Revision as of 02:31, 15 January 2006 view source*drew (talk | contribs)14,485 edits →Support← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:27, 15 January 2006 view source Cryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,563 editsm →Oppose: fmtNext edit → | ||
Line 226: | Line 226: | ||
#'''Oppose.''' --] 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose.''' --] 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose.''' much too immature for any position above normal Wikipedian status -- ] 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose.''' much too immature for any position above normal Wikipedian status -- ] 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#<s>'''Oppose''' Not favorable towards his statement. It's not what he said, it's how he said it.] 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)</s>After reviewing the statement again, I am changeing my vote to Neutral ] 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #:<s>'''Oppose''' Not favorable towards his statement. It's not what he said, it's how he said it.] 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)</s>After reviewing the statement again, I am changeing my vote to Neutral ] 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose''', too much controversy -- ] ] 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose''', too much controversy -- ] ] 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
#'''Oppose'''. --] 18:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC) | #'''Oppose'''. --] 18:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:27, 15 January 2006
Sam Spade
My experience is extensive, I have handled more cases before the ArbCom than I can easilly remember, all but one decisively successful, and I mediate contentious pages on a daily basis.
I oppose the ArbCom deciding based on its own precedent, and favor rather an interpretation of wikipedia:policy most effective in producing and sustaining an encyclopedia and its editorial staff.
I will be especially severe with administrators who violate policy, misuse their status, and disgrace their office. I will be particularly leniant with new users who clearly mean well, and I am particularly inclined to allow experienced users to act as mentors in such cases.
Rather than thinking of myself as a judge determining guilt and punishment, I will adjudicate based on the needs of the encyclopedia, mindful of the mechanics of Group dynamics and behavior modification.
Support
- Haukur 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- BorgQueen 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- – ugen64 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- SqueakBox 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Suuport. KHM03 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. A human being with human faults, opinionated, but I've always seem him make the best effort to be fair. --DanielCD 01:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support May be a bit impulsive at times but his heart is in the right place. Haiduc 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Your ideas about recusal are some of the most sensible things said here for a while. Even though, according to your biases, I disagree with you on pretty much everything, I still think you would make a good ArbCom member. Batmanand 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. -- Миборовский 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Staffelde 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. View of IAR made me fall in almost love with him. Xoloz 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--ragesoss 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I like his policy platform, and I think that WP:IAR has gotten way out of hand recently, especially with regard to the user box fiasco (which I deliberately tried to stay out of). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I belive on him. He is so open minded, and never narrow, i am sure Misplaced Pages will surely be safe on his hands. HappyApple 04:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support kinda crazy and biased, but for some reason i think he'll make an excellent arbcom member- Sam looks out for the little guy. --Heah 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Very intelligent and does not let dogma restrict his thinking. RJII 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Justforasecond 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Justforasecond 05:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support has some interesting views. Grue 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. -- 上村七美 09:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support.--Alabamaboy 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Buridan 16:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Gryffindor 16:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I'm confident SS would be a very thorough case reviewer. BDAbramson T 17:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support.Agree with all above, and I have no experience of that below.EffK 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- EffK likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 08:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support.Agree with all above, and I have no experience of that below.EffK 18:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support.Dunemaire 18:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support DTC 18:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Sam has shown unswerving commitment to the ideals of Misplaced Pages. --HK 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Based on my experience in working with Sam or Human ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Good Misplaced Pages citizen. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Very helpful. Rkevins82 02:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support for policy. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support: Very levelheaded. — Sebastian (talk) 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support 'es got a level head on is houlders., longf as he keeps his coolGimmiet 06:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. I'm going to extend an olive branch here, and say that Mr. Spade is "being bold", and consistently (in)sane in his actions. We don't necessarily agree, but I like consistency and sticking to principle. Really the hardest vote I've cast yet. Avriette 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. He welcomed me to the wikipedia one year ago and I was watching him for some time what helped me understand it better. I agree with his platform and I liked how he answered the questions. Ben /C 09:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Ben 10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support SchmuckyTheCat 11:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support, as Heah. It's is not a genitive 13:41, 10 January 2006.
- Strong Support Great user that dereved to be an arbitrator since long. --Neigel von Teighen 13:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support: a candidate with a vision. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 20:31, Jan. 10, 2006
- Strong support When there is a person who has no or little experience, you vote "oppose". When there is a person who has extensive experience, you vote "oppose", quarrelsome or not. I give up. I simply don't understand you people. --Thorri 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support wholeheartedly. Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Support I rather like the idea of decisions based upon sustaining an encyclopedia rather than precedent. Also, I have found Sam to be a good Wikipedian, and note that most of the oppose votes below are on merely ideological grounds.Vonspringer 23:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)- User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, I was unaware of the 150 edit rule and withdraw my vote. However, if anyone else wants to consider my reasons when deciding their own votes, be my guest.Vonspringer 02:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- User has less than 150 edits and probably doesn't have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support Morris 03:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Corax 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Lawrence King 08:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support--A Y Arktos 20:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support, very experienced. — Ian Manka 23:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support--Mceder 03:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support I do not agree with this user's politics, but he has been an effective thorn in the side of the Synarchist faction which controls key articles on Misplaced Pages, the Chip Berlet-Jeremy Shapiro-Adam Carr-White Dawg axis and their cronies 172, SlimVirgin, willmcw, and Snowspinner. We need more fighters like this on arbcom. Cognition 04:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a balanced human being. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Shivraj Singh does not have suffrage; he registered at 00:57, 27 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Seems like a balanced human being. Shivraj Singh 18:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- nae'blis (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support - good policy. --NorkNork 21:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support - especially like the statement. keith 03:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wootonius 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Wootonius does not have suffrage. Only 18 edits before January 9, 2006. — TheKMan 06:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support --Wootonius 06:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support -- Davidpdx 12:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support - I tend not to agree a lot with him, but he is far from Vindictive, and would should be on the Committee --Irishpunktom\ 12:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. We could use a maverick on Arbcom. I'm not a big fan of Sam Spade but I think he would provided a much-needed differing perspective to the rest of the committee. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 23:01, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. maclean25 00:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Velvetsmog 01:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Lawyer2b 05:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Support → Pádraic MacUidhir (t) (c) 08:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. User:Noisy | Talk 13:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Support. Juan Ponderas
- Support. *drew 02:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose
- Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Utmost oppose. Ambi 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Zach 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Cryptic (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Antandrus (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- —Kirill Lokshin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- – Quadell 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Absolutely not.--Sean|Black 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --GraemeL 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Nunh-huh 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. User:Zoe| 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- --Jaranda 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- --nixie 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- No --Doc 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - IAR is not a joke. Bensaccount 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Duk 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose no way --Angelo 01:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - absolutely not. -- Arwel (talk) 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think not. Johnleemk | Talk 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)- Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:31, Jan. 9, 2006
- Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Fred Bauder 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Don't trust his judgment. Calton | Talk 03:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: nothing personal, just not right for this role. Jonathunder 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Ambi and Calton. 172 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Never ever, not in a million years. Sam Spade is the longest-running and most successful (in terms of the amount of other people's time wasted) of the legion of Misplaced Pages trolls. Should have been hard-banned ages ago. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose strongly. Rhobite 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose freestylefrappe 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Bobet 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose based on questions and temperament. ←Hob 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Daniel 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. RadicalSubversiv E 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Too divisive. Kaldari 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration.Fifelfoo 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Unsuited for arbitration. We need someone with a milder temperament in AC. An An 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Crunch 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. android79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Ambi.--cj | talk 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose I've heard too many things about this user that I do not think will be characteristic of a good arbitrator. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant (Be eudaimonic!) 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Definitely not a troll, but too controversial for an Arbie. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. — Catherine\ 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think he's got ArbCom potential, but I'd like to see some months of admin experience under his belt before. I opposed his last RfA, I'd support it now. --- Charles Stewart 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. — mark ✎ 08:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose no way. Because of recent RFC behaviour, and this ridiculous demand: . Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose . — Rama 09:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Biased, too involved with too many other disputes, would be too distrusted. Axon (talk|contribs) 10:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose From his POV-pushing on controversial topics without even an attempt at NPOV, can only imagine things would be much worse on ArbCom. DreamGuy 10:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. You have to be kidding. He's basically anti-arbcom. No. --Woohookitty 11:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose: Kind of a Pat Paulson candidacy, really, given his behavior. Geogre 11:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose policy and track record --kingboyk 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Xtra 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose David.Monniaux 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose has not handeled disputes well outside of arbcom.--Bkwillwm 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose would be one of my nightmare trifecta (EK,KM,SS) on arbcom. ALKIVAR™ 13:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose no way.— Dunc|☺ 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Supercallifragilistic Oppose per Duncharris. Tomer 14:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, too abrasive. Radiant_>|< 14:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose (vote given by Markalexander100 (talk · contribs) -EnSamulili)
- oppose EnSamulili 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Cberlet 16:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Sebastian Kessel 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. History of POV-pushing. -- Rbellin|Talk 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Uh, remember you from some articles where you where highly POV and pushy. Foant 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, per most of the points above.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Ferkelparade π 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose quarrelsome. Robert McClenon 18:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose IZAK 18:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Wikimol 18:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Garion1000 (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose --Goodoldpolonius2 20:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Exploding Boy 21:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Jim62sch 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)- Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Gamaliel 21:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. —Quarl 2006-01-09 22:25Z
- Oppose --Pjacobi 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Splash 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Dear God do I STRONGLY OPPOSE. Utterly untrustworthy in every respect. Misplaced Pages is poorer for him exerting the powers of a user; for him to be given the authority of ArbCom is simply a sickening joke. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose -- Krash 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Ghirla | talk 00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Sam generally finds something to stand against no matter where he is - and so do I. Wally 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Saravask 01:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Rob Church 01:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Raven4x4x 01:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- older≠wiser 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose --Irpen 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose Olorin28 03:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- oppose - behaviour modification? group dynamics? Judge based on the encyclopedia's needs rather than some principle such as Justice? Sorry. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Oppose per Fennec. WikiFanatic 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Delirium 10:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - in memory of FuelWagon and Uncle Ed--ghost 15:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - have seen some POV edits on the part of this user. --Pierremenard 17:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose — no sense of neutrality, objectivity, or justice (or, indeed, honesty), and a long history of edit-warring, PoV-pushing, and vendetta-pursuing. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - crossed swords with him one too many times in an edit war. Means well, but aren't up to the job.--Fangz 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, too anti-establishment to function as an arbitrator. HGB 19:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Nice guy; he welcomed me, but on the whole I think not. Septentrionalis 19:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose for the obvious reasons. Although I do give him some credit for actually standing given the inevitable outcome. Rje 19:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lincher 20:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose Oskar 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Long history of controversy. JFW | T@lk 21:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, but kudos to Sam for standing. -- Solipsist 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Supports the Bill of Rights. --Carnildo 22:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. His edits and boldness are much appreciated but I worry about his character in an ArbCom role (see some minor personal attacks: and ). --Ds13 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. A good editor, but his bold personality would probably not be good for an AbCom member. -SocratesJedi | Talk 00:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. siafu 04:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Arm 05:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Ultra strong POV Sunray 08:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Woggly 08:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. "My way or the highway" attitude would not be useful.--Primalchaos 11:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Not right for this role.--JK the unwise 12:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Andre (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. CG 15:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. – BCorr|Брайен 17:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Strong oppose btw. Another axe-grinder. Sjc 05:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose (weak) -- has tried to "claim" some pages in the past. Please don't take this personally. Ashibaka tock 18:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Peter 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Viriditas 00:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. much too immature for any position above normal Wikipedian status -- LGagnon 04:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Oppose Not favorable towards his statement. It's not what he said, it's how he said it.Dr. B 17:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)After reviewing the statement again, I am changeing my vote to Neutral Dr. B 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose, too much controversy -- Francs2000 00:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. --Optichan 18:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. Mrfixter 19:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose - he defends racists -- max rspct leave a message 22:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. record of decisions/positions does not inspire my trust --JWSchmidt 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose. why? ++Lar: t/c 02:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral
- weak neutral per Haiduc: His heart is in the right place, but may be a bit impulsive at times. dab (ᛏ) 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
- Neutral: Changed from Oppose. Dr. B 22:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)