This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

Wikipedia is growing fast, and its response has been to secrete a shell of bureaucracy as sclerotic as any state. Too many rules, too many feet to tread on. Too many new editors scared away.

Arbitration is intrinsically slow and unscaleable. Administrators are individuals working in loose cooperation, which does scale.

Too many cases are reaching arbitration. We should be careful about the cases we accept, and give administrators more technological power by working with developers to share ideas for more tools to help them. Alternatives to blocking, more flexible IP and username blocking arrangements, more watchlists for administrators, subscribable watchlists, edit throttles for edit warriors, per-page blocking. Spending time and effort on this will be worth our while as a committee because it will reduce our caseload by empowering and strengthening Wikipedia's immune system.

Abusive treatment of newcomers starves the community of new blood and unnecessarily expands the class of disaffected trolls and vandals. Edit warring and biting by administrators and other experienced editors should be taken seriously because it drives people away. I want to focus on this. The administrators should take the bulk of the load, but the Committee should act as a check on the administrators.

The Arbitration Committee has a resource of previous cases and decisions, and what ensued from those decisions, that amount to the wisdom of some of the best wikipedians. The Committee, augmented by interested former members, should from time to time make non-binding recommendations to the community for policy clarifications or changes, with the aim of stimulating Wikipedia's immune system and reducing arbitration caseload.

Questions

Withdrawal

As I have lots of votes for and against but am around 30% shy of the pack, it's time to withdraw. Thank you to all who voted in this election, -- Tony Sidaway| Talk 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support Bjelleklang - talk 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Support -- badlydrawnjeff 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Guettarda 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Shanes 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Don't agree with him on everything. But think he'll do a good job. The Land 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Antandrus (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. – ugen64 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Haukur 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support Agnte 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support, as per The Land. -- Trevdna 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Trevdna does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 17:06, 7 October 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Registered at 16:58, October 5, 2005. Registration date determines suffrage, not date of first edit. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

11. ^L_Wizard @ 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support. — David Levy 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support SqueakBox 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support We've had our disagreements, but I think he'll do well. Soltak | Talk 01:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. Carbonite | Talk 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support - Mark 01:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. TacoDeposit 01:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. Policy question answers impressed me. As did use of word "sclerotic". Batmanand 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 01:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Agree with policies, but sometimes troubled by demeanor. reply
21. Support-- Duk 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support-- anyone who can recognize the behavior of a bad admin (such as Karmafist) and is willing to take a stand against it amidst complacency can't be all bad. and is likely pretty good. r b-j 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support -- we need more to be as decisive. -- Wgfinley 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support -- Arwel ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support KillerChihuahua ^?!? 02:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support -- Crunch 03:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Fred Bauder 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Phil Sandifer 03:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Bobet 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support - I think he's too inclusionist, and he thinks I play with my deletion button too much. But his attitude toward policy is spot-on. FCYTravis 04:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Rhobite 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support. Protecting the powerless (as per Brian's neutral vote) is an awesome thing. Matt Yeager 04:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support ← Hob 04:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. — Dan | talk 04:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support Great policy understanding. Rx StrangeLove 05:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. I have disagreed with Tony many times but in every case he has always been clear and fair in his discussions. He possesses an unusually strong ability for self-assessment and willingness to consider all angles. Tony is insightful and has the right attitude. I think he's nuts for wanting to be on arbcom, but I must Support him in this venture. -- Gmaxwell 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. FOo 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Support ObsidianOrder 05:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support - strongly disagree with some of his actions but support the need for an independent voice on ArbCom. Impressed by candidate statement and answers. -- Muchness 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Willardo 06:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Willardo does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 51 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 07:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

42. Support - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support, seems a calm voice — Ashley Y 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support - The platform I most agree with. Courageous, honest, and, err, well, bat-shit crazy. --- Charles Stewart 07:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Strong Support I became a better editor from my interactions with Tony. Even in the face of my previously hostile demeanor, he was the voice of reason and calm. I want an arbitrator that will do the hard work, make the tough choices and stand his ground.-- MONGO 07:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

1. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Friday (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Everyking 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 00:16, Jan. 9, 2006
7. Cryptic (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Owen× ☎ 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. brenneman ^{(t) (c)} 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. With respect and praise for his work. Sdedeo ( tips) 00:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Nunh-huh 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. -- Dragonfiend 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. -- Run e Welsh | ταλκ 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose. Ambi 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose - Policy - Mackensen (talk) 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose per [1], [2], [3], [4] and [5] [6] and this one, although it was funny. [7] karmafist 01:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose with utmost respect for his contributions -- Angelo 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Oppose, civility. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Strongest Oppose See candidate's RfC. Editor admits egocentricity. Xoloz 02:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Pissing off bad users is one thing, but too many confrontations with good ones for me to support. Johnleemk | Talk 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose Dlyons493 Talk 02:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose per Johnleemk. Kit 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. LOL. As if. Grace Note 02:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Reluctantly oppose: given amount of controversy this good editor is often involved in, this role probably is not the best fit. Jonathunder 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose - Too confrontational, involved in too many disputes. Paul August ☎ 03:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Zordrac does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 12:59, 24 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • His account was created at 2:26, November 24, 2005. Registration determines suffrage, not time of first edit. WAvegetarian ^(talk) (email) ^(contribs) 06:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • As long as we're being pedantic anyway, you mean 12:26. (Bystanders, see my talk.) — Cryptic (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

34. Oppose, Giving someone who appears to think he's a law onto himself MORE influence doesn't seem like a good idea. -- Calton | Talk 03:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose Sometimes we need people who will be bold, but Arbcom should represent community consensus, and I'm not sure that's the case here. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose. -- Viriditas 04:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose. Ronline ✉ 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose 172 04:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose.-- ragesoss 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose Goes in for long-winded shouting and hand waving. We have quite enough already, thanks. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose User:Dottoreso 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose -- Heah ^talk 04:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose as per Calton, Paul August, Johnleemk. Hamster Sandwich 05:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Prefers unilateral action to community and consensus. Kaldari 05:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose – Lacks the temperment for such a vital role. – Clockwork Soul 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose -- Tabor 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose — Locke Cole • t • c 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. android 79 06:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. Too polarizing. · Katefan0 ^(scribble)/ mrp 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Strong Oppose User is has to much controversy Brian | (Talk) 06:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose. -- Angr ( tɔk) 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. Too much hand waving, little substance. jni 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose, Great Wikipedian, but attitude does not seem appropriate for ArbCom — LeFlyman 07:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!

1. * — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-9 02:43
2. Agree with his positions sometimes but not his attitude. novacatz 04:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- cj | talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. The userbox dispute has put me on the sidelines. Previously I had a very good perception of him. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} ( Be eudaimonic!) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Userboxgate was bold misstep, but I concur with his ideas on leveraging Admins and new tools to safeguard Wikipedia and keep it from being mired down in its own good intentions. Admins should be a big deal. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!