I've been in Wikipedia for around a year, and I think it's time for me to allow myself to give back to the community more than the usual housekeeping work. I admit I'm relatively new when it comes to dispute resolution, but my candidacy is to allow myself to offer the best of my ability in the service of Wikipedia and her community, and nothing else.

I have seen a lot of changes in Wikipedia for the last year, but my fundamental principles of assuming good faith, keeping civil even in the worst of situations, and to give newcomers reasonable chances does not change. Just as always my actions, past or future, are open for scrutiny by anyone. If possible, I'd want to see more in reformative action than just punishment.

(Additional statement in Questions page)

Questions

1. Sceptr e ^{( Talk)} 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Vsion 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Stays calm in the most trying situations reply
7. Support I treated him poorly as a mistake, but treated me civilly in return, and I'd like to apologize with my vote. He does a good job. karmafist 02:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support Trustworthy user. Xoloz 02:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support.-- ragesoss 03:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support -- W.marsh 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support (thanks for originally welcoming me to Wikipedia!) Tufflaw 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support freestylefrappe 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support-- Heah ^talk 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support-- Saikiri ^Remixed? 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support Chick Bowen 05:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. android 79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. jni 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Harmonious member of the community with a good judgment. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. utcursch | talk 07:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. I value and trust Mailer Diablo's judgment. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] AfD? 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • JzG technically does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 12:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Note that User:Just zis Guy, you know? has been with us since August 20. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Signed using old ID. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] AfD? 14:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

23. Support -- Yoninah 11:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support, a fair and trusted member of the community. -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. — Nightstallion (?) 12:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support I like his responses to questions. Fair and level-headed I think he'd make a good candidate for arbcom.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support Mark ¹ 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. PJM 15:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • PJM likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 11:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

30. Support — Saravask 19:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 20:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support mildly; I would like to see more answers, though. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. -- HK 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. Lack of experience a concern, but appreciate sentiments. Avriette 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support - It os always the demon who brings the good news. Cheers - Szvest 23:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™} reply
36. Support Wally 00:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 06:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support -- Huaiwei 06:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support -- Shinmawa 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support, experienced. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support Limegreen 02:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support Segv11 ^{( talk/ contribs)} 06:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support. Main concerns answered, I think Mailer can do a good job at ArbCom. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support as per Sjakkalle -- kingboyk 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. -- Bhadani 09:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support now that there is some acceptable content on Q&A. Should be a good addition to the Com. Turnstep 18:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support for his commitment to common sense in arbitration. Thryduulf 23:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support. Seems experienced and sensible enough. -- SCZenz 00:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support. Rangek 02:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Weak support. Civil and just barely enough experienced. Zocky 11:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support Dr. B 17:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Support. Despite his support for precedents=law (part of User Bill of Rights). -- Adrian Buehlmann 19:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support. maclean25 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support - fairly trustworthy -- Francs 2000 00:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support. ( SEWilco 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
58. Support Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} _{this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee} ---- 07:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support. gadfium 22:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Weak Support Don't know too much about this person, only voting because of the close race. The comments on the oppose section don't bring up any deal-breakers, and it looks like the candidate has lots of admin experience. I like his "velvet glove" approach, hopefully it isn't just a campaign promise. crazyeddie 04:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Weak Support -- Masonpatriot 05:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. Would be someone I would trust with an ArbCom position. Youngamerican 18:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support. Seems like would do a good job. -- G Rutter 15:34, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support. -- Hoary 09:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 09:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support ! -- Loopy ^e 05:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support. Having worked with the editor during a dispute, I believe he would do well. .:. Jareth.:. ^babelfish 17:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support — answers to policy questions a bit vague, but track record and temperament seem strong. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Weak support, barely enough info, but liked what I saw. -- AySz88^ - ^ 04:07, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support. Provides a needed outside perspective to the committee. — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 04:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. Ambi 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. Questions concerns. Batmanand 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. TacoDeposit 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose questions -- Angelo 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. Staffelde 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose -- Crunch 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose Questions. 172 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose Where are the Q&A? novacatz 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Excellent contributor, but the skimpy Q&A page means I don't know what direction Mailer wants the ArbCom to go. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Reluctant oppose per Sjakkalle. -- Muchness 07:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn; candidate is addressing these concerns. -- Muchness 04:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

20. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Weak oppose.  Grue  13:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose per Sjakkalle. Write a short essay on the subject and I'll reconsider. R adiant _>|< 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks for writing that, but I still oppose because the Q&A section shows too much reliance on strictness and bureaucracy. R adiant _>|< 18:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. Candidate statement is too vague and does not really address much.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. siafu 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose - insubstantial platform and q&a --- Charles Stewart 20:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose per Q&A (but no other issues, so feel free to expand it a bit) Turnstep 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

26. Oppose Not arbcom material yet. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Splash ^talk 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose questions Avalon 00:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I've updated my statement at the Questions section. Feel free to ask questions if you need to clarify doubts. - Mailer Diablo 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

29. -- Doc ^ask? 01:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. older≠ wiser 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose as per Sjakkalle. Sarah Ewart 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. oppose Kingturtle 06:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose, candidate statement still vague. HGB 19:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. 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 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose Vsmith 01:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose Inexperience; immature policy:not definitive, missing WP:ENC etc.; heart's in the right place, though -- Rmrfstar 04:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 10:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
42. Oppose, statement. KTC 19:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose-- A Y Arktos 20:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Vehemently oppose I looked thru candidate's last 2000 contribs and see them 95% is policing. When I think about a possible attitude of a person whose highes priority is to kick someone's ass (even if this ass is that of a bad guy), this gives me creeps. mikka (t) 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. A good guy, but not the best choice. Just barely though. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 21:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Weak oppose He has given me no strong reason to vote for him. -- EMS | Talk 04:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. Vague. -- Viriditas 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose Fad (ix) 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. The candidate statement is too weak for my tastes. Velvetsmog 23:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose, not sure what we'd be getting. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose. -- Interiot 06:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 01:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. Jkelly 01:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. *drew 02:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose Bill of rights, answers have not shown a lot of in depth thinking, but quick answers.-- Tznkai 06:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose Lack of experience Davidpdx 08:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. Neutrality ^talk 20:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. Preaky 22:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Not enough experience or hustings, to use Ril's language. Superm401 | Talk 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Monicasdude 12:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. oppose. sorry. William M. Connolley 22:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose Sunray 06:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose Pschemp | Talk 07:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose FreplySpang (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose In part because the late date of the application combined with the lack of a substantive platform statement, also based on (limited but IMO significant) observations elsewhere. -- Tsavage 18:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Alex43223 19:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Respectfully oppose. Too new, arbitration goals too vague. 23:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sj ( talk • contribs)

    this vote was technically placed about half an hour after the election closed. R adiant _>|< 00:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Actually, based on history looks like it was half an hour before the deadline. Came in at 23:30 and deadline was 23:59. -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 00:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    That's interesting, if I click history it reads "(cur) (last) 00:30, January 23, 2006 Sj (→Oppose)". R adiant _>|< 00:37, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply