Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Trilemma

Trilemma
Through my time on wikipedia, I've attempted to add dispassionate, non partisan contributions to a variety of topics. I've added some pages relating to Pennsylvania politics, while contributing to a number of national figures. I've also helped establish the depth of material on current NBA players, and added a number of movie titles.

Arbitrators need to be dispassionate, dedicated and cogent, and I think my track record on wikipedia demonstrates these qualities. Upon election, I'd hope to help make the arbitration committee a more effecient operation, while maintaining precise and non biased decisions. I believe that severe action should always be a last resort relegated to the most egregious of circumstances and the wikipedia community should continue to foster a genial climate of respect and honesty. Most disputes can be resolved peacefully and civilly, and this is a testament to the strength of wikipedia.Trilemma 18:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Questions

Support

 * 1) Support. Clear head and civility regarding contentious issues.--ragesoss 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. Sjakkalle (Check!)  07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. Philip Stevens 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. --Kefalonia 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. -- HK  23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Support. Okay, so I'm a sucker for "dispassionate" and "civil." May you live up to your words. Avriette 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support I think being new is a good thing. Ready for a fresh (i.e., non-jaded) perspective. Giles22 13:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Giles22 likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 17:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Support Chooserr 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Support Ben 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look very good for this election, but you impressed me with maintaing objectivity, patience, and consideration of circumstances (mainly for not adopting a rather "zero tolerance" policy for Wiki violations). I do Support you, and will do so whenever your next run at the office shall be. Author782 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) &#8212;Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 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 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) &mdash;Kirill Lok s hin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 9) Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 10) --Jaranda wat's sup 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 11) Oppose. At the moment, just too new. Batmanand 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose lack of experience --Angelo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 13) Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 14) Oppose, experience &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Bobet 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Oppose Too new. 172 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Oppose Lack of experience. 青い(Aoi) 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Oppose --Daniel 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 21) Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 22) Oppose. android  79  06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 23) Oppose--cj | talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 24) &mdash; Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 25) Oppose Meekohi 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 26) Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR &trade;Radioactivity symbol.png 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 27) &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 28) Oppose.  Grue   14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 29) Oppose, xp. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 30) Oppose. --Viriditas 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 31) Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!"  RFR - a good idea? 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 32) Oppose. Needs experience.&mdash;Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 33) Oppose. &mdash;Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z 
 * 34) Oppose Jim62sch 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 35) * Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) &mdash;Cryptic (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 36) **Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 37) Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 38) Splash talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 39) Oppose, lack of experience. Salsb 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 40) Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 41) older&ne;wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 42) Guettarda 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 43) Oppose. No statement regarding arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 44) Raven4x4x 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 45) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 46) Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 47) Oppose, lack of experience.  Prodego  talk 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 48) 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)
 * 49) Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 50) Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 51) Oppose'.Lack of experience.--JK the unwise 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 52) Oppose: No experience with conflict and policy. Geogre 12:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 53) - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
 * 54) Oppose. point of view on science --JWSchmidt 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 55) Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 56) Oppose - weak statement. --NorkNork 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 57) Oppose Davidpdx 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 58) Krash 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 59) Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs2000 [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px| ]] 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 60) Oppose. "Dispassionate"? Velvetsmog 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 61) Oppose. Too new, not enough edits and experience. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 62) Oppose. Not enough experience demonstrated, especially in talk pages. --William Pietri 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 63) Oppose. siafu 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 64) --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 65) Oppose. Preaky 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 66) Oppose. Inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 02:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 67) Oppose. XP --- Masonpatriot 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 68) Oppose. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 69) Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 70) Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 71) Oppose --Loopy e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 72)  Bratsche talk 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 73) Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 74) Oppose Flcelloguy (A note? ) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 75) Oppose. Appears to be a fine contributor, but needs more experience dealing with disputes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 76) Oppose KTC 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 77) Oppose The problem is not that the editor is new. Ec5618 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 78) Oppose lack of experience. --Spondoolicks 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 79) Oppose CDThieme 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. From the responses given to questioning, I'm not sufficiently satisfied that Trilemma would behave in a neutral manner. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Needs more experience. Youngamerican 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)