I'm here to be of service, as I was when I ran last time. I've been an editor since September of 2004 and an admin since November of that year. I feel I am particularly suited for participation on the Arbitration Committee due to my experience here, as well as my many years of experience with online community, first as sysop of my own BBS, and later as moderator of several high-traffic, high-profile conferences on The WELL. My strongest point, I think, is my ability to make impartial analyses of complicated situations; though I certainly have strong opinions in some areas, I'm able to set those opinions aside to work to help find solutions to human problems. I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.

Questions

1. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- AuburnPilot^talk 00:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
3. Support, has demonstrated broad community involvement, thorough understanding of policy, trustworthiness, & wise, mature, consistent, fair behavior in dealing w/others. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong, per answers to questions. --Coredesat 00:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. - crz crztalk 00:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   BhaiSaab ^talk 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   This user is banned. --Srikeit 08:52, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

7. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Hello32020 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Peta 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Duk 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. SuperMachine 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Patchouli 01:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Geogre 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. KPbIC 02:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support. Jd2718 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. —Mira 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. Very fair and reasonable, and has lots of editing experience in difficult areas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Alex Bakharev 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Warofdreams talk 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Crum375 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Terence Ong 04:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support as last year. Excellent judgment; calm temperment. Xoloz 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Rebecca 04:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. THB 05:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. semper fi — Moe 05:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
32. Certainly. Serpent's Choice 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Dylan Lake 05:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Absolutely. Antandrus (talk) 05:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Nufy8 05:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support Bucketsofg 06:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. From one old WELL guy to another, good luck. --BenBurch 06:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Shanes 06:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. -- Tawker 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Probably ought to have been appointed one year ago; surely ought to be appointed now [to the extent that my support could be stronger, his promising to place ironically and interestingly at least once in every ArbCom decision would garner such support :)]. Joe 07:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. —Viriditas | Talk 07:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support -- Mytwocents 07:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. 6SJ7 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. good guy ... great candidate.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Davewild 08:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Dr Debug (Talk) 08:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Ideal candidate --Zleitzen 08:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support - A fine, level-headed editor. okedem 09:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. – Chacor 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. cj | talk 09:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Good luck. -- Szvest Ω ^{Wiki Me Up ®} 10:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. Shyam ^(T/C) 13:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support --CBD 14:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support Fred Bauder 14:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Mackensen (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Tewfik^Talk 15:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Kari Hazzard (T | C) 18:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support IronDuke 18:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support BruceHallman 20:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support--Releeshan 20:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support --Duke of Duchess Street 20:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support Good answers to my questions, especially 1.AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support LordHarris 22:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Support Guettarda 22:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support --CComMack (t–c) 22:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Michael Snow 23:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - well qualified, experienced, dedicated editor and administrator. Newyorkbrad 01:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support. Friday (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-12-05 02:09Z
79. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Chick Bowen 05:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Aminz 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. I've known Jpgordon since he was a newish user, and I've always known him to be patient, reasonable, and fair. – ClockworkSoul 07:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong support 172 | Talk 09:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support Jpeob 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support--Isotope23 15:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support. --Muchness 15:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Sensible person, should do well on ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support. Palmiro | Talk 18:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - I don't recall having ever seen this user around wikipedia. So I spent some time going thorugh his edit contributions : ) - Those from 2004 were civil, friendly, and in general, he seemed an eager, helpful wikipedian. I've noted over time, he's been more involved in heated debates and vandalism, and at times, tensions have been strained. I merely wish to remind him of something which he himself noted [1]. Otherwise, from what I can see, he would seem to be a good cantidate for the arbitration committee. - jc37 18:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. His experience from The WELL is key. Please remember we aren't necessarily electing people with Wikipedia skills; we are electing people with community-management skills. --Cyde Weys 19:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Ramsquire ^{(throw me a line)} 19:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC), very strong candidate. As can be seen by some of the other comments here.[reply]
92. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Andre (talk) 22:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. Nishkid64 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
95. Excellent answers to questions, though I would've liked him to elaborate on his WELL experience and how he did with it and so on. --Gwern (contribs) 03:57 6 December 2006 (GMT)
96. Support-- danntm ^T _C 04:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
97. --Ideogram 05:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. support Pete.Hurd 06:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
99. Strong Support. I like his platform, I like his experience, and I like his answers. --Merlinme 13:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support the only candidate who beat me last time and didn't get appointed. You deserve to get on. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Spartaz 18:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
102. Sarah Ewart 18:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
103. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
104. pschemp | talk 23:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support CJCurrie 02:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support KarlBunker 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. Good answers to questions. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
108. Avi 13:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
109. Lovelight 16:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
110. Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
111. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. His answers to the questions show an experienced and thoughtful person. --Danaman5 18:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support Beit Or 21:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support, Clearly wikipedia would be al the better with Jpgordon on Arb com.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support very professional and experienced Wikipedian. gidonb 22:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. Evolver of Borg 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support Elizmr 00:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support --tickle me 00:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support ▪◦▪≡Ѕirex98≡ 01:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support I'd also note to some of the object voters that it doesn't seem right to oppose someone purely on the basis of an answer to a purely hypothetical question (if you had the power to abolish or adopt one policy...) I don't think that this editor's opinion on the wisdom of allowing anon IPs to edit has any bearing on his case to be an arbcom member. GabrielF 02:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support IZAK 02:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support --Leifern 02:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support — CharlotteWebb 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support -- Earl Andrew - talk 05:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support Good policy values. Hope you do well. FrummerThanThou 06:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • FrummerThanThou does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

125. Support Amoruso 07:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support very strongly. A fine editor, committed to our core policies, and very level-headed. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support --Brownlee 13:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support Kristod (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
129. Gamaliel 15:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support Gzuckier 16:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Support --Pancasila 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     • Pancasila does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) and he had no edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 01:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

131. Support —LonelyPilgrim 23:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support jbolden1517^Talk 14:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support Calm and level-headed.--Londoneye 23:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support. enochlau (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
135. —freak() 02:02, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
136. With considerable misgivings, but the field this year is very, very weak. —Cryptic 12:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. jni 14:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stifle (talk • contribs) 15:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
139. Support. I don't quite agree with his position to disallow anonymous editing, but as long as he recognizes the community consensus, I don't see how this would affect his performance as an arbitrator. -- Heptor _talk 22:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. older ≠ wiser 03:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
141. riana_dzasta 09:47, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
142. Shrike 21:03, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
143. support! drseudo (t) 23:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support Fantailfan 03:10, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support Deizio talk 15:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support -- weirdoactor ^t|c 19:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support--VirtualDelight 20:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support Knuckles sonic8 21:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
149. Saravask 04:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support. Has a good head on his shoulders. Calton | Talk 05:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support Susanlesch 07:34, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support. - Introvert • ~ 04:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support. the wub "?!" 13:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
156. Support. Long-term involvement here, and a wealth of more general online community experience suggest that He Gets It. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 17:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support. Freshacconci 21:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
158. --Kbdank71 21:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
159. Support -- Karl Meier 22:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support Well balanced candidate with both community and encyclopedia considerations in mind. Ansell 22:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
161. Derex 23:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support Sophia 22:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
163. Samir धर्म 20:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
164. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
165. —Xyrael / 22:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
166. --Mantanmoreland 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
167. DVD+ R/W 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
168. --GHcool 01:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
169. Support Krich (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
170. Support (Could not do enough research due to emergency, but had a good overall impression.) SebastianHelm 03:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
171. support shows competence.Kiwidude 07:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support. HGB 15:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support Rivertorch 19:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support. Michael 20:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
175. Tony Sidaway 21:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC) Shows good judgement, maturity and seems to lack fear.[reply]
176. Support ×Meegs 21:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support. Gimmetrow 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
178. Support. This editor would be valuable member of the ArbCom. -Will Beback · † · 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
179. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support Applaud his answers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose. note:use edit summary more often. Peace. --Nielswik_(talk) 04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Oppose. Everyking 08:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong oppose. Too pro disciplinary blocks, notwithstanding their impact in users' reputations. --Sugaar 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose (based on answers to my questions). He seems good as an admin, but per my questions, he seems really hivemindy. Anomo 14:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. Regularly reverts with no edit summary or discussion. Incivility. See his answers to my campaign question last election. Supportive of editors who commit race-based personal attacks. Wikistalking. It is a sure thing he will be elected, my hope is that with additional responsibility will come maturity. Justforasecond 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose. Looks good, but I found this answer "I'd stop allowing unregistered IPs to edit" as the one policy he would abolish disturbing. It's more than a policy, it's a pillar. —Doug Bell ^talk 01:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose strongly take issue with this person's views against editing from unregistered IPs Dragomiloff 01:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose per "ArbCom primarily shaping the social policy on Wikipedia", I would prefer policy written by the community implented by ArbCom. Addhoc 11:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Ok, so his comment has been reworded, however he is still too pro disciplinary blocks and group-think... Addhoc 13:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose, for two reasons: 1) the importance of unregistered users cannot be overstated. 2) the ArbCom does not shape policy; the community does. The ArbCom are servants of the community, nothing more (and nothing less). -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Second point's been cleared up, but the first still stands. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 19:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

10. Oppose. —Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Disapprove on behalf of the unregistered horde that writes so much of our content. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 04:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose.Must^TC 11:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Finger-wagging oppose - you are obviously going to pass the vote, and that won't be a tragedy, but I strongly advise researching who actually adds most of useful content to the encyclopedia, as well as how most of our best editors became editors in the first place. Randomly banning 80% of admins would do less damage to the project than preventing anon editing. Zocky | picture popups 13:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose. This candidate is still somewhat quick-to-the-gun in decisionmaking to be given an arbcom role. Perhaps a demonstration of a bit more tolerance with new and anon users, as well as more patience in working with difficult editors, would make this candidate a more suitable arbcom member in the future. ... Kenosis 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Abu, Addhoc and Kenosis. JoshuaZ 21:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC) After further thought I'm not sure this merits an oppose vote but the concerns are certainly too much for me to support. JoshuaZ 03:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose. Per Doug Bell.--Dwaipayan (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose per concerns addressed above RFerreira 03:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose Per actions such as agreeing with statement "Jews are superior to gentiles." [[2]] or making inflammatory statements such as "Jew-haters get short shrift on Wikipedia. Get used to it." [[3]] "Not wanting input from Jew-haters into Jewish-related articles..." [[4]] Sarastro777 07:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Comments moved to the talkpage. Picaroon9288 03:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

18. Oppose Statement not convincing; nothing to indicate that the candidate would be an effective arbitrator. Experiences as a BBS sysop and a forums moderator are not indications of this. Alan Pascoe 12:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Oppose due to incivility I have witnessed. A very aggressive editor I am surprised to see nominated here. Politically partisan. --SandyDancer 15:38, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
20. Per above concerns (especially IP editing). --- RockMFR 06:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Tra (Talk) 22:34, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. OPPOSE as per Zocky & Kenosis VirtualSteve 08:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. I found I had a reasonably strong disagreement with several of the answers you provided to questions asked of you, including one from AnonEMouse and one from Mailer Diablo. Picaroon9288 22:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose per SandyDancer & Kenosis. No offense, JP, you seem like a good person and a tolerable admin. However, JP can be a "Political partisan" as SandyDancer put it (see, for example, his past over-protective editing of the Jesse Jackson article).--WilliamThweatt 16:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose I don't see an Arbcom temperment. Agne 20:28, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose lacks impartiality and objectivity CoYep 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose weasely though surprisingly argumentative response to the SPOV question does not inspire confidence in candidate's abilities to adjudicate arbitration cases. --ScienceApologist 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose lacks impartiality and objectivity Pco 14:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pco does not have suffrage; she registered on Dec. 7, 2006. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:19, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose cavileer and cursory in edits, upon this user review- agree with sandydancer, however wiki needs more than "tolerable" admins, and less ....well...see george orwell's animal farm or rename wikiadminsHobbies&POV.orgStarburster 05:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Starburster does not have suffrage; registered on Oct. 25, 2006. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

28. Oppose Arbcom follows, it should not make, policy. Integrating IP edits is an important part of wikipedia. The people who abuse IP editting also abuse accounts. Stirling Newberry 10:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose Huldra 17:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose --Bondego 20:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose. --JJay 23:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]