Hello all! I'm not going to lie. Even though, I've been a Wikipedan since October, 2004, there is still so much about the project and community that I still need to immerse myself in. Just some backgrounder, my real name is Luke and I herald from the Beautiful British Columbia city of Vancouver in Canada.

Since discovering Wikipedia in 2004, and in keeping with its' foundings, I believe that I have taken an active approach to improving the credibility and knowledge base of the database. As egotistical as it sounds, I feel that Wikipedia and future disputes will be well served by having me on the committee. I'm able to bring depth, experience, knowledge to resolving disputes and am able to approach problems to hopefully reach an un-biased, comprimisable decision.

With regards to banning, it is unfortunately neccessary during some situations. However, it should be noted that banning should only be used as a last resort and not freely.

On how the Committee should handle disputes, I feel that to ensure credibility and consistency, it should handle all potential cases as they are requested. I believe that some guiding pointers to follow when resolving disputes are:

• to keep an open mind, free of prejudices
• understand that even though this is an English version, that other cultures use this version
• decisions should be for the good of the community and encyclopedia
• always think first and never rush

For a more in depth discussion on any of the issues surrounding my candicacy, be sure to visit the subpage where I will happily answer all questions.

Luke 03:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. JYolkowski // talk 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Not contentious, seems level-headed.-- ragesoss 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Strong Support. Agree with policy. Also, inexperience is not a reason to oppose per se. -- Michalis Famelis 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. "... that the English Wikipedia is also used by other cultures" has got me for sure. — Nightstallion (?) 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support as per User:Nightstallion Rhion 18:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support.. I like the cut of his jib, so to speak. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- HK 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support. -- Raistlin 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support Dr. B 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support Tuohirulla 22:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support // Big Adamsky 07:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Big Adamsky does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

14. Support User:Ejrrjs says What? 00:30, 22 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 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Inexperience. -- Ancheta Wis 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Cryptic (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose Lack of experience indeed. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. Too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose not experienced -- Angelo 01:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Bobet 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose -- Crunch 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. android 79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. Too new. — Catherine\ ^talk 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose for lack of experience. Quarl ^{( talk)} 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 09:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. -- Viriditas 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. While he seems genuine enough and is a relatively uncontroversial character, he lacks experience. Perhaps later in the day. Jamyskis Whisper, Contribs 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Weak oppose no opinion on this particular user.  Grue  13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose, xp -- kingboyk 14:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. Good statement, intentions; lacks experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. siafu 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose TestPilot 19:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 20:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Splash ^talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. the "b" word. Avriette 23:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 02:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. older≠ wiser 02:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Raven4x4x 09:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose Lack of experience. -- Nick123 ^{( t/ c)} 22:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. 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 22:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose, too inexperienced. Sorry. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose Vsmith 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Luckyluke -- JWSchmidt 03:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose, statement & experience. KTC 19:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
60. Oppose per KTC -- EMS | Talk 20:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose fairly week statement Robdurbar 12:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. weak oppose, I disagree with his views on precedent and am not keen on punishments being used to set an example. Thryduulf 17:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose - inexperienced, unconvincing. -- NorkNork 21:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. The misspellings and lack of coherent message in the candidate statement concerns me. Velvetsmog 23:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose agree lack of experience. Davidpdx 13:56, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose Arbitrators should not be bound by precedent. Arbitrating is not rule making. -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose, not enough experience -- Francs 2000 23:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Neutrality ^talk 15:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Inexperienced and somewhat wishy-washy on questions. Superm401 | Talk 22:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. Preaky 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose angusj 02:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 05:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose Kusma (討論) 14:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose Youngamerican 17:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Tony Sidaway| Talk 18:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. I like your spirit, though. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose — appears to have a good attitude but too inexperienced. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 17:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose sporadic contribution pattern wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. 'Oppose Alex43223 19:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply