I've been a wikipedian since June 2, 2005, and an administrator since September 6, 2005. I initially wanted to run for arbcom, then decided not to, and now (at the last minute), I've decided to go for it.

I've been around arbcom for a while. I've never been very involved in it, but I helped file the first Ed Poor case, which I withdrew from after mediation. I don't really like the decision they made on that case, since they basically closed the case almost instantly after opening it, and hardly any of the dispute was about his bureaucrat powers. I also was fairly active in the Pigsonthewing case, but I agree with the decisions made there, even though they seem to have failed, at this point.

I have strong opinions on lots of things, and will recuse myself from anything I don't feel I can handle neutrally. I can feel my biases, and have never let them get in the way of editing. Of course, most of my editing is minor anyway...

I think that arbitration should be a relatively quick and straight forward process, but it should never be rushed. I generally do not agree with banning users who regularly contribute to writing an encyclopedia, in the first case they appear in. They should be sanctioned appropriately, depending on what they did, and given a chance to correct their behaviour. If they should show up in another arbcom case in a reasonable time, doing the same thing, stronger sanctions or maybe even a ban should be strongly considered. I especially support bans if the user does not appear to be interested in writing an encyclopedia.

ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always.

-- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. Sceptr e ^{( Talk)} 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support -- Doc ^ask? 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Ambi 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. The Land 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Strong Support-- Sean| Bla ck 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support ➥the Epopt 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Some familiarity with ArbCom helps to make you an excellent candidate. Batmanand 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support - Mark 01:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Moderate Support Me and Phroziac disagree alot, but I've always trusted her. karmafist 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support Rx StrangeLove 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support.-- ragesoss 03:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support Fred Bauder 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support, she's got the right mindset. Matt Yeager 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support Antandrus (talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support. -- maru (talk) Contribs 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support -- novacatz 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Good user. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. android 79 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Chick Bowen 06:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support dedicated and harmonious member of the community. I can see rationality coming through this. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support - Triona 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support. Reasonable, open-minded admin. Exceptional choice. Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support - Nandesuka 08:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support. -- Michalis Famelis 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support -- Ban e s 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support -- Urthogie 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support, a dedicated user and the arbcom could do with some fresh blood. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Raven4x4x 11:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support Bring some fresh blood to Arbcom. -- kingboyk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. — Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Yup. → Fir e Fox 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support Brighterorange 14:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert McClenon ( talk •  contribs) 17:48, January 9, 2006 (UTC). [1]
54. Support. -- Conti| ✉ 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Hey, why not? Does a good job. Mr Spum 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Spum likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

55. Support. Compu ter Jo e 20:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support -- pgk^{( talk)} 20:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support Tedernst | talk 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support Actual human being in Arbcom election shock! Candidate has the sense and sense of humour required for the job; knows their own limitations and doesn't try to hide or excuse them; active and experienced without being swallowed by the system. Seems ideal to me. ➨ ❝ R E DVERS ❞
59. Support: candidate exhibits likeable personality and a firm stance against prolific trolls. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 00:20, Jan. 10, 2006
60. Support. siafu 00:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support per Redvers. I would rather not have an ArbCom made entirely up of people like Phroziac, but diversity is good! ~~ N ( t/ c) 01:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support BenBurch 05:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. Conscious 16:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support, can identify dicks on wikipedia that need circumcision. Something we lacked efficency on the last arbcom team when I had a hearing. I wasnt too satisfied with that one. I am not criticising all past arbcomers, just perhaps a spesific one who knows who he/she is. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 20:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support -- Shinmawa 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support I think you'd do a great job Peregrine _^AY 00:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support. Views on sysops accord excellently with mine. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 01:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support. Although I had reservations, now that I've gotten to see a little of Phroziac I now believe that this user would do a decent job ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 02:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. -- Bhadani 09:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support Knows the process, has the right outlook (imo), will be valuable ArbCom member. -- Alf ^melmac 14:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 14:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support. Statement is good enough :) -- millosh ( talk (sr:)) 15:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support, candidate statement overcomes any inexperience issues I may have had. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Go on then. Hedley 22:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support All in 22:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

77. Support. Bishonen | talk 23:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support. Rangek 02:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. He once commented "I doubt you'd get anywhere banning him, blocking him, or making agreements with him. He's a little...odd." about Wonderfool during his dodgy period. And this is one of the most reasonable comments that was made (my summary of the Wonderfool saga is found here. -Wonderfool -- Nightsleeper 15:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Nightsleeper does not have suffrage; he's a sockpuppet of a user banned by arbcom. -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 16:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

79. Support Jakew 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support - ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always.. I agree. -- NorkNork 21:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support -- Knucmo2 00:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Level-headed guy from what I know of him reply
82. Support ---  Guðsþegn –  U T C E – 05:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support. ～ J. K. 09:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support Definitely. BorgHunter 13:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support Dr. B 17:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support, excellent work. - ulayiti (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Support.-- A dam1213 Talk + 13:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support. ( SEWilco 06:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
89. Support per my support vote for Karmafist. Youngamerican 18:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. liked the statement Derex 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Support good, hard-working editor. -- Pak aran 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support -- Loopy ^e 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support Jacqui ^★ 21:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Support "Common sense should be the biggest thing." I couldn't agree more. Thryduulf 17:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support — appears thoughtful and even-tempered. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Has dealt very well with some extremely taxing eventualities. KrazyCaley 08:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • KrazyCaley does not have suffrage; he registered at 07:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC) and he had no edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Vote withdrawn, just learned of ArbCom voting rules. KrazyCaley 01:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

97. Support'-- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Strongest possible support if it isn't too late for me to vote on this. I was aware that Phroziac was up for a nom, but I'd forgotten. - Lucky 6.9 18:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Everyking 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. #Sadly -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. TacoDeposit 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose -- Angelo 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Tolerance. reply
7. Oppose -- Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Just no. Grace Note 02:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose Phroziac is neither sufficiently mature, introspective nor intellectually honest to be ArbCom. unlike with Karmafist, i do not think she should be desysopped, but Phroziac on ArbCom is a fantastic reach. r b-j 03:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. — Dan | talk 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Bobet 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose 172 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose.Too young, reveals inherent biases. -- Crunch 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose -- Tabor 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose. zen master T 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose experience --- Charles Stewart 08:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose, only a few months experience as a wikipedian, too new for an arbitrator. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose.  Grue  14:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose per frivolously cast votes elsewhere. Tom e r ^talk 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose, too new to the project, and the frivolousness alleged to above worries me. R adiant _>|< 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose, juvenile (and I don't mean age-wise or experience-wise). Proto  t  c 15:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose Xoloz 18:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose . Drdisque 18:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose - sorry, too new. Awolf002 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

30. Splash ^talk 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. Concur with above sentiments. Avriette 23:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Rob Church ^Talk 01:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Too frivolous (continued with silly comments when supporting RfAs after people objected). More seriously, acted as second certifier in an RfC [2] with very poor evidence of having seriously tried to resolve the dispute. [3]. AnnH ^(talk) 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I'd just like to point out that I stopped making those RFA votes a while back... -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 02:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

34. older≠ wiser 02:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose Although courteous when dealing with disputes, Phroziac uses alternative reasons for admin action when she doesn't agree with official Wikipedia policy. This should not happen in Wikipedia, and surely not in something as important as the Arbitration Comittee. -- Holdek ^(talk) 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose per Holdek. Sorry, Phroziac. WikiFanatic 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose, same as above. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in the candidate statement. Fifelfoo 22:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. Arm 05:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. Showed poor judgement in the debate over deleting {{ afd3}} (which is still ongoing).-- Srleffler 06:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose -- 2004-12-29T22:45Z 09:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
47. Oppose KTC 20:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. Supports some of the more questionable parts of the Bill of Rights. -- Carnildo 05:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose-- Goodoldpolonius2 07:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose - too new. Zocky 11:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose I have witnessed him ganging with his friend, and oppose to an Arbcom decision. I don't believe this individual could take a neutral decision. I don't even believe he could fit as the administrator he is. Also, I suspect the individual to consider an arbitrator position as a trophy, just like when he requested Bureaucrat title soon after he was made an administrator. Arbratorship is a very serious position. Fad (ix) 17:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Mmmm. Complaining about peoples comments on an arbitration hearing which levied restrictions on you is kind of odd... People are free to make statements on arbitration pages. Arbitration is a serious business, wikipedia is an anti-elitist society. There are no throphies aside from a well writen encyclopedia which is our goal here. Phroziac is a fine administrator, one of the finest I got to know and I know quite a lot. -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 19:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I have no interest engaging in this sort of worthless discussion Coolcat. I made my point clear, in the discussion page. Fad (ix) 19:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. // paroxysm (n) 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Paroxysm does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

53. Oppose. Don't feel candidate's statement brings anything new or innovative to the ArbCom discussion. Velvetsmog 01:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose -- Nicodemus75 16:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. maclean25 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose - a damn good editor and a brilliant admin, but admits to a lack of experience around arbcom in statement -- Francs 2000 00:23, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Why are there two oppose votes for admiting she might not be so good. The statement made was a good one and I know phroziac meant it. A policy that says being honest is a honest is a bad one and phroziac is being honest -- A dam1213 Talk + 13:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

58. Opppose per vote right above. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose Unexperienced and immature. Thinks, character would be to stick to whatever bias one initially had. Unable to reason for his positions or being convinced by arguments. Dabljuh 17:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    heh, you seriously changed your vote because I refused to argue about a deletion review vote i made on IRC? -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Phroziac vfd is death... :P -- Cool Cat ^{Talk| @} 17:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

60. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 17:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Opppose, reluctantly. With a year's more experience, I'd support. -- William Pietri 01:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose -- Karl Meier 12:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Its good to see you can reconsider but your first action will have the greats effect Gnangarra 14:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Kingturtle 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose Wholly unsuited to adminship, let alone this. Andy Mabbett 21:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Cease making personal attacks. -- Phroziac _. o º ^{O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!)} 00:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    it's not a personal attack. exaggerating a legit opposition and the reason for such into a personal attack is evidence of the lack of intellectual honesty and maturity needed as qualification for the position you seek (and are not qualified for). r b-j 04:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

69. Oppose. Superm401 | Talk 00:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. Preaky 00:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. Replying to the votes not a good sign, methinks. crazyeddie 04:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Seems a little too immature just based comments to voters alone -- Masonpatriot 05:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. Some questionable admin decisions, answers to questions, attitude. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 07:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose - My favorite vandals indeed. :) Samboy 04:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. Pschemp | Talk 07:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose -- SPUI ( talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 23:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose. Sunray 11:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose Alex43223 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose arguing other votes. -- AySz88^ - ^ 23:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose -- concerned about burnout. FreplySpang (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply