This week, 27 new candidates entered the election for Arbitration Committee. Similarly to the profiles of the other 41 candidates that we provided last week, we've provided a profile of the new candidates. We also want to remind you again of the warnings we provided last time: numbers, facts, and statistics, such as we provided here, only show one side of a candidate. While we hope the profiles help you get to know all of the record-breaking 68 candidates better, we hope that this won't be the sole data on which you base your vote.

User name: Aytakin (talk)
Number of edits: 607 Kate's Tool
First edit date: March 24, 2005
Statement: "During my time in Wikipedia, I have never been in a argument or a revert war. I always try to discuss everything out instead of attacking. I have always been a great arbitrator and mediator in my whole life and have settled many conflicts."

User name: Dbiv (talk)
Number of edits: 7520 Kate's Tool
First edit date: March 27, 2004
Adminship since January 20, 2005 (14/0/1)
Statement: "My principle campaign pledge for ArbCom is always to keep in mind the goal of writing a high-quality encyclopaedia. All ArbCom decisions must make it easier to do that, and I offer myself as someone who has good judgment as to whether a problem user with some good edits should be blocked for a time, or given help to stop causing problems. I believe that POV pushing users can be made a benefit, if they back up their opinions with research, and do not obstinately insist on their edits. However, offensive users can make life intolerable and action must be taken to stop them driving off useful contributors."

User name: Dogbreathcanada (talk)
Number of edits: 144 Kate's Tool
First edit date: October 30, 2005
Statement: "The other issue is arbitration on a schedule. Effective arbitration is not tardy arbitration. I'll try to help in moving the arbitration process at a less leisurely pace."

User name: DoctorMike (talk)
Number of edits: 37 Kate's Tool
First edit date: January 4, 2006
Statement: "I will be as fair and as unbiased as possible, and see no reason legitimate conflicts can't often be included in Wiki articles as a discussion, to the satisfaction of all concerned that they have been heard, which is probably the best way to solve many of these conflicts."

User name: Emt147 (talk)
Number of edits: 664 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 1, 2005
Statement: "The world is not black-and-white and I believe that some controversial and POV material does belong in an encyclopedia so long as the controversy or the point of view are clearly explained. I think Wikipedia arbitrators need to think like editors, not conflict mediators. A well-written explanation of controversial points of view will add depth to the article. I absolutely draw the line at all hate/racist material however, free speech be damned."

User name: Golbez (talk)
Number of edits: 19514 Kate's Tool
First edit date: March 14, 2004
Adminship since September 29, 2004 (16/0/0)
Statement: "I think the Arbitration process is one of great value to Wikipedia, but I think it could use a few changes. If the case is accepted, then clearly it has merit - thus, temporary injunctions should be more common. The process as a whole should be accelerated. I'd like to help with this, and improve my interaction with Wikipedia. I love this place, and think it has great potential, and I'd like to do anything I can to assist it in its goal of recording the sum of human knowledge. I would like to be on the Arbitration Committee to help with Wikipedia and help clean up after bad people, clear good people of poor accusations, and generally keep the cogs turning and well-greased."

User name: Guapovia (talk)
Number of edits: 40 Kate's Tool
First edit date: December 15, 2005
Statement: "I'd like to put my name up for several reasons - honor, laud, glory, and even ego. I think I'd do a good job at it. Yes, I'm a new user, but I've submitted several articles that haven't been deleted, and I think I know what I want to see in a Wikipedia article."

User name: Jtkiefer (talk)
Number of edits: 8109 Kate's Tool
First edit date: May 29, 2005
Adminship since August 30, 2005 (43/3/4)
Statement: "The arbitration process needs to be streamlined... I believe that bans must be treated as a last resort when dealing with problem users. Either all other possible solutions must have been tried and have demonstrably failed, or there must be good evidence that all other solutions would have absolutely no chance of succeeding. I also feel that the Arbitration Committee should be flexible, and should focus more on the spirit of the existing rules rather than the enforcing the exact letter of them."

User name: Kingturtle (talk)
Number of edits: 22669 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 26, 2002
Adminship since prior to 2003
Statement: "In regards to how the committee should handle disputes, this is how I would lay it out: the arbiters should not know the usernames or identities of those involved in a dispute. Each side of the dispute would submit a report making their case; the report would refer to PERSON A and PERSON B, keeping the arbiters in the dark. There’s more to the process, but that’s the gist. In regards to the banning question, I wouldn’t rule out a ban as a last resort. It’s like expelling a kid from school. There’s a process - a long process, even for serious offenses. The number one task at hand is to create a wikipedia - an encyclopedia formed and shaped by the minds of thousands - but can it be done fairly and without hurt to contributors? This is a great social experiment. As a committee member, I will take great care in understanding the various points-of-view at hand, and I will try to find solutions that will bring dignity to all. I will also work to create procedures that are efficient and fair. I feel wikipedia is important and vital to mankind. I am devoted to it."
Other: Bureaucrat since February 28, 2004 (15/0/0)

User name: Kitch (talk)
Number of edits: 3776 Kate's Tool
First edit date: December 11, 2004
Statement: "I am running because I feel I can provide an impartial mind to the arbitration process. I have an extensive access to knowledge to assist me in determining facts, an ability to determine the difference between neutral and biased points of view, and uncanny problem-solving capabilities that were developed and exploited in Future Problem Solvers competitions in my youth."

User name: LawAndOrder (talk)
Number of edits: 18 Kate's Tool
First edit date: January 6, 2006
Statement: "I recognize that there is a major epidemic here on wikipedia of sly behaviors that serve to obstruct neutrality, truth, and justice, on behalf of pushing POVs. I intend to fight such behaviors."

User name: Luckyluke (talk)
Number of edits: 371 Kate's Tool
First edit date: October 5, 2004
Statement: "Since discovering Wikipedia in 2004, and in keeping with its' foundings, I believe that I have taken an active approach to improving the credibility and knowledge base of the database. As egotistical as it sounds, I feel that Wikipedia and future disputes will be well served by having me on the committee. I'm able to bring depth, experience, knowledge to resolving disputes and am able to approach problems to hopefully reach an un-biased, comprimisable decision."

User name: Mackensen (talk)
Number of edits: 6660 Kate's Tool
First edit date: August 24, 2003
Adminship since September 30, 2004 (17/2/0)
Statement: "My purpose in running for the Arbitration Committee is twofold: to serve the community and to push the notion of accountability and legitimacy with regards to the actions of administrators. Arbitration is a perhaps unfortunate yet clearly necessary final step in dispute resolution, because the community has vested such powers in the body. This entails a responsibility on the part of the Committee to act intelligently to uphold policy and to ensure that people can continue to make useful contributions to the encyclopedia. This also means holding administrators accountable if they shoot from the hip–this whole project will fall apart if people don't trust us."

User name: Magicalsaumy (talk)
Number of edits: 380 Kate's Tool
First edit date: October 16, 2005
Statement: "The arbitration committee needs to handle the disputes more effectively and impartially (including the fact that hoax claims must not be highly entertained). Hence I feel that the members of the arbitration committee need to have a sufficiently large knowledge base, so that they could distinguish points which conform to the neutral point of view from those that are naïvish and that have been added out of emotional ecstacy."

User name: Mailer diablo (talk)
Number of edits: 12388 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 8, 2004
Adminship since March 31, 2005 (29/1/0)
Statement: "I have seen a lot of changes in Wikipedia for the last year, but my fundamental principles of assuming good faith, keeping civil even in the worst of situations, and to give newcomers reasonable chances does not change. Just as always my actions, past or future, are open for scrutiny by anyone. If possible, I'd want to see more in reformative action than just punishment."

User name: Mikkalai (talk)
Number of edits: 50517 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 13, 2003
Adminship since February 2004
Statement: " 1) I feel that further fate of the project depends on maintaining a reasonable working environment. 2) I am going to oppose the false idea that "all people are equal" (see into the history of Communism to understand what I mean). A better (but still not ideal) statement would be "... equal before the Law" (or "...before God" in some cultures). But in most societies the application of the Law does recognize that people are fundamentally unequal. 3)I will be standing for zero-point-one-tolerance (0.1-tolerance) for disruption of wikipedia's spirit of cooperation, such as ad hominem attacks, policy gaming, information censorship. "Zero-point-one" is a recognition that people are human, can make errors and have emotions. 4) I will stand for a structure in disputes, for efficiency. 5) Pledge: fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation."

User name: Nandesuka (talk)
Number of edits: 4510 Kate's Tool
First edit date: March 27, 2005
Adminship since September 15, 2005 (43/12/4)
Statement: "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."

User name: NSLE (talk)
Number of edits: 3658 Kate's Tool
First edit date: September 20, 2005
Adminship since December 10, 2005 (71/1/2)
Statement: "The ArbCom needs a fresh approach to things, and I feel I can bring that to the ArbCom. I'm willing to recuse from any ArbCom dispute I may happen to be involved in. The main things for me, no matter what the context, ArbCom or not, are civility and no personal attacks. I don't subscribe to ignoring all rules. I believe this view helps us build a constructive encyclopedia."

User name: Phroziac (talk)
Number of edits: 3295 Kate's Tool
First edit date: June 2, 2005
Adminship since September 6, 2005 (56/2/2)
Statement: "I think that arbitration should be a relatively quick and straight forward process, but it should never be rushed. I generally do not agree with banning users who regularly contribute to writing an encyclopedia, in the first case they appear in. They should be sanctioned appropriately, depending on what they did, and given a chance to correct their behaviour. If they should show up in another arbcom case in a reasonable time, doing the same thing, stronger sanctions or maybe even a ban should be strongly considered. I especially support bans if the user does not appear to be interested in writing an encyclopedia. ArbCom should always put the encyclopedia first, before anything else. Always."

User name: Quaque (talk)
Number of edits: 1480 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 21, 2005
Statement: "I have seen a lot of cases go through, so my aim as an arbitrator is simple. To keep Wikipedia a decent encyclopedia and to deal with those who wish to corrupt it. The current system is too slow, and lots of damage has occurred and vandals don't take the system seriously. I have dealt with a large number of vandals and nonsense over the years and know a lot of the technical goings on at the wiki, so I feel confident on being able to take on the challenge of dealing with these disputes and restore credibility to the system."

User name: RomaC (talk)
Number of edits: 73 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 11, 2005
Statement: "As an arbitrator, well, I'd do what I could to try and keep it progressing. Philosophy? The five pillars work for me. Plus an open and inquiring mind. As for banning, I believe that's got to be the last resort, people will find a way to come back and screw with the project if they are simply kicked out. Better to go in with respect and reason first, help people realize that Wikipedia is their place too. And if that fails, then try again. Of course, sometimes that won't work and action will be necessary -- I'm hopeful but not utopian."

User name: Skyscrap27 (talk)
Number of edits: 88 Kate's Tool
First edit date: January 5, 2006
Statement: "Why should I be on an Arbitration Committee? I live in a real world (just like all of us) where fights do happen. When you're arguing with somebody, you don't need anybody to tell you what to do, what to say. Both sides need someone to say they're right. That's compromise. If you're a noob (and a lot of arguing happens between new members), you won't listen to somebody old and experienced (just like parents), first you'll listen to other newbies. If the Arbitration Commitee has a new member, it will gain more influence towards other newbies. You're most likely to listen to a person your "age" than to a old member. Of course, I realize that it's a long shot, but that's what I think."

User name: Svartalf (talk)
Number of edits: 206 Kate's Tool
First edit date: November 13, 2004
Statement: "If chosen, for as long as I serve, I will strive to uphold the ideals completeness and neutrality this wikigroup strives to embody, and to give all cases placed before me fair and optimal treatment, drawing both from existing jurisprudence and my own resources, as well as the considered opinions of my colleagues, particularly the more experienced ones, or those having shown themselves most worthy of my esteem."

User name: SVera1NY (talk)
Number of edits: 210 Kate's Tool
First edit date: June 13, 2005
Statement: "Although I have been a Wikipedian for only a few months, I have contributed alot, especially reverting vandalism and inviting newcomers. I think I would be a great addition to the Committee and would greatly appreciate a post. Thank you very much for your consideration."

User name: Terenceong1992 (talk)
Number of edits: 2645 Kate's Tool
First edit date: January 28, 2005
Statement: "I would revamp the ArbCom from what it is like now. Arbitration is the final and worst way to solve a dispute. The ArbCom can be improved by having more arbitrators than now, as it will come to a concensus faster than what it is now. Some can take as long as three months, which I feel is a total waste of time. If I am elected as an arbitrator, I will help to come to a decision faster. The Arbitration Committee should cooporate to agree on the decisons. The committee needs a more cooporative effort than what it is now. Current members take quite some time to vote on the proposed decisions on that particular user and those involved."

User name: Tznkai (talk)
Number of edits: 2715 Kate's Tool
First edit date: May 24, 2005
Adminship since January 6, 2006 (54/1/0)
Statement: "The goal of Arbitration is not punish those who have done wrong in some cosmic sense, but to protect the integrity and longevity of the project. Thus ArbCom must stand between the community and the Encylopedia, and intercept any disaster that may befall either. Keeping in mind those principles, Arbitration would be a processes which handles, primarily, disputes between editors. I think I provide a unique perspective. I provide the combination of beliefs I expressed above, and the relative newness to formal authority. I am NOT mired in past high profile disputes, and I very strongly believe that you need as many diffrent voices you can get, so long as they all work together."

User name: Z.Spy (talk)
Number of edits: 118 Kate's Tool
First edit date: August 6, 2005
Statement: "I am running for Arbitration comittee because I am a responsible contributor who reverts Vandalism, assists new editors, and Makes sure that Wikipedia is a clean, accurate Encyclopedia. I no longer state political opinons in Talk Pages."

The January 2006 Arbitration Committee elections began at 00:01 UTC on 9 January. The vote is taking place at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote; anyone registered on or before September 30, 2005 with 150 total edits at that time is granted suffrage. A voter may either support, oppose, or abstain from voting for a candidate. A minimum of 50% support is required in order to be eligible for a position; Jimbo Wales will pick from the candidates with the most support to fill the committee. With 27 new candidates joining the race since last Monday (see related story), there are a total of 68 candidates.

The vote will run until January 22.