This candidate has withdrawn from the race; please do not vote.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.

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) reply

Questions

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) reply

1. A pleasure. -- Ancheta Wis 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Cryptic (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Shanes 01:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. You seem to have the right principles, as outlined in your candidate statement. Batmanand 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. JYolkowski // talk 01:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support-- Duk 01:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Support very no-nonsense – Gnomz ⁰⁰⁷( ?) 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support I expect he'll cut through the BS that is now arbitration. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support Fred Bauder 04:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support freestylefrappe 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support -- Crunch 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support Chick Bowen 05:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Support. android 79 06:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Support -- Wetman 07:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support. -- Kefalonia 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support Rohit 13:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • 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) reply

20. Support. siafu 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support this outstanding user absolutely. He is the most dedicated wikipedian I have met here. -- Ghirla | talk 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
23. Support. -- Hottentot (now Khoikhoi) 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. With pleasure. Support. -- rydel 01:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
26. Support Agree with the above comment, an exellent editor. Fisenko 04:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support in any role on Wikipedia. Probably the best Wikipedian I ever met yet. abakharev 04:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
31. Support DenisMoskowitz 18:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose policy. David | explanation | Talk 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Oppose. Ambi 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Dmcdevit· t 01:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. TacoDeposit 01:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Oppose policy matters -- Angelo 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose. Sorry, a "god no" candidate for me. Grace Note 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose. -- ragesoss 03:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    *Account created in November 23rd, vote don't count. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

15. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Bobet 05:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose Statement scares me. novacatz 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose -- Daniel 05:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
20. Oppose Hamster Sandwich 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose on response to my Question and recent statements.— LeFlyman 05:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
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) reply
24. Oppose great contributor, but doesn't seem suitable for ArbCom.  Grue  06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose-- cj | talk 06:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 06:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose platform --- Charles Stewart 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose. I disagree with your platform. -- Michalis Famelis 09:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

    • 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) reply

    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) reply

    Signed now with my old username. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/ _[C] AfD? 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

31. Raven4x4x 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
33. — Nightstallion (?) 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. considered oppose Happy to have Mikkalai as an admin, but have serious reservations regarding impartiality if promoted to ArbCom. Tom e r ^talk 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Oppose, tolerance is a good thing. And so is civility. R adiant _>|< 14:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose -- Just a tag 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • 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) reply

37. Oppose Mark ¹ 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    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) reply

    • 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) reply

38. Oppose Has a few too many 'issues' for now. Maybe next time. -- kingboyk 15:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Oppose. -- Viriditas 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
41. Oppose. Eugene van der Pijll 17:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Oppose yuck. Foant 17:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Oppose per above. — goethean ॐ 17:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose Nothing personal but I see no Arbitration Commitee material here. Dunemaire 18:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Oppose-- Sjharte 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Oppose. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 20:23 Z
47. Oppose -- Leibniz 20:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose as Ronline. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 21:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Splash ^talk 23:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. Oppose. Attitude. Avriette 23:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
51. Oppose. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply

    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) reply

53. Oppose-- Doc ^ask? 01:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. older≠ wiser 02:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose. Durova 03:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • 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) reply

55. oppose Kingturtle 06:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose SchmuckyTheCat 11:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. Oppose/ -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. For various reasons, I do not believe that Mikkalai would make a good arbitrator. Rje 18:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose, prolific fine editor, disposition makes him unsuitable for arbitrator role. HGB 19:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose. Ral315 (talk) 19:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
63. Oppose Vsmith 02:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 03:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
65. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 05:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
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) reply
67. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
68. Oppose. Good editor, but doesn't handle conflicts correctly. Dpotop 11:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
69. Oppose adamantly. Dietwald 17:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
70. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here