Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/The prophet wizard of the crayon cake

Statement
I can't really say too much about myself. I deal with these sorts of issues quite a lot here (I almost exclusively dabble in behavior stuff, to be honest), and I'm willing to give this a shot as well.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Not the greatest statement, but I've always been quite impressed by this user. AmiDaniel (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) The doctor is in.--SB | T 01:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral Support on basis of awesome username.  Lankiveil 04:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
 * 4) Per Lankiveil :)  Cowman109 Talk 05:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Moral support semper fi — Moe  05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Seems to understand that sysops should not go beyond their attributions. --Sugaar 11:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Support  G  e  o. 17:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Support Even-keeled reliable user. User:Pedant 18:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Heart in the right place, plus the arbitration process could always use more modesty and dadaism ˉˉanetode╦╩ 22:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Takes Wikipedia too seriously. Andre (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Come on, if Bush and Ted Stevens can get positions of power, surely this guy can. ShadowMan1od 23:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) per Sugaar. Addhoc 11:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Support Helped Wikipedia a lot by taking the gravity out of disputes with his fresh, detached style. &mdash; Sebastian (talk) 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Support Will be a breath of fresh air.--Brownlee 12:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support, Mallanox 20:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Moral Support, as there are a lot good things about him, some mentioned above. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support per Lankiveil. -- Thesocialistesq/M.Lesocialiste 00:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support Pretty good user. [wossi] 23:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support --  t A  LL I  N c  21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support Chsf 15:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, too new and inexperienced as a Wikipedian for this particular senior role. -- M P er el ( talk 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose  --ElKevbo 00:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Angus McLellan  (Talk) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Sorry, not enough experience yet. --Core desat  00:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose as per MPerel, above Jd2718 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Jaranda wat's sup 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) - crz crztalk 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Tito xd (?!?) 00:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Hello32020 01:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) SuperMachine 01:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Awolf002 01:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Delta Tango • Talk 01:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) I don't think 5 months of editing is sufficient for adminship, let alone arbcom. - Mark 02:14, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Get some more experience in WP:DR and reapply next time if you like it≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Too new. —Centrx→talk • 02:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Sarah Ewart 03:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Rebecca 03:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) — Mi  ra  03:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) KPbIC 03:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Per not enough experience, although being active in mediation is a great good start. I am looking forward to supporting you next time if you keep up such involvment...--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Ter e nce Ong 04:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Lack of experience, as evidenced by some answers to questions. Warofdreams talk 04:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Inexperience, including poor statement and answers to questions. Xoloz 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Mailer Diablo 04:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) THB 04:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Such a poor statement seems to indicate that the user has either not thought much about what the position entails or is not taking it seriously.  --Hyperbole 06:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) --Riley 06:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Dylan Lake 06:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Nufy8 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) I never had a chance to find out anything in the nom statement, it makes it very hard for me to support -- Tawker 07:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) His statement would earn a 0 if it were used as an academic paper. In addition, his userpage is so disorganized that I can't make any sense of it. Scob e ll302 07:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) I think articulation is a prerequisite plus the level of interest shown in his statement doesn't give a lot of confidence. —Doug Bell talk 08:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) – Chacor 09:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose per Cowman's vote. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) cj | talk 11:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Inexperience. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  {L} 12:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Too new --Neigel von Teighen 12:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) -- May the Force be with you!  Shr e shth91 13:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Lacks the requisite experience; answers are vague and/or unsatisfactory on key issues. --Muchness 13:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 41)  Shyam  ( T / C ) 14:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  14:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose try again when you've accrued more experience,  Tewfik  Talk 16:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) No experience... maybe next election.   ALKIVAR &trade; ☢ 16:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose per Alkivar. 1ne 17:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) --Pjacobi 20:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Brian Boru is awesome 20:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 48)  ßott   e   siηi  (talk) 21:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Gurch 23:23, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Michael Snow 23:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Please don't eat the crayons. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 02:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose, per Muchness. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 06:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Strong Oppose - Getting rid of NOTABILITY?!?! --Wo o ty Woot? contribs 07:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Weak answers. GizzaChat  &#169; 08:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose   young  american  (ahoy hoy) 15:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose. Insufficient experience at this point. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  15:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose - Due to several things I found in the nominee's edit contributions, including: Category:Wikipedians who don't give a fuck. - jc37 16:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Besides inexperience, the paltry statement just gave me a sort of "I don't really care enough to compose a few paragraphs explaining my views" vibe. -- Cyde Weys  18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) *Hmmm... my views. I hold a staunch position of indifference and disinterest. So I think my statement summed that up well. :D - The Prophet Wiz ard of the Cray  on Cake  21:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose - I agree with Cyde, I am getting a "don't really care about this" vibe from his/her statement and answers to questions. Admits to being out of the loop.  Guettarda 20:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose - shows no sense of concern about Wiki, and appears to "not know/care" about the Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andy5190 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose. Not right now.  Nish kid 64  01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose -- Lack of motivation.--*Kat* 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose. —Lantoka ( talk 03:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose Username is too ridiculous.  --Connel MacKenzie -  wikt 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose as above lack of motivation Lethaniol 13:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose - please, do write a better statement. -- Schnee (cheeks clone) 16:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose, the statement does not convince me of the qualities of this candidate. &mdash; mark &#9998; 16:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose insufficient reason to believe the user will complete the term GRBerry 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose. Very short statement, and lacks experience.--Merlinme 17:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose Needs to work on the communication skills -- Sakurambo  桜ん坊  21:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose. Arbitration commitee needs dedication, not some vague interest. Fram 10:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems pretty flaky to me SDG 00:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * SDG does not have suffrage; he had only 74 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). &mdash;Cryptic 15:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose inexperience, unsawayed by answers Pete.Hurd 04:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Sakurambo, DougBell, and WarofDreams, et al., with the provision that I don't think we ought categorically to disfavor those users who seem not entirely eager to serve.  Joe 04:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Seems to lack the maturity required for the position, and his statement does nothing to offset those fears. --Danaman5 06:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Your statement doesn't tell me anything about you.-- Andeh 13:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Genuinely disruptive and unhelpful in contentious situations.  Pretty much the exact opposite of what you want in arbcom jbolden1517Talk  15:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. I DO think we ought to disfavor users who seem not entirely eager to serve.  ArbComm is a hard, largely thankless job that wins its members few friends.  We can't afford reluctance.  Ravenswing 17:45, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. A.M.962 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Would have supported for experience with mediation, but oppose because of scarcity of recent MC cases and short time with Wikipedia. Conscious 21:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose -- Longhair\talk 08:58, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose — inexperience, doesn't seem to be a serious candidate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose due to inexperience, answers, and nearly dying when I inhaled Dr. Pepper after seeing his user page. The colors, they burn. -- Elar  a  girl  Talk 19:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose -- terrible response to SPOV question. Seems to evince a lot of popular misconceptions that an encyclopedia should help remedy not perpetuate. --ScienceApologist 17:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose due to lack of motivation. Also userpage makes my eyes bleed. the wub "?!"  20:41, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Inexperience, not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. Axl 18:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Great editor, but lack of experience. &mdash;Xyrael / 22:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) The candidate is certainly on the right track to this type of dispute resolution position, and I will certainly take the candidate into serious consideration at the next scheduled election. theProject 01:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose Krich (talk) 03:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose I think even I'm a better candidate... yet I'm not standing. --Stevecov 14:40, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) oppose lack of experience. Kiwidude 22:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)