Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Phroziac

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Phroziac

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.

--

♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 20:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
]

Questions

Support

  1. e (Talk) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. Support --
    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. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Strong Support--
    Black 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. Fair use policy 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  26. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support. --
    (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. android79 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.
    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 -- Banes 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 --
    Talk 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. —Nightstallion (?) 12:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Yup. →
    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.
    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. --
    ✉ 18:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Support. Hey, why not? Does a good job.
    Mr Spum 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  55. Support.
    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. ➨
    DVERS❞
  59. Support: candidate exhibits likeable personality and a firm stance against prolific trolls. —
    FREAK OF NURxTURE (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 CatTalk|@ 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
    PeregrineAY 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]
  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. --
    ♥♥♥♥ 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 ---
    TCE – 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.--Adam1213 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. -- Pakaran 22:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support --
    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]
  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]

Oppose

  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 Lokshin 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. -- Rune 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. Tomertalk 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose, too new to the project, and the frivolousness alleged to above worries me. Radiant_>|< 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose, juvenile (and I don't mean age-wise or experience-wise).
    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. Splashtalk 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... --
    ♥♥♥♥ 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 CatTalk|@ 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]
  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 --
    Francs2000 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 --Adam1213 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? --
    ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 17:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Phroziac vfd is death... :P --Cool CatTalk|@ 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. --
    ♥♥♥♥ 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.
    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. Bratschetalk | 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Phroziac&oldid=1089569151"