Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Trilemma

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

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) —Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support Chooserr 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. 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)

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. —Kirill Lokshin 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! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, experience —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. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. android79 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose--cj | talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. —Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Meekohi 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. — Dunc|☺ 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose.  Grue  14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 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.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 21:32Z
  34. Oppose Jim62sch 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Splashtalk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose, lack of experience. Salsb 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. older≠wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Guettarda 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. No statement regarding arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Raven4x4x 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, lack of experience. Prodego talk 20:42, 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 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose'.Lack of experience.--JK the unwise 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose: No experience with conflict and policy. Geogre 12:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  52. Oppose. point of view on science --JWSchmidt 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. Oppose - weak statement. --NorkNork 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose Davidpdx 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Krash 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs2000 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose. "Dispassionate"? Velvetsmog 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Too new, not enough edits and experience. --Aude (talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose. Not enough experience demonstrated, especially in talk pages. --William Pietri 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. siafu 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose. Preaky 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose. Inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 02:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. XP --- Masonpatriot 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose --Loopy e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. Appears to be a fine contributor, but needs more experience dealing with disputes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  74. Oppose KTC 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  75. Oppose The problem is not that the editor is new. Ec5618 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  76. Oppose lack of experience. --Spondoolicks 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
  77. 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)