This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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 Wikipedia: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

1. Fred Bauder 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Support. Trifon Triantafillidis 13:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   • 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) — Cryptic (talk) 15:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

2. Support Cberlet 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Concur. Avriette 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support Very nice user to work with abakharev 05:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support Largely agree Septentrionalis 20:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support-- Masssiveego 07:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
10. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose, lack of experience. -- Interiot 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose, experience —the preceding unsigned comment is by Bunchofgrapes ( talk •  contribs) 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Oppose not experienced. -- Angelo 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose The Literate Engineer 01:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose, per Batmanand's objection.-- ragesoss 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose Staffelde 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:14, Jan. 9, 2006

21. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Bobet 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose inexperience older≠ wiser 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. Inexperienced. -- Viriditas 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. Inexperience Dave 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose -- Crunch 04:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose 172 05:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Too new. — Catherine\ ^talk 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. android 79 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. -- Scott e^iπ 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose .  Grue  06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. siafu 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose-- cj | talk 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose for lack of experience. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 08:15 Z
38. Oppose. Lupo 09:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose Lack of substance to statement, lack of experience. -- kingboyk 10:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose, as kingboyk -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Lack of XP, statement too wishy-washy. — Nightstallion (?) 11:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose, too new. -- Terence Ong ^Talk 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose Sarah Ewart 12:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. -- RobertG ♬ talk 12:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. 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) reply
49. Oppose - I am in broad disagreement with most of the candidate's statements. Ξxtreme Unction| _{yakkity yak}
50. Oppose, needs experience. Awolf002 15:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Lack of experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. 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) reply
53. Oppose Inexperience, attitude. -- EMS | Talk 20:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Inexperienced. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. H e rmione 1980 22:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Splash ^talk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. 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) reply
58. Oppose, per Fifelfoo. Too new. Sorry. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) (forgot to sign, sorry) reply
59. Oppose. Vsmith 04:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. Neutrality ^talk 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Raven4x4x 08:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. I disagree with the user statements. More wikipedia experience might refine the candidate's stances. Velvetsmog 22:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. 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) reply
67. Oppose, experience KTC 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose, inexperience.-- Srleffler 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose, not experienced and doesn't seem to understand the role. Gazpacho 09:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 14:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose Dr. B 21:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose. Needs more general experience. Doesn't seem to understand idea of ArbCom. Superm401 | Talk 03:45, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose alas, not enough experience. -- Loopy ^e 04:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose Definitely not someone I would like to see on ArbCom given some of his statements. Sjc 05:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply