Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/SVera1NY

SVera1NY
Although I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months, I have contributed alot, especially reverting vandalism and inviting newcomers. I think I would be a great addition to the Committee and would greatly appreciate a post. Thank you very much for your consideration.

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. --Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support  TestPilot  20:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. -- HK  23:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support: This looks user truelly looks he deserves it - Chooserr 04:57, 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 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. Mo0 [ talk ] 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Cryptic (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose, lack of experience.  --Interiot 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose — Omegatron 01:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Too new at the moment. Batmanand 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose - same. Staffelde 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose not experienced --Angelo 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, experience &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Reluctantly oppose as experience really does matter in this type of role. Jonathunder 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose, too new. Crunch 03:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Bobet 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose.--ragesoss 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) Oppose Too new. 172 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose - Experience (lack of) novacatz 04:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Oppose. android  79  06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose--cj | talk 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose Elle vécu heureuse à jamais  (Be eudaimonic!) 10:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. --RobertG &#9836; talk 12:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose Trifon Triantafillidis 13:13, 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) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose.  Grue   14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. --Viriditas 15:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose. Lack of experience.  Keep up good work, though.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose, xp --kingboyk 19:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose, WAY 2 nu  &#08492;  astique &#09660; par &#08467; er &#09829; voir &#09809;  21:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z 
 * 9) Oppose - needs experience. Awolf002 22:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) Splash talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. Too new and not active enough to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione1980 23:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) older&ne;wiser 02:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose. Fuzzy bunny statement. Fifelfoo 05:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Oppose. Did you send them flowers, too? Avriette 06:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Raven4x4x 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose, Lack of experience. Prodego  talk 20:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. Not enough experience, not enough thought given to election statment.--JK the unwise 12:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 24) Oppose. I'm looking for more experience. --JWSchmidt 23:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose - inexperienced. --NorkNork 21:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) Krash 18:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose due to lack of experience. Bahn Mi 19:14, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose Dr. B 23:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose - inexperienced -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose. No substance to the statement. Velvetsmog 01:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Inexperience. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 05:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. Too inexperienced. --Optichan 19:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 34) Oppose. Inexperienced, and statement provides no insight. --William Pietri 22:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) Oppose. siafu 01:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose. Preaky 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Oppose. Inexperienced and gives no reason for me to vote for him. Superm401 | Talk 02:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 09:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) Oppose Dannycas 00:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Inexperience Ingoolemo talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. Lack of experience and flagrant abuse of boxes on userpage. Avengerx 20:21, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Oppose --Loopy e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45)  Bratsche talk 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose Inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose seems to want to be on the Arbcom as a status symbol, not to actually accomplish anything Cynical 22:49, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 49) Oppose --moof 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose, the usual reasons. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose, experience. KTC 12:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose Not enough experience yet. --Spondoolicks 22:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) Oppose CDThieme 23:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. Although from the few responses given to questioning, SVera1NY appears fairly sensible, neutral, and balanced, I feel that her candidacy was too late to be properly investigated via hustings. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Youngamerican 18:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Neutral. Good, balanced, thinking kid, but doesn't give me much information about what she would do once in "office."  Maybe next time.  (P.S. - Just how much experience is everyone expecting from the candidates?!) Author782 08:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC)