I don't believe any one person should be able to decide if an article is deleted, or even a significant portion of itself deleted. Nor should this be decided by just whatever three random strangers are around at the time a third party moderator is called for. If dozens of people have contributed to an article over the years, and none of them had a problem with its size, then why should the opinion of a handful of people who don't care about the subject at all, be able to decide this? Most users will never bother to post their opinions unfortunately, and most people don't return to reread an article they liked, or mark it to watch, to keep track of what's going on.

• If there is ever a arbitration called for, to settle a dispute between editors, I'll make certain the "its too long, and I prefer short articles" excuse for editing is never considered valid. An article is judged by its context, not its length.
• The size of an article is never an excuse to erase information from it. If the information is valid to the article, it should remain. If it can be put on a side page, so be it. If not, leave it alone. I doubt most people mind scrolling down to read through a lengthy article, if they are interested in the subject.

I might not always make the right choices straight away, but I do patiently discuss things, try to figure everything out, and then make a rational decision. I will listen to all sides of any argument, and work to settling things in a fair and logical way. Dream Focus ( talk) 21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Dream Focus ( talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Discuss the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

Voting in this election is now closed. Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

1. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Per be kind to the newbies - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 02:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Actually strong support as his arguments that I have seen in discussions and even the rationale above are all reasonable. Best, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
4. BrianY ( talk) 23:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Tactical support. ST47 ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Xavexgoem ( talk) 02:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
8. Support RMHED ( talk) 19:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
9. Strong Support. Wants the arbcom to respect community consensus rather than dictate it, realises that WP:NOT paper. What more do you want? Cynical ( talk) 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
10. support for moral and tactical reasons   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
11. Support same as Promethean - Tactical and moral. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 15:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
12. per ST47 Enigma ^message 19:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
13. Despite some reservations, I do not believe that the candidate deserves to finish so near the bottom as there is some evidence that this is an intelligent and principled editor. The same cannot be said about all candidates. -- JayHenry ( talk) 07:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
14. Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 20:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

1. Oppose. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
3. I don't think Dream Focus understands what ArbCom is intended to do.-- chaser - t 00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
4. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Strong oppose Communication issues; if you choose not to answer the majority of questions then you have no basis to stand. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Voyaging ^(talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
8. MBisanz ^talk 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. -- El on ka 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
11. iride scent 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
12. Steven Walling (talk) 00:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
13. krimpet ✽ 00:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
14. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
15. Not ready for this role. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
16. Avruch ^T 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
17. Caspian blue 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
18. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
19. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
20. Candidate should understand the difference between content and conduct before running for ArbCom. — kur ykh 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
21. – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 01:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
22. Statements and answers to questions are generally unrelated to dispute resolution. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
23. iMatthew 01:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
24. Tsk no no no. Not ready. -- Mixwell! ^Talk 02:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
25. -- Koji † 02:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
26. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose - nothing personal, just too little experience. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose. rootology ( C)( T) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
29. Statement shows a lack of understanding of what ArbCom does. Grand master ka 02:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
30. Incompetence. Prodego ^talk 03:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
31. ArbComm is not AFD. GRBerry 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose BJ ^Talk 04:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
33. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
34. Inexperience. MER-C 04:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
35. Nothing personal against this editor, but he lacks the experience needed for ArbCom. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
36. I'm all for change, but this isn't it. Mike H. Fierce! 05:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose Reforms to deletion policy are not what ArbCom is about. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose per lack of understanding. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose - I'm not sure if you completely understand the purpose of ArbCom. -- FastLizard4 ( Talk• Index• Sign) 06:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Enigma ^message 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

40. -- Avi ( talk) 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose. Cirt ( talk) 08:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose. - Not an admin; community has not yet shown that basic level of trust. Please RFA, gain more experience in policy and WP:DR areas, and run again. // roux    editor review 09:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose This candidate's platform is of tangential relevance to arbcom at best. Brilliantine ( talk) 09:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle ( talk) 09:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Like me, you are not an admin, which means you have not gained a specific amount of trust. I really doubt that you will really know how to wield your powers despite your age on Wikipedia and the absence of negative edits and blocks. Sorry. -- Mark Chung ( talk) 09:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 ( talk) 20:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

45. — neuro ^(talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
46. Mailer Diablo 10:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 11:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
48. Syn ergy 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret ^account 12:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 13:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose I don't mind that you aren't yet an admin, but I do want ARBcomm members to be more involved in Wikipedia and your 671 edits aren't enough to win my support this year. Get more involved especially in controversial areas and I'll happily reconsider in future years. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
53. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose per Grandmasterka and other general "you are not ready" statements. Dengero ( talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
55. David Shankbone 17:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
56. Nothing personal; keep up the good work, but I don't think you're quite ready for this particular role. MastCell  ^Talk 18:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
57. Not experienced enough yet, keep contributing though! Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose Not enough experience, sorry. The Helpful One 18:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
59. Davewild ( talk) 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
60. Supportive oppose. By all appearances, a useful good-faith contributor who just doesn't have the experience to be an arbitrator at this point. Sarcasticidealist ( talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
61. Per Sarcasticidealist. PeterSymonds ( talk) 19:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 21:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose JPG-GR ( talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose... Modernist ( talk) 22:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. Franamax ( talk) 22:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
66. Not enough general experience, seems to be a little too content-oriented; ArbCom does not adjudicate content disputes. Glass Cobra 23:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose - doesn't seem to fully understand the role of ArbCom, could more usefully contribute in areas of interest elsewhere. Warofdreams talk 23:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    I agree with MastCell above. If interested in Arbitration, it would probably be good to follow some cases this next year. If you're more interested in deletion policy, there are better places to get more involved, as ArbCom has fairly limited authority over the deletion process. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

68. Alex fusco ⁵ 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose. -- Wetman ( talk) 02:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose No way, no how, no you. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
71. Strong Oppose per User:Chaser.-- Cerejota ( talk) 05:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
72. Guettarda ( talk) 06:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose -- Aude ( talk) 15:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
74. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience.  RGTraynor  20:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
75. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
76. Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
77. Too many questions unanswered, sorry. Badger Drink ( talk) 23:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
78. Statement and responses seem to make little sense. Joe Nu tter 23:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
79. Kusma ( talk) 07:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
80. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
81. -- Sultec ( talk) 16:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
82. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
83. Oppose. I don't have confidence in the candidate's understanding of what is happening here. SilkTork * ^YES! 20:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
84. Oppose Parts of his statement are not relevant to being an arbitrator. Gizza ^{Discuss ©} 23:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
85. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 01:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
87. Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Great user with a sincere attituse toward this position. (at least you answered some of the questions) Maybe become an Admin before trying for ArbCom. Leujohn ^{( talk)}
88. Oppose: Seems totally unsuitable based on experience, and lacks depth in judgment (or was that a provocative joke?). Walkerma ( talk) 16:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
89. Oppose Happy‑ melon 18:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
90. Oppose -- VS ^talk 06:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
91. Oppose Terence ( talk) 08:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
92. Wronkiew ( talk) 06:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose. I don't think article-length guidelines should be ignored entirely, for one thing. Jonathanmills ( talk) 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose - Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 09:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
95. Oppose Jon513 ( talk) 16:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose - Not enough experience, hasn't answered most questions, and doesn't seem to have full understanding of ArbCom. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
97. Oppose Awadewit ( talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose. Vancouver dreaming ( talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
99. Tex ( talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
100. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose Doesn't seem to understand how this works tgies ( talk) 04:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
102. Limited experience within the project. — Manti core 07:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
103. Oppose Gazi moff 14:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose Does not understand the job. Fred Talk 15:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose. Not ready yet. Keep on contributing, the threshold is very high for roles such as this - the result of this nomination is not personal. Rje ( talk) 21:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose Rivertorch ( talk) 09:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
107. Oppose. less of 700 edits-- Rjecina ( talk) 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
108. Supportive Oppose per SarcasticIdealist -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
109. Oppose Nil Einne ( talk) 21:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose per statement Switzpaw ( talk) 15:26, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
112. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 18:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
113. Oppose. Not currently accountable as an administrator, thus unlikely to be able to deal with potential issues that will crop up at ArbCom. Caulde 14:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
114. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose ( rationale). the wub "?!" 23:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply