This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ----

Questions

1. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. -- a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. -- Ancheta Wis 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support -- PRueda29 / ^Ptalk29 / ^Pcontribs29 00:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Support. User:Zoe| ^(talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. JYolkowski // talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Support.-- ragesoss 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support -- CBD _☎ ^✉ 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. - Mys e kurity 03:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support Willing to try alternatives to banning (not that they work that well) Fred Bauder 04:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support freestylefrappe 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support. Good user. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support -- Saikiri ^Remixed? 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support: -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support -- kingboyk 12:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support per pizza (although, have you tried feta cheese and spinach, absolutely delicious). -- Cel e stianpower ^háblame 13:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support bans suck.  Grue  13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support. Brighterorange 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support Robert McClenon 15:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Support— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 16:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support. Damned eternal optimist. We could use more of those, I think. H e rmione 1980 22:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. May you stick by your words. Avriette 23:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Support is better than neutral. Cheers Szvest 23:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™} reply
33. Support. He's given clear answers that reflect the best of Wikipedia's open, minimal-governance culture. Un focused 05:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Has succeeded in removing my doubts about him. David | Talk 21:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support. -- Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 23:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support Ban trolls and vandals; please. Septentrionalis 23:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 02:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support. enochlau ( talk) 04:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Hedley 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support KTC 19:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support Dr. B 21:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support Rangek 01:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support Robdurbar 11:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support - though a bit inexperienced, good views. -- NorkNork 20:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Pintele Yid 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

48. Support. Just barely experienced enough. This is overrode by good intentions and foresight. Superm401 | Talk 23:18, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Support Sciurinæ 01:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Support - Mark 06:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. support. Gnangarra 13:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Support - I have seem Jtkiefer at work, and I know he would be a welcome addition to the ArbCom. -- M @ th wiz 2020 14:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

   Oppose questions. David | explanation | Talk 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

3. Mo0[ talk] 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose, policy. Ambi 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Everyking 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose. Questions not up to scratch, sorry. Batmanand 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Dmcdevit· t 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose - Questions - Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose, questions. Carbonite | Talk 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose -- Angelo 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. Staffelde 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. TacoDeposit 01:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose. Grace Note 02:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose - Yeah about those answers... - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE ( TALK) 03:27, Jan. 9, 2006

19. Reluctant Oppose Candidate too easily becomes defensive. Xoloz 02:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Reluctantly oppose. Jonathunder 02:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose -- Netoholic @ 03:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose Wile E. Heresiarch 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Oppose. Good user but too new. Rhobite 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. — Dan | talk 04:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose Somewhat on the new side. 172 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose -- Crunch 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. android 79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose, too new.-- cj | talk 06:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. siafu 08:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 09:00 Z
31. Oppose Sarah Ewart 09:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose Charles Stewart 11:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Slightly too new for my liking. — Nightstallion (?) 12:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose Too new, also a question of policy concerns. Davidpdx 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Oppose per candidate statement, seems far too reluctant to ban. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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. R adiant _>|< 13:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
40. -- Thorri 17:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose, too many controversial and unilateral edits. Also too reluctant to answer questions. Gateman1997 18:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose - Sorry, too new. Awolf002 19:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose reluctantly too reluctant to ban -- Doc ^ask? 20:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose ℬastique▼ ^parℓer♥ ^voir♑ 21:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

45. Oppose — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. -- HK 22:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Splash ^talk 22:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
49. Oppose imprecise in communication – Gnomz ⁰⁰⁷( ?) 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. Reluctance to ban. -- Viriditas 00:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose too new and too afraid to ban. ~~ N ( t/ c) 01:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. older≠ wiser 02:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose - Questions. -- Hinotori ^{(talk)| (ctrb)} 03:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. oppose Kingturtle 06:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose nothing personal, but I'm not convinced that you belong on ArbCom. -- Dschor 11:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. Statement and answers leave me unconvinced that Jtkiefer would ben an effective arbitrator. Rje 14:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose, too new and inexperienced for arbitrator role. HGB 18:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
61. Oppose. too eager -- JWSchmidt 02:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
64. Oppose weak candidacy Sjc 06:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose Fad (ix) 18:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose. Statement is weak, questions are weaker, and concerns raised here make me say no. Velvetsmog 21:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
67. Oppose. Why? ++ Lar: t/ c 03:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:30, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose More experience would be needed. Oleg Alexandrov ( talk) 06:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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 -- A dam1213 Talk + 14:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
71. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
72. Oppose. Preaky 07:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply