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Sarah Ewart 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support very level headed person. Would be able to handle the position.  ALKIVAR™ 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support at last, a person who mentions WP:AGF in the statement.  Grue  13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support, trustworthy. Radiant_>|< 13:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. --Celestianpower ^háblame 13:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, I trust his comitment to fairness. Thryduulf 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Experienced, levelheaded user. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. --Frelke 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support. A very level head. Mark¹ 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support.--Eloquence* 14:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. ^BlankVerse 14:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support --Alabamaboy 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support. Great approach.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Proto t c 15:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support From the candidate statement: "We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground." Damn right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support --Comics 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support -- Masonpatriot 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support The Literate Engineer 19:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support TestPilot 19:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. Thinks outside the wikibox. - Xed 20:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support Has a great vision!!! Tarret 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support for his levelheadedness. Pilatus 20:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support We need editors like him in the ArbCom Aldux 21:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support Theo (Talk) 21:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support Good attitude. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. We need more people who will assume good faith and not forget wikilove. Hermione1980 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support Naturenet | Talk 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. --HK 22:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Splash^talk 22:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support absolutely his attitude. --Ghirla | talk 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support. <KF> 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support sentiments (except "wikilove") appreciated. Avriette 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support. Wally 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. Tupsharru 00:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support, primarily for opinion on desysopping but also for statements generally. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 01:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Maltmomma ^(chat) 02:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support for wanting democracy in wiki Rayc 02:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support, experienced, good statement. Like the hundreds or so before me, I support. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support - Vsmith 05:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. Neutrality^talk 05:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support, I like the policy abakharev 05:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support. --Fire Star 07:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. --Carnildo 08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. Anville 09:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support Robdurbar 12:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support. A great package: good answers to the questions, good attitude, consistently level-headed, assumes good faith... Rje 13:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. enochlau (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support. HGB 18:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support, per above. Ral315 (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support, I'm sure will do a good job. --G Rutter 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support. Understands the point of Wikipedia. Smeggysmeg 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Smeggysmeg does not have suffrage -- 68 edits, account made in October. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 23:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

145. Support — Saravask 23:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support. maclean25 00:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support KTC 05:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support--Woggly 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support: --Bhadani 09:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support. Palmiro | Talk 12:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support --Terence Ong ^Talk 13:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support --Syrthiss 13:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. Andre (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support--Gozar 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. Support. —David Levy 17:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. support. --Svartalf 18:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) user seems a solid wikipedian, and as an Irishman, he may help offset US dominance here.[reply]
160. Support. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
161. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support doktorb | words 21:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support --Rye1967 21:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. support: Ombudsman 22:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support Timrollpickering 01:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support - "Equality of respect. ... Talking is better than blocking." (yea!) perhaps you could teach Phroziac a little wikietiquette. r b-j 02:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support --Loopy ^e 04:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. Support -Huldra 09:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Experienced and civil. Zocky 11:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support – ABCD^e✉ 18:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support - very strong points, one of the best candidates. --NorkNork 20:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support. Good candidate statement. Velvetsmog 20:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. JoaoRicardo^talk 21:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. support William M. Connolley 21:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
176. Support, because this page is fucking funny. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 22:35, Jan. 12, 2006
177. Support — Stumps 23:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support. A model Wikipedian whose judgment I respect more than my own, and whose support of this project's best and noblest ideals are part of the reason I keep coming back to this place. Jwrosenzweig 06:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support. Alphax 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support - Mar tá sé ina chonai i hÉireann. --Irishpunktom\^talk 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support. Smerdis of Tlön 15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support. Qualified and has the right idea. Superm401 | Talk 22:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support - good user -- Francs2000 01:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support appears to be a good candidate with a good editing record and the right attitude (wikilove). Cedars 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
185. Derex 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support. Trust the user; good candidate statement -- Marcika 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
188. Support. Mushroom 01:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support. (SEWilco 03:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
190. Support. ntennis 07:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). In addition, Filiocht strikes me as particularly thoughtful, and hence will make good judgements, and re-introduce the much missed principle of consensus. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
192. Strong support. Well spoken, excellent editing history. --Omniwolf 19:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support. WilliamKF 22:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support--Wikityke 01:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support Alex43223 06:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support Sunray 06:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
197. Support – experienced. =Nichalp «Talk»= 07:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
198. Support If this was a European-style parliamentary election with a transferable vote, this candidate would likely get my top vote. Youngamerican 14:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support. —Lowellian (reply) 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support -- Jacoplane 05:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support —Phil | Talk 09:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
202. Support. Monicasdude 12:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
203. Support because we absolutely need you as an arbitrator. Nothing short of a return to a focus on Wikilove and AGF while dealing with those editors that do not edit in good faith can solve Wikipedia's ills. Filiocht is clearly our best shot at that. - Taxman ^Talk 14:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
204. Support --Doc ^ask? 16:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
205. Support - kaal 16:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
206. Support -- Hoary 09:20, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
207. - muriel@pt 16:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
208. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:48, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
209. Support Tuohirulla 23:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
210. Support — Highly qualified and eminently sensible. Plus, quotes Kant on his userpage. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 22:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
211. Support - a very interesting mind, I've realized. Chick Bowen 03:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
212. Support - A guy who totally has it together. Probably knows where his towel is. - JustinWick 03:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
213. Strong Support. I love your principles. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support Secretlondon 15:57, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
215. SupportPschemp | Talk 07:20, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support with no hesitation. Deb 10:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support Sounds good to me. --AySz88^-^ 00:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
218. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
219. Support – Smyth\^talk 12:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
220. Support Charles Matthews 15:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
221. Support, with the greatest pleasure. If a vote may be said to be unneeded, this one is; nevertheless I'm so very glad to be able to do my bit for so peerless a candidate. I remember how, ironically, Filiocht momentarily pulled out some months ago. It is WP's fortune that much has changed. encephalon 19:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
222. Support -- DS1953 ^talk 19:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
223. Support --Spondoolicks 21:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
224. Support Alai 23:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
225. Support. Canderson7 ^(talk) 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
226. Support CDThieme 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Guanaco 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose Davidpdx 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Candidate statement too vague on arbitration to case an informed vote on their merits as an arbitrator. Without information: oppose. Fifelfoo 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose actually, I have nothing at all against this user becoming arbitrator...the vote is just way too one-sided. If it gets close maybe I'll come in and change it :) ℬastique▼^parℓer♥^voir♑ 00:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 14:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose: I'm not too for the whole withdraw, unwithdraw thing.Dr. B 21:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose -- per Dr. B --Ignignot 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Regretfully Oppose. His strong support of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Code_of_Conduct concerns me because it stands in stark contrast with his claimed desire to avoid Wikipedia as a policy playground. --Gmaxwell 18:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Oppose --Knucmo2 19:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose. Preaky 06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. oppose Kingturtle 20:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose -Hoekenheef 12:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose (Bjorn Tipling 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

1. I have no doubt that Filiocht wouldn't be a bad Arbitrator, but that doesn't mean he'd be a good one. Also, it would be a shame to lose one of the most prolific contributors of Featured content. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]