This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

Granted, I'm new to this side of Wikipedia, having mostly devoted myself to the improvement of individual articles on matters where I felt my lights could come in useful. I still have been able to see how contributors with differing views of a subject might come into conflict, even when doing their best to adhere to civility and NPOV, but regarding the other side's version as irredeemably wrong and unworthy of mention at all ... and that's not even mentioning cases when personal involvement in an issue cannot but skew viewpoint, and the depredations of trolls and vandals.

If chosen, for as long as I serve, I will strive to uphold the ideals completeness and neutrality this wikigroup strives to embody, and to give all cases placed before me fair and optimal treatment, drawing both from existing jurisprudence and my own resources, as well as the considered opinions of my colleagues, particularly the more experienced ones, or those having shown themselves most worthy of my esteem. -- Svartalf 14:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) reply

In the face of overwhelming negative responses arguing "inexperience" (My! was Clockwork Soul such a massive contributor that he got an adminship so fast?) I hereby retract my candidacy. -- Svartalf 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   User does not have suffrage (account created 13 December 2005 and only 41 edits). Carbonite | Talk 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Support. -- HK 23:29, 9 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 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose — Omegatron 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. Just not experienced enough yet. Batmanand 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose not experienced -- Angelo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose -- Crunch 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Bobet 04:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose.-- ragesoss 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose: it's an experience thing. - Stevecov 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Stevecov does not have suffrage; he had only 148 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

22. Oppose Too new. 172 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose - Experience (lack of) novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. android 79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. — Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppoaw.  Grue  14:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Opposer, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. Lack of experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. 2 NU ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:31 Z
38. Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Splash ^talk 23:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. older≠ wiser 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose Fuzzy bunny statement. Fifelfoo 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. Step 1) proofread. Avriette 06:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Raven4x4x 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 19:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. 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
49. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:46, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Not enough experience.-- JK the unwise 12:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
53. Oppose. I'm looking for a history of relevant experience. -- JWSchmidt 02:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose, inexperience. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. 'Oppose alas, lack of experience. -- Loopy ^e 00:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Krash 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose - lack of experience -- Francs 2000 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. No substance to the statement. Velvetsmog 01:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. Inexperience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 05:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. Inexperienced; statement unpersuasive. -- William Pietri 22:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. siafu 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply