Hello. I am officially throwing my hat into the ring for appointment as a Wikipedia Arbitrator.

I am running because I feel I can provide an impartial mind to the arbitration process. I have an extensive access to knowledge to assist me in determining facts, an ability to determine the difference between neutral and biased points of view, and uncanny problem-solving capabilities that were developed and exploited in Future Problem Solvers competitions in my youth.

I am a frequent page editor and creator. I have recently been invited to join WikiProject Professional wrestling in recognition of my contributions to the project from outside. I am also a major player in the creation and maintenance of pages relating to Dance Dance Revolution. I have done reverts on many cases of vandalism.

I seek to be a user-arbitrator. I will not seek the powers of an administrator or bureaucrat if I am appointed to a position as arbitrator.

Thank you for your consideration.

Questions

1. It didn't say in the rules that you couldn't vote for yourself, so why wouldn't I? -- Kitch 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support freestylefrappe 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. User certainly doesn't deserve this level of opposition. ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support Wally 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support Dr. B 21:29, 11 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. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose as too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose -- Angelo 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose. Staffelde 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose.-- ragesoss 02:37, 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) 03:28, Jan. 9, 2006

18. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Bobet 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose inexperience -- Crunch 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\ ^talk 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. siafu 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. -- Viriditas 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Lack of XP. — Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose xp.  Grue  13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose Questions -- kingboyk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction| _{yakkity yak} 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. Experience; do not believe candidate truly understands ArbComm's purpose.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose -- Doc ^ask? 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose for lack of experience. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:12 Z
40. Oppose as per Jonathunder. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose, inexperienced. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. Not enough community interaction so far. H e rmione 1980 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Splash ^talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. Clean up Loop quantum gravity first. Avriette 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. older≠ wiser 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose Lack of platform, lack of initiave (in not copying and answering the common questions dealt with by other candidates) -- EMS | Talk 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose, inexperienced. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose - Vsmith 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. the vision thing -- JWSchmidt 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose, as per EMS. Thryduulf 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. — David Levy 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose KTC 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
61. Oppose - what exactly is your "extensive access to knowledge"? ...no real statements, no experience. -- NorkNork 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. User statement lacks the substance to support. Maybe next time. Velvetsmog 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Late entrant? Maybe next year... also something just didn't quite ring true. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose - too new -- Francs 2000 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Preaky 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. Neutrality ^talk 15:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. Well-intentioned, but inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Weak Oppose XP. Masonpatriot 04:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose inexperience -- Loopy ^e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose, appears harmless but inexperienced. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose - the single least impressive candidacy statement I have ever read on Wikipedia. - JustinWick 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose Alex43223

1. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply