Wikipedia does not need more rules, but it has become large enough, that it does need to be seen to enforce those that it has fairly, consistently and without prejudice. I am skilled at analyzing systems, arguments and evidence and at seeing both sides of issues. Too many people are taking disputes personally and not attempting to resolve issues in good faith and this culture is overburdening the arbcom. The arbcom can discourage this by making it clear that all allegations against any parties to a case will have allegations against them considered. This will discourage cases by those without clean hands. The arbcom also needs to clearly discuss the application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis. Knowing how the evidence will be analyzed and the principles applied will establish new standards which should reduce frivolous cases.

Finally, I will give cases involving abuses of power by admins particular scrutiny, as admins should serve and not abuse the community, especially since admin powers should be viewed as a community trust, and not a status symbol.

Examples of my objective analysis of evidence: [1] [2]. My discussions on Talk:Global warming. My discussion of the Arver case [3].

An arbitrator needs to be able to face criticism head on, without running from or deleting it. If the criticism is without merit, the arbitration should be able to ignore it or respond to it. [4] [5] I pledge to take and respond to criticism on its merits, as I always have, whether elected to the arbcom or not.

Questions

1. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. It's a lost cause, but support. Wikipedia could have used you in great ways. Oh well. Matt Yeager 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support an exceptionally intelligent individual whose reasoning is unclouded by mysticism. RJII 05:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support ObsidianOrder 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support Meekohi 13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support.  Grue  14:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support DTC 18:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Amazing how many people vote against a candidate that want to enforce rulls eqaully. Zeq 19:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support TestPilot 20:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Bill_Levinson 20:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I'm sorry, but your account did not exist on 2005-9-30 and your edit count is less than 150, so your vote cannot count. -- TML1988 20:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

11. Support-- MichaelSirks 21:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support -- Daniel11 22:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. Appears to be a gutsy reformer. A few of those could save Wikipedia. -- HK 23:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support-- R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support per HK, Brendanfox 09:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Krash 18:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support Rohirok 02:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support Lawyer2b 05:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. 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 18:58, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support Ben 23:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support Bright editor with committment to balance and fairness.-- Agiantman 00:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Heh, no. Ambi 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose -- Doc ^ask? 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Voice of All ^{T| @| ESP} 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Cryptic (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose, due to his previous Arbcom case. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. Carbonite | Talk 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. Previous ArbCom case did not fill me with confidence about ability as an arbitrator. Batmanand 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose-- Duk 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose -- Angelo 01:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose per Talrias. Kit 02:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. No way. Grace Note 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

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

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [6]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:37, Jan. 9, 2006

24. Oppose. -- csloat 02:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. -- ⟳ausa کui ^× 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Guettarda 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose Fred Bauder 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose"' -- Crunch 03:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Per Ambi. 172 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose.-- ragesoss 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose: nothing personal, just not the best fit for this role. Jonathunder 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Calton | Talk 04:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose. android 79 06:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. Absolutely not! Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. — Rama 09:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose not on your life! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. Wizzy… ☎ 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. — Nightstallion (?) 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose too much of a wikilawyer, I dont think I could trust silverback to remain neutral.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose, too much revert warring and personal attacks (per ArbCom case) aren't a good sign of levelheadedness. R adiant _>|< 14:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. Why would we want an Arbcom member who mocks and insults other users merely because of political disagreements as soon he believes he can (and should) get away with it? / Peter ^Isotalo 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Peter Isotalo likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    He does. He edited formerly as User:Karmosin ( contributions). Bishonen | talk 13:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC). reply

46. Oppose. Agree with above by Isotalo. Cberlet 16:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. — Dunc| ☺ 16:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose -- kingboyk 18:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:29 Z
50. Oppose. Gamaliel 21:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose: Too confrontational, seems to delight in the fight, and ArbCom is about achieving peace. Geogre 22:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Splash ^talk 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose: Rather than appoint to ArbCom, this is one admin I'd recommend de-adminning. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    FYI Silverback has never been an admin. 172 16:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Thanks - I misspoke. Consider my vote a simple 'oppose'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 20:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

54. Oppose. Just got out of an unsuccessful ArbCom case. Wally 00:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. older≠ wiser 02:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. oppose -- Irpen 03:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose. Continue to "take and respond". Good attitude, a little to fascist for my taste right now. Quaaludes. Avriette 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose, don't agree with general attitude -- Gurch 14:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose, can't support an arbcom candidate currently on personal attack parole [7]. HGB 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose Wikipedia may need ideologues, but ArbCom doesn't. (This includes ideologues I agree with, in whole or in part, as here.) Septentrionalis 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose. Controversial. JFW |  T@lk 21:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose. Arbitration is not a judicial process, the candidate seems to believe otherwise, "application of principles to the evidence in its decisions, instead of deciding cases on an ad hoc basis". Fifelfoo 21:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    No, I don't believe it is currently a judicial process, but that it should become more like one, with transparency and fairness, and evidence based decisions. Note that the comments of others treat the recent decision of the arbcom in my case, as if it were the result of a fair and reasoned judicial process, which it wasn't. Apparently our culture here does not believe, the decisions are merely ad hoc, so we should attempt to live up to that belief. In a community this size, I don't see what the alternative is. My arbcom case resulted from my objections to abuses of the system by User:172 and from a long run-in with a particularly territorial user on one article. Yes, I enjoy editing on controversial and contentious articles, but I attempt to bring reasoned balance to those issues.-- Silverback 07:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I suggest that an administrator look into blocking Silverback for violating the spirit of his personal attack parole with his comments above. 172 07:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    You are going to need an abusive administrator on this one, such as Stirling Newberry had [8]. This was no personal attack, just a characterization of my arbcom case. Just because the arbcom ignored your abuses does not mean they didn't occur. Quit following me around.-- Silverback 13:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    I'll have no finding one. There is no even a category for rogue admins I'll tell them that I'm one of there own because I've protected global warming on the " the wrong version." In the meantime, given that the arbcom has a policy of ignoring my "abuses," I will consider appealing your case asking for tougher sanctions on your editing. Your current personal attack parole stemming from your conduct toward me does not seem to be working, given that you are still making disruptive charges of my "abuse." 172 07:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Perhaps you have forgotten that you also showed up to protect Intelligent Design without any formal solicitation under strange circumstances, and that you reprotected Global Warming while you were blocked abusing your admin powers. Review that evidence to refresh your memory.-- Silverback 18:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

65. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. siafu 04:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:28, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. Sunray 08:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose.-- Primalchaos 11:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. Opposed. Not quite right for this job.-- JK the unwise 12:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
73. Oppose, per HGB — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose. Seems too excitable for arbitration. -- JWSchmidt 05:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
75. Oppose - I don't like your policy. -- NorkNork 21:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. -- Viriditas 00:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose Davidpdx 13:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose Dr. B 17:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose, too controversial -- Francs 2000 00:09, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
80. Oppose. Too controversial. Velvetsmog 01:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose, POV pusher, makes lots of personal attacks and engages in edit wars. Not suitable for ArbCom. - ulayiti (talk) 13:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose no, no, a thousand times no! Derex 17:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose Nay! dispruptive evangelist-campaigner -- max rspct leave a message 23:19, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose. Seems very contentious, and recent RfC and RfA are substantial baggage for ArbCom. -- William Pietri 23:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
85. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose Edit history seems to contradict claims of neutrality in moderation.-- Omniwolf 20:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose. Motivations in doubt. Superm401 | Talk 00:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
88. Oppose. Preaky 01:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose crazyeddie 02:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose -- Masonpatriot 06:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose As I agree with the findings of his Recent Arbitration case. [9] -- Mr. Tibbs 08:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose. per recent RfA. Youngamerican 18:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose Robert McClenon 23:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 08:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose - kaal 17:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
96. 'Oppose' - Homey 03:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose — Phil | Talk 12:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose -- Loopy ^e 20:30, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
99. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Sorry, the ArbCom case in November doesn't make me feel comfortable supporting you for ArbCom election. Author782 08:49, 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) 15:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

100. Oppose — FireFox • T • 21:56, 20 January 2006
101. Oppose why should people who have done something wrong in the past become fair targets for abuse? Cynical 22:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

     I think you are confusing "something wrong" with mistakes. Mistakes happen, ignorance of the rules,lapses in judgement, etc, but "something wrong" is a matter of character, and it shows not just in behavior in the community, but in the content of articles. Repeatedly abusing the system to gain advantage over a long period of time is not a mistake. I also think you are confusing abusing the system with abusing people. I don't mind personal abuse, because I know my own character, but currently I am disadvantaged due to sanctions, and people can game that to hurt the community and the content of the articles.-- Silverback 03:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

102. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
103. Oppose. Appears temperamentally unsuited to ArbCom. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 07:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose KTC 12:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose WLD 17:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC) Silverback is sadly unable to put his own POV aside and write for the enemy. As such, I believe he would make a very biased arbitrator. reply
107. Oppose CDThieme 23:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
108. Oppose. Alai 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply