As Wikipedia expands, it is suffering growing pains. This has increased the stress and workload on its administrators. Every administrator wears two hats: editor, and janitor. As an editor, every admin has the same rights and responsibilities as other editors. As janitors, admins have more options, and with those options come increased responsibility. Sometimes, when things are most stressful, administrators can confuse their hats, and mistake the janitor hat for that of a "supereditor." When this occurs, unhappiness ensues.

Arbcom has the potential to deal with problems that are beyond any one administrator. To realize that potential, Arbcom has to make two decisions: which requests to consider, and which requests not to consider. The act of deciding wisely which cases need to be heard is more important than the details of whatever decision is reached. The ability to provide stability and finality to the community is key. Arbcom must not get distracted by cases the community can handle. But Arbcom must not hide from difficult cases, simply because they are ugly. Deciding where the line falls is where the hard work is.

People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned. But every editor has the right to be treated civilly, even during disagreements. It is never appropriate to ignore civility. As an arbitrator, my first concern will be examining requests with seriousness, respect, and civility. I will bring as much transparency to the process as I can. Thanks. Nandesuka 06:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. M A Mason 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Friday (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support. Questions reveal you as an intelligent, insightful and potentially very effective arbitrator. Batmanand 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support karmafist 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support Dlyons493 Talk 02:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Strongest support Profoundly wise editor. Xoloz 02:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support. Edit history reveals remarkable civility and cool head.-- ragesoss 03:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support Can't see if they can swim without throwing em in the water Fred Bauder 03:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Mo0[ talk] 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support freestylefrappe 04:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- maru (talk) Contribs 04:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Good User. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support -- Tabor 05:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support -- Crunch 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support – This editor's statement sold me. – Clockwork Soul 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support. android 79 06:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Chick Bowen 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support -- cj | talk 06:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 07:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:09, 9 January
31. Support, sound judgment in my experience. -- MCB 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. The statement. — mark ✎ 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support — Locke Cole • t • c 08:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Raven4x4x 11:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. support: Ombudsman 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. — Nightstallion (?) 12:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support  Grue  13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support, refreshingly level-headed. R adiant _>|< 14:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support. From the candidate staement: "People who only disrupt the encyclopedia should be banned." and "It is never appropriate to ignore civility." Well said, I strongly agree with both. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support. -- BBird 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support. Moreso after reading the evidence by Charles below in the Oppose section (#14 at this time). -- Habap 15:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support. -- Viriditas 15:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support. The "evidence" by Charles below swung it for me -- asking for a third-party opinion on a dispute! How crazy can you get! -- Calton | Talk 16:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support. Recommended to me by some people I trust; my own personal investigation and the candidate statement indicated good things, and the diff link below seems to show someone staying above the fray. Jdavidb ( talk •  contribs) 16:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support -- kingboyk 17:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Support, Good editor, good history. Good choice. Gateman1997 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:51 Z
50. Support. Cool-headed and articulate. Pilatus 21:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Haukur 21:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support William M. Connolley 22:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
53. Support. -- HK 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Splash ^talk 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Support-- Confuzion 23:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Support. My only reservation is that Nandesuka can be quite sarcastic sometimes, which might not come across so well coming from an ArbCom member. H e rmione 1980 23:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Support. siafu 00:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Support. Bishonen | talk 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC). reply
59. Well said, sir. ~~ N ( t/ c) 01:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Support primarily for views on adminship. — Simetrical ( talk •  contribs) 02:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Support – Abe Dashiell ^{( t/ c)} 06:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/ 10:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Support for views on civility Rhion 18:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Support howch e ng { chat} 18:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Support. Nooby god 02:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Nooby god may not have suffrage; his first edit was at 00:15, 25 December 2005 (UTC) (though he does not appear in the user creation log). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 03:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • User IDs that are close after Nooby god's started editing on 2005/01/23 [1], so the user may have suffrage. -- Interiot 04:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Support. Transparency. - Xed 03:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Support. enochlau ( talk) 05:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Support.-- james_anatidae 06:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Support: -- Bhadani 09:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Support: It should be pointed out that the diff below was there because, specifically, Theresa was a friend of Tony's, and Nandesuka was trying furiously to avoid dispute and find mediation, so there's certainly nothing bad about it. I had thought Nandesuka too new for support, but this "evidence" against him brought me off the sidelines. Geogre 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Support -- never expected to vote along with karmafist, a most abusive admin, but if civility for everyone is your platform, i'm all for it. maybe in ArbCom some of you will be able to put a lid on abusive admins. r b-j 17:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
73. Support. mikka (t) 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Support, good statement outweighs any inexperience issues I may have had. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Support I'm confident he will do great things in ArbCom. Ashibaka tock 18:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Support There are few people better qualified for the job. Patient, intelligent, and well-versed in policies. Jakew 20:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Support - like your policy. -- NorkNork 21:13, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Support. Seems like a solid candidate. Velvetsmog 23:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Support -- Davidpdx 12:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Support Rohirok 02:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Support Ruy Lopez 05:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Support Bit disturbed you rank civility so high compared to the serious chronic problems here, but otherwise your statement looks good and I have not seen anything in your edit history to make me doubt your good intentions. DreamGuy 05:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Somewhat nervously Support... why? ++ Lar: t/ c 01:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. Support: good statement and answers to questions. Jonathunder 05:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Support. -- Adrian Buehlmann 21:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Support. Liked answers to questions -- Masonpatriot 05:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Support. Insightful; likely to be good at the job. Antandrus (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Support. Model candidate. Youngamerican 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Support - kaal 17:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Support. -- Lumijaguaari (моє обговорення) 20:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neofelis Nebulosa ( talk • contribs)
92. Support. -- Dragonfiend 03:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Support, mostly because when things get heated during Arb, civility must be maintained. -- Ds13 18:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Support -- Loopy ^e 20:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Christopher 03:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Christopherk has 75 edits and appears not to have suffrage. Chick Bowen 03:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

95. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Support as per Batmanand (support number 7). Thryduulf 17:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Support — intelligent and well-balanced statement and answers to questions. Candidate should look into those cybernetic implants. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Support -- Durin 17:06, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. On second thoughts Support -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Support. dave souza 09:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Support. Egil 14:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Oui. encephalon 19:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Support Looks good, kinda different. -- AySz88^ - ^ 23:10, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. Ambi 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

6. Dmcdevit· t 00:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose questions -- Angelo 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new; created in November. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

11. — Dan | talk 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Bobet 04:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose [2] --- Charles Stewart 09:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose Rama 10:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose Oh wow. Per Charles Stewart's difflink. -- Gmaxwell 12:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose per Zordrac. Tom e r ^talk 13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. — Dunc| ☺ 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose - Sorry, to new IMO. Awolf002 20:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose, as Charles Stewart. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose. You had me right up to the point you said "should ... be banned." Avriette 23:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. older≠ wiser 02:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose rash. SchmuckyTheCat 11:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. 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 22:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose. Conscious 09:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose, late entry, focusing too much on admins. KTC
33. Oppose, too new. Zocky 11:27, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose per Fifelfoo Fad (ix) 20:31, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose Dr. B 17:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose If everyone in ArbCom would have to recuse my cases, who would decide them? Dabljuh 20:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. maclean25 00:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Reluctantly oppose -- Francs 2000 00:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose' Good contributor, but needs more experience. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. Joined late, too few Questions thus too few answers. ( SEWilco 03:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
41. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. Stood so late that candidate couldn't properly be investigated via hustings, perhaps deliberately. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. oppose Kingturtle 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. Preaky 23:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. Four hours per week is not sufficient. Superm401 | Talk 23:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Too quick to speedily delete articles that at least arguably do not meet the criteria, and did not respond to a query regarding such a deletion. Ender 07:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    User's first edit was November 28, so most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 14:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

46. Neutrality ^talk 01:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose per SEWilco. WikiFanatic 03:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. Sunray 11:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Neutral Alex43223