Justice America

I feel Wikipedia's Arbcom needs a real shaking up, and I'm the one to do it. I've observed this site for years, though I generally have shied from making physical edits. In real life I'm a lawyer, and will use my legalese to work through even the most difficult cases. I feel my lack of connection here makes me an ideal candidate, as I have no conflicts of interest. Thanks for reading this, and I hope you look past my inexperience. Justice America ( talk) 08:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Justice America ( talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves)
• 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. Although, I suggest you consider a name change before next year's elections. PhilKnight ( talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Everyone needs at least one support, and two is better. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Inexperience and legalese, what could go wrong?-- Scott Mac (Doc) 00:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
4. America! FUCK YEAH! -- harej 00:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
5. Tactical support. ST47 ( talk) 23:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Tactical support. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 22:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Per Harej Xavexgoem ( talk) 01:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
8. Support RMHED ( talk) 19:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
9. NYB comes from the law world and be makes a great arbitrator. Justice America comes from the law world. By the property of assumption, Justice America is...? You know the answer to that. Plus he seems like he actually wants to help. Wizardman 20:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Moral support Durova ^Charge! 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
11. Tactical support, wonder if the others are for the same reason? Brilliantine ( talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
12. Tactical support - unsuitable for ArbCom at this time, but doesn't deserve to be so far down the list either. Terraxos ( talk) 05:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
13. Support For only the third time in my thirty-five-and-a-half months here, I agree with Doc, only my appeal for inexperience and legalese is made without irony, sarcasm, or facetiousness (so we don't really agree, but it's a month for happiness and unity, so I'll take something positive wherever I might find it). As a believer in the importance of process (as, for one, a guarantor of the rights of the community), I have on more than one occasion expressed hope that we might someday have an ArbCom composed exclusively of lawyers or other individuals to have undergone training the law and logic, and we would do well, at the very least, to have on the committee another lawyer interested in the initial crafting of decisions, as I imagine the candidate to be; he or she who first sets out the proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies largely controls the course and scope of a case, and so Brad (largely by virtue of his being a diligent and committed committee member and his being particularly skilled at the crafting of what are at their essence judicial opinions, which is, I should say explicitly, a great thing) has often been able to place a very strong imprint on the agenda and decisions of the ArbCom and to advance generally many of his beliefs, which beliefs, my personal affection for Brad aside, are quite at odds with mine, especially problematic because his conception of ArbCom is a bit broader than mine (as, most significantly, with respect to the appropriateness of members's substituting their own views about what policy ought to be for those of the community solely because the areas those policies surround are thorny); I perceive that Justice America might be an interesting, dynamic counterweight. My "support"s are longest, it seems, when they are late and useless, offered on hopeless cases, but I write at such length here because I'm unable to say anything concisely so that I might do my part to encourage the candidate to involve himself with arbitration and whatever reworking of ArbCom processes might soon be undertaken, not only in order that he might be a more viable candidate next year but in order that we might benefit from his input in the meanwhile. Joe 05:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
14. Basically agree with everything Joe said. Many sighs. -- JayHenry ( talk) 07:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
15. Sounds wonderful. Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 18:18, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
16. Have a cookie :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply

1. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
2. Nufy8 ( talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose. Rschen7754 ( T C) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
4. -- Kanonkas :  Talk  00:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
5. chaser - t 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
6. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose - Shot info ( talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
8. Voyaging ^(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
9. MBisanz ^talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. Candidate is not even an admin yet. -- El on ka 00:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose Majorly ^talk 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
12. Communication problems, no response to questions does not inspire confidence in handling cases. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
13. iride scent 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
14. Caspian blue 01:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
15. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
16. krimpet ✽ 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
17. No answers to questions. We need to know what you intend to shake up. ;-) John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
18. Steven Walling (talk) 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
19. kur ykh 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
20. Avruch ^T 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose -- Banime ( talk) 01:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
22. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
23. See reasoning. east718 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
24. Per [non-existent] answers to questions. Titoxd^{( ?!? - cool stuff)} 01:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
25. -- Avi ( talk) 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
26. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
27. — Chris! _{c t} 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
28. AMERICA FUCK YEAH! Oppose -- Mixwell! ^Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
29. -- Koji † 02:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
30. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone ( talk) 02:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
31. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose JodyB _talk 02:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. rootology ( C)( T) 03:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
34. ... Prodego ^talk 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
35. Nope. MER-C 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose BJ ^Talk 04:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
37. Contributions and responses to questions gave me no reason to believe this editor is qualified. GRBerry 04:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
38. Not even a Q&A. What was the point? rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
39. I'm all for change, but at least fake like you were serious about this. Mike H. Fierce! 04:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
40. Per lack of experience. Master&Expert ( Talk) 05:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
41. David Shankbone 05:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose, but I really hope you stay on and work towards building the kind of experience that gets you there in the future! bd2412 T 07:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
43. 'Oppose strongly. Does not appear to understand how the ArbCom elections work, let alone the ArbCom itself. Enigma ^message 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose - Editcount does not show sufficient experience in either policy or dispute resolution areas to inspire confidence that this candidate is familiar with how we settle problems, or is skilled at doing so. Lack of answers to questions indicates lack of an engagement in the ACE process, and a lack of interest in their own candidacy. Please do keep editing, learn more about how things works around here, and try again in a couple of years. // roux    editor review 08:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose. Cirt ( talk) 08:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose Who? -- Folantin ( talk) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose. I view adminship as a necessary prequisite for ArbCom membership. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
48. Very little experience, only a handful of edits; the candidate is not ready to be trusted in this sort of position. PeterSymonds ( talk) 09:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
49. — neuro ^(talk) 10:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
50. Mailer Diablo 11:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. Viriditas ( talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose 168 edits is insufficient in my opinion to show you are sufficiently involved in this community to serve on Arbcomm this year. Get more involved in things like wp:fac or wherever else in wikipedia that you find enjoyable and I'll reconsider in a future year. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
53. 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 12:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
54. Oppose -- CrohnieGal ^Talk 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose Colchicum ( talk) 15:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose - insufficient experience. PseudoOne ( talk) 15:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose Dengero ( talk) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
58. Crystal whacker ( My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
59. I have nothing against new faces on the Committee, but more experience is needed. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:28, 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) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
61. Per Sarcasticdidealist; keep up the good work, but too little experience for this role at present. MastCell  ^Talk 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
62. Syn ergy 19:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
63. Davewild ( talk) 19:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose Sorry, but this is a very high-level group in the Wikipedia community and requires strong familiarity with Wikipedia, which is somewhat lacking this case. Maybe later. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 21:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose JPG-GR ( talk) 22:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
66. Tiptoety ^talk 22:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Franamax ( talk) 22:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose... Modernist ( talk) 23:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose More extensive experience required. Glass Cobra 23:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC) reply
70. Oppose -- VS ^talk 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    This is a position that requires a time commitment, and that you've not edited since November 10 indicates you don't have the time. I really hope that if you find some free time you find ways to get more involved because we're always in need of more smart editors. -- JayHenry ( talk) 00:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply

71. Oppose. m acy 00:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
72. Alex fusco ⁵ 02:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
73. Oppose. Unserious.-- Wetman ( talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
74. Per so many reasons, they all have been summed up though. Not admin, not experienced etc. ѕwirlвoy  ₪ 05:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
75. Guettarda ( talk) 06:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
76. Strong Oppose this candidacy which has the appearance (IMO) of a joke. ··· 日本穣 ^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
77. Oppose -- Aude ( talk) 15:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
78. Oppose JeremyMcCracken ( talk) ( contribs) 15:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
79. Oppose: Not remotely enough experience. I doubt the candidate, whatever his legal background, would want a judge trying a case of his with as little experience as he proposes bringing here.  RGTraynor  20:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
80. oppose never heard of him William M. Connolley ( talk) 21:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
81. Oppose - we need less legalese, not more. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
82. Oppose. Миша 13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
83. -- Badger Drink ( talk) 23:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC) reply
84. oppose first and foremost ARBCOM members must be willing to answer questions when asked. Gnan garra 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
85. Too inactive. Joe Nu tter 01:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
86. Oppose. Jonathunder ( talk) 03:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
87. Strong Oppose - this is not a game, stop making the other non-admin candidates look bad and if this is not a sock or good-hand account, please get more experience before even thinking about running for something as important as this ......-- Comet styles 07:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
88. Kusma ( talk) 07:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
89. Gentgeen ( talk) 10:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

    per Cometstyles. This isn't even a joke nom, it's just plain annoying and unfair to those non-admins who are making an effort. EconomicsGuy ( talk) 13:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply

90. Oppose I think you meant this in good faith, but ask the one lawyer on the ArbCom: that ain't enough. You need more experience and knowledge of Wikipedia policy before we can even consider this. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
91. Michael Snow ( talk) 20:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
92. Oppose Gizza ^{Discuss ©} 23:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC) reply
93. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
94. Oppose per WP:NOTYET. Also, I feel like you don't even care about your role here, per your questions. Leujohn ^{( talk)}
95. Oppose Username is somewhat unnerving. Not an admin -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
96. Oppose Happy‑ melon 18:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
97. I like the fact that his edit history shows he does not live at Wikipedia but far too few recent edits (almost none in October or November) so I oppose. Chergles ( talk) 19:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
98. Oppose. If someone can convince me that this isn't a hoax nomination, I might be willing to reconsider. Cynical ( talk) 21:59, 4 December 2008 (UTC) reply
99. Oppose. Thankfully there was little to read (short statement, few contributions, and no answers to any questions) so not a lot of time was wasted researching this candidate. In order to register a serious oppose or support for a candidate requires at least some time is spent researching and considering that candidate. There are too many candidates entering this election who have no chance at all of being elected, taking up time. SilkTork * ^YES! 08:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
100. Terence ( talk) 09:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
101. Oppose Does not seem to be taking the application seriously. LK ( talk) 14:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC) reply
102. Wronkiew ( talk) 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
103. Very Strong Oppose. Where is the experience???? Willking1979 ( talk) 22:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) reply
104. Oppose, not qualified. Shyam ^{( T/ C)} 09:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC) reply
105. Oppose - Not enough experience, and didn't answer any questions. Giants2008 ( 17-14) 00:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
106. Oppose Awadewit ( talk) 01:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
107. Vancouver dreaming ( talk) 15:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
108. Tex ( talk) 20:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
109. Weak oppose; I really want to see a few candidates "win". Sincerely, -- A Nobody ^{My talk} 20:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) reply
110. Oppose Kittybrewster ☎ 15:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC) reply
111. Oppose check out THIS physical edit tgies ( talk) 05:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
112. Lack of experience or tenure on the project. — Manti core 07:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
113. Oppose Gazi moff 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
114. Oppose Your thesis is incorrect; you need to be connected. Fred Talk 19:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
115. Oppose Do we need a wikilawyer? Computerjoe 's talk 22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
116. Oppose Hard to assess a candidate if they do not bother to answer the questions. Rje ( talk) 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC) reply
117. Oppose Rivertorch ( talk) 09:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
118. Oppose No answeres to questions -- Nate 14 81 17:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
119. Oppose small number of edits -- Rjecina ( talk) 19:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
120. One of my few oppose votes - not enough experience and did not answer the questions. 43 mainspace edits is just not enough. -- Imperator3733 ( talk) 22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC) reply
121. Oppose. Shy??? Consider also changing the name ;)-- Michael X the White ( talk) 14:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
122. Oppose. What? Why on earth should anyone support this guy? Give us one, good reason. deeceevoice ( talk) 15:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
123. Oppose -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 20:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
124. Oppose Nil Einne ( talk) 22:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reply
125. Oppose. — xaosflux ^Talk 05:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
126. Oppose Switzpaw ( talk) 15:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC) reply
127. — Sebastian 09:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
128. Oppose. Not an administrator, thus severely inexperienced with community at hand. Caulde 14:31, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
129. Oppose-- Sultec ( talk) 16:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
130. SQL ^{Query me!} 20:37, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply
131. Oppose ( rationale). the wub "?!" 23:53, 14 December 2008 (UTC) reply