Although I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months, I have contributed alot, especially reverting vandalism and inviting newcomers. I think I would be a great addition to the Committee and would greatly appreciate a post. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Questions

1. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support TestPilot 20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. -- HK 23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support: This looks user truelly looks he deserves it - Chooserr 04:57, 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 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose — Omegatron 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. Too new at the moment. Batmanand 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose - same. Staffelde 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose not experienced -- Angelo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose, too new. Crunch 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Bobet 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose.-- ragesoss 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose Too new. 172 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose - Experience (lack of) novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. android 79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. — Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

33. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose.  Grue  14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. Lack of experience. Keep up good work, though.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose, xp -- kingboyk 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose, WAY 2 nu ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:32 Z
41. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Splash ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. Too new and not active enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. older≠ wiser 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. Fuzzy bunny statement. Fifelfoo 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Did you send them flowers, too? Avriette 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Raven4x4x 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Not enough experience, not enough thought given to election statment.-- JK the unwise 12:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
56. Oppose. I'm looking for more experience. -- JWSchmidt 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Krash 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose Dr. B 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose - inexperienced -- Francs 2000 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. No substance to the statement. Velvetsmog 01:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. Too inexperienced. -- Optichan 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. Inexperienced, and statement provides no insight. -- William Pietri 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. siafu 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. Preaky 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. Inexperienced and gives no reason for me to vote for him. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Dannycas 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Inexperience Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose. Lack of experience and flagrant abuse of boxes on userpage. Avengerx 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose seems to want to be on the Arbcom as a status symbol, not to actually accomplish anything Cynical 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose -- moof 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose, the usual reasons. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose, experience. KTC 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose Not enough experience yet. -- Spondoolicks 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose CDThieme 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. Although from the few responses given to questioning, SVera1NY appears fairly sensible, neutral, and balanced, I feel that her candidacy was too late to be properly investigated via hustings. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Youngamerican 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral. Good, balanced, thinking kid, but doesn't give me much information about what she would do once in "office." Maybe next time. (P.S. - Just how much experience is everyone expecting from the candidates?!) Author782 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply