Neutral vote below moved from main ArbCom page by Mark ( talk · contribs) as ArbCom elections don't supplement a neutral section; keeping here to preserve transparency.
<start copied section>
Oppose. Though I first thought Univited was a very good candidate, leter I realized he has too extreme blind trust in admins. Justice should not be blind but fair. -- Sugaar 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
<end copied section>
Moved from main page, per Centrx's request about moving long comments. Here's what my comment said (in smaller print, and not numbered, in an effort to conserve space).
I have changed it to Weak Oppose after UC's addressing those concerns on my talk page, which makes me feel better. User_talk:AnonEMouse#Arbcom and transparency. I am still worried somewhat (that's a lot of points on one questions page!), but it is nice that he doesn't shrug off the concerns. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Neutral vote below moved from main ArbCom page by Mark ( talk · contribs) as ArbCom elections don't supplement a neutral section; keeping here to preserve transparency.
<start copied section>
Oppose. Though I first thought Univited was a very good candidate, leter I realized he has too extreme blind trust in admins. Justice should not be blind but fair. -- Sugaar 11:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
<end copied section>
Moved from main page, per Centrx's request about moving long comments. Here's what my comment said (in smaller print, and not numbered, in an effort to conserve space).
I have changed it to Weak Oppose after UC's addressing those concerns on my talk page, which makes me feel better. User_talk:AnonEMouse#Arbcom and transparency. I am still worried somewhat (that's a lot of points on one questions page!), but it is nice that he doesn't shrug off the concerns. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)