Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Raul654

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007 | Vote
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Homestarmy (talk | contribs) at 18:07, 6 December 2007 (→Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

Raul654

Hello all. I've been an arbitrator now for almost 3 1/2 years. I was elected back in August of 2004. The reason I wanted to become an arbitrator was I was very unhappy with how the (then-newly created) dispute resolution process was working. In particular, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Plautus satire vs Raul654 left a very bad taste my mouth. Plautus was ultimately banned, but only after weeks of unbelievably outrageous behavior that caused several good users to permanently leave. I wanted to join the arbitration committee to make it better serve the purpose of building the encyclopedia - to favor those who do good work, rather than bending over backwards to give 3rd and 4th chances to users who do not share our goals of building an encyclopedia. How far we have come since then.

In the early years of the committee, I authored many cases - not as many as Fred Bauder, but certainly more than my fair share. Owing to time spent on the other work I do here - as an administrator, checkuserer, oversighter, member of the press committee, featured article director, and contributor to the encyclopedia - in the last year or two I have not authored as many cases as I used to. However, I have made it a point to take the lead on some of the more controversial ones (for example, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pedophilia userbox wheel war). I consider it a badge of honor that many of the trolls on WikipediaReview detest me (with good reason - I am the reason many of them are banned). I am not here for them - I am here for you, the editors and administrators.

Just to lay out a few of my other accomplishments:

  • It was at my suggestion that the three-revert rule became enforceable. (I wanted to propose it as a principle in a case, but James F. suggested we do it through Jimbo. This was ultimately what was done) It may not be perfect, but it is certainly an improvement over the 100-revert war we were dealing with at the time. (And I mean that literally)
  • I created the clerks system. It started out a bit rocky, but I think the program has turned out to be a very useful tool for the arbitration committee, helping to spread out the more mundane activities over a larger group of users.
  • I set up the Arbitration Committee mailing list. (We used to use one provided by user:Nohat. After a wikimedia.org mailing list allocated, I set it up, and, along with others, administer it to this day)

I stand by my record as an arbitrator, and if re-elected, I will continue to do so in the same fashion.

Support

  1. Support—trey(wiki) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Paul August ☎ 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kurykh 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Full Support--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Tim Q. Wells 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. BLACKKITE 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. IronDuke 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Kittybrewster ☎ 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Conflicted Support, as I'm not sure we want arbitrators who have/give so little time to the job. But at the end of the day, I still think Raul's independent thinking is needed as a counterweight to certain existing forces and currents within the committee. Bishonen | talk 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  13. I trust his reasoning, the only problem I have is his inactivity, and his thoughtfulness thoroughly counteracts that problem. Keilana 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. – Gurch (talk) 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. same thoughts as Bishonen. --W.marsh 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Chaz Beckett 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. spryde | talk 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Experience, trust. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per Bishonen and Keilana. — TKD::Talk 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. GracenotesT § 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. east.718 at 00:30, December 3, 2007
  23. 哦， 是吗？(review O) 00:31, 03 December 2007 (GMT)
  24. Nufy8 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Duk 00:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Lawrence Cohen • I support Giano. 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support 'nuf said Mbisanz 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Totally. -- Ned Scott 00:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Prodego talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Bakaman 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Quality is more important than quantity. - Jehochman Talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Statement convinced me.--Sandahl 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Sluzzelin talk 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. R. Baley 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 01:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Stardust8212 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Captain panda 01:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support -- Avi 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Raul was a voice of reason on the Badlydrawnjeff Arbcom case. He actually had the nerve to say that BLP does not apply to dead people. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Weak Support - Inactivity is a concern, but not enough to oppose or be neutral and not vote. -MBK004 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. A lot of valuable institutional memory would be lost if none of the sitting arbitrators were re-elected. Christopher Parham (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Prolog 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Carnildo 01:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Alecmconroy 01:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support. Experienced, though I'm a little concerned about inactivity. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Needed for continuity, and I am sure he now realises the need for more active use of his unmatched knowledge. DGG (talk) 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Weak support per inactivity. Still a fairly fine candidate. --Coredesat 02:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Raul's commitment and dedication is beyond question in my opinion. Manning 02:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. -Royalguard11(T·R!) 02:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51.  — master sonT - C 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support -- Cirt 02:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  53. Alexfusco5 02:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. bibliomaniac15 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support- Dureo 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. ~ priyanath talk 02:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Absolutely. Zocky | picture popups 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. <DREAMAFTER> <TALK> 02:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. Raul has been a solid voice of reason on the arbitration committee list. Rebecca 02:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. I'm not impressed with his sporadic activity, but he's still far and away the most reasonable sitting arbitrator. —Cryptic 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. John254 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. · AndonicO Talk 03:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. More activity would help though. KTC 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Cool-headed, reasonable and fair. Peter Isotalo 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support I'm confident Raul is a voice of reason. Mike Christie (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Per Bishonen. Picaroon (t) 03:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Gotta go with experience. One of our best editors for the longest time. GlassCobra 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Bob Mellish 03:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Strong support. Raul is very often right when the rest of the committee is wrong. He has already taken steps to reduce his time commitment at FAC. JayHenry 04:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. One of the few current Arbs who seem to get it. --Bdj 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Complete support. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 04:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. — xaosflux Talk 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. --Meno25 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 05:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. —Mira 05:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Guettarda 05:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Spebi 05:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. 6SJ7 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. BanyanTree 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. If Raul is stupid enough to still want this job, he is welcome to it. Dragons flight 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 06:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Cautious support. I don't know what Raul was thinking in his statement over the Danny RFA, but on ArbCom he has tended to stand up for the correct principles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. It would be nice if he were a bit more active, but when he participates his judgement is good. MastCell Talk 07:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support --Reinoutr 07:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. A voice of reason. henrik•talk 07:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support. After looking at some of the diff links provided by critics below, I have become even more confident in Raul's ability. -Joshuapaquin 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Davewild 07:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Raul is sane. Sane is good. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 08:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Delegation to Sandy should ease the pressure somewhat. MER-C 08:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Even after a term on ArbCom, he still makes wise decisions that reflect the will of the community. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. One of the few people who helped me when I was a newbie. Has the right attitude for building the encyclopedia, it's an honour to support you! — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 08:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. WAS 4.250 09:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support --★čabrilo★ 09:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Good judgment, and Raul was absolutely correct when he pointed out the COI issues in the THF case. Shem(talk) 09:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Viriditas 10:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Solid judgement. --Stormie 11:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Rami R 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. He is the only "Old Blood" that we should keep..and a really colorful and friendly character..--Cometstyles 12:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support Recent events changed my mind on this candidate, but request he be a little more active in cases. -- Marcsin | Talk 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Excellent arbitrating so far, and the only sitting arbitrator who had the nuts to sign a note of dissent to the BLP decision. Splash - tk 13:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support Some reservations, including consolidation of power; but, sound judgment trumps many things. Xoloz 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Asset to the project and the Arbcom. But please spend more time on Arbcom matters in the future. KnightLago 14:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. JoshuaZ 14:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. ~ trialsanderrors 15:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support This candidate develops constructed means for conflict resolution. Better than some of the other choices we have. Mindraker 15:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. I appreciate the experience here and his history of good judgement. Mangojuicetalk 15:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Raul654 is probably the only current ArbCom member who never makes me say "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?" when I see their votes. WilyD 15:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Orderinchaos 15:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Guy (Help!) 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support – ABCD✉ 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Dalekusa 16:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  120. Experience and consistently good judgement. the wub "?!" 16:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. daveh4h 16:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. --- RockMFR 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Ral315 — (Voting) 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. I have found Raul654 to be a great user who is trustworthy. Acalamari 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support. Generally sane, continuity is beneficial. Martinp 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Good judgment evident as arbcom member. As for concerns about his level of activity, the fact that he has delegated some FAC director tasks to User:SandyGeorgia will allow him to spend more time on Arbcom matters. --Aude (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. - JodyB talk 17:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support for continuity and institutional memory as much as proven track record. AvruchTalk 17:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Avruch does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 22:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support for this comment. It hasn't turned out as badly as Raul feared, but that's partly because he was listened to. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Kaly99 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support the incubment. Has done a fine job so far. MookieZ 19:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Filll 20:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Oldelpaso 20:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. ITAQALLAH 20:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Smokizzy (talk) 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Fabulous user. Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. I can't be neutral here; but term limits or institutional memory; sometimes the sole note of sanity or sometimes inactive. Very torn, but voting for sanity as anyone else elected has high odds of going inactive or resigning. GRBerry 21:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. --Malcolmxl5 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Support - sure. -- Schneelocke 21:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support - Shudde talk 22:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. —Ruud 22:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Sometimes the sole note of sanity is right. He's not very active, but when he is active, he is invaluable. One vote from him is worth a dozen from others. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 23:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 23:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support Shot info 23:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support and good luck! —CComMack (t–c) 23:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Certainly. — Dan | talk 23:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. On balance, WjBscribe 23:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support. Corvus cornixtalk 23:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 00:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support ×Meegs 01:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Adam Cuerden talk 02:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Wikiacc (°) 02:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Keegantalk 02:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. COGDEN 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Strong support. @pple complain 03:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support. Jonathunder 04:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. I thought this guy was second in command next to Jimbo himself. Marlith T/C 04:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support If you love bullshit, you'll hate Raul. And vice versa. Raymond Arritt 04:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support - Thoughtful and composed. FCYTravis 05:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support - A true force of levelheadedness when everyone else doesn't realize they need to calm down and do the right thing. —Dark•Shikari[T] 06:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  164. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Raul is not, to my mind, a perfect arbitrator, but I suppose that he must be amongst the best candidates whom we have, having, at the very least, stood on several occasions against the Committee's adopting some particularly pernicious remedies. Joe 07:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Arvind 09:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  167. User:Krator (t c) 11:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. Sam Blacketer 11:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support Dan100 (Talk) 13:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  170. JoJan 13:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. --Eloquence* 14:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Strong Support. However, I'd almost prefer his focus be on the FAC process, which is critical to this project. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support.Biophys 14:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  174. -- Y not? 16:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Per Splash. — CharlotteWebb 16:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Though I wish Raul were more active on the committee, his perspective is invaluable. Phil Sandifer 17:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support--Aldux 18:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support ♫ Cricket02 18:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support; this guy has the experience needed for the job. --Spangineerws (háblame) 18:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Greg Jones II 20:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  183. RuneWiki777 20:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  184. support - I have found Raul654 to be a good user. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support for a highly experienced, thoughtful and fair-minded Arb. He may not be the most active on the AC, but he is far from the least. He chooses his battles carefully and renders generally solid decisions. He and I may not see eye-to-eye on all issues, but I respect his opinions and appreciate his hard work.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 21:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support knows Wikipedia very well and has made significant contributions which had to do with the very way Wikipedia works. Good editor who seems rational and able to remain neutral on ArbCom cases. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support. Has the experience. I believe his naming a FAC deputy will address any inactivity issues mentioned. - Mgm|(talk) 22:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    support A man in space (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A man in space does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support. -- RG2 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Michael Snow (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support - Spawn Man (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support - good sense. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  192. --Conti|✉ 01:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Support - Coming out of the woodwork for this one. Raul's had a long run, and his judgement --- although it can be disagreed with from time to time, as any of ours can --- remains a sound foundation. --Avillia (Avillia me!) 01:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support - As this user is one of the bureaucrats running, I had intended a "knee-jerk" support, though after reading the concerns, I did a bit more thinking. While I understand the concerns about activity level/wearing many hats by those below, the arguements of those above (among other things) swayed me. - jc37 02:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support-- danntm T C 02:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support what could i possibly say that hasnt already Esskater11 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  197. --MPerel 04:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Daysleeper47 (talk) 04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support, Stepp-Wulf (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  200. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support VanTucky talk 06:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  203. support definitely William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Support. Wetman (talk) 09:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  205. --MONGO (talk) 09:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Trebor (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Support semper fictilis 15:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Johnleemk | Talk 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support Lectonar (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support The inactivity concerns are understandable, but when all's said and done, he has sound and independent judgement. Desperately needed. PeaceNT (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support. Ceoil (talk) 16:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Support.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Support in the interests of maintaining at least some continuity. --Delirium (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support Lack of activity is a concern, but seems to be one of the few current arbitrators sensitive to POV pushing in areas of pseudoscience. Skinwalker (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Somewhat concerned by inactivity, but I think he's an important independent voice. Iain99Balderdash and piffle 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support SagredoDiscussione? 18:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Strong support. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 19:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  218. The rock of Wiki. Neutralitytalk 00:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support Modernist (talk) 00:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  220. Support - Merzbow (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  221. Support — BillC talk 02:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  222. Support Wikidudeman (talk) 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  223. Support Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  224. Support Grahame (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  225. Support --Action Jackson IV (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  226. Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  227. STRONG SUPPORT --Mike Searson (talk) 15:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  228. Support ~ I don't normally approve of such a spread of power/influence, but has demonstrated rational thought to me, even when surrounded by a lack of it. --DeLarge (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  229. Support -- Absolutely. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  230. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  231. Terence (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  232. Support qp10qp (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Little too inactive for my tastes, also concerns over some recent edit warning This is a Secret account 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No thanks.--Docg 00:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Raul has not been active enough over his past term to justify reelection. Also, he has enough on his plate as Featured Article Director.--ragesoss 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Anthøny 00:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Too inactive on arb cases lately. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Qst 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. - auburnpilot talk 00:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. too inactive.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. sorry, but too inactive. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Ρх₥α 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Agüeybaná 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not really comfortable with your COI comments in relation to the THF case. sh¤y 01:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Fred Bauder 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Stephen 01:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm really sorry, but, I agree with all the above. SQLQuery me! 01:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Anthony 02:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. ➪HiDrNick! 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. B 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Inactivity, time for new blood. Monsieurdl 02:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. too inactive, and the COI comments trouble me. Kwsn (Ni!) 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. He should have recused from the THF case. Also, he freely admits he doesn't read the Workshop page, which I think is inappropriate. ATren 02:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. FAC needs him more. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Regrettably, his inactivity as a sitting arb has been troubling. --krimpet⟲ 03:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Inactivity is the problem with the current committee. Why perpetuate the cycle? ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Simply has too much on his plate, and I have trouble believing he would be able to dedicate the needed time. Otherwise, I would support fully. AmiDaniel (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. futurebird 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mercury 03:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Aboutmovies 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Per rather low activity only. Húsönd 03:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Sorry, too inactive. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. on low activity. Johnbod 03:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Not very active on ArbCom; already busy with FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Everyking 04:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Per his RFA. Too often uses tools to block people disagrees with in an edit conflict; as such, it's hard to trust his impartiality. The Evil Spartan 05:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Marvin Diode 05:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:33, December 3, 2007
  39. Inactivity. Isarig 06:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Raul did a lot of good work, but overall I don't trust his judgement much. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Spread too thin with his FAC commitments as well. Without FAC, I'd support this but FAC needs him more. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose : Not fit for any position of authority on Wikipedia : [1][2][3][4][5][6] and such more... ~ UBeR 07:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Thanks, but prefer change. Jack Merridew 07:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Magnet for drama. <eleland/talkedits> 07:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Crockspot 08:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Too much power. Immature. Punctured Bicycle 08:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Regrettably, he's just too inactive and I'd prefer to have him focus on other areas, and let someone else have a crack at this. Nothing wrong at all otherwise. Grandmasterka 08:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. --Itub 09:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Already has too many titles. Poorer judgement than time on the project would suggest. Neil ☎ 10:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Time for a change. Eusebeus 11:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. --Vassyana 11:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Awadewit | talk 12:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53.  Grue  14:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. --Cactus.man ✍ 14:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Friday (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Too inactive on Arbcom in past. Mattisse 15:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. A great user but inactivity has been a downfall of ArbCom in the past and activity is an issue a take seriously for this role. FAC + ArbCom activity is not going to happen in my opinion. Sorry, GDonato (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Has been a great voice of reason on ArbCom (Fred Bauder opposing this pretty much proves just that) but we need to try something different this time. EconomicsGuy 16:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. --Toffile 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. I echo the idea that it is time for a change. --Isotope23 talk 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Per FAC, inactivity and need of newer people. — Rudget contributions 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Excellent candidate, but we need some fresh blood. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. oppose seems a bit judgemental or forthright to have the, in my view, need for sensitivity in an arbitrator.Merkinsmum 17:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose Edivorce 18:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Reluctant oppose due to arbcom inactivity. Plus not being on it will give you more time to be featured article director. Wizardman 18:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Too many jobs to juggle. - Mailer Diablo 19:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong Oppose. Extended comment moved to talk page WaltonOne 19:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. I firmly believe that term limits (here or anywhere) exist for a reason, and that as a matter of principle positions of responsibility should pass onto others after a given amount of time. >Radiant< 19:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Kbdank71 20:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose Ripberger 20:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose per Mailer Diablo.--Bedivere 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. AniMate 22:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Bramlet Abercrombie 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    No. Chido6d 22:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret account 03:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Hardyplants 23:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. non-support --Rocksanddirt 00:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. EconomistBR 00:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Too inactive, partisan. Cool Hand Luke 01:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. --arkalochori |talk| 01:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Disturbing tendency to try to vote his political opponents off the island, per THF and Childhoodsend incidents. Groggy Dice T | C 02:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. RxS 03:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Dekimasuよ! 05:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose I like you though. Atropos 05:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose --DHeyward 05:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. kmccoy (talk) 06:21, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Cronholm144 08:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 10:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. John Vandenberg 11:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Good guy, but time to de-concentrate power. --RobthTalk 15:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. An asset to the project in many of his roles, but not the best for ArbCom. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose Great candidate, but already overworked. --Bfigura (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose, too much power. Give up your adminship or featured article directorship.--Nydas(Talk) 16:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Excellent credentials, but has too many hats and not spent enough time in this one. Everyone has been complaining about the inactivity of the current arbcom, so why perpetuate the problem? Give him a break and maybe he will come back keener next time. Gatoclass 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Good guy, overworked. -- SECisek 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Noor Aalam 19:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose as per inactivity concerns and concerns over some dubious admin incidents. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Sorry, but edit warring and blocking IP's you don't agree with is not something I like to see in an arbitrator. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Sorry for opposing, but you need to drop one or two of your other jobs, you're way too overworked--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 21:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. - Zeibura (Talk) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose Noroton (talk) 06:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose --Duke of Duchess Street (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Oppose Ruy Lopez (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Oppose Peter morrell 21:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Very strongly oppose. Per UBeR's very telling diffs, The Evil Spartan, Ryan Postlethwaite, and Fred Bauder... Extended comment moved to talk page Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong oppose. Abuse of power. Exactly the kind of cop you don't want to deal with on the road. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose Andrwsc (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose. While I think it is remarkable that you still want the job (seeing as most people bow out after much less than 3 years), I am concerned that you do not have enough time to devote to ArbCom. I'm also still amazed that Ernest Emerson made it to the front page, and that you defended it. --Fang Aili talk 00:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose, per above concerns. Dreadstar † 01:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Sorry Raul, if I could support any candidate, it would be you. Gentgeen (talk) 03:56, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. SashaNein (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose Alæxis¿question? 09:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Thatcher131 12:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Tintin 12:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose I remember an occasion where you opposed a principle chastising someone for insulting another editor, on the grounds of WP:SPADE, and I don't think that kind of attitude is something an arbcom member should have. Homestarmy (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Raul654&oldid=176192286"