My name is John Robertson. I'm new to Wikipedia. Like many newbies I have wet my feet by first entering material in the discussion section and then making a few forays into simple edits of existing articles.

I am interested in the arbitration committee because of my long standing (nearly 20 years now) interest dispute resolution. My bona fides in this area include: Licensed Attorney; Past Director of Community Dispute Resolution(Mediation) programs; I have mediated over 200 disputes as well as arbitrated a handful of matters. These hearings have included victim restitution, commercial, real estate, community development, environmental, and employment disputes. My vita is available thru a link to a personal website on my user page.

I am also a minor league code kiddie (not worthy to be called hacker) and have an interest in Open Source.

My approach to resolving content disputes would be 1)establish a clear record of the development the article 2)assist each party in the articulation of relief the requesting and basis for their request 3)apply wikipedia governing documents, guiding principals and established practices in making a determination.

I have no axe to grind and can assure neutrality and impartiality. --Edivorce 18:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: If selected for service on ArbCom I will not seek nor accept administrator or other privileges beyond that of an ordinary user and editor. --Edivorce 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

at least you give your real name and seem to have relevant professional expertiseBScar23625 00:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• BScar23625 does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 18:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 135 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic. Your comment sounds like a denunciation. Have I claimed to have “suffrage”?. Have I attempted to vote?. Mr Robertson appears to be a good candidate and I have expressed an opinion to that effect. Do you have any problem with that?. Best wishes. BobBScar23625 14:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Relevant professional expertise, wiki would benefit greatly from it. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   Support -- Obvious experience in resolving disputes and differences. Wikipedia does not have a monopoly on producing life experience in this area. Adrian Lamo 01:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

   • Adrian_Lamo does not have suffrage; he had only 136 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). Cryptic (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. Support, clearly experienced, if not on Wikipedia, and good answers to questions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support per conflict resolution experience. Dave 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support --Crunch 04:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support, very professional, though inexperienced edit-wise, like Rune.welsh said, Wikipedia would greatly benefit. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support per above. Jtmichcock 05:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Fred Bauder 05:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support due to professional experience. — Catherine\^talk 05:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. -- Scott e^iπ 06:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support.  Grue  06:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support. Some inexperience issues, but sensisble. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support. --Kefalonia 09:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support because of professional experience, but if elected he needs to get admin powers too. --kingboyk 10:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support - A highly reasonable candidate; despite lack of experience on Wikipedia itself, Edivorce has a wealth of experience that would easily cross over, and a balanced, judged approach. —the preceding unsigned comment is by It's-is-not-a-genitive (talk • contribs) 10:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
15. Support It appears this vote is really going out on a limb against the majority. However I feel this candidate has a very strong background and would be able to function neutrally in a position on ArbCom.  ALKIVAR™ 12:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support Meekohi 13:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support - I am impressed by the candidate's bonafides, and feel that they provide an appropriate counterweight to his overall lack of experience. Ξxtreme Unction|_{yakkity yak} 13:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support - professional experience; wikipedia experience will come along in time JoJan 16:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support The Literate Engineer 16:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support ParticleMan 17:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • ParticleMan does not have suffrage; he had only 118 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

20. Support, skill set outweighs experience issues - Masonpatriot 18:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support The owner of all 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User does not have suffrage - created account in November, has less than 50 edits. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

21. Support. --HK 22:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support if genuine, *this* is what Arb needs, not old-timers who have "earnt their strips". Stevage 23:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stevage likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 15:27, 6 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

22. Support clearly outlines the nature of arbitration process in candidate statement and understands its function. Fifelfoo 00:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Wally 00:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Neutrality^talk 05:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Mhaesen 12:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Mhaesen does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 11:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 39 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

25. Support A fresh face, open candidate, honest Robdurbar 12:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. Experienced issue resuolution would be a welcome change. I can look past the inexperience. Velvetsmog 22:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. Rangek 02:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. If not elected I urge this editor to contribute to ArbCom activities, gain editing experience and please run run again next year. Paul August ☎ 04:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support, as insane as it initially seemed to me to support someone with virtually no edit history, why look a gift horse in the mouth? This guy is a professional expert in this area willing to make dispute resolution and ArbCom his principal contribution to WP, who cares whether he's edited articles? He could make a huge difference on Arbcom. Changing vote to support. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support --Adrian Buehlmann 14:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support: Real world experience, people. The way some people oppose candidates based on their lack of wikipedia experience and nothing else makes me want to shout out loud.Dr. B 21:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Support All in 22:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • All in does not have suffrage; he registered at 02:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 112 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32. Support --Ignignot 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support--AndriyK 17:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support --Knucmo2 19:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC) I would usually say that a user should get his feet wet in WP:RfC but if this user is telling the truth about his dispute resolution record then I am ready to take a leap of faith.[reply]
35. Support - though not much experience with Wiki, he has a lot of experience with mediation and arbitration. --NorkNork 20:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. SupportWikityke 21:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck' Alain Michaud 20:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User's first edit was October 31 and has less than 100 edits; most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

37. Support I like his real-world experiences and his comments.Youngamerican 14:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support Geo Swan 02:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support impressed by background and answers, short history of participation in WP does not worry me. Pete.Hurd 05:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support not all lawyers are evil. Really. - JustinWick 03:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support his professional experience will be of great benefit to WP's dispute resolution processes Cynical 22:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support CDThieme 23:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Oppose, lack of experience. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Michael Snow 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Oppose. Mo0[talk] 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. —Kirill Lokshin 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. Oppose. Liked statement and questions, but inexperienced. In the future, support might well be forthcoming. Batmanand 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, lack of experience. --Interiot 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
11. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
12. Oppose. Madame Sosostris 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
13. Cryptic (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
14. Oppose, experience —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose not experienced. --Angelo 00:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose. Too new. Ambi 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
17. Oppose. Virtually zero edit history.--ragesoss 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
18. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
19. Reluctantly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - inexperience - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 03:13, Jan. 9, 2006

20. Bobet 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
21. Oppose inexperience older≠wiser 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. Inexperienced. --Viriditas 04:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Just too new; nothing personal. --Aaron 04:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
24. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose. android79 05:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose, no article editing history at all; wouldn't qualify to vote for a candidate, much less on ArbCom. —LeFlyman
28. Oppose. siafu 07:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
29. Oppose--cj | talk 07:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
30. Oppose for lack of Wikipedia-specific experience. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 08:15Z
31. Oppose now. But please try next year. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose, you sound wonderful (which is why you're getting decent support), but with only 36 edits and a month old account, you're too much of a newbie for now. Please do stick around and try again next year. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) changing vote, see above. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

32. Oppose. Lupo 09:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
33. Lack of XP. Would like to support - please be sure to stand again next time. —Nightstallion (?) 11:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose. Real world experience is definitely an advantage, but knowledge of and experience on Wikipedia is essential. Keep editing and perhaps you should look at the Mediation Committee, where I'm sure your mediation skills could be put to good use. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose lack of experience (only one article edit). Sorry. Sarah Ewart 12:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
36. Strongly Oppose Davidpdx 12:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose, xp. Radiant_>|< 13:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose for lack of experience on Wikipedia. If after a year of positive contributions to Wikipedia you are still interested in becomming an arbitrator I encourage you to run again then. Thryduulf 13:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
39. Oppose, needs WP experience. Awolf002 15:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose, but please stick around for a year or two more and then try again.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 15:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose --Doc ^ask? 18:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose Good credentials, good attitude, good focus. However, experience matters. Without an extended record of positive edits and the staying power it demonstrates, I cannot vote for you. --EMS | Talk 19:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose. Too new to be familiar enough with policy, etc. Hermione1980 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
44. Oppose. Inexperience. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
45. Splash^talk 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose LoE. Avriette 22:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose ➥the Epopt 00:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose, experience. Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose. wikiadultism --JWSchmidt 03:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
50. Strong Oppose. You are not only inexperienced with Wikipedia, but you are also (or have been) a lawyer, and from some of your responses, you do not seem to have an understanding that ArbCom is not a court of law. Silas Snider (talk) 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose. Vsmith 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
52. oppose Kingturtle 06:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
53. Raven4x4x 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
54. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
55. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 13:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose, too new. HGB 18:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
57. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
58. Oppose. Lack of experience--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 19:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
59. Weak oppose. Obviously experienced, but I'm not sure has enough experience of Wikipedia itself which may lead to problems. --G Rutter 19:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose -- Krash 20:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose Although this user seems to have experience outside of Wikipedia, I think a lot more experience within the project is needed. --Nick123 ^(t/c) 22:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose. maclean25 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
63. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose KTC 05:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
65. Oppose, inexperience.--Srleffler 06:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Sorry, nothing personal, but we don't want newbies being on the arbitation committee. Link9er 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Link9er does not have suffrage; he registered at 12:58, 24 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

67. --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
68. Oppose Timrollpickering 01:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose. Needs experience on-wiki as well as off. Superm401 | Talk 03:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose I would really like to support this user, but lack of experience on Wikipedia outweighs everything else, sorry. --Loopy ^e 04:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
71. Oppose – ABCD^e✉ 18:23, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
72. Oppose Xoloz 20:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
73. Lacks experience. JoaoRicardo^talk 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
74. Oppose - Good experience in mediation outside of Wikipedia, which I have no doubt would be easy to adapt to the Arbitration Committee. But your lack of experience on the site itself, and small number of user edits makes me wary.....although I assume good faith, someone with bad faith or intent to do damage could get into the Arb Committee if they came out with a similar story and a small number of edits, all being recent. Good luck though, and thanks for your support for Wikipedia. Agent Blightsoot 22:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
75. Oppose Alex43223 01:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose - too new -- Francs2000 01:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose. An understanding Wikipedia culture is important for an arbitrator. By all means, do stand again once you have more experience. Sunray 09:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose far too new. I suggest a year of experience editing and perhaps some work with Wikipedia's mediation group, and you'll likely be a strong candidate for next year. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
79. Oppose on policy and experience, not person. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose--Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
81. Oppose. Preaky 06:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
82. Oppose lack of wiki experience. well spoken appeal though, maybe next year.--Omniwolf 19:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose angusj 02:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose too new. Joaquin Murietta 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
85. oppose too new William M. Connolley 22:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

    Oppose. Sorry. Detriment 00:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User had less than 150 edits at the start of the election, so may not have suffrage. Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

86. Oppose - kaal 16:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
87. There's a difference between judging someone by the length of their path and just not having enough experience for the job. Ingoolemo ^talk 18:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
88. Oppose due to lack of Wikipedia-specific experience. Real-world experience impressive, but needs a Wikipedia track record as well. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:07, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
89. Real life experience is fantastic, but in all honesty, an ArbCom member needs to have Wikipedia experience. Bratsche^{talk | Esperanza} 04:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
90. Oppose inexperience w/ Wikipedia wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose due to addendum. User:Zoe|^(talk) 23:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
92. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
93. Oppose For using the word 'newbies'. (Bjorn Tipling 06:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
94. Oppose Experience. --Spondoolicks 20:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. Neutral. While well adjusted, and balanced, the responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) suggest that Edivorce is only willing to support NPOV in so far as it allows the opposite opinion to Edivorce's (whatever that might be) to be toned down. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]