This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

I am absolutely horrified at the way things have been going on Wikipedia recently, it's definitely not a good way to start the new year. I've been here just over three months, but am already an admin, and I feel that I am trusted by many editors to uphold a neutral view.

The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia.

Banning should be undertaken preferably only when the editor is found to be disruptive and it is certain that he/she will not make any sort of useful contributions. However, if a user has made good contributions but has a case up at ArbCom that may need banning for the first time, I'm willing to give the user a second chance.

Questions

Withdrawal

Thanks to all who took the time to vote, but I think it's time for a withdrawal as this isn't going anywhere (having hovered around 1/3rd support for about a week). NSL E _{( T+ C)} 07:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Haukur 01:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support per my interactions. karmafist 02:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Strong Support Trustworthy Editor. Xoloz 02:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support.-- ragesoss 03:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Super strong support, all interactions with the user have been very positive; NSLE seems like an awesome editor. Arbcom would be better with him on board. Matt Yeager 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support, impressive statement. NicM 08:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
13. Support - Akamad 08:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support Sarah Ewart 08:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. — Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support DTC 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:46 Z
21. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. Wally 00:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support in substantial part for IAR views. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) .
24. Support. WikiFanatic 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support Search 4 Lancer 06:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support RickoniX (talk) 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    User has less than 150 edits and probably does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

26. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support, candidate statement overcomes any inexperience issues I may have had. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support, Rangek 02:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support, per candidate statement and answers to statement questions.-- Dakota ~ ε 06:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Tan DX
31. Support.-- A dam1213 Talk + 13:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Although not many questions asked, good answers and I like Contributions. ( SEWilco 05:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Too new, and does not understand core policy. Ambi 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose, inexperience, policy. Carbonite | Talk 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. I quote from your candidate statement: "I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules". I do. Sorry. Batmanand 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. Barely qualifies for suffrage. Cookiecaper 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose lack of experience and policy understanding -- Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. What Ambi said. Johnleemk | Talk 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. Sorry, NSLE, too new (I'd oppose myself too.) — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

18. Oppose great editor, but too new. Greg Asche (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Reluctant oppose - Great editor but I think WP:IAR is a vital tool when properly used. FCYTravis 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I understand your concerns; please see the new section under the statements section. (To everyone in general; it's not intended to change any of your minds, so don't feel the need to if you don't, or please don't see this as an attempt to win supports from opposes) NSL E _{( T+ C)} 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

20. Also reluctant oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Bobet 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Also reluctant oppose 172 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Reluctantly oppose: nothing personal, just not enough experience at this time, but please stay involved and interested. Jonathunder 05:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Reluctant Oppose - think you need more time dude. There is no rush for this time around. novacatz 05:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose -- Crunch 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. android 79 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose experience, sorry.-- Alhutch 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. Cannot agree with total rejection of WP:IAR. -- Michalis Famelis 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Please see my comment to FCYTravis, while I don't subscrbe to it, I don't "(totally) reject" it. NSL E _{( T+ C)} 10:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

31. Oppose, rejection of WP:IAR disturbs me. -- Nick Boalch ^?!? 11:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose sorry but your simply too controversial and a tad too inflexibile. Perhaps next election.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Weak oppose I believe this user lacks the experience needed.  Grue  13:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose per my personal policy of opposing ppl with red names. for this year. Tom e r ^talk 14:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose Inexperience and WP:IAR. Maybe next time. -- kingboyk 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose - sorry, too new. Awolf002 20:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Reluctant Oppose - Good, level headed editor, but experience is important. I also question the strong opposition to WP:IAR (not that I want to see in invoked without compelling cause). -- EMS | Talk 22:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. I've noticed several questionable applications of admin power recently and, on writing him a note asking about them, have been soundly ignored. Much more practise and interacting is needed. - Splash ^talk 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Policy. Avriette 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. Inexperienced. -- Viriditas 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. siafu 00:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Rob Church ^Talk 01:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. older≠ wiser 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. oppose Kingturtle 06:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. Maybe next time. Rje 19:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. Candidate does not adquately address the nature of arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 22:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
54. Oppose KTC 20:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. Needs more experience. Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. You take stances, which is refreshing. But I don't feel you would bring much innovation to the ArbCom role. Velvetsmog 00:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose Dr. B 17:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    'Oppose(Gibby 19:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)) Has taken sides with friends to bully oposition in pages like Communism — Preceding unsigned comment added by KDRGibby ( talk • contribs)

    User's first edit was on December 1, 2005; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

60. Oppose. maclean25 00:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Reluctantly oppose - a very good editor, just too new for this role -- Francs 2000 00:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. Inexperienced. -- William Pietri 01:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. *drew 02:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose WilliamKF 22:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Preaky 23:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. Three months is not sufficient experience, regardless of edit count. Superm401 | Talk 23:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 05:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose as too new, but liable to support in the future. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply