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) reply

Questions

1. Support. Clear head and civility regarding contentious issues.-- ragesoss 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support. Philip Stevens 07:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. -- HK 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

   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) reply

   • 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) reply

8. Support Chooserr 05:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Ben 23:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   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) reply

   • 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) — Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose.' Too new. Ambi 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. At the moment, just too new. Batmanand 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose lack of experience -- Angelo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose, experience — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Bobet 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose Too new. 172 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose Lack of experience. 青い(Aoi) 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose -- Daniel 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. android 79 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. — Nightstallion (?) 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose Meekohi 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. — Dunc| ☺ 14:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose.  Grue  14:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose, xp. R adiant _>|< 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose, lack of experience. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 17:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. Needs experience.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:32 Z
34. Oppose Jim62sch 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • 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) reply
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose - Too new. Awolf002 22:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Splash ^talk 23:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose, lack of experience. Salsb 01:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. older≠ wiser 03:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Guettarda 04:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. No statement regarding arbitration in candidate statement. Fifelfoo 05:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Raven4x4x 08:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose, lack of experience. Prodego ^talk 20:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
47. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose'.Lack of experience.-- JK the unwise 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose: No experience with conflict and policy. Geogre 12:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
52. Oppose. point of view on science -- JWSchmidt 21:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose, inexperienced. Sorry. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose - weak statement. -- NorkNork 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Davidpdx 14:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Krash 18:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose, lack of experience -- Francs 2000 00:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. "Dispassionate"? Velvetsmog 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. Too new, not enough edits and experience. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 05:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. Not enough experience demonstrated, especially in talk pages. -- William Pietri 22:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. siafu 01:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Preaky 02:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Inexperienced. Superm401 | Talk 02:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. XP --- Masonpatriot 06:40, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. Kusma (討論) 14:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 09:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Insufficient experience. Ingoolemo  ^talk 07:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:31, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose inexperience wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
74. Oppose KTC 12:29, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose The problem is not that the editor is new. Ec5618 14:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose lack of experience. -- Spondoolicks 22:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose CDThieme 23:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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) reply
2. Neutral. Not going to heap it on. Needs more experience. Youngamerican 18:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply