Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Dogbreathcanada

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This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

It is true that I've only been a contributing member of Wikipedia for about 4 months now, but I feel I still have a lot to offer the project. Wikipedia represents cooperative collaberation, but that collaberation works best in an environment where there is a good set of guidelines on submission principles.

The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace. --Dogbreathcanada 22:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. Seems earnest, and 4 months is long enough to get a feel for the climate of the community. Dave 03:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. --Kefalonia 09:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Philip Stevens 10:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. richie22 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but your vote cannot be counted since your account is newer than 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150. --TML1988 04:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support if you're good enough, you're old enough Robdurbar 12:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Michael Snow 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Lack of experience, sorry. – ugen64 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Four months is, for me, just not long enough. Batmanand 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Cryptic (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose, experience &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. inexperience, narrow editing interest.--ragesoss 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose.Staffelde 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose --Viriditas 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Account too new (created December 28, 2005 ). &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:12, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Bobet 03:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) older&ne;wiser 03:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose, too inexperienced, sorry. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose --Crunch 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Paul August &#9742; 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose Too new. &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Fred Bauder 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. android  79  05:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. -- Scott ei&#960;  06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose.  Grue   06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. &middot; Katefan0(scribble)/ mrp 06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. siafu 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose--cj | talk 07:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:08Z 
 * 19) Oppose. Lupo 09:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose: Vague mission statement, and not enough of a track record to support yet. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 10:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. Lack of experience, nothing to really convince me. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 11:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose lack of experience, unconvincing statement, low edits, and erratic history pre Jan 1. Sarah Ewart 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Lack of XP. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Xtra 12:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose, lack of experience. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose, insuficient evidence from edit history and candidate statement to get a true feel on how well the user would be an arbitrator. Thryduulf 13:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose, needs more experience. Awolf002 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, but do try again when you have more experience.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose I'm not sure the nominee is even entitled to vote (a rule change is required in that regard I think). Inexperienced, but maybe next time. --kingboyk 15:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose Inexperience --EMS | Talk 17:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose --Doc ask? 18:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose - Masonpatriot 18:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose: It's hard for regular users to even find these pages, so I have no idea how really new users do.  At any rate, experience and a track record are almost the only things that matter.  This user has neither.  Geogre 19:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose: if you want to demonstrate that you have the necessary insight despite your relatively short time on the project, then a more detailed statement is necessary. Terra Green 20:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione1980 22:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. Just too damned new. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Splash talk 22:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose. Lack of experience. Avriette 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose. gave up after one day. --JWSchmidt 03:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. Neutralitytalk 04:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose. Vsmith 04:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose -Fennec (&#12399;&#12373;&#12400;&#12367;&#12398;&#12365;&#12388;&#12397;) 05:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Raven4x4x 08:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose, too new. HGB 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. Lack of experience--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  19:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego  talk 21:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose Experience, lack of. --PTSE 21:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. Inexperience.  Get some more experience and try again.  Velvetsmog 22:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose Lack of experience. Only 183 edits. --Nick123 (t/c) 22:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose Timrollpickering 02:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose, experience. KTC 05:07, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose--Masssiveego 07:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose Sunray 08:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose Tazz765 17:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose - Lack of exp. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page.'' Signed by Chazz @ 19:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) Oppose: I don't beleive that experience is everything, but this persons appeal does not appeal to me.Dr. B 21:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose. Experience, plus statement is bland and short. Superm401 | Talk 03:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose, doesn't seem to be eager to become an arbitrator...bland, not to mention experience.Alex43223 05:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose (But I have no problem with a short statement) --Ignignot 17:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose – ABCDe ✉ 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Oppose - not enough experience, unconvincing statement, doesn't say much about his goals. --NorkNork 19:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Lacks experience. JoaoRicardotalk 20:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72) Oppose. Inexperienced and statement is unspecific. SycthosTalk 02:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose Jared 12:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC)