Hello there, I'm Mackensen. I've been here since August of 2003, and was made an admin a year later. My purpose in running for the Arbitration Committee is twofold: to serve the community and to push the notion of accountability and legitimacy with regards to the actions of administrators. Arbitration is a perhaps unfortunate yet clearly necessary final step in dispute resolution, because the community has vested such powers in the body. This entails a responsibility on the part of the Committee to act intelligently to uphold policy and to ensure that people can continue to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. This also means holding administrators accountable if they shoot from the hip–this whole project will fall apart if people don't trust us.

Questions

1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Michael Snow 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Certainly. – ugen64 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. Your answers to questions of policy were, for me, spot on. Batmanand 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. JYolkowski // talk 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Why the hell not? Johnleemk | Talk 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support. Grace Note 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support.-- ragesoss 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support Consistently uploads high quality, scholarly work. A strong content editor who will easily relate to users interested in writing a serious encyclopedia. 172 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support freestylefrappe 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Oppose freestylefrappe 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

14. Support: good contributions and well-reasoned answers to the questions. Jonathunder 05:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. android 79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support — Catherine\ ^talk 06:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    support themoomin —the preceding unsigned comment is by Themoomin ( talk •  contribs) 17:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Themoomin does not have suffrage; he registered at 13:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 7 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

17. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support, reasonable, thoughtful, with a good record. -- MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- Michalis Famelis 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Raven4x4x 10:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. — Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support per stance on unilateral administrative action.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support.  Grue  13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support, sensible answers, and promoting accountability is a good idea. R adiant _>|< 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support -- kingboyk 14:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support dab (ᛏ) 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. siafu 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Fang Aili 17:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 18:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support: great perception. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 20:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Splash ^talk 23:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. Yeah, spot-on. Stick to what you said, and you'll do good things. Avriette 23:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support Avalon 00:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Strong support Excellent platform. Xoloz 00:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support AnnH ^(talk) 01:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support right about the failure of 3RR. Chick Bowen 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support for opinions on adminship. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. older≠ wiser 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 03:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 06:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Haukur 08:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 18:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. It is very good to see someone running on an accountability platform, I also like the responses to the questions. Rje 18:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support. Glad to endorse. FearÉIREANN \ ^(caint) 22:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support. Mackensen addressed my concerns in under 250 words. However, this is a good point to note the problem of spurious candidates. Free nomination has corrupted the voting element of this election: due to the time cost of becoming a truely informed elector given the high number of joke candidates. Popular nominations processes merely extend the madness over a longer period (and turn into popularity contests). Nomination by cooption (as seen in Bolshevik style parties) has flaws: mainly the inability to remove an entrenched elite. Free nomination against a set criteria for eligability is probably the best way forward. Given that Arbiters have some "power", forcing people through the unpowered stages of formal or informal mediation responsibility may be a good one. Quite simply: if a good candidate like Mackensen can be obscured by an electoral process like this, we ought to rethink our electoral process. Fifelfoo 00:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Shanes 03:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Support May be worth a shot. - Xed 03:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
55. Support without a shaddow of doubt. Excellent statement and answers to questions. Thryduulf 20:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support and echo Fifelfoo's concenrns. I am trying to document the silliness of permitting the inexperienced cadidates (some of whom cannot even vote in this election) on the talk page of the Vote page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ems57fcva ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support, also echo Fifelfoo's concerns notwithstanding proposed criteria (without prejudice). KTC 00:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Support. Rhobite 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support Dr. B 17:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support Jmabel | Talk 21:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Strong Support. Extremely solid perspective on candidate's role and function in ArbCom. One of the most qualified candidates I've seen thus far. —the preceding unsigned comment is by Velvetsmog ( talk •  contribs) 23:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
63. Support, Except for the Prussian bit! Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 04:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support. A sensible and practical Wikipedian (in the best sense of the words) that would make wise judgments, I feel. Jwrosenzweig 06:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support Davidpdx 12:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 21:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with candidate policy statements. reply
68. Support. maclean25 00:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support - seems fairly trustworthy -- Francs 2000 00:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 00:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support Ruy Lopez 05:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. support iMb~ Meow 07:52, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Support Robdurbar 09:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support. User:Noisy | Talk 12:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support. Keeping admins from abusing their tools is a worthy goal. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 18:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. yep Derex 02:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support. Original and good answers. ( SEWilco 04:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
79. Support. ～ J. K. 06:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Strong support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and acts in a neutral manner, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section). Has even edited to strongly oppose his own viewpoint on controversial topics. Also seems thoughtful enough to produce sensible rather than vengeful decisions. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support-- Rayc 20:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support. Experienced and eminently reasonable. Superm401 | Talk 22:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support-- Wikityke 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Support angusj 02:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support. Great candidate statement and answers -- Masonpatriot 05:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support. An ideal candidate. Youngamerican 17:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. --best, kevin kzollman][ talk 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support Pete.Hurd 07:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Support Dan100 ( Talk) 10:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. support. Somewhat unhappy about focus on admins, but otherwise good. William M. Connolley 21:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC). reply
91. Support -- SwissCelt 06:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Support. Proteus (Talk) 11:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Strong Support. Admin accountability is a must. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support. Great statement, strong track record. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 01:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Support. Deb 10:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support. Kolokol 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 11:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

98. Support Answers seem good to me. -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 17:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Support -- accountability of admins is fine with me. Moriori 20:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Support. +sj + 23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Support. HGB 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Support. Alai 23:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Ambi 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose -- Angelo 01:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Weak Oppose. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Fred Bauder 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose Rx StrangeLove 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose - Apparent belief that administrative actions should not be WP:BOLD is wrongheaded. -- FCYTravis 04:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Bobet 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose -- Crunch 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. -- Doc ^ask? 01:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose Sarah Ewart 03:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose, focus on administrators wrong direction. HGB 19:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) change to support. HGB 23:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 22:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC) See Support above. Fifelfoo 00:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

19. Oppose. Excessive emphasis on administrators. enochlau ( talk) 05:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. I like the statement, but I also have a long memory. Everyking 04:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose - concerned about focus on administrators. Phil Sandifer 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose. I am concerned that the statement here implying a sort of "crackdown" on administrators (so to speak), though it be in the name of 'legitimacy' and 'accountability', may lead to paralysis as they attempt to maintain the integrity of the site. Administrators, too, should be bold. - Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 20:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Neutrality ^talk 20:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. oppose Kingturtle 21:05, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. Preaky 22:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Strong Oppose besides being generally malicious towards others, I suspect this user may be engaging in sockpuppetry. I've requested a Check User to see if he is the anon who left a nasty little message for me. freestylefrappe 01:50, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    As a note, I'm willing to second any CheckUser request anyone wants to make. I've never been this offended in my time here. Mackensen (talk) 02:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Freestylefrappe, you better get a proof before making this kind of accusation. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

29. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose - nothing personal, but a vote against Mackensen is a vote for James F. with the present numbers - David Gerard 16:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. Not keen on the focus on admins, and was a bit put off today by the insistence on WP:AN on the style thing (Most Noble etc), which seemed a little too ideological. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Neutral, not convince either way. KTC 19:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Having looked into the candidacy in more details and response by Mackense, am now convince as to the suitability of the candidate. KTC 00:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral Alex43223 19:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply