Short, sweet and to the point: The Arbitration Committee is something I've always admired on Wikipedia. It's functionality and methodologies are second-to-none. However, lately, I've been seeing some views presented, by experienced- and new- users alike, that the Arbitration Committee is becoming more and more segregated from the "normal community" in its views and decisions - by which, I refer to the general editors. I am not an administrator, however I feel that not being an administrator does not mean a person couldn't do this job. In fact, I think there should be more input from those not with "the tools" - although, by definition, sysops are just "regular users with a couple more buttons", in practice a lot they tend to see the technical, not the community side, all too regularly. This is why I have nominated myself; because I believe there should be a smattering of those who may see things slightly differently to those who are currently in the positions of the AC or administrator. Whether it's me, or whether it's another experienced editor who is not a sysop (by experienced, I mean at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself - as a rough guide), I'd like to see one in there; either now at this election, or one in the near future. It's not that they don't do a good job - that couldn't be father from the truth - but they do tend to see things slightly differently, from my observations. Another, slightly different perspective on the Arbitration Committee "board" to provide insight into dealing with Wikipedia's largest and most complex problems is by no means the worst thing could happen - it might even be the best. Cheers.

Questions

1. Weak support - unsure about the non-admin issue, but he is a thoughtful and helpful user who has been pivotal in helping to diffuse many disputes and situations that have come up in the past. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{( Talk to Me) ( My Contributions) ( Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 00:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. -- Majorly 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) - See talk page. reply
4. -- Seadog ^♪ 00:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. AmiDaniel ( talk) 00:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support –  Elisson •  T •  C • 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. MER-C 00:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Cowman109 ^Talk 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Hello32020 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support! Go for it Daniel! Drizzt J a m o 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Very interesting platform. Tito xd^{( ?!?)} 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Of course  Glen  01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
13. I don't understand how people can say he doesn't have a significant contribution to Wikipedia - he has 12,000 edits! Michael Billington ( talk • contribs) 01:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. ßott e siηi ^(talk) 02:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. — Mi ra 02:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support As far as I've witnessed, Daniel is extremely balanced and reasonable. Arbitration suits him well.-- Hús ö nd 02:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. ATren 03:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Strong Support - will bring a fresh view on things. "Non-admin does not mean non-arbcommer". Baka man 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Warofdreams talk 03:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Seems to me to be a very hard-working editor. -- Aminz 03:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Yup — Lost ^(talk) 03:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support - Very helpful and honest. -- Hatch68 03:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support  Funky Monkey   (talk)  04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support fair and hard-working. go ahead! Peace. -- Nielswik _(talk) 04:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support, I think it's important for some nonadmins to hold this sort of role. Lankiveil 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC). reply
26. Dylan Lake ( t· c) 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support: I think a good non-admin should be put in now and then, and this is a good example of that time - he's definitely a good user, and I support him all the way. -- Nomader ^Talk 05:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Strong Support Amazing editor, excellent person. Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . Editor Review} 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. semper fi — Moe 05:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
30. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Weak Support. Not all that familiar, but what I do know and what I see here all seems right. -- Gwern (contribs) 05:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Husnod and Gwern assess the candidacy quite well, IMHO. Joe 06:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support - who knows, maybe "new blood" on ArbCom would do us all good, a new face that hasn't been corrupted by the rest of us :o. Daniel doesn't seem the type to screw around, and he seems to be a (to quote robchurch) a head screwed on guy. -- Tawker 07:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support a strong "new blood" candidate with little connection to the "cabal", might have a fresh perspective.   ALKIVAR ™ ☢ 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support per Alkivar. — CharlotteWebb 07:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Suport seems to have common sense. New blood is generally a good thing to avoid stagnation. -- Sugaar 10:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support I'm sure he'll help to bring in a non-admin view on debates - surely something to be valued!? M a rtinp23 10:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support -- Ferkelparade π 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support Why isn't Daniel an admin; he certainly would be a good one. | AndonicO ^{Talk | Sign Here} 11:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
40. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{L} 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 13:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support G e o. 16:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support - Is able to distinguish the facts and reason MerryJ-Ho - See talk page.
44. Support. -- Myles Long 19:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. I believe his comment about being "more in touch" with the average Wikipedian are well-founded. haz ( talk) e 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. I like your motives. Wikiwoohoo 20:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support per Alkivar. ITAQALLAH 21:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
48. — Pilotguy ( push to talk) 21:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Seems to have enough of the proper experience needed. reply
49. Support - Inexperience can equal a new perspective, and I have every reason to believe that the candidate is very well qualified on all points but lack of admin experience, which is not necessarily a demerit anyway. Badbilltucker 22:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support-- danntm ^T _C 22:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support... I'm a fan of the stuff I've seen you do. Matt Yeager ♫ ( Talk?) 23:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support - His work in various WP: space areas is commendable. Some are better suited toward behind-the-scenes work, and Daniel is one of those people, imo. Torinir _{( Ding my phone My support calls E-Support Options )} 23:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support RFerreira 23:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support Helped me out a lot even in my limited scope, a great guy with determination. 'Inexperienced' editors for Dan! David Fuchs 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support. Done lots of useful work in and around wikipedia, seems to be a good prospect for problem resolution. Lincher 01:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support Yamaguchi先生 03:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support IrishGuy ^talk 04:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support He has his head screwed on straight. Xiaopo ( Talk) 05:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Silensor 06:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support. Rimmeraj 07:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support. Prior experiences are good. Makes sound decisions, knows when he has a conflict of interest. Luna Santin 08:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support always support a fellow Aussie with initiative -- Dan arndt 08:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support. This candidate appears make sense. tgies 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support GazMan7 10:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support level headed beyond his years. Jpe ob 11:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support Jidan 13:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support — Goh wz 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support excellent Wikipedian with fresh ideas and the ability to take the daily grind. Would bring a new perspective Arbcom --Errant Tmorton166^{( Talk)} 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
69. -- Longhornsg 22:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Weak support. He has a will, I think. Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support - normally would oppose because of his age, but his answers and attitudes are very good - he's pretty exceptional for his age. Argyriou (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Support. Bahn Mi 23:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support I like the idea of a non-admin being on ArbCom. Nishkid 64 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support at least one non-admin on arbcom would be a good thing...why not Dragomiloff 01:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support — ptk✰ fgs 03:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
76. maclean 04:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support - I respect his judgement. And I am sure he is going to be an admin soon, so that is not an issue for me. - Aksi_great ( talk) 08:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support D e mos D e mon 12:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support Dibo ^{T | C} 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Weak Support. I like his platform and common sense approach, however I have some concerns about level of experience. -- Merlinme 13:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Militant support. I was opposing before, [1], but I thought it over - despite still having some concerns about experience, I respect your judgement far too much to oppose with a clear conscience. And I like your platform. riana_ dzasta 16:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support Thoughtful user that shows both growth and understanding, who learns from experience as well as mistakes. I believe he is ready.▪◦▪ ≡Ѕirex98≡ 19:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Weak Support - Seems like this would be a great addition to the arbcom, but only 6months on wikipedia worrie me. --- J.S ^{( T/ C)} 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support There are more important things an ArbCom member needs than Wikipedia experience, and the candidate has them in spades!-- Runcorn 20:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support. -- Ruziklan 21:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Weak Support. I'm a little bit on the fence about this one, but I believe that he shows enough maturity to be a good member of arbcom. -- Danaman5 21:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Support. Lack of experience is only a minor concern with me; his answers to the questions convince me that he knows wiki-philosophy well and would be a good person to have on the arbcom. He also shares my support for making Wikipedia:Reliable sources policy! -- Idont Havaname ( Talk) 01:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support Mallanox 02:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
89. support Yuckfoo 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Support A good wikipedian and great editor with a huge amount of potential. Culv e rin ? ^Talk 03:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Support Will provide a valuable perspective.-- Brownlee 12:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support: In my honest opinion, Daniel has gotten a lot more wiki-mature than his earlier failed RFAs show and I greatly appreciate his clerking for unblock review. --  Netsnipe   ►  16:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support Deb 17:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Support Tennis expert 19:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Support Maturity is extremely important. -- Iriseyes 02:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support. Aucaman ^Talk 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
97. strong support go on daniel. your a kind and hard working wikipedian and you have my full support. ozzies rule DARR e N ^TALK 22:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Well Supported Support A cracking chap, a fine examople for the rest of us to follow. Good luck! JiMoTh Y ^TALK 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Gentgeen 22:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Support. -- Dakota 03:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Support.-- ttogreh 20:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
102. — freak( talk) 02:14, Dec. 10, 2006 (UTC)
103. Support - Good editor who handles disputes well. -- T H L R 02:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Support -- roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Support Adminship does not determine adequacy for ArbCom. Youth of candidate is irrelevant to suitability (I'm 16). Any fine candidate will do, and Daniel meets the criteria. -- ²¹⁰ physicq ( c) 05:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Support Daniel has an even-handed manner/temperament and editing style. Age should not be a reason for excluding a candidate if they are able to do the job. Orderinchaos78 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
107. Support The majority of the oppose reasons is exactley why I support Daniel. Plus he's Australian Pepith 11:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Support James E. Zavaleta _{T C E} 16:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Strong Support Non-adminship should not be an issue - a well rounded and mature individual who will go on to do well in ArbCom. -- Sk e nmy^{( t• c• n)} 20:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Support I agree with his views. He's got the right attitude. -- TinMan 05:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Support You sold me. And I'm a hard sell -- Samir धर्म 06:40, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Support. Good idea. yandman 10:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Support. -- Inner Earth 11:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
114. Support. -- Capsgm2002 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Support. Gargaj 07:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Support. There's something charming in having a candidate who is not jaded by the drudgery of day-in day-out counter-vandalism, and just edits to provide a balanced perspective. Not everyone wants to be an Admin, nor has the infrastructure. Being on the road as much as you are, it strikes me that you made a great assesment of what you could best do to contribute. Good luck with the law studies too! Kudos on the contributions. Best wishes // Fra nkB 21:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Support. Knuckles sonic8 22:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
118. support Leotolstoy 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Support Sarah Ewart 01:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
120. Support. Balanced and reasonable candidate. bbx 17:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Support Balanced and competent candidate. I appreciate the points made in oppose about youth and lack of previous wikipower but I feel a caution to not let the new appointment get to his head would be sufficient. ArbCom needs more people like Daniel. Lost Kiwi ^(talk) 21:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
122. Support Everything indicates this nominee will be an impartial arbitrator.-- MONGO 07:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Support per Argyriou. - ryan d 09:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Belated strong support. Fys. &#147; Ta fys aym&#148;. 09:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Support. As for the admin issue I'll drag out the old RfA cliché "I thought he already was one". When a candidate is this dedicated, intelligent and respected, the precise value of a bit in the database is irrelevant. the wub "?!" 12:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Support Will add an additional perspective. Ksbrown 17:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
127. Support. Hall Monitor 18:55, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Support. -- Túrelio 22:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
129. Support Cpuwhiz11 23:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Support a non-admin on the committee sounds like a good idea. savidan ^{(talk) (e@)} 04:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Support I am a big fan of the non-admin on the committee as well, and he sounds like a good one. Jmlk17 08:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Support Candidate can bring the benefits of his youth and his global perspective. Eludium-q36 18:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
133. — Xyrael / 22:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Support. DarthVad e r 03:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Support-- C J King 06:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
136. Support The timing of the election may hurt Daniel here, in a few months more will appreciate him. Thems the breaks. NoSeptember 14:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
137. Support Rivertorch 19:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
138. Support Daniel seems more mature than a few older Wiki users with Wiki power. His age should not be a factor to hold him back! Also, I agree with him platform. fmmarianicolon | Talk 20:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
139. Support; while one would normally expect the committee to be made up of admins, he makes a reasonable argument for the benefit of including somebody from outside that group too. *Dan T.* 22:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
140. Support; Nice to see someone from outside the wikipedia heirarchy nominate. John Dalton 22:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
141. Support Not an admin-- ElvisThePrince 23:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose -- ElKevbo 00:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Reluctant oppose as per MPerel, above , significant contribution so far notwithstanding. Jd2718 00:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Ral315 ( talk) ( my votes) 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
5. - crz crztalk 00:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Weak oppose. -- Core desat 01:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Avi 01:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
9. SuperMachine 01:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Bishonen | talk 02:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). reply
11. KPbIC 02:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Too little experience, eagerness for positions of authority is a concern. -- Robth ^Talk 02:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
13. 6 months of editing is barely enough for adminship, let alone ArbCom. Sorry. - Mark 02:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Rebecca 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
15. ← Humus sapiens ^{ну ?} 03:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Inexperience. Xoloz 03:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
17. I do think administrator experience is important for ArbCom. - THB 04:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Ter e nc e Ong 04:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Has potential, but I am afraid not enough experience. Looking forward to reviewing this next year...--  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus |  talk}  04:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Weak oppose. I think this user needs more experience before one can consider an appointment to ArbCom. (However, I do think Daniel is a great user, so I'm looking forward to another application in future.) ♠ P M C♠ 04:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Too new, sorry. -- Cyde Weys 04:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Nufy8 04:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Non-admin is not a problem; six months in the project is. Too new for this level of responsibility. No prejudice against consideration next time. Serpent's Choice 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Cryptic 06:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Inexperience. — Viriditas | Talk 07:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
26. -- Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Not at this time, but maybe by next election. — Doug Bell  ^talk 08:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose Too young. Catchpole 08:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose: Too young, too unexperienced. Giano 08:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose Too young.-- Zleitzen 09:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
31. cj | talk 09:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
32. – Ch acor 09:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Lack of experience. --May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 12:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose Sorry. Dweller 13:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose Youthful temperament unsuitable for the job. -- Mcginnly | Natter 13:41, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Tewfik ^Talk 16:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
37. -- Pjacobi 20:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) (Too early) reply
38. Oppose mainly due to the lack of admin experience. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Poor understanding of the arbcomm and policy. Guettarda 22:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Michael Snow 23:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC) reply
42. I really like the idea of a non-admin on the ArbCom, but I fear that it could hold you back. Admin before ArbCom. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 03:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Respectful oppose. While I hold high opinions on Daniel, he's still too young to be an ArbCom member. Duja ► 08:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose - needs more experience and understanding of how everything fits together (policy, arbcom reasoning, etc.). Metamagician3000 09:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose ST47 Talk 11:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose Yanksox 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, impressive edit count but I just can't see giving an ArbCom position to someone with < 1 year on the project.-- Isotope23 15:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, there are better candidates – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 19:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose, Too early, and I prefer candidates that have an established history of handling authority responsibly. FeloniousMonk 20:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
50. MILITANT OPPOSITION -- Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC) - Discussion moved to talk page. reply
51. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose - Lack of significant edits. -- Andy Blak 22:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Nothing personal. Steel 00:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
54. -- tariqabjotu 02:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Weak Oppose. — Lantoka ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Weak Oppose one of the most civil and thoughtful editors. Not ready just yet though. Addhoc 10:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose - not being a sysop is perfectly fine, but I think 6 months of experience just isn't enough to become an arbitrator - it should be at least a year. I've also got to admit that the emphasis on edit count ("at least 6-7000+ edits, preferably 10,000+, like myself") for determining whether someone's experienced and/or suitable to be an arbitrator seems a wee little bit elitist to me. -- Schnee ( cheeks clone) 13:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. Must ^TC 11:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose too new.-- Aldux 12:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose too new. E104421 18:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose -- CSTAR 19:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose too new. ·  rodii · 02:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Reluctant Oppose age and experience, sorry. Canadian- Bacon 07:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Weak oppose. I don't like the bit about wishing WP:RS was set in stone. —  coelacan talk — 07:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Weak oppose : lack of adminship and experience, though I really hope to see another application some time. Clearly a dedicated, talented, careful contributor. Shagmaestro 11:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 12:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
67. -- Doc^g 17:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Weak oppose per Shagmaestro. Daniel seems like a fine Wikipedian, but he just hasn't been around long enough to qualify for ArbCom. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 00:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle ( talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Tra (Talk) 22:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC) reply
71. oppose inexperience. Pete.Hurd 06:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Shanes 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC). Maybe next year. reply
73. Tizio 12:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose, needs more time. Vizjim 13:28, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose (regretfully). There are many reasons to support this user but I am worried about the extremely high level of self confidence at such a young age, exhibited by answers to questions, RFA, etc. Time will likely show how much there is to learn, mainly about interactions with people, which is vital experience for the Arbitration Committee. Please note that I am not voting to oppose because I assume I have this right, but because I see it as a risk and the level of risk causes me to lean toward oppose. -- Renesis ( talk) 16:20, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. Although I in principle like the idea that a non-admin could serve on Arbcom in the right conditions, I don't think it's appropriate here: too young, too little time (though I hesitate to say experience) on Wikipedia. Also, I don't think the ArbCom is a good place to find out what happens when a user first gets Wiki-power. Mango juice ^talk 18:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose -- Longhair\ ^talk 08:50, 12 December 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose HeartofaDog 11:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose Lack of time on the encyclopaedia. Clerk work is great, keep that up. Ansell 21:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
80. Oppose, level of experience. - Introvert •  ~ 03:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose. Experience is not the only thing that worries me. Sometimes acts too in haste, IMO. -- Irpen 10:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose -- candidate does not seem to appreciate the full breadth of the controversial issues surrounding science-related articles. -- ScienceApologist 16:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose Candidate not responding to new questions. -- Aude ( talk) 18:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose I think that to get such a job, a user should have been in the community for over a year. Eli Falk 19:34, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Derex 23:23, 14 December 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose, not enough experience, but working towards it very well. Would see myself supporting in a future arbcom election. Voretus ^talk 15:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Too new. — Centrx→ talk • 07:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose Too new, needs more experience. Davidpdx 14:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose would like to see more time demonstrating new skills in tact and maturity. Good editor overall, would support in future with longer track record of above skills. Krich (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose Since arbcom has to be able to adjudicate admin behavior, having been one is a key requirement. Stirling Newberry 11:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose: Not enough experience. -- ♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{Walkie-talkie} 13:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose, experience, also prefer this role to be filled by an admin. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC) reply