Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Emt147

Emt147
This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

I'm a relatively new user but very active within WikiProject_Aircraft. The world is not black-and-white and I believe that some controversial and POV material does belong in an encyclopedia so long as the controversy or the point of view are clearly explained. I think Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators. A well-written explanation of controversial points of view will add depth to the article. I absolutely draw the line at all hate/racist material however, free speech be damned.

I feel the Wikipedia banning guidelines are entirely too lenient and thus I would be content to work without admin priveleges.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Fred Bauder 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Trifon Triantafillidis does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 26 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) SupportCberlet 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Concur. Avriette 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support Very nice user to work with abakharev 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support Largely agree Septentrionalis 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support--Masssiveego 07:28, 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) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. I quote from your statement: "Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators". I couldn't disagree more. Batmanand 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose, lack of experience.  --Interiot 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, experience &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Bunchofgrapes (talk &bull; contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, per Batmanand's objection.--ragesoss 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Staffelde 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:32, 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 ] )  03:14, Jan. 9, 2006
 * 1) Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Bobet 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose inexperience older&ne;wiser 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Inexperience Dave 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose --Crunch 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose 172 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose Too new.  &mdash; Catherine\talk 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose. android  79  05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. -- Scott ei&#960;  06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose .  Grue   06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose. siafu 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose--cj | talk 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose for lack of experience. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:15Z 
 * 18) Oppose. Lupo 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Lack of substance to statement, lack of experience. --kingboyk 10:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, as kingboyk --It&#39;s-is-not-a-genitive 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Lack of XP, statement too wishy-washy. &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose, too new. --Terence Ong Talk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose as per Kingboyk. I also feel that the experience you do have is a bit limited in terms of the bredth of subject areas on Wikipedia. While this is no problem for an editor, imho an arbitrator needs to be able to take a wider view. Thryduulf 13:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose - I am in broad disagreement with most of the candidate's statements. Ξxtreme Unction |yakkity yak
 * 30) Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. Lack of experience.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose, anyone who says "free speech be damned" is not deserving of a vote for a position like this - Masonpatriot 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose Inexperience, attitude. --EMS | Talk 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Inexperienced. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione1980 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) Splash talk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose While the candidate statement addresses the nature of arbitration, the candidate does so in a manner I disagree with. Thank you for being the first genuinely informed oppose vote which I could cast.  Additionally, some of your statements regarding POV appear to be against the consensus editorial policy. Fifelfoo 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose, per Fifelfoo. Too new. Sorry. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign, sorry)
 * 39) Oppose. Vsmith 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose. Neutralitytalk 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Raven4x4x 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose, too new. HGB 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) Oppose. I disagree with the user statements. More wikipedia experience might refine the candidate's stances. Velvetsmog 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose, experience KTC 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose, not experienced and doesn't seem to understand the role. Gazpacho 09:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) OpposeDr. B 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose Timrollpickering 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 54) Oppose. Needs more general experience.  Doesn't seem to understand idea of ArbCom. Superm401 | Talk 03:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose alas, not enough experience. --Loopy e 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose Definitely not someone I would like to see on ArbCom given some of his statements. Sjc 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)