I'm changing my candidate statement (the original can be found on the
questions page). No-one said that I couldn't, and several have stated that I should. :-P I'd prefer to be a quiet fellow who doesn't want to be noticed too much, but on the other hand, I do want to pass the election.
You're probably wondering if you know me. In a sense, you probably do. If you're new to wikipedia this year, you were probably welcomed, and pointed to the
Simplified ruleset,
Policy trifecta or
Five pillars as your first introduction to the wiki. I started the simplified ruleset project, so that people joining wouldn't be utterly lost in the now truly byzantine body of rules we have on wikipedia. Welcome! :-)
But you're probably wondering why I'm applying for the arbitration committee today:
Early this year, the mediation committee basically just stopped working. If you look at how
wikipedia dispute resolution is organised and see how
arbitration policy is laid out, you'll see that one of the tasks of mediation is to act as a gateway to the arbitration committee. Without a mediation committee to mitigate their workload, the arbitrators started burning out, one after the other.
What I did this year is to rapidly set up the
Mediation cabal, as a stopgap measure to shore up mediation. It wasn't 'till much later that someone finally managed to restart the mediation committee, but until that time the mediation cabal held the line. Today it still exists for when you want to solve some small dispute.
So in summary, I've been helping out people on wikipedia, and making sure that there was an environment there for them that was conducive to the writing of an encyclopedia in peace and quiet.
If you're an administrator, you get extra buttons to help you sort out problems. In the mediation cabal, you have to find your own diffs, interview people, do your detective work, advocate both sides at once, all while not trying to look TOO crosseyed, and then decide what you need to do, and then figure out ways to carry it out. On the arbitration committee, you get Infrastructure. You don't get yet even more buttons, but rather more organisation. It allows you to work on actually figuring out what to do about a situation, with a lot of the distractions taken away. So I'd still be doing what I've always been doing, but I'd be able to do it a lot more effectively.
Can you help me achieve that?
Questions
- Support.
David |
explanation |
Talk
00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Guettarda
00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Sean|
Bla
ck
00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- –
ugen64
00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Jaranda
wat's sup
00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Ambi
00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. An ingenious, practical fellow; I owe the conception of the
Medcab to him. --
NicholasTurnbull |
(talk)
00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Cryptic
(talk)
00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
The Land
00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Sdedeo (
tips)
00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Antandrus
(talk)
00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
➥the Epopt
00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Tony Sidaway|
Talk
01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Quite a reasonable person in my experience.
WhiteNight
T |
@ |
C
01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
TacoDeposit
01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support has done more in regards to trying to fix our policies than anyone. We desperately need the efforts of people like Kim.
karmafist
01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support —
Bunchofgrapes (
talk)
01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support we need a med cabalist on Arbcom! --
Wgfinley
02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
rspeer /
ɹəədsɹ
02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.--
ragesoss
02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support in the strongest possible way. Will moderate some of the more aggressive arbiter voices, one hopes.
Grace Note
02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Only positive experiences with this user. —
0918
BRIAN • 2006-01-9 02:48
-
King of All the Franks
03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Sarah Ewart
03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Fred Bauder
03:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support Especially for his keen understanding of
WP:IAR.
kmccoy
(talk)
04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- —
Charles P.
(Mirv)
04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Zach
(Smack Back)
Fair use policy
04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- uh-huh
Grutness...
wha?
04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
maru
(talk)
Contribs
04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Experienced. Insightful positions. Bold, but temperate enough to be effective (far more so than I in any case :) ). --
Gmaxwell
05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Bobet
05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Christopher Parham
(talk)
05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support I implicitly trust him and his judgement to be fair and reasoned.--
Tznkai
06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support —
Catherine\
talk
06:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, despite concerns about his IAR's stance, he is capable of reasoning.
Sam Spade
06:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong Support —
Locke Cole •
t •
c
07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. -
Tim Rhymeless
(Er...let's shimmy)
07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
siafu
08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - skilled at the craft of resolving conflict ---
Charles Stewart
09:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Kefalonia
09:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Viriditas
10:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, level-headed and has the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart.
Dan100 (
Talk)
11:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, as Jmaxwell. --
It's-is-not-a-genitive
11:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Moderate voice. —
Nightstallion
(?)
12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Wizzy…
☎
12:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Thanks,
Luc "Somethingorother" French
13:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
KillerChihuahua
?!?
13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, good grasp of the spirit of things.
R
adiant
_>|<
13:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Trifon Triantafillidis
13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, experienced and sensible.
Proto
t
c
15:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Habap
15:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Sorry Kim - I like you, but not enough to vote against you.
Phil Sandifer
16:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. In my experience, a calm and wise voice. —
goethean
ॐ
17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support --
metta,
The Sunborn
19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Jim62sch
21:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Good answers to questions, seems to be an excellent addition to the committee. Especially appreciate the realizing that ArbCom will be a full-time job and crowd out most other WP activity. We need someone that dedicated.
Turnstep
22:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Rangek
23:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Wally
00:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Rayc
02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Salsb
02:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support All who encounter ArbCom will benefit from his calm and rational style.
Un
focused
05:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Fire Star
07:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
GerardM
08:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Willmcw/
user:Will Beback/
10:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)
15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Rje
17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Always seems to be acting in the best interests of Wikipedia.
howch
e
ng {
chat}
18:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Ucucha
(talk)
19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Jacoplane
19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Een Hollandse bioloog-computermuis! Good community knowledge, very much an ideal ArbComm candidate.
JFW |
T@lk
21:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. On the basis of prior service demonstrated, indicated potential to arbitrate.
Fifelfoo
23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Ian Manka
Questions? Talk to me!
23:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Very well answered questions
Thryduulf
00:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Dr. Cash
01:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. -
Vsmith
01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support --
Carnildo
10:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support--
R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)
11:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Andre (
talk)
14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- - Vote Signed By:
Chazz- Place comments
here
- Support Experienced and civil.
Zocky
11:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Robdurbar
12:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Fad
(ix)
18:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support –
AB
C
D
e
✉
18:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
the wub
"?!"
RFR - a good idea?
19:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, seems to have taken concerns from the oppose side to heart, good experience. --
nae'blis
(talk)
20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Best statement I've read so far. Seems to really get the structure of conflict resolution.
Velvetsmog
21:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- support
William M. Connolley
23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
ntennis
03:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support with some misgivings. Hope Kim mellows a bit more.
Why? ++
Lar:
t/
c
03:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support Reason: his opposition to the way the ArbCom is conducted.
ObsidianOrder
10:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Alphax
13:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support based on altered statement.
Tom
e
r
talk
15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support, has some prior experience of process, a trustworthy user --
Francs
2000
00:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- support
iMb~
Meow
07:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
dcabrilo
10:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Experience in dispute resolution. ~
J.
K.
06:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Neutrality
talk
15:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Superm401 |
Talk
21:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support good experience with dispute resolution.
Borisblue
23:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
crazyeddie
03:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Masonpatriot
04:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support - particularly after I spent six months trying to convince him to run! -
David Gerard
16:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. No red flags here.
Youngamerican
16:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. —
Lowellian (
reply)
18:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
sannse
(talk)
19:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support A Heart of Gold.
Cimon avaro; on a pogostick.
02:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support —
Phil |
Talk
10:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support -
kaal
17:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support -
Homey
02:59, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
Gentgeen
18:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Jared
20:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support --
Loopy
e
05:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Just don't let it take up too much of your time! --
NGerda
06:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. votes for Wikipedians --
JWSchmidt
03:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Bratsche
talk |
Esperanza
05:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. Appears to have a good mind and a good heart. —
Josiah Rowe (
talk •
contribs)
07:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]]
19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support --
W.marsh
03:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support I like his answers. --
AySz88^
-
^
03:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
Jtkiefer
T |
C |
@ ----
05:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- support seems to have good understanding of what's needed; seems to put forward direct solutions in a humble manner.
Mozzerati
08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
dave souza
09:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
‣ᓛᖁ
ᑐ
16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support. --
Angr (
tɔk)
17:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support per IRC.
Ashibaka
tock
21:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support Simplified ruleset is a big plus.
Lee S. Svoboda
tɑk
21:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support.
+sj
+
22:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Support
CDThieme
23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Michael Snow
00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- —
Kirill Lok
s
hin
00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, questions. See my
voting rationale.
Talrias (
t |
e |
c)
00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
GraemeL
(talk)
00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Owen×
☎
00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
brenneman
(t)
(c)
00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Recently inactive and concerned about incivility.
Dmcdevit·
t
00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Questions were not to my liking.
Batmanand
00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Raven4x4x
00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. —
David Levy
00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Weak oppose per questions. --
Angelo
01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Jeffrey O. Gustafson -
Shazaam! -
<*>
01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Unfortunately, the issue over Hamster Sandwich's RfA did not leave you sitting in too good a light with me. I admire your persistance and all, but your attitude in the matter is not what I would prefer to see in an Arbitrator. --
Vortex
02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Failed to address my question.
Xoloz
02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Rob Church
Talk
03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - Too confrontational.
Paul August
☎
03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Wile E. Heresiarch
04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
172
04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- —
Dan |
talk
04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Dottore So
04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Crunch
04:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
freestylefrappe
04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose as per
Paul August,
Vortex,
Dmcdevit. My personal experience with Kim has been less than pleasant. No confidence that he can retain the detachment that is necessary for arbitration duties.
Hamster Sandwich
05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
android
79
06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose Based solely on a lack of platform.
Netkinetic
06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Grue
06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Excellent admin, but I feel he's a little controversial for an arbitrator.
Sjakkalle
(Check!)
07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Questionable behaviour. --
Blu Aardvark |
(talk) |
(contribs)
08:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Sometimes tends to make short, confusing remarks rather than explain views, a bad trait for an arbitrator. Too quick to change policy pages before seeking consensus. --
SCZenz
10:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose: Six months ago, I might have supported, but, recently, I've known Kim to take stances on the activism of ArbCom that I simply can't pass over in silence.
Geogre
11:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Finlay McWalter |
Talk
12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, questions --
kingboyk
12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose sorry but I must oppose.
ALKIVAR
™
13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
very weak mild oppose per GraceNote and SamSpade.
Tom
e
r
talk 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) changing my vote.
Tom
e
r
talk
15:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, for bizarre proposals such as changing the 3RR to permit three reverts per person reverting. Basically, if B and C revert A's edits, A could revert B's edits three times and could revert C's edits three times.
Carbonite |
Talk
13:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - Broad disagreement with the candidate's philosophy, as exemplified by
[1].
Ξxtreme Unction|
yakkity yak
14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
DES
(talk)
15:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. Sloppily written statement, unimpressive answers to the questions. Kim, you can do better than that!—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my vote to "support" now the statement is re-written.—
Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis)
15:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Eugene van der Pijll
17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Doc
ask?
20:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose after the CSD debacle. -
SoM
21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose I like Kim, but a better mediator than an arbitrator, I think. —
Matthew Brown (
T:
C)
22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
HK
22:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- An extraordinarily good mediator does not necessarily a good arbitrator make. -
Splash
talk
23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. Confrontational.
Avriette
23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Weak oppose. No clear position, seems to have a lackadaisical attitude towards this process. ~~
N (
t/
c)
01:14, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- weak oppose
older≠
wiser
02:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose : I cannot support anyone that makes comments such as, "I may want to help out with arbitration too." This statement is too, "wishy-washy." Either you really want to participate in ArbCom, or you don't. "I may want to,..." just doesn't cut it for me. Change vote to support based on the changes to the candidate statement.
Dr. Cash
05:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Gazpacho
08:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
E Pluribus Anthony |
talk |
12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. —
Asbestos |
Talk
(RFC)
16:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose. The statement just doesn't sell it for me, given the high burnout rate of arbitrators I cannot support someone who does not appear to be too committed to the position.
Rje 17:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) This comment refers to the original statement, I am moving my vote to support.
Rje
17:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
Mel Etitis (
Μελ Ετητης)
17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Bensaccount
17:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose per Nickptar --
EMS |
Talk
18:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oppose, candidate statement makes case for being on medcom rather than being an arbitrator.
HGB 18:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) I don't want to penalize him for being involved w/medcom, abstain for now.
HGB
23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Ral315
(talk)
19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, reluctantly. Too many dubious AfD decisions.
Septentrionalis
19:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, too much in favor of IAR-type ideas. —
Simetrical (
talk •
contribs)
00:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) -
Mailer Diablo
01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
enochlau (
talk)
05:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Arm
05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. --
Masssiveego
07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
2004-12-29T22:45Z
09:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose —
Laura Scudder
☎
16:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Weak oppose
KTC
19:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Dr. B
21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose - weak statement. --
NorkNork
20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Davidpdx
13:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose --
Adrian Buehlmann
18:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
maclean25
23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose, sorry. -
ulayiti
(talk)
13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose.
Mrfixter
20:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- --
Boothy443 |
trácht ar
05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose. But please do fix Mediation because a lot is broken. (
SEWilco
06:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC))
reply
- Oppose.
Preaky
07:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Strong oppose. Several important questions (see the questions link above) were evaded, in particular those about neutrality, causing me great concern. Prior editing that only supported a minority viewpoint,
creationism, rather than also including serious criticisms of it, adds to this concern, as does trying to get the
Evolution article removed from front page display (FAC). --
Victim of signature fascism |
help remove biblecruft
18:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- oppose
Kingturtle
20:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- oppose did not answer some questions
Daniel Quinlan
22:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Robert McClenon
23:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
-
Oppose
Flcelloguy (
A note?)
01:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose reluctantly. I like Kim a lot but his behavior over Hamster Sandwich's RFA was too much.
FreplySpang
(talk)
17:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
FeloniousMonk
18:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
- Oppose
Alex43223
19:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
reply