Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Kitch

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.   &#08492;  astique &#09660; par &#08467; er &#09829; voir &#09809;  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) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 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! - &lt;*&gt; 01:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Staffelde 01:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. &mdash;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 ). &mdash; F REAK OF N URxTURE  ( [ TALK ] )  03:28, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Bobet 05:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inexperience --Crunch 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose. android  79  06:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose Too new. &mdash; Catherine\talk 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose--cj | talk 06:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. siafu 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. --Viriditas 10:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Lack of XP. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose xp.  Grue   13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose Questions --kingboyk 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 14:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Your enthusiasm has been noted. Better luck next time. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak 14:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. Experience; do not believe candidate truly understands ArbComm's purpose.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose --Doc ask? 20:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose for lack of experience. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:12Z 
 * 23) Oppose as per Jonathunder. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 20:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose, inexperienced. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. Not enough community interaction so far. H e rmione1980 22:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Splash talk 23:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. Clean up Loop quantum gravity first. Avriette 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose Sarah Ewart 01:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) older&ne;wiser 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, inexperienced. HGB 18:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) 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)
 * 33) 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)
 * 34) Oppose, inexperienced. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) 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)
 * 36) Oppose - Vsmith 01:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose. the vision thing --JWSchmidt 02:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose, as per EMS. Thryduulf 15:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose. &mdash;David Levy 18:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose KTC 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 44) Oppose - what exactly is your "extensive access to knowledge"? ...no real statements, no experience. --NorkNork 20:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. User statement lacks the substance to support. Maybe next time. Velvetsmog 22:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. Late entrant? Maybe next year... also something just didn't quite ring true. Why? ++Lar: t/c 04:07, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. Preaky 07:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose. Neutralitytalk 15:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) 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)
 * 53) Oppose. Well-intentioned, but inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 21:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Weak Oppose XP. Masonpatriot 04:47, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose inexperience --Loopy e 05:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57)  Bratsche talk 05:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Oppose, appears harmless but inexperienced. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - &#91;&#91;User talk:Wrp103&#124;Talk]] 19:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose - the single least impressive candidacy statement I have ever read on Wikipedia. - JustinWick 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 01:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose Alex43223

Neutral

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