Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Quaque

Quaque
I have been following Wikipedia development for a few years now, and have recently returned to editing after a long break. I have seen a lot of cases go through, so my aim as an arbitrator is simple. To keep Wikipedia a decent encyclopedia and to deal with those who wish to corrupt it. The current system is too slow, and lots of damage has occurred and vandals don't take the system seriously.

I have dealt with a large number of vandals and nonsense over the years and know a lot of the technical goings on at the wiki, so I feel confident on being able to take on the challenge of dealing with these disputes and restore credibility to the system.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. --Kefalonia 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Ciriii 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ciriii does not have suffrage; he registered at 00:31, 26 October 2005 (UTC) and he had only 93 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 03:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 88.108.28.247 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 88.108.28.247 does not have suffrage; he/she is not a registered user of Wikipedia. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 07:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Cryptic (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose A potentially good candidate, but just too inexperienced now. In future, I would potentially support. But now is too soon. Sorry. Batmanand 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose as per Batmanand --Angelo 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 01:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, experience. &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:23, 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 ] )  03:38, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.--ragesoss 03:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Bobet 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Too new. 172 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose Vague answers--Crunch 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. android  79  06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose--cj | talk 06:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose.  Grue   14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. --Viriditas 15:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 15:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Lack of experience.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, userboxes. --Wikimol 19:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose - too new. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:09Z 
 * 21) Oppose - vagueness. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 21:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Splash talk 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose. No qualification of "deal with". Avriette 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) older&ne;wiser 02:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. siafu 04:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose Account too new, no other history available. --EMS | Talk 04:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose, too new. HGB 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Lack of experience &mdash; Comics (Talk) 19:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego  talk 20:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. Inability to address arbitration in candidate statement Fifelfoo 22:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)#Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 35) Oppose. Recently started user account. --JWSchmidt 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose, inexperience. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose – ABCDe ✉ 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose alas, lack of experience. --Loopy e 00:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Candidate statement missing substance. Velvetsmog 01:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Dr. B 17:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Oppose, too new -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 06:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Opppose. Inexperienced. --William Pietri 00:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 21:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose. Inexperience.  Superm401 | Talk 00:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose. Preaky 00:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. XP -- Masonpatriot 05:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose: I hate piling on, but I support lack of ambiguity when it comes to new accounts running for ArbCom. Geogre 22:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52)  Bratsche talk 05:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - &#91;&#91;User talk:Wrp103&#124;Talk]] 20:14, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose statement indicates support for removal of due process from the Arbcom Cynical 22:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose per what most folks have already said. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:16, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose KTC 12:04, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Not going to pile it on. Youngamerican 18:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)