I have been following Wikipedia development for a few years now, and have recently returned to editing after a long break. I have seen a lot of cases go through, so my aim as an arbitrator is simple. To keep Wikipedia a decent encyclopedia and to deal with those who wish to corrupt it. The current system is too slow, and lots of damage has occurred and vandals don't take the system seriously.

I have dealt with a large number of vandals and nonsense over the years and know a lot of the technical goings on at the wiki, so I feel confident on being able to take on the challenge of dealing with these disputes and restore credibility to the system.

Questions

1. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support Ciriii 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • Ciriii does not have suffrage; he registered at 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 93 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   88.108.28.247 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   88.108.28.247 does not have suffrage; he/she is not a registered user of Wikipedia. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose A potentially good candidate, but just too inexperienced now. In future, I would potentially support. But now is too soon. Sorry. Batmanand 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose as per Batmanand -- Angelo 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose, experience. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:23, 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) 03:38, Jan. 9, 2006

15. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose.-- ragesoss 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Bobet 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose Too new. 172 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose Vague answers-- Crunch 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. android 79 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. — Nightstallion (?) 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose.  Grue  14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. Lack of experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose, userboxes. -- Wikimol 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose - too new. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:09 Z
35. Oppose - vagueness. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Splash ^talk 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. No qualification of "deal with". Avriette 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. older≠ wiser 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. siafu 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose Account too new, no other history available. -- EMS | Talk 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose Lack of experience — Comics ( Talk) 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. Inability to address arbitration in candidate statement Fifelfoo 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)#Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
49. Oppose. Recently started user account. -- JWSchmidt 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose, inexperience. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose – AB C D ^e ✉ 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose alas, lack of experience. -- Loopy ^e 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Candidate statement missing substance. Velvetsmog 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Dr. B 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose, too new -- Francs 2000 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Opppose. Inexperienced. -- William Pietri 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 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 18:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. Inexperience. Superm401 | Talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Preaky 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose: I hate piling on, but I support lack of ambiguity when it comes to new accounts running for ArbCom. Geogre 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose statement indicates support for removal of due process from the Arbcom Cynical 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose per what most folks have already said. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose KTC 12:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply