Unfortunately, the present "Arbitration" process has become increasingly legalistic and punitive - more like a criminal court. Re-establishing the proper focus is the compass by which I will measure my work as an Arbitrator.

• I will reject all requests for arbitration which are made to the Committee by persons who are not directly involved in the dispute. The proliferation of "district attorney"-type requestors must end and the spirit of true arbitration must return.

• I will expect that all parties entering into arbitration will accept the binding outcome. If any party chooses not to enter arbitration or chooses to defy the binding outcome, then other processes, like mediation or adminstrator action, should be employed.

• I will accept all complaints of misuse of adminstrator rights, so long as the prima facia case seems solid. I fully endorse granting our administrators greater privilege in neutrally dealing with problems, but likewise want to reassure the community that admins can come under review, as well.

I'll expand on the last item. More problem users should be handled by community/administrator consensus alone. If they feel unfairly restricted by an admin, they can appeal to the Arbitration process; but both (implicitely) must accept the binding decision. Admins who are neutral and explain their reasoning will have the support of the community and the ArbCom. On the other hand, if that user is being treated unfairly, then ArbCom review of that admin becomes much more accessible. In short, I seek to give more responsibility to the good administrators, while making it easier to review the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 22:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC) (revised 21:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)) reply

Questions

1. – ugen64 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Weak support, I would have opposed if I didn't find the statement and questions interesting. JYolkowski // talk 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support freestylefrappe 04:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support.  Grue  13:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support on basis of strong platform alone. Tom e r ^talk 13:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support good ideas, atypical arbitrator who I feel can do the job and add good perspective - Drdisque 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Very fairminded on the ocassions when I've encountered him and his work. Will be approachable to many users. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EuropracBHIT ( talk •  contribs) .
10. Support. Dislike the need to "give more power" to anyone. It's "no big deal." Everything else seems correct. Avriette 23:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support OnceBitten 00:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • OnceBitten does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 01:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 71 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

11. Support BenBurch 05:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support Keith D. Tyler ¶ 21:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support All in 22:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

13. Support Seems a solid candidate and good integrity. -- Jbamb 16:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support Rohirok 02:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support ··gracefool | ☺ 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support ~ leif ☺ _{( talk)} 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose. Mo0[ talk] 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Oppose. No. Ambi 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose. Antandrus (talk) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose, per second issue. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 22:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose. — David Levy 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose. No way. — Omegatron 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. Sorry, but you are just too new. Batmanand 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose -- Christopher Thomas 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose inexperience, policy, whatever. -- Angelo 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Nah. Johnleemk | Talk 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose I seriously question editor's judgment; see his post in my talk archive. Xoloz 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose Tony the Marine 02:43, 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) 03:37, Jan. 9, 2006

29. Oppose. Linuxbeak (drop me a line) 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose.-- ragesoss 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose-- Jiang 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

32. Oppose. Self-control problems. Calton | Talk 03:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose Too abrasive and confrontational to be tempermentally suited to Arbcom. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose 172 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Bobet 04:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose — Optikos 05:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Optikos does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 02:46, 26 October 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

38. Oppose. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose -- Tabor 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose — Locke Cole • t • c 06:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. android 79 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose. -- Angr ( tɔk) 07:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. Skillful, intelligent, and motivated, but the job requires better people skills than I have encountered with him. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose, on the basis of judgment and interpersonal relations. -- MCB 07:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, excellent contributor, but not the right one for this job. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. People skills. utcursch | talk 07:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose I think his platform will make wikipedia worse. --- Charles Stewart 08:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. OpposeMy experience of this editor is that he is intransigent in his views and over forceful in asserting his will. Giano | talk 08:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Adrian Buehlmann 10:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose violates rules to advance his own agenda, extremely unsuited for any position of power. DreamGuy 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose Dan100 ( Talk) 11:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose Geogre 11:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Raven4x4x 11:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. Despite the possibly misleading name, participation in arbritration is not and should not be voluntary. If problem editors are allowed a veto on whether they have any sanction on them, I suspect this would reduce the arbcom workload to close to 0. The number of wheel wars between people i'd characterise as 'good admins' we've seen lately belies any hope with the latter points. Morwen - Talk 11:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose Xtra 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. — Nightstallion (?) 12:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose - By his own word, too "unilateral" in action. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose, lack of skills in dispute resolution. R adiant _>|< 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose Mark ¹ 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. ^{Blank Verse} 15:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Does not seem to have sufficient interpersonal skills. DES ^(talk) 15:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. Candidate lacks patience and tolerance an arbitrator needs.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose dab (ᛏ) 17:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose -- kingboyk 17:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Oppose -- Gareth Hughes 18:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose Too nitpicky. IZAK 18:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose Garion96 (talk) 19:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose Too nitpicky...doesn't bother to communicate with other people when offering to destroy their hard work. ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:45 Z
76. Oppose. Shocked he even put his name forward - SoM 21:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose as Ëzhiki -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Not arbcom temperament. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 23:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Splash ^talk 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose per pretty much everyone above. H e rmione 1980 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose. siafu 00:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. older≠ wiser 02:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. oppose. -- Irpen 03:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose Strange platform, inadequate answers. -- EMS | Talk 05:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose Too doctrinarian. — Sebastian (talk) 05:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose, too much personal agenda. silsor 05:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose. That job requires patience, common sense, and neutrality. Kosebamse 13:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose undiplomatic no empathy for others Gnangarra 13:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose, temperament issues. HGB 19:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose I do not believe he has the communication skills necessary for this position. Rje 19:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose Oskar 20:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose. Point 1 is great. Point 2 is sucky, as there is no other compelling form of action, and the candidate either shells the action down to mediation (which is entirely voluntary, and any action raised to arbitration must of necessity be irreconcilable, and thus beyond voluntary binding) or up to Fiat. Wikipedia is not an enlightened despotism. One of the very few informed oppose votes I have cast this election: the candidate lays out a genuine platform. Fifelfoo 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose Sunray 08:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose. Andre ( talk) 14:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
102. Oppose. Jared 18:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
104. Oppose, policy. KTC 20:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose -- Rye1967 21:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose - axegrinding; second point rather odd William M. Connolley 22:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC). reply
107. Oppose - Strong oppose btw - axegrinder of the first water. Sjc 05:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Oppose. Policy. Carbonite | Talk 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
109. Oppose for intemperance and WP:POINT. -- nae'blis _(talk) 20:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose - i don't like your policy. -- NorkNork 21:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose. Your second point in your platform seems strange to me. Velvetsmog 23:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
112. Oppose Not for lack of experience (on the wrong side). Kevin baas 00:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
113. Oppose Davidpdx 13:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose Turcottem 15:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Turcottem does not have suffrage; he had only 143 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

114. Oppose Dr. B 17:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose. maclean25 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose - from what I have seen of your editing I don't think you have the right temperament for this -- Francs 2000 00:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
117. Oppose. User:Noisy | Talk 13:08, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 01:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
119. Oppose. *drew 03:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
120. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
121. Oppose. Far too abrupt and presumptive. Additionally, fails to read questions properly (see the questions link in the statement section), suggesting that Netoholic will read evidence erroneously as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by -Ril- ( talk • contribs)
122. Oppose. Preaky 23:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
123. Oppose. People should not be able to choose to ignore arbitration. Superm401 | Talk 23:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose. Wants less legalistic system, yet proposals are quite legalistic themselves -- Masonpatriot 05:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose per Charles Stewart. Youngamerican 18:10, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
126. Oppose. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose // Big Adamsky 07:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Big Adamsky does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 16:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

127. Ingoolemo  ^talk 08:00, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose — Phil | Talk 12:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
129. No. Neutrality ^talk 01:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
130. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose Secretlondon 16:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
132. Oppose wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 20:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
133. Oppose. First proposal would give veto power to unrepentant troublemaker, a truly bad idea. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 06:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
134. Oppose. My experiences of him have not been good. Deb 10:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
135. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     Oppose, respectfully. Not very open to the thoughts of others.-- Oni Ookami Alfador ^{Talk| @} 08:43, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     • Oni Ookami Alfador does not have suffrage; he registered at 23:57, 8 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 11:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

136. Oppose Alex43223 20:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
137. Oppose Internet: Serious business. Ashibaka tock 21:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. I would support, but I am disquieted by the second plank; should problem users who attempt to ignore ArbCom be subject to its jurisdiction or not? Septentrionalis 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Relluctantly neutral. Experienced and has right views, but also has problems with temper. Zocky 11:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Neutral - Samboy 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply