Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dmcdevit

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Arbitration Committee's main role is to smooth out disturbances in the community by dealing with problem users. Individual admins, or even many editors, often cannot, (or should not,) legitimately deal with non-vandals who persistently misbehave with any kind of lasting remedies. I think the ability of ArbCom to enforce binding remedies more creative and productive than a standard block is a major part of its success. Solutions like revert or personal attack parole, probation, per article, or topic banning, and other more customized remedies allow users to continue to operate in the community and contribute to the community, while targetting the source of the problem. I would continue to encourage such targetted solutions and view banning as a last resort.

The ideal arbcom decision is the one that benefits our encyclopedia most: by allowing cooperative collaboration to continue, and by retaining the productive editors. I think in order to accomplish this it's important that I have a good sense of both our policies (obviously) and the stance of the community at large. However, I would not feel compelled to defer to policy, but rather, would defer to the best solution. I believe firmly that policies do not govern the encyclopedia, but that our encyclopedia governs the policies. I've acted as mediator several times, and been involved in a few arbitrations as well, as an admin or mediator that dealt with the problem editors (not a party). I also have a thick skin, but I think I'm a pretty non-controversial character. While I did not plan to seek the position, Kelly Martin and Mindspillage suggested I run, and I think I have something to offer. I consider myself extremely open, approachable, and friendly, and I encourage anyone to ask me a question, especially if we haven't met. Dmcdevit·t 23:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support good and fair editor. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. --Doc ask? 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. '--Jaranda wat's sup 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. —Kirill Lok s hin 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Guettarda 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Zora 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Support Really positive statement, really thorough and well thought-out replies to questions. Would be a valuable voice on any future ArbCom. Batmanand 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. First choice. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Sdedeo (tips) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. brenneman (t) (c) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Support.--ragesoss 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support --Angelo 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Raven4x4x 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Support. -- Simesa 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support--Duk 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Shanes 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Support Sounds good. --AySz88^ - ^ 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support Kit 02:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support--Kf4bdy 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support: good contributions and thoughtful answers. Jonathunder 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Support -- Arwel (talk) 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support - right direction - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freakofnurture&action=edit&section=new"}]]}">TALK ) 03:11, Jan. 9, 2006
  33. Support - Banyan Tree 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. --⟳ausa کui ×ばつ 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Support Fred Bauder 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Bobet 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Support for obvious reasons. --Mys e kurity 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support older ≠wiser 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support - per answers to posed questions and contributions history. → P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Support, per Batmanand. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Support per questions. Dave 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Support. FCYTravis 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Support --Crunch 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Support --Spangineer es (háblame) 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Support --Daniel 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. uh-huh' Grutness...wha? 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Support. Good user. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. --best, kevin [kzollman ][talk ] 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Support 172 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Support — Catherine\talk 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Support This editor will be a great addition and real boon to the Arbitration committee. Thoughtful and intelligent. Veritas et utilitas. Hamster Sandwich 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Support – Clockwork Soul 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Support. -- Scott eiπ 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Support. android 79 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Support. · Katefan0 (scribble) /mrp 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Support Yowza, wish I were as thoughtful and mature at 18. —LeFlyman 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Support --Angr (tɔk) 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Support good attitude, reasonable answers, looks like ArbCom material. feydey 06:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Support Charles Stewart 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Support Understands arbitration. Fifelfoo 06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Support. /blahedo (t) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. utcursch | talk 07:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Support. Sensisble, and the answer to Xoloz's IAR question was great. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006年01月09日 08:06Z
  68. Support Dalf | Talk 08:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Support due to those opposing, and general sensibleness. But I am concerned about Ambi's vote... JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Support, very level-headed and suitable for the job. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Support. Trustworthy. — mark ✎ 09:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Support - Physchim62 (talk) 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Support. Lupo 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  74. Support Reasonable answers --kingboyk 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Support - Szvest 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™ reply
  76. Support. Dmc is the most level headed and fair user I've run into on here. He deserves this and he'll use his position well. --Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Support -- excellent judgement Jbetak 11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 11:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Sarah Ewart 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. support: Ombudsman 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Clear as crystal. —Nightstallion (?) 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Support Dan100 (Talk) 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Support Wizzy ...☎ 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Support mostly based on users comprehension of what WP:IAR really means. ALKIVAR TM 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. Support. Dmcdevit is trustworthy and believes in common sense. Thryduulf 12:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Support. Good experiences with DMC, and good judgment shown in answering the Arb questions. R adiant _>|< 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Support. Tom e r talk 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Support - Dmcdevit has shown an alarming amount of common sense and reasonableness. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Meekohi 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Kafziel 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Support The Literate Engineer 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Support Eugene van der Pijll 16:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Weak Support Age and maturity level are concerns, but he is well endorsed and has a good sense of what this job is about. This makes him a better candidate than many older and (theoretically) more mature candidates. --EMS | Talk 17:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Mildly Support, I have some reservations, but let's see what the kid's got - Masonpatriot 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. H e rmione 1980 22:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Support. Seems to have sufficient clue. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Support. I think he knows what he's doing and will do it right to the benefit of users. His platform sounds good and deals with things immediate and long-term. --EuropracBHIT 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC).reply
  101. Support --Pjacobi 22:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Splash talk 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. Support Interesting answer to the IAR question. Smmurphy (Talk) 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Support. Wally 00:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. Support. --Stbalbach 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. support BL kiss the lizard 01:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Support Maltmomma (chat) 03:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Helpful and good contributor. — Sebastian (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. Support. My concerns were mainly centred on one issue, and Dmcdevit has allayed those fears most reasonably. Ambi 08:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. What Ambi said. My interaction with this user has been very positive, and I can think of nothing against him. Go, you frickin' Mindspillage clone! Johnleemk | Talk 08:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. Support. --Carnildo 08:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  118. Support Robdurbar 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Support. Good statement. enochlau (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. Support Septentrionalis 18:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Support; dealings with Dmcdevit have been positive and seems like the right person for the job. Ral315 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Support. Jacoplane 19:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. Seems good. --G Rutter 19:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Answers to questions about "problem users" removed any doubts.reply
  125. Support. maclean25 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Support novacatz 04:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Support Kerowyn 04:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Support KTC 05:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Support One of the first editors to come over and help me out. Knows what he's doing. Kushboy 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Support. --Interiot 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Support--AndriyK 06:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  133. --Bhadani 09:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. Support. Palmiro | Talk 12:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. Support. --Syrthiss 13:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  136. Support. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Support. Andre (talk) 14:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Support: Like his appeal, plus he's running on the suggestion of someone else, rather than just wanting to become an arbitrator (I give him big bonus points there)Dr. B 18:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support: Well written appeal, have noticed work, seems like a good candidate. --IRelayer 19:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Support --Rye1967 21:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Support-Reasonable statement. Sufficient experience. Superm401 | Talk 02:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Over the top emotive language but good candidate Bjrobinson 11:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Support. --Viriditas 11:52, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Support – AB C D e ✉ 18:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. Easy to talk to. Shivraj Singh 18:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Support. Carbonite | Talk 18:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  144. JoaoRicardo talk 20:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  145. Support. Terrific answers, comes highly recommended. --Gmaxwell 00:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  146. Support. Late to the party here but have looked into it and found an impressive body of work and excellent answers. --Wgfinley 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  147. Support. Alphax 12:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  148. Support Tony the Marine 18:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  149. Support -- Francs 2000 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  150. Support Deckiller 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  151. Support Rohirok 02:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  152. Support --Mysidia (talk) 05:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  153. Support. ntennis 07:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Seems to have a balanced understanding of what is needed for Arbcom. --Omniwolf 18:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  155. Support --nixie 01:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  156. Support. His position on wheel warring impressed me. Nandesuka 03:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  157. Support per answers. Youngamerican 14:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  158. Support. --moof 20:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  159. support William M. Connolley 23:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  160. Support - Taxman Talk 14:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  161. Support - As I feel that I should vote, and this name rings the most of a bell. --Dangherous 16:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  162. Support - kaal 16:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  163. Strong pragmatic view of how Wikipedia should function. Probably my favourite candidate so far. Ingoolemo talk 18:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  164. Support - Samboy 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  165. Support -Hoekenheef 12:03, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  166. Support Dannycas 00:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  167. Support Pete.Hurd 05:35, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  168. Support. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Freakofnurture&amp;action=edit&amp;section=new"}]]}">TALK ) 05:40, Jan. 19, 2006
  169. Support. Appears sensible and thoughtful, with a good sense of balance. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  170. Support. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 04:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  171. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 18:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Nortonew 02:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  172. support. --Irpen 02:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  173. support. Pschemp | Talk 07:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  174. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support. Kolokol 02:13, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  175. Support -- DS1953 talk 19:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  176. Support - seems dedicated to the project, intelligent and fair-minded. --Spondoolicks 20:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  177. Support - Everything looks good. Lee S. Svoboda tɑk 21:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. – ugen64 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. —Guan aco 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Oppose. Not another arbiter who thinks that he's in the job to deal with "problem users", rather than arbitrate disputes! Deciding the case before hearing it should not be supported. Grace Note 03:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Strong Oppose bans users when he feels like it, ignores and distorts facts, and then tries to intimidate users. freestylefrappe 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose. per Ambi. ObsidianOrder 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. Confrontational and exponentially biased. zen master T 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Oppose per questions. Grue 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. Oppose. Focuses on the problem loses sight of the goal. Unpersuasive arguments - appears to be grandstanding. Benjamin Gatti 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Oppose. siafu 06:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose on the above grounds. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose same as stated above Davidpdx 12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose per statement and questions. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose - you're not here to deal with problem users. Problem users can be blocked. The ArbCom is to deal with borderline cases. The fact that Dmcdevit views people whose cases are submitted to the ArbCom as 'problem users' makes me question the user's judgement and sight of the goal of the Arbitration Committee - it's not the Punishment Committee. Proto t c 15:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose. Attitude. - Xed 20:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Oppose. --HK 22:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose. Disagree strongly. Avriette 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose I'm not at all pleased with the broad classification of users as either "problem users" or "productive editors". Problem users frequently are productive editors who happen to have a problem. Un focused 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Earlier, I mistook this user for another and withdraw my opposition, however, I stand behind the comment attached. Un focused 05:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Rob Church Talk 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose. uriah923 (talk) 18:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose, concerned about attitude. HGB 18:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Opposequestions--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose. I don't feel like the candidate understands the function of ArbCom. Velvetsmog 21:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose Timrollpickering 02:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose did not like resaponse to anarchism question. Harrypotter 18:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose --Ignignot 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose Sunray 09:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose. Preaky 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose. Self-admittedly edits in such a way that people see him as having strong political views, and refuses to recuse himself when issues centred on those subjects arise. This is not appropriate. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. oppose Kingturtle 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. oppose Itake 23:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. opposeevrik 16:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC) My dealings with the candidate have found user to have an itchy trigger finger.reply
  37. oppose But... policies are good... - JustinWick
  38. Oppose don't like his tone. (Bjorn Tipling 06:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC))reply
  39. Oppose CDThieme 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Neutrality talk 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Neutral/leaning to oppose --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Neutral Can't really tell what he has to offer. Alex43223 01:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /