Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Jtkiefer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jtkiefer

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote. This page is kept primarily for historical reasons. Thank you!


Hello, I'm Jtkiefer, a registered user since June 2005, and an anonymous editor for a long time before that. I've been an administrator since late August 2005, and I'm now active in the Welcoming Committee and the Stub Sorting WikiProject.

The arbitration process needs to be streamlined; this is widely agreed upon by the Wikipedia community. The arbitration case duration has been reduced without compromising diligence, but I feel that this can be improved even more. Good members who become involved as arbitrators are often alienated by the process; their experience is lost when they resign or leave the project, and I feel that this problem too must be given serious attention.

I feel that the arbcom should be willing to ban users when necessary and should not hesitate to do so in the case of blatant trolls and vandals, at the same time I feel that the arbcom should have a streamlined system to deal with such blatant abuses and that the arbcom should be strict but fair whenever blocks or bans are called for. JtkieferT | C | @ ----

Questions

[edit] Support

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Sean|Black 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. --Ancheta Wis 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. —Kirill Lokshin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support -- PRueda29 / Ptalk29 / Pcontribs29 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. JYolkowski // talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support.--ragesoss 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support --CBD ☎ ✉ 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support. -Mysekurity 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support Willing to try alternatives to banning (not that they work that well) Fred Bauder 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support freestylefrappe 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support. Good user. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support -- SaikiriRemixed? 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support: --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support --kingboyk 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support per pizza (although, have you tried feta cheese and spinach, absolutely delicious). --Celestianpower háblame 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Support bans suck.  Grue  13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support. Brighterorange 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support Robert McClenon 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Support. Damned eternal optimist. We could use more of those, I think. Hermione1980 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support. May you stick by your words. Avriette 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Support is better than neutral. Cheers Szvest 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™
  33. Support. He's given clear answers that reflect the best of Wikipedia's open, minimal-governance culture. Unfocused 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Support. Has succeeded in removing my doubts about him. David | Talk 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Support. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Support Ban trolls and vandals; please. Septentrionalis 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Support I have checked the rules very carefully and there is no rule stating that you cannot vote for yourself as long as you only vote once on your page. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Support. enochlau (talk) 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Hedley 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Support KTC 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. SupportDr. B 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Support Rangek 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Support Robdurbar 11:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Support - though a bit inexperienced, good views. --NorkNork 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Pintele Yid 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.) Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Support. Just barely experienced enough. This is overrode by good intentions and foresight. Superm401 | Talk 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Support Sciurinæ 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Support - Mark 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. support. Gnangarra 13:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Support - I have seem Jtkiefer at work, and I know he would be a welcome addition to the ArbCom. --M@thwiz2020 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Mo0[talk] 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, policy. Ambi 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Everyking 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Questions not up to scratch, sorry. Batmanand 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Dmcdevit·t 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose --Angelo 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Staffelde 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. TacoDeposit 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose. Grace Note 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose - Yeah about those answers... - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:27, Jan. 9, 2006
  19. Reluctant Oppose Candidate too easily becomes defensive. Xoloz 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Reluctantly oppose. Jonathunder 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. Good user but too new. Rhobite 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. — Dan | talk 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose Somewhat on the new side. 172 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose --Crunch 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. android79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, too new.--cj | talk 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. siafu 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 09:00Z
  31. Oppose Sarah Ewart 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. --Kefalonia 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Charles Stewart 11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Slightly too new for my liking. —Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Too new, also a question of policy concerns. Davidpdx 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose per candidate statement, seems far too reluctant to ban. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose, declines to answer a lot of questions. Either he doesn't have an answer, or he doesn't want to be open about it. Neither is good. Radiant_>|< 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose, too trigger-happy as an admin, this sense of being a "law unto himself" would only worsen were jtk on the arbcom. Also, I do not agree arbitration must be an ultima ratio only to be opted for after a dozen mediators has despaired. "Early arbitration" in blatant cases may actually save everybody a lot of time. dab (ᛏ) 17:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. --Thorri 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, too many controversial and unilateral edits. Also too reluctant to answer questions.Gateman1997 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose - Sorry, too new. Awolf002 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose reluctantly too reluctant to ban --Doc ask? 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Recent unacceptable behavior by this individual has required me engage a comment on this vote. dab's comments above speak volumes about him and I wish I'd read them earlier before engaging the individual in another setting. This user will ban because he's in a bad mood. I cannot believe that he could possibly do anything but harm in this position. ℬ 02:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose —Matthew Brown (T:C) 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. --HK 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  47. Splashtalk 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose per dab. Trolls should be banned, not fed and admonished ad nauseum. Too may people seem to see no difference between Wikipedia and usenet soc.culture.* groups nowadays.--Ghirla | talk 22:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Oppose imprecise in communication –Gnomz007(?) 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Reluctance to ban. --Viriditas 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose too new and too afraid to ban. ~~ N (t/c) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. older≠wiser 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose - Questions. -- Hinotori(talk)|(ctrb) 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. oppose Kingturtle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. Oppose nothing personal, but I'm not convinced that you belong on ArbCom. --Dschor 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. Oppose. Statement and answers leave me unconvinced that Jtkiefer would ben an effective arbitrator. Rje 14:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose, too new and inexperienced for arbitrator role. HGB 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. too eager --JWSchmidt 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
  64. Oppose weak candidacy Sjc 06:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose Fad (ix) 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. Statement is weak, questions are weaker, and concerns raised here make me say no. Velvetsmog 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose More experience would be needed. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. Oppose I dont feal jtkiefer is to new to wikipedia its just jtkiefer needs a bit more experience with arbcom related things. Changed my neutral Opposing because I just realied that jtkiefer made a self vote It said RFA style election I believe RFA states no voting for your self --Adam1213 Talk + 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  71. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  72. Oppose. Preaky 07:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutral

  1. Neutral. I'm not particularly impressed with his answers to my questions and those of others. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 00:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Neutral - a good editor who has proven himself in the time he's been here, just too new for this role imo -- Francs2000 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    Neutral I dont feal jtkiefer is to new to wikipedia its just jtkiefer needs a bit more experience with arbcom related things --Adam1213 Talk + 14:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC) Opposing just realied that jtkiefer made a self vote --Adam1213 Talk + 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 07:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Neutralitytalk 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)