Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Mikkalai

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Mikkalai

This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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

I was wikiborn in October, 2003 and was an administrator since February, 2004. As the number of active editors grow, the number of conflicts naturally grow, so I am willing to give my share of time to this cleanup task as well.

  1. I feel that the further fate of the project depends on maintaining a reasonable working environment.
  2. I am going to oppose the false idea that "all people are equal" (see into the history of Communism to understand what I mean). A better (but still not ideal) statement would be "... equal before the Law" (or "...before God" in some cultures). But in most societies the application of the Law does recognize that people are fundamentally unequal.
  3. I will be standing for zero-point-one-tolerance (0.1-tolerance) for disruption of wikipedia's spirit of cooperation, such as ad hominem attacks, policy gaming, information censorship. "Zero-point-one" is a recognition that people are human, can make errors and have emotions.
  4. I will stand for a structure in disputes, for efficiency.
  5. Pledge: fairness, neutrality, mercy, participation.

Withdrawn

I don't want to waste precious editor's time. I am pleased to see support from quite a few people with whom I had serious disagreements in the past. Two friends and a hundred of enemies: that's what a real man needs :-) mikka (t) 18:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Support

Sezgin
  • Sezgin does not have suffrage; he had only 72 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  1. A pleasure. --Ancheta Wis 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Cryptic (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Shanes 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support. You seem to have the right principles, as outlined in your candidate statement. Batmanand 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support--Duk 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support very no-nonsense –Gnomz007(?) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support I expect he'll cut through the BS that is now arbitration. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Support Fred Bauder 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support freestylefrappe 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support --Crunch 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. uh-huh Grutness...wha? 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Support ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Support Chick Bowen 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Support. android79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Support --Wetman 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Support. --Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Support Rohit 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Rohitk89 does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 06:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 106 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Support. siafu 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Support this outstanding user absolutely. He is the most dedicated wikipedian I have met here. --Ghirla | talk 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Support Per Ghirlandajo. The bulk of the issues cited by the oppose voters are minor misunderstandigns that stem from the fact that English isn't Mikkalai's native language. His incredible volume of knowledgeable and sharp judgment make up for that. 172 23:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Support. --Hottentot (now Khoikhoi) 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. With pleasure. Support. --rydel 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. support. The most serious and needed statement in the current state of Wikipedia. That he is one of the most outstanding editors goes without asking, but the latter is not the main reason of my support. --Irpen 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. Support Agree with the above comment, an exellent editor. Fisenko 04:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Support in any role on Wikipedia. Probably the best Wikipedian I ever met yet. abakharev 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Support One of the few people who contributes to the USSR pages who actually knows something about Eastern Europe. He is knowledgeable and neutral, which doesn't go far on Wikipedia unfortunately. Ruy Lopez 05:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Support, he is a hard working wiki. Bronks 10:41, 10 January 2006 (Swedish time zone)
  30. Support, hard working, carefull and deliberate. --Hq3473 17:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Support DenisMoskowitz 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Ambi 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. --GraemeL (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  6. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  7. Dmcdevit·t 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  8. TacoDeposit 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose policy matters --Angelo 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  11. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Sorry, a "god no" candidate for me. Grace Note 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. --ragesoss 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    *Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. --Jaranda wat's sup 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  16. Bobet 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Statement scares me. novacatz 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose --Daniel 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Sorry. Mikka is a great user, but four reverts in three hours at Anti-Romanian discrimination was not a good idea ( [1]). Mikka also inserted {{protected}} on the page after the fourth revert and probably actually protected the page. I am sure that what Mikka was dealing was ultranationalist trolls or the like, but he could have just reported the issue at WP:AN/I or other place instead. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose on response to my Question and recent statements.—LeFlyman 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose on the basis of the policy platform presented, this is not a platform for arbitration, this is the platform for a judiciary acting in the interests of a "power elite". I have no wish for the experience of LambdaMOO's "arbitration" system of a politicised pseudo-judiciary to be replicated on Wikipedia, particularly when the judiciary displays a noxious, Jacobin, jurisprudence. Fifelfoo 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - a very valuable contributor in terms of content, but his attitude to fellow Wikipedians is much too black and white, and harsh. Ronline ✉ 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  24. Oppose great contributor, but doesn't seem suitable for ArbCom.  Grue  06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  25. Oppose--cj | talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  26. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose platform --- Charles Stewart 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. I disagree with your platform. -- Michalis Famelis 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  30. Oppose with some reluctance, since I think Mikka is generally a fine fellow and a sound contributor but in my view he lacks detachment. I'd go with Ronline (who knows Mikka much better than I do). Several admin calls by Mikka have left me feeling distinctly uneasy; he has appeared partisan in his use of admin powers. Whether or not that appearance is fair (and it may well not be). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • JzG technically does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 18:16, 6 January 2006 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Comment That is not quite true, JzG just recently changed usernames. His real first edit was Aug 20, 2004, he has been very active since Aug 2005. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Signed now with my old username. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  31. Raven4x4x 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  32. oppose - regrettably per above. My personal encounter with Mikka was quite positive though and I continue to be impressed with his dedication. Jbetak 11:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  33. —Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  34. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.  ALKIVAR™ 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  35. considered oppose Happy to have Mikkalai as an admin, but have serious reservations regarding impartiality if promoted to ArbCom. Tomertalk 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  36. Oppose, tolerance is a good thing. And so is civility. Radiant_>|< 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose --Just a tag 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Just a tag likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 08:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Mark1 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    Very Strong Oppose - This Admin should be desysoped not to mention to be advanced in an ArbCom. This bias editor had several attacks on me. Check his history please (Moldovan language Moldova Anti-Romanian Transnistria). He never assumed good faith but he blocked me for content issues. How can a man like him even dream to become member of ArbCom? The way he likes the most is this one: "block the opponents of his ideas" then "revert all edits by others" then "edit the page with his ideas" then "block the page". Looks very bad. It was in attention for Jimbo also for his abuse of privileges and power. I don't trust him. How many times I told him to stop it? He is a looser with this kind of bad approach. Bonaparte talk 14:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Bonaparte likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 18:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 15:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  38. Oppose Has a few too many 'issues' for now. Maybe next time. --kingboyk 15:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. --Viriditas 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Knowing the circumstances under which the nomination was submitted, I cannot support this otherwise truly exceptional Wikipedian. Sorry, Mikka.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  42. Oppose yuck. Foant 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  43. Oppose per above. — goethean ॐ 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  44. Oppose Nothing personal but I see no Arbitration Commitee material here. Dunemaire 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  45. Oppose--Sjharte 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  46. Oppose. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 20:23Z
  47. Oppose -- Leibniz 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  48. Oppose as Ronline. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  49. Splashtalk 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Attitude. Avriette 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  51. Oppose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  52. Oppose. ((keeping myself anonymous; fear of backlash) 6:32 PM Central, 1-9-06.
    (valid vote of joker user:Shultz) Relax, Shultz. I checked on you several times lately. You are off the hook (or I missed something?). mikka (t) 01:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Next time, I'll log off and vote with an IP. Why didn't I think of it before? An IP vote should keep me anonymous... --Shultz 10:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  53. Oppose--Doc ask? 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  54. older≠wiser 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    Oppose. Durova 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Durova likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:21, 22 October 2005 (UTC). (caveats) —Cryptic (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  55. oppose Kingturtle 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  56. Oppose SchmuckyTheCat 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  58. Oppose/ --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  59. Oppose. For various reasons, I do not believe that Mikkalai would make a good arbitrator. Rje 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  60. Oppose, prolific fine editor, disposition makes him unsuitable for arbitrator role. HGB 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  61. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
  62. Oppose (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  63. Oppose Vsmith 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  64. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  65. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  66. Strong Oppose. This user is definitely not the sort of person, in my opinion, who would be a good arbiter. --JSIN 06:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  67. Oppose. --Masssiveego 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  68. Oppose. Good editor, but doesn't handle conflicts correctly. Dpotop 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  69. Oppose adamantly.Dietwald 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
  70. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here