Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Charles Matthews: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 | Vote Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:20, 15 January 2006 view sourceSEWilco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers24,016 edits →Support← Previous edit Revision as of 05:50, 15 January 2006 view source Boothy443 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users30,606 edits →OpposeNext edit →
Line 252: Line 252:
#'''Oppose''' Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. ] 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Oppose''' Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. ] 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
#'''Strong oppose'''; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are? ] 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) #'''Strong oppose'''; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are? ] 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
#--] | ] 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 05:50, 15 January 2006

Charles Matthews

I haven't been quite as active in 2005 as in 2004, for a couple of reasons I won't go into explained on the questions page. Misplaced Pages is working so well in general it is possible to talk about the ArbCom as a necessary evil, rather than use the language of crisis and panic about it. I stood in 2004, doing well enough for it to be a positive experience though I fell just short of election. Banning and other sanctions are there firstly to protect the project from people who really cannot match the basic social demands of working with other editors.

I judge that the ArbCom are much better at tackling cases reasonably, than admins acting on their own have been. I'm not sure that every single decision has been 100% on the button; but I don't see much need for big changes in how things are handled. Some matters are always going to be inflammatory, but overall I don't see that it is getting any worse; and the upping of the ArbCom's workrate in 2005 I think made for a perceptible improvement of the atmosphere.

I have a concise writing style, a plus for ArbCom work (and have kept this to 250 words, unlike others). On general matters, my credo hasn't really changed. For me, it's mainly about the content. I'm concerned about systemic bias issues - the need for good peripheral vision, I'd say, in the whole approach. For a Brit I have good languages; I have lived in France and the USA, and have good knowledge of East Asia and some insight into Uganda. Charles Matthews 11:16, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Questions


Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Ancheta Wis 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Michael Snow 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Fredrik | tc 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support. Impressive answers to questions. Batmanand 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Gdr 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Carl Hewitt 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support. Madame Sosostris 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support Outside the great contributions to the mathematics projects, I have seen Charles Matthews keep great cool in dealing with difficult users, a feature most necessary for an arbitrator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support, with few reservations. – Quadell 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Cryptic (talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. —Ruud 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support.--ragesoss 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support — Omegatron 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support --Angelo 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support. Ambi 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. TacoDeposit 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support --Duk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support: impressive experience and well-thought answers to the questions. Jonathunder 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. - EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support. --Viriditas 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support' -- Arwel (talk) 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support - This guy is good - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:09, Jan. 9, 2006
  30. Guettarda 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support. He hit it on the nose with his answers to his questions. --Vortex 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. King of All the Franks 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support. I think he will make an excellent ArbCom member. Paul August ☎ 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support - BanyanTree 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support - Bobet 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support Crunch 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support Cool and thorough. Knowledgeable in the edits. Listens to others. --BACbKA 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Very, very, very experienced, looks willing to work. Great answers to questions. Ian Manka 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. older≠wiser 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support Good experience. Dave 03:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Support A knowledgeable and scholarly content editor. 172 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support - Thoughtful answers indicate ability to analyze based on encyclopedic goals rather than wikilawyering on policy. FCYTravis 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Support. Rhobite 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support. Bishonen | talk 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
  46. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - good answers. ←Hob 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Strongly support - a very experienced contributor with a mature outlook. - Stevecov 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support Wile E. Heresiarch 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. --best, kevin 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support linas 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Support ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support Tony the Marine 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Support Intelligent and level-headed. — Catherine\ 05:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Support: impresses as an editor of intelligence and integrity. --Muchness 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Support--cj | talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Support Good candidate statement. I hope we can hold you to it. Hamster Sandwich 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Support – I've known and respected this editor for a long time. He'll do well. – ClockworkSoul 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Support Chick Bowen 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Support Fred Bauder 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Support. -- Scott e 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Support. android79 06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Support don't know this user, but it seems that ppl trust him.  Grue  06:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Support --EMS | Talk 06:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Support. siafu 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Support - really superb editor, ArbCom couldn't do better. My only reservation: does ArbCom deserve him well enough to waste his time like this? --- Charles Stewart 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Support. jni 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Support Sam Vimes 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Support. Isomorphic 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support just going with the flow, seriously, a level-headed user, good answers, dedication. feydey 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Support. —Quarl 2006-01-09 07:37Z
  72. Support JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Support, low involvement in project namespace, but highly involved w/community via enwiki-l mailing list and obviously dedicated w/53K+ edits. --MPerel 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Support. why? ++Lar: t/c 08:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Support. --Kefalonia 09:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Support. Lupo 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Support No-nonsense, good answers. --kingboyk 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Support I agree with descriptions like "intelligence", "integrity", "respectable" and "level-headed." Fg2 10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Support definitely gets my vote! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  80. Support Sarah Ewart 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  81. Support --Nick Boalch 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  82. Support, my top choice. Dan100 (Talk) 11:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  83. Support — MikeX (talk) 11:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  84. Support. the wub "?!" 11:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  85. support: Ombudsman 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  86. Support: --Stephan Schulz 11:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  87. Being aware of systemic bias and interested in countering it is a big plus, and he seems well-rounded and professional. —Nightstallion (?) 11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  88. Support Good editor, we're lucky to have standing. Morwen - Talk 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  89. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  90. Strong support. The best candidate statement and answers to questions I've yet read. Thryduulf 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  91. Support very levelheaded, I would trust this candidate to work for the community as a whole.  ALKIVAR™ 12:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  92. Support: He seems always to make fair and reasoned, and non-confrontational assessments of a situation whenever I have run across him Giano | talk 12:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  93. Strongest Support This guy is probably one of the best candidates for the ArbCom --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  94. Support -- Michael Slone (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  95. Support, good no-nonsense approach. Radiant_>|< 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  96. Support. All his contributions that I've seen show he clearly knows what he's doing. --Last Malthusian 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  97. Kafziel 14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  98. Support. I like the answers. --Frelke 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  99. Support. Good candidate. — BrianSmithson 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  100. Support: Level headed and careful. Geogre 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  101. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  102. Support - Good answers. Awolf002 14:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  103. Support. Good statement, good answers.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  104. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  105. Support - Feels strongly about systematic bias. Good candidate. Gflores 15:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  106. Support, one of the strongest candidates here. Proto t c 15:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  107. Support The Literate Engineer 15:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  108. Support, for your evident ability to recognise trolls --Doc 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  109. Support Masonpatriot 17:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  110. Support NatusRoma 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  111. Support Rhion 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  112. Support --Wikimol 18:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  113. Support --Petros471 19:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  114. Support Jkelly 19:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  115. Support TestPilot 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  116. Support based on candidate statement and answers to questions. TerraGreen 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  117. Support - Xed 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  118. Support - Leibniz 20:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  119. Support. Well knowledgeable and determined to further enhance Misplaced Pages. --KHill-LTown 20:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  120. Support -- Polaris999 21:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  121. Support (This is obiter dicta, but I'm astonished that someone casting an "oppose" vote suggested that this candidate may not be one of the best-known Wikipedians.) Michael Hardy 21:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  122. Support Experienced, level-headed. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 21:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  123. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  124. Support --Pjacobi 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  125. Splash 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  126. Support --Daniel11 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  127. Support Will make a wonderful ArbCom member. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  128. Support. <KF> 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  129. Sopport Candidate will put in the time and he's well known to many. I only wish he hadn't come down so hard on the questioner who didn't spell so well. Smmurphy 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  130. Support - at least in part *because* of the answer about spelling. The arbcomm gets a lot of cr*p: it needs to be able to answer robustly when appropriate. William M. Connolley 23:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC).
  131. Support--Confuzion 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  132. Support. Answers demonstrate impressive grasp of what is required.--cjllw | TALK 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  133. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  134. Support Marskell 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  135. Support Warofdreams talk 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  136. Support. Very impressed by his summary and answers to questions. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  137. Support. The first Wikipedian I met here, and a fine example of why I want to stay. Dmharvey 01:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  138. Support. Vsmith 02:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  139. Support. Strong answers on questions and great statement. Velvetsmog 02:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  140. Support --JohnDBuell 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  141. Support --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  142. Support. Neutrality 04:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  143. Support abakharev 04:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  144. Support –Abe Dashiell 05:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  145. Support Joaquin Murietta 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  146. Support --Carnildo 08:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  147. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  148. Support Delirium 10:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  149. Support Adrian Buehlmann 10:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  150. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  151. Support. Charles answered the questions well, I have also always been impressed by his interactions with others (at least those I have seen). Rje 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  152. Support Kosebamse 13:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  153. Support, good statement, experienced -- Gurch 14:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  154. Support--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  155. Support. HGB 18:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  156. Support. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  157. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  158. Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  159. Support. I'm sure will do a good job. --G Rutter 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  160. JoaoRicardo 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  161. Support - Solipsist 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  162. Support Fad (ix) 21:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  163. Support David 21:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  164. Support Prodego 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  165. Support --Loopy 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  166. support dab (ᛏ) 00:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  167. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contibutions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  168. Support David Hoag 01:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  169. Support Dr. Cash 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  170. Support Timrollpickering 01:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  171. Support KTC 04:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  172. Support --Jaranda 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  173. Support. JSIN 06:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  174. Support--AndriyK 07:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  175. Yes - --Bhadani 09:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  176. Support - Sietse 10:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  177. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  178. Support --Terence Ong 13:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  179. Support. Andre (talk) 14:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  180. Support — Laura Scudder ☎ 15:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  181. Support --Hurricane111 16:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  182. Support --Denis Diderot 17:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  183. Support One of Misplaced Pages's most eloquent members Cormaggio 18:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  184. Support Zach 19:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  185. Support Elle vécu heureuse (Be eudaimonic!) 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  186. Support mikka (t) 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Thesocialistesq 00:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  187. Support --Ragib 00:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  188. Support --Guus 02:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  189. SupportAlex43223 05:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  190. Support I like the experience and the international perspective --Ignignot 16:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  191. Support. Kusma (討論) 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  192. Support – ABCD✉ 17:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  193. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  194. Support - Very experienced, long-time user, has a good style, good views. --NorkNork 19:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  195. Support. ntennis 04:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  196. Support. Smerdis of Tlön 05:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  197. Support. Well-qualified, and has earned my trust. Jwrosenzweig 06:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  198. Support Nothing makes me think that putting this user on the committee would be a poor decision --Nick Catalano (Talk) 07:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  199. Support. From his track record and answers to the questions, I believe Charles would be an excellent ArbCom member. Sunray 08:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  200. Support. Alphax  12:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  201. Support. Seems level-headed and very familiar with the Misplaced Pages process. --Elkman 20:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  202. Strong support - very trustworthy user -- Francs2000 01:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  203. Strong support - outstanding user. Deckiller 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  204. Support. Knows why we are here. --JWSchmidt 02:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  205. Support Recognises whats needed, knows what to expect Gnangarra 15:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  206. support absolutely Derex 17:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  207. Support. RadicalSubversiv E 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  208. Support. Although I don't agree with many of the answers, I like his reasons for them. (SEWilco 05:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC))

Oppose

  1. – ugen64 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. --GraemeL 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. WhiteNight 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose --Dlyons493 Talk 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Sorry, support for unilateralism not inspiring. Otherwise, would have endorsed him. Grace Note 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Guanaco 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. (If you haven't contributed much in 2005, that's probably why I haven't encountered you, as I've only been here since May.) Best regards, Ëvilphoenix 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    You don't know Charles Matthews? Maybe I've been on the site too long! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose on policy grounds, due to support for unilateralism, disdain for a code of wikipedian rights, and the deflection of tough, but fair, questions as 'trolling'. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose Per Grace Note and genitive Davidpdx 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. --HK 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. the hostility in the self description serves as warning. Avriette 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - although he is a very dedicated contributor, he lacks arbitration skills. This became obvious on Sensei's Library where he showed the same qualities described by others above. This was some time ago, but it doesn't look like he changed. (He gets a point for being so honest as to use the same nick, though.) — Sebastian (talk) 05:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, short fuse. Gazpacho 06:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. First para, a little too eager to ban users. enochlau (talk) 13:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. A good contributor but unsettlingly hostile towards questions. I believe such hostility will harm his ability to settle other's disputes. Cedars 10:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose: Don't like his appeal.Dr. B 17:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose. Seems much better editor than ArbCom member. Superm401 | Talk 02:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Lapinmies 11:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose Bad tempered, and can't distinguish between logic and his opinion. Kevin baas 00:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Strong oppose; in his statement, he babbles on and doesn't actually say a danged thing about his beliefs about ArbCom. How are we supposed to support you if we don't know who you are? Matt Yeager 20:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)