I have lurked on Wikipedia for several months now, learning about the system and all of the unique elements that make Wikipedia the fascinating endeavor that it is. I have recently begun to add my own touches to articles, interconnecting and disambiguating and wikifying. I admit freely that I am relatively new to this process, particularly given the experience of many other candidates.

That might be a strength.

I am eager to provide a fresh perspective to the committee. I haven't been around that long, I don't have any biases to fall back onto. Nor do I have a preconcieved notion as to how the site (or the committee) should function. This may make me a sort of "odd man out", where a pseudo-outsider is brought into the committee to provide just that fresh perspective. My experience is with the encyclopedia; I believe it is the duty of each committee member to evaluate the merits of each case in terms of impacts to the Wikipedia project as a whole. We're here to improve the encyclopedia, and any decision must reflect that ultimate goal.

I agree with and support the hastening of the process; arbitration should not take forever. It is important to ensure that the committee is able to make an informed and reasoned decision, and time must be allotted for due diligence. With the committment of the committee members, I believe that this due diligence does not need to take forever.

It is unfortunate when a case escalates to the point of ArbCom's involvement, but such cases can and will occur from time to time. The committee's committment to swift and fair resolution of such matters is precisely why such a committee can be effective as a final semi-judicial authority.

ZZ 14:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. Support, a difference in opinions can be good. Matt Yeager 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support All signs say he's not fit for the job, but I think he is TrafficBenBoy 11:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Weak Support Nothing wrong with this candidate, but by far not the most qualified I've seen so far. Jared 18:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support Dr. B 23:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Opppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose; need more experience with the community. Antandrus (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose — Omegatron 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose. While I agree almost totally with your candidate statement, you have just not been around long enough. Sorry. Batmanand 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose for lack of experience -- Angelo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. Crunch 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose Too new. Good luck with future contributions. 172 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Bobet 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose - Too inexperienced. Paul August ☎ 04:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. Track record too short.-- ragesoss 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. Experience (lack of). novacatz 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose, agree with Batmanand. 青い(Aoi) 05:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose, not enough experience at this time. -- Muchness 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose -- cj | talk 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. android 79 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. — Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose Meekohi 13:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. oppose — Dunc| ☺ 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. oppose.  Grue  14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. Needs experience. There are too many ropes around here for a newbie to be able to efficiently pull them all.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose Donar Reiskoffer 20:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:32 Z
47. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose per above. Elle _{vécu heureuse} ^{à jamais} ( Be eudaimonic!) 22:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Splash ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 23:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. older≠ wiser 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose too new. Herostratus 03:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Fuzzy bunny candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. Several whats? Avriette 07:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Raven4x4x 08:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. not enough of a track record. # Oppose: lack of experience, and also the arbcom must be under some pressure: it has to be accountable to everyone here, rather than above and beyond. —— It's-is-not-a-genitive 14:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC). reply
59. Oppose, too new. HGB 19:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose, lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose, needs more experience. -- PTSE 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose. User's first edit is December 22, 2005. You can't learn enough about the wikipedia community in less than a month! Dr. Cash 01:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. 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
64. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose, inexperience.-- Srleffler 06:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Not enough experince.-- JK the unwise 12:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
69. Oppose. looking for a long-term relationship -- JWSchmidt 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose – AB C D ^e ✉ 18:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose - inexperienced. -- NorkNork 21:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose -- Schaefer 10:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Krash 18:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose - nothing personal, but you are inexperienced. Compu te r Jo e 20:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose, inexperienced, and I'm looking for an actioner, not a lurker -- Francs 2000 00:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose Deckiller 01:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose. Don't feel like your statement brings much to the table. Velvetsmog 01:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose. Inexperience -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 05:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose. I'm all for fresh faces, but user doesn't demonstrate enough understanding of what makes Wikipedia work. -- William Pietri 22:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose. Sarah Ewart 03:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose Could not possibly understand all of Wikipedia's policies with such little experience. – Comics ( Talk) 08:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose. Preaky 02:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose. Does not have suffrage in this election. Superm401 | Talk 03:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 06:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 09:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 00:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Hastiness in arbitration doesn't appeal to me. Time needed for deliberations. Author782 08:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

91. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose. Good statement, but too inexperienced. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose KTC 12:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose Alex43223 20:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose Not enough experience yet. -- Spondoolicks 22:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose CDThieme 23:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Youngamerican 18:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply