If I voted to oppose your Arbcom candidacy, it was probably for one or more of the following reasons.

Not an admin. Adminship is a good indication of community trust. Also, I would like to see how you handle a little authority before I vote to give you a lot of authority.

Lack of experience. Experience I feel is relevant includes formal or informal mediation of disputes over content or between editors, including the admin noticeboards, commenting on or offering workshop proposals in past Arbitration cases, or enforcing Arbitration remedies.

Wrong approach. ArbCom is the last step in dispute resolution. Arbitrators should not be attempting to resolve disputes on their own while deciding whether to accept a case.

Wrong temperament. Your comments on prior cases, or your comments and handling of other administrative matters, have demonstrated to me that you do not have the temperament or judgement to sit as an Arbitrator.

Arbcom is not a magic wand. Arbcom can not solve policy disputes. The most it can do is sanction editors whose behavior is so disruptive that it is preventing the more reasonable editors on both sides from reaching a consensus. When the community is deeply divided, it is natural for the Committee to be deeply divided as well. You may have unrealistic expectations of Arbcom's ability to set policy and solve thorny problems.

You do not have a magic wand. In addition to the visible part of Arbitration (WP:RFAR), Arbitrators deal with requests from banned users, block appeals, requests for modification, and other problems generating about 70 e-mails per day on the Arbcom-L mailing list. Enthusiasm is great, but if you think you can single-handedly speed up the Arbitration process, you probably don't know enough about the process to do a good job.