This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

It is true that I've only been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 4 months now, but I feel I still have a lot to offer the project. Wikipedia represents cooperative collaberation, but that collaberation works best in an environment where there is a good set of guidelines on submission principles.

The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace. -- Dogbreathcanada 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. Support. Seems earnest, and 4 months is long enough to get a feel for the climate of the community. Dave 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Philip Stevens 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support. richie22 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   I'm sorry, but your vote cannot be counted since your account is newer than 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150. -- TML1988 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

4. Support if you're good enough, you're old enough Robdurbar 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Lack of experience, sorry. – ugen64 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Four months is, for me, just not long enough. Batmanand 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. inexperience, narrow editing interest.-- ragesoss 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose not experienced. -- Angelo 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. Staffelde 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose -- Viriditas 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:12, Jan. 9, 2006

21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Bobet 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. older≠ wiser 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose, too inexperienced, sorry. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose -- Crunch 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose - Paul August ☎ 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\ ^talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Fred Bauder 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. android 79 05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. -- Scott e^iπ 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose.  Grue  06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ mrp 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. siafu 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose-- cj | talk 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 08:08 Z
39. Oppose. Lupo 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose: Vague mission statement, and not enough of a track record to support yet. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. Lack of experience, nothing to really convince me. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose lack of experience, unconvincing statement, low edits, and erratic history pre Jan 1. Sarah Ewart 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Lack of XP. — Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose Xtra 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose, lack of experience. R adiant _>|< 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, insuficient evidence from edit history and candidate statement to get a true feel on how well the user would be an arbitrator. Thryduulf 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction| _{yakkity yak} 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. — Dunc| ☺ 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose, needs more experience. Awolf002 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose, but do try again when you have more experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose I'm not sure the nominee is even entitled to vote (a rule change is required in that regard I think). Inexperienced, but maybe next time. -- kingboyk 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose Inexperience -- EMS | Talk 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose -- Doc ^ask? 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose - Masonpatriot 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose: It's hard for regular users to even find these pages, so I have no idea how really new users do. At any rate, experience and a track record are almost the only things that matter. This user has neither. Geogre 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose: if you want to demonstrate that you have the necessary insight despite your relatively short time on the project, then a more detailed statement is necessary. Terra Green 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. Just too damned new. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Splash ^talk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. Lack of experience. Avriette 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. gave up after one day. -- JWSchmidt 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Neutrality ^talk 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Vsmith 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Raven4x4x 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 13:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. Lack of experience-- Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Experience, lack of. -- PTSE 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose. Inexperience. Get some more experience and try again. Velvetsmog 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose Lack of experience. Only 183 edits. -- Nick123 ^{( t/ c)} 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose Timrollpickering 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose, experience. KTC 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose, inexperience.-- Srleffler 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose Sunray 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose Tazz765 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. ''Oppose - Lack of exp. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose: I don't beleive that experience is everything, but this persons appeal does not appeal to me. Dr. B 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. Experience, plus statement is bland and short. Superm401 | Talk 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose, doesn't seem to be eager to become an arbitrator...bland, not to mention experience. Alex43223 05:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose (But I have no problem with a short statement) -- Ignignot 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose – AB C D ^e ✉ 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose - not enough experience, unconvincing statement, doesn't say much about his goals. -- NorkNork 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardo ^talk 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose. Inexperienced and statement is unspecific. Sycthos ^Talk 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose Jared 12:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply