Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kitch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Kitch

Hello. I am officially throwing my hat into the ring for appointment as a Wikipedia Arbitrator.

I am running because I feel I can provide an impartial mind to the arbitration process. I have an extensive access to knowledge to assist me in determining facts, an ability to determine the difference between neutral and biased points of view, and uncanny problem-solving capabilities that were developed and exploited in Future Problem Solvers competitions in my youth.

I am a frequent page editor and creator. I have recently been invited to join WikiProject Professional wrestling in recognition of my contributions to the project from outside. I am also a major player in the creation and maintenance of pages relating to Dance Dance Revolution. I have done reverts on many cases of vandalism.

I seek to be a user-arbitrator. I will not seek the powers of an administrator or bureaucrat if I am appointed to a position as arbitrator.

Thank you for your consideration.

Questions

Support

  1. It didn't say in the rules that you couldn't vote for yourself, so why wouldn't I? --Kitch 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support freestylefrappe 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support. --Kefalonia 09:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. User certainly doesn't deserve this level of opposition. ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support Wally 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. SupportDr. B 21:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. —Kirill Lokshin 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Cryptic (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose as too inexperienced. Batmanand 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose --Angelo 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Staffelde 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose.--ragesoss 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:28, Jan. 9, 2006
  18. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Bobet 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose inexperience --Crunch 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. android79 06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\talk 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose--cj | talk 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. siafu 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose. --Viriditas 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Lack of XP. —Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. --RobertG ♬ talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose xp.  Grue  13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Questions --kingboyk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction|yakkity yak 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. Experience; do not believe candidate truly understands ArbComm's purpose.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose --Doc ask? 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose for lack of experience. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:12Z
  40. Oppose as per Jonathunder. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, inexperienced. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose. Not enough community interaction so far. Hermione1980 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Splashtalk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. Clean up Loop quantum gravity first. Avriette 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. older≠wiser 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose Lack of platform, lack of initiave (in not copying and answering the common questions dealt with by other candidates) --EMS | Talk 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose, inexperienced. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose - Vsmith 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose. the vision thing --JWSchmidt 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose, as per EMS. Thryduulf 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. —David Levy 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose KTC 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  61. Oppose - what exactly is your "extensive access to knowledge"? ...no real statements, no experience. --NorkNork 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose. User statement lacks the substance to support. Maybe next time. Velvetsmog 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Late entrant? Maybe next year... also something just didn't quite ring true. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Preaky 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 15:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose. Well-intentioned, but inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Weak Oppose XP. Masonpatriot 04:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose inexperience --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose, appears harmless but inexperienced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. Oppose - the single least impressive candidacy statement I have ever read on Wikipedia. - JustinWick 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
  78. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  79. Oppose Alex43223

Neutral

  1. Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 17:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)