Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Z.Spy

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This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

I am running for Arbitration comittee because I am a responsible contributor who reverts Vandalism, assists new editors, and Makes sure that Wikipedia is a clean, accurate Encyclopedia. I no longer state political opinons in Talk Pages.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. --Kefalonia 09:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, lack of experience.  --Interiot 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Cryptic (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Crunch 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Antandrus  (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) --Jaranda wat's sup 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose — Omegatron 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose. Inexperience, and statement reads more like a Request for Adminship. Batmanand 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose for lack of experience --Angelo 02:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:11, 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 ] )  03:29, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose, experience &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose Too new. Good luck with future contributions. 172 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Bobet 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. Too inexperienced. Paul August &#9742; 04:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. (finally, the last candidate)--ragesoss 04:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. Need to demonstrate a lot more knowledge about WP before taking on such a big role. novacatz 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. Agree with novacatz. 青い(Aoi) 05:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Nothing personal; inexperience. --Muchness 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose--cj | talk 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. android  79  06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Inexperience issues for this vote. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. -- Michalis Famelis 10:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose: Too little is known about Z.spy's ideas about the arbcom's direction, plus inexperience. --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 11:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose Meekohi 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Another sparkly oppose vote, per inexperience as cited by everyone else. Tom e rtalk  14:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose.  Grue   14:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. --Viriditas 15:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 17:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose. Please stay a responsible editor, but that alone is not enough to be a good candidate for ArbComm.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose, xp --kingboyk 19:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z 
 * 31) Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose - Inexperienced. --EMS | Talk 22:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Splash talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione1980 23:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) older&ne;wiser 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)