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.

Put questions here

Given that you have recently been admonished by the ArbCom for making personal attacks and edit warring, do you think that you are an appropriate candidate for such a position of trust within the community? Furthermore, given that the target of your personal attacks was 172, who is also a current candidate, how would you be able to perform your functions properly in the event that both of you were elected to the ArbCom? --bainer (talk) 13:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the questions. If you observe the discussions between 172 and myself on content, for example on the neoconservatism articles and on the dictator deletion pages, you will find that we are able to stick to the merits. My alleged "personal attacks" on 172 were in response to incidents of abuse of processes by 172, his unilateral reopening of a closed vote for deletion, and his personal use of admin powers in an earlier incident. If you examine these "personal attacks" you will find they are not the typical name calling, but are themselves very analytical. These analytical skills and my bulldogged insistence in consequences for violations, especially by those that presume to judge or punish others, are quite apropo and useful in the tasks of the arbitration committee. I have an intimate understanding of the root causes and nature of edit warring which will aid the deliberations of the committee. I don't think I am intrinsically an edit warrior, and in fact have strong anti-deletionist tendencies, however, I do find that responding skillfully in kind to edit warring tactics is one way to bring the other party to the table. I have a natural tendency to oppose those who try to abuse their powers or take advantage of the system. The current sanctions I am under, will not impact the performance of my arbitration duties, as reverts are seldom needed and when needed can be requested of admins. The energy I put into the alleged "personal attacks", will be properly directed into analysis and crafting general precedents that will improve the fairness and the perception of fairness in the wikipedia culture. -- thanx again for your consideration of my nomination. --Silverback 14:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you were arbitrating the case against yourself, how would you have handled the case? What penalties, if any, would you have dealt to yourself and other involved parties? Ral315 (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]