Statement[edit]

I was born in 1950, received a PhD in mathematics in 1980. I live in Cambridge, MA.

I have been a Wikipedian since Jul 2004, and an admin since May 2005. I have over 26,000 edits. I have participated in a wide range of activities on WP. My writing has been mainly in the areas of mathematics and classical history. I have written one FA and contributed to a few others. I'm an active participant in the Mathematics Project. I've performed maintenance and fought vandalism. I'm familiar with the policy and procedures of Wikipedia. I've never opened or been the subject of an RfC or ArbCom case, but I've closely followed and contributed to several.

I care deeply about our encyclopedia.

Since I now have the luxury of no longer needing to work for a living (I married well and invested wisely ;-), Wikipedia has become my life's work. And it is more fulfilling than any work I've done before.

For me, contributing to Wikipedia is a noble act. Knowledge is power. We can all feel justifiably proud that the words we are helping to write, will help to empower untold millions of people, all over the world.

However Wikipedia is not a perfect world. There are plenty of people, who go out of their way to attack and disrupt, more of us need to go out of our way to cherish and support. It is probably not enough for us to simply be polite, reasonable and constructive. We need to do more. We need to actively cultivate, nurture and sustain our fellow editors.

The job of the ArbCom, then, is to serve the writers of the encyclopedia by helping to maintain a positive and productive working environment. This is an important job. I would like to help.

On the other hand, it has not been the ArbCom's job to decide content, nor to write policy, nor to govern. There are those who feel that ArbCom's role should be expanded to include these things. I do not. As a member of ArbCom I would work to keep its power properly circumscribed.

I am cool headed. I can say without exaggeration that I have never typed a word in anger on Wikipedia. Filiocht (perhaps the editor I've most respected and admired) once told me that I was the most considered editor he knew. I think it might have been a polite way of saying I was slow, but I do think before I type. I also consider myself able to be objective and impartial (but then don't we all).

There are several excellent editors volunteering for ArbCom, at least two of whom deserve your vote more than I do, Geogre and UninvitedCompany.

Questions

Support[edit]

  1. Support. Leotolstoy 23:46, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support Jd2718 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support --Salix alba (talk) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Titoxd(?!?) 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TacoDeposit 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. - crz crztalk 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Jaranda wat's sup 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    BhaiSaab talk 00:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alex Bakharev 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Hello32020 01:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Peta 01:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Avi 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Duk 01:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Reflected and mature. Delta Tango • Talk 01:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dr Zak 01:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sarah Ewart 01:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Gracenotes T § 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --RobthTalk 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Geogre 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Never came across this editor (unfortunately), but reading his answers to the copious questions presentedto him, and reviewing his contributions to the the project, makes it very easy to support. Surely he will be an excellent arbiter, as he would like to be called. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. —Mira 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. KPbIC 03:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Massive support. Why? Because he rocks, that's why. Snoutwood (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Yes please. Rebecca 03:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. Crum375 04:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Warofdreams talk 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Terence Ong 04:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support Exceptionally wise candidate. Xoloz 04:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support, a level-headed user, will make a good arbitrator. Lankiveil 04:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  31. Opabinia regalis 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. bainer (talk) 05:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. alteripse 05:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Wholeheartedly. Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support. Peace. --Nielswik(talk) 05:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ATren 05:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. semper fi — Moe 05:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. My strongest support. Paul's answers were well-developed, and well-thought. Even in the cases where I disagree with them, they were reasoned and formed with the interests of the project in mind. Combined with the near-certainty that he will have the time needed to perform the duties of the office, I am hard-pressed to envision a more worthy and appopriate candidate. Serpent's Choice 06:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support. Antandrus (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Bucketsofg 06:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong support Appears incredibly dedicated and non-biased. --Riley 06:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Shanes 06:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Dylan Lake 06:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Nufy8 06:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Carson 06:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. -- Tawker 07:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support Sm1969 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Joe 07:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Clever and diplomatic. Good qualities in any situation, including the ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 08:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support although I sure as hell hope you have the spare time... cause arbcom will take over your life.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 08:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. AniMate 08:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support . Gnangarra 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Catchpole 08:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support. Sensible, calm, experienced editor in all aspects of the encyclopedia. Giano 08:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. — Sebastian (talk) 08:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support. NicM 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  60. – Chacor 09:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support --Van helsing 10:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. cj | talk 10:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. "Admins represent our encyclopedia and need to be held to high standards. Any abuse of admin powers is unacceptable and should be dealt with firmly". Sounds good enough. --Sugaar 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Paul would make a good Arbitrator. Charles Matthews 12:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Excellent reputation, good answers, and by far the best statement I've ever seen. --Alecmconroy 13:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. Eloquent and persuasive candidate statement and answers. --Muchness 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support. Perfect. yandman 13:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. David Underdown 13:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support. This user is modest, mature, level-headed, and honest. Perfect person for the job. --Ben iarwain 13:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support I'm trying to be diligent about making informed decisions, this is the only easy one so far...Dina 13:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Strong Support based on answers to my questions Anomo 13:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Shyam (T/C) 13:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support --CBD 14:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Mackensen (talk) 14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support a safe pair of hands I think. --Mcginnly | Natter 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support--Zleitzen 15:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. W.marsh 16:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Paul August is always cool-headed, very considerate, has a great sense of humor, and cares deeply for Wikipedia. Would make an awesome arbitrator. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support —mh 17:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. AmiDaniel (talk) 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Kusma (討論) 17:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support --lightdarkness (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. SupportCarom 19:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. --Pjacobi 20:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. I like your motives for running. Wikiwoohoo 20:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support Lincher 21:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. What's there not to like? Sandstein 21:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Haukur 21:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. "I told you so" Support. :-). AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (higher proportion of supports than either candidate he endorsed over himself)[reply]
  96. Endorse Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 22:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Rx StrangeLove 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Gurch 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Any candidate who can quote Spinal Tap and still sound erudite has my Support. Risker 23:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Michael Snow 23:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support absolutely. Levelheaded and intelligent. Exactly what we need -- Samir धर्म 00:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Painfully redundant support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support for, apparently, the unity candidate: clearly has support across the entire community, which is a valuable addition to his already fine credentials. Newyorkbrad 00:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Coredesat 01:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-05 02:11Z
    Support he seems to have it together. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yayacaca (talk • contribs)
    • Yayacaca does not have suffrage; he had only 90 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Even though I do agree with your statement that Geogre deserves a seat more than you do ;P (and this should not be read as me making a statement here about Uninvited company, it is just a fact of life that I don't know him such a great a depth as I know Geogre - to be able to make an assesment) -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 05:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support. Silensor 06:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support with no regrets (yet, at least). --210physicq (c) 06:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Beautiful statement. - cohesion 09:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support - didn't know him before this, but am won over by his obvious intelligence, maturity and good sense. Metamagician3000 09:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. —Ruud 10:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. ALoan (Talk) 10:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support ×Meegs 11:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Seems very level headed; and has made lots of very useful edits that I have seen. Grokmoo 13:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support Yanksox 14:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support. While age isn't everything, someone with substantial life experience while also being level headed will be a valuable addition to the committee. - Taxman Talk 15:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support --Coemgenus 16:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. That you are old and able to live without working gives you an edge over the rest of the candidates by providing us some assurance of the stability of your contributions. Good luck! —Goh wz 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support. Definitely. Nishkid64 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Andre (talk) 22:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Not a tough call. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 22:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Definitely support This is the kind of level-headed person who should be in this kind of position. Orlady --orlady 23:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. A quite mature wikipedian. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Very convincing about balance (fairness) as well as tact. Harald88 00:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support. Good luck! — VoxLuna (talk)  00:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support --SteveMcCluskey 05:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. support almost old enough.DGG 07:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support. Everyking 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support Addhoc 11:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. I trust the judgment of this candidate and I like the emphasis on building the encyclopedia. — mark ✎ 16:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Dragomiloff 17:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support Slow but sure. Spartaz 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Sam Korn (smoddy) 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Strong Support. An all-around awesome candidate. My pleasure to support. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Support —Fournax 01:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Get on it. Dfrg.msc 1 . 2 . Editor Review 04:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support. An excellent choice. -lethe talk + 06:49, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. silsor 08:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145.  Sean Lotz  talk  09:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. dab (𒁳) 09:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support. skip (t / c) 09:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support --Folantin 11:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support How could I resist a PhD in maths :-) --Holdenhurst 13:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support Quality candidate. Zeusnoos 14:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support - the ideal candidate - always cool, considerate and sensible.--Aldux 15:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support Leibniz 18:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support --CSTAR 19:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support. Seems qualified. --Danaman5 19:33, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support. --Yono 21:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. "Wikipedia has become my life's work." OK, you got my vote as per the work that you have done and your vision.PEACETalkAbout 01:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support. Perfect. Grace Note 01:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support got the time :) -Kristod (talk) 14:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support Has the time. —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 17:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. BanyanTree 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support; an excellent candidate! Has the right attitude towards the improvement of the project. -/- Warren 22:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support--VirtualDelight 00:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support.--Dakota 03:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Support Canadian-Bacon 07:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support (along with everyone else!) --G Rutter 12:02, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Understands the true role of ArbCom and looks likely to oppose the recent drift into policy making. Alan Pascoe 15:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support. Maturity and financial independence, a great combination.John Foxe 15:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. enochlau (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. --Conti|✉ 01:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. support (after some furrowed-brow reading of stuff like this etc.) Pete.Hurd 07:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Cryptic 12:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support xxpor yo!|see what i've done 15:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, Ioakinf 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Picaroon9288 00:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. older ≠ wiser 03:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Lovelight 15:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support. Paul has consistently appeared courteous and wise to me even though I do not always agree with him. Collaborating with him has been a source of real pleasure to me over the years and I expect him to bring that warmth to ArbCom. —Theo (Talk) 16:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. Jonathunder 18:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support Anyone who can arbitrate decisions regarding Edmund Poor, who I knew in my youth, without being baited into ferocious flamage, deserves support. Fantailfan 03:04, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support 172 | Talk 21:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support GRBerry 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  182. DVD+ R/W 02:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Saravask 04:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support.Katsam 11:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support.Colinsweet 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colinsweet does not have suffrage; he had only 49 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 20:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support, better than many of the other candidates ;-) --Stephan Schulz 20:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Even though I disagree with his view of George as an arbcom member, seems like they would be a great contributor to the arbitration process. Ansell 22:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
  189. Support Wetman 23:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support. - Introvert • ~ 04:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support. Like some of the other editors here, I wasn't familiar with Paul before he announced his candidacy. I read his answers to the questions several times and am convinced that he would do a good job on the arbitration committee. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 05:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support - per above. -- Chris Lester talk 18:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)\[reply]
  193. Support --Macrakis 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support. the wub "?!" 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Derex 00:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Support Susanlesch 07:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support Solid.--Ctatkinson 11:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support! In my opinion, a Wikipedian's primary duty is to edit, and edit well. Paul is a fine editor, with great writing skills, expertise, and the ability to work with other editors so that they like it. Some of the nominees, appear clearly to me to be either inexperienced, have an agenda that comes up while editing, or are always rubbing people the wrong way. Paul has, as far as I know, none of these flaws. --C S (Talk) 13:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Strong Support!--Atlantima 16:56, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support. --Túrelio 22:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support -SpuriousQ 00:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 02:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  204. —Centrx→talk • 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Support --Cactus.man ✍ 09:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Support. Paul August has reasonable chances, but we're not here to ponder that : votes should be innumerable. Why is it only 0,1% of WPians do vote ? -- DLL .. T 12:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. -BiancaOfHell 19:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • BiancaOfHell does not have suffrage; he had only 19 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 21:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  207. Judgement and experience. —Xyrael / 22:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Support - I'm only handing out three votes, all support. A well-rounded candidate who seems suited for the job. Shows an ability to be analytical, and is able to be tactful. Daniel.Bryant [ T · C ] 03:20, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Support Krich (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Support --KSmrqT 05:26, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Support A true encylopediast. We need that. Stirling Newberry 10:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  212. You Don't really need It Support, for a true scholar, gentleman and worthy candidate.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Michaelas10 (Talk) 13:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  214. Support Huldra 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  215. Support Rivertorch 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  216. Support. Michael 20:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  217. Support. HGB 21:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  218. Support Kiwidude 22:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  219. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  220. 'Support For his editing, which shows judgment. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose. Elliptical answers to candidacy questions; arbitrators should be exceptionally concise and straightforward.--ragesoss 09:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Weak oppose. I'm not confident in his judgement of people, and not very familiar with Paul anyway. --Gwern (contribs) 19:19 5 December 2006 (GMT)
  3. At least until he answers Cyde's question. --Ideogram 07:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. It's the answer to AnonEMouse's third question which tipped the balance. Feel free to discuss with me, as I may have misunderstood. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 12:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose worse than Geogre Fred Bauder 14:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose for answers to User:Maclean25. The point of bias is you don't know you are biased, and candidate does not reveal much evidence of taking the issue of voting blocks, or many of the questions, seriously. I appreciate candidate's support of User:UninvitedCompany, but feel it to be in bad taste. My apologies, because in other respects you appear to have the maturity I'd expect of someone on ArbCom. -- Meersan 23:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose per Gwern, Ragesoss and Meersan. 1ne 06:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mexcellent 08:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose From Paul's Q/A, regarding Geogre: "Do I still think he would make an excellent arbiter? Yes.". I see this as a clear demonstration of poor judgment on Paul's part as well as a demonstration that his views align poorly with the community. We all make mistakes, as Paul has here... but I can't support someone who will stick by such mistakes. --Gmaxwell 18:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose --Londoneye 00:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Using your candidate statement to stump for other candidates is bad enough (we're electing single arbiters, not cliques), but it's the one you've picked to endorse that leaves me no choice but to oppose per Greg Maxwell. --Cyde Weys 18:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Judgment. Ral315 (talk) 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Unhappy oppose I think this person would be a good ArbCom member....but there are issues of judgement that make me wonder if this person would recuse when needed in a conflict of personal interest. While I admire loyalty to friends and beliefs, I can't extend that to going over ArbCom's needed requirements.--ElaragirlTalk|Count 15:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose Clique and judgment issues mentioned above Lost Kiwi(talk)22:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose unfamiliarity and lack of articulation with regards to issues surrounding controversies of science and SPOV means I cannot support this candidate. --ScienceApologist 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Although I credit the candidate's honesty in disclosing connections with other candidates, I'm still concerned over the appearance of a potential voting bloc. Gimmetrow 20:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I share Meersan's concerns. theProject 22:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per GMaxwell, if I oppose Geogre, I have no choice but to oppose you as well since you think he's more suitable than you are. Hope you understand. ++Lar: t/c 23:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More