I want to make it clear, before I even start listing the details, that I have no idea what to expect from adding my name onto this list. I do however, believe strongly that the community should provide the Wikimedia Foundation/Jimbo/Wikipedia itself as many legitimate options as the community can, and I believe I am a legitimate option.

I have been an editor on Wikipedia since about May 24th, 2005. In that time I have engaged in a number of disputes, controversies, mediations, etc. Likely as not, you have not heard of them, and to me that is a Very Good Thing. The accomplishments of bringing editors at their worst to their best should not be advertised, because it showcases fellow editors at their worst, not their best. I beleive very strongly that Wikipedia needs to treat its editors as people, fellow human beings, and offer them that basic respect.

Thus, the goal of Arbitration is not punish those who have done wrong in some cosmic sense, but to protect the integrity and longevity of the project. Thus ArbCom must stand between the community and the Encylopedia, and intercept any disaster that may befall either. Keeping in mind those principles, Arbitration would be a processes which handles, primarily, disputes between editors. Ideally, the Arbitration Committee should be able to clearly delinate principle and action in such a way that it never has to do anything: the Arbitration Commitee should truly be the step of last resort. This is however, the ideal. In reality the Arbitration needs to balance making itself unpleasant enough to be the last resort, as well as accessible enough to those who need it. Arbitration needs to focus on every applicable resource to protect the project, especially from dispute. This includes rescuing editors who have caused trouble, but have potential to reform, as well as losing good editors who threaten to demoralize scores of others. I believe strongly that Arbitration Committee should spearhead a community wide effort to create alternatives to two parties going to arbitration asking "who's right and whos wrong?!". This includes formal and informal mentorship agreements, formal and informal mediation, and controling the usage of dispute resolution tools to prevent damage to the project.

I think I provide a unique perspective. I provide the combination of beliefs I expressed above, and the relative newness to formal authority. I am NOT mired in past high profile disputes, and I very strongly believe that you need as many diffrent voices you can get, so long as they all work together.

Tznkai 05:49, 2 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Questions

1. Support. Great user. Would make a good arbitrator. Ambi 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Support. Jtkiefer ^{T | C | @} ---- 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Support. Looks good. 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Crunch ( talk •  contribs) 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
5. Bobet 04:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. Support. Perhaps too focused on controversial topics to the neglect of the overarching goal of creating an encyclopedia, but seems admirable neutral.-- ragesoss 04:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. 青い(Aoi) 05:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Support. android 79 06:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. Support. — Catherine\ ^talk 07:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. — Nightstallion (?) 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Support per 青い. Tom e r ^talk 14:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Support. Szvest 23:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) ^{Wiki me up™} reply
13. Support some new blood is needed, and thoughtful statement. CarbonCopy (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Support I've ran into him on various articles we've edited together and he was very good at mediating disputes. -- Cyde Weys _vote ^talk 04:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Support. Candidate appears to understand basis of arbitration. Fifelfoo 05:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Raven4x4x 08:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Stongly Support. - While a newer editor, Tznkai is one of the more reflective and deliberate editors I know. We should not disqualify good editors based on our POV about the experience required. The true qaulification should be their track record reaching agreement with other editors. ghost 15:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. support dab (ᛏ) 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Support William M. Connolley 21:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC). reply
20. Much-needed Support. This user made a lot of good contributions. -- Heptor _talk 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Support. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 02:14, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Support. enochlau ( talk) 05:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Support. New he may be, but he seems to get how the ArbCom should work. ～ J. K. 07:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Support, any reservations I may have had about inexperience is overcome by statement. — Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Support - good policy. -- NorkNork 21:34, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Support - seems cut out for the job. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 23:49, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Support - keith 02:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Tony Sidaway| Talk 03:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Support Dr. B 23:26, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. Support with some reservations. why? ++ Lar: t/ c 02:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Support. Very good communication and makes sense. ( SEWilco 05:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)) reply
32. Support - per Heptor. Zeq 16:53, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Support. Seems well adjusted, balanced, and neutral, based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section).. -- Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. Support. I hesitated for a few days because he is such a newly-created sysop. Nevertheless, my experience tells me that he always tries to be fair, and that he'd be well suited to the job. AnnH ^(talk) 20:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Support -- Masonpatriot 06:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
36. Support. Seems good enough. Youngamerican 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Support  Grue  19:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply

37. Support -- Randolph 04:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Support - llywrch 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Support. Jitse Niesen ( talk) 21:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. My dark horse vote. Bratsche ^{talk | Esperanza} 05:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Support Answers to questions remakably well thought out, the only reason to oppose is relative inexperience, but it's not like he'll be left alone at the helm. Pete.Hurd 03:28, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
42. Support Sounds good and reasonable. -- AySz88^ - ^ 04:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. Support. Obviously thoughtful and well balanced. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 08:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Support KTC 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
45. Support -- Angr ( tɔk) 15:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
46. Support Looks good based on deeply thought out answers to questions. -- Spondoolicks 22:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Support CDThieme 23:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

1. Michael Snow 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
2. Everyking 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
3. Oppose inexperience. David | explanation | Talk 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
4. Zach ^{(Smack Back) Fair use policy} 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
5. Oppose. -- GraemeL ^(talk) 00:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
6. -- Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
7. Oppose, inexperience. Carbonite | Talk 01:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
8. Oppose (reluctantly) - Inexperience - Mackensen (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
9. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 01:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
10. Oppose. -- Миборовский ^{U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai!} 01:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
11. Oppose. On the brink, but at the moment just too inexperienced. Batmanand 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
12. Oppose for lack of experience -- Angelo 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
13. Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Sha zaam! - <*> 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
14. Oppose great user, as far as I've seen, but too new. — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 02:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
15. Good editor, but reluctantly weakly oppose as amount of experience really does matter in this kind of role. Jonathunder 02:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
16. Oppose. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
17. Oppose. You're a qualified editor, but I simply disagree with your statement above. Sorry. Matt Yeager 04:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
18. Oppose. 172 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
19. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
20. Oppose-- Heah ^talk 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
21. Oppose. I don't know you, but wish you the best. Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
22. Oppose -- Tabor 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
23. Try again next year. If you still want the job, you'll probably get it. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( bounties)} 06:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
24. Strong Oppose, poor understanding of policy. Sam Spade 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
25. Oppose. Inexperience issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
26. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
27. Oppose Meekohi 13:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
28. Oppose sorry but I must oppose.   ALKIVAR ™ 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
29. Oppose Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
30. oppose — Dunc| ☺ 14:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
31. Oppose, the ArbCom exists neither to make itself unpleasant enough, nor to spearhead community efforts. R adiant _>|< 14:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
32. Oppose. I don't think this user understands the point of the ArbCom. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 16:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
33. Oppose. Please "learn what to expect" first (i.e., gain experience), then submit nomination.— Ëzhiki (erinaceus amurensis) 17:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
34. -- Wikimol 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
35. Oppose for lack of experience. — Quarl ^{( talk)} 2006-01-09 21:35 Z
36. Oppose for lack of experience Jim62sch 21:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Jim62sch likely does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 23:50, 2 November 2005 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps should be reinstated; see log. Chick Bowen 21:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
37. Weak oppose: Simply a question of time, not temperament. So far as I've seen, he's a good egg with good ideas, but a lot of things happen over time, and we need the most tested for the most testy position. Geogre 22:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
38. Oppose - Sorry, too new. Awolf002 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
39. Splash ^talk 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
40. Oppose. -- HK 23:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
41. Oppose per dab's rationale. -- Ghirla | talk 23:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) [now moved to neutral, dab (ᛏ) reply
42. older≠ wiser 03:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
43. oppose Kingturtle 06:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
44. Oppose. You know, I agree with what you say except the "A Good Thing" part. You should show up somewhere on my watchlist, I should have seen you, or something. I'd call it LoE, but there's nothing conclustive. Welcome to the wikipedia, enjoy your time here, please contribute. See you in a year. Avriette 07:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    well, Tznkai shows up on my watchlist now and again, while I haven't come across you, Avriette. You have both been here less than a year. I suppose by now WP is large enough so that not all active editors have come across each other, so it is difficult to vote against a user merely on grounds of not having encountered them. Most of the time you will see users you respect among the voters, and let that help make up your mind. dab (ᛏ) 11:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

45. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose, too new and inexperienced. HGB 19:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Abstain upon reviewing my vote. HGB 23:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

46. Oppose. Could use a bit more time to get used to the community before making a commitment of this nature. Dr. Cash 01:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
47. Oppose, inexperience. See my vote rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
48. Oppose. -- Masssiveego 07:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
49. Oppose. Needs more experience.-- JK the unwise 12:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
50. - Vote Signed By: Chazz- Place comments here
51. Oppose Inexperience -- EMS | Talk 20:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
52. Oppose. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tznkai -- JWSchmidt 21:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
53. Oppose -- Davidpdx 13:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
54. Krash 18:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
55. Oppose, not enough experience, imo -- Francs 2000 00:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
56. Oppose. Velvetsmog 01:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
57. Oppose. Inexperience. And, "I don't "pledge" anything" when it comes to recusal and Arbitration Committee Code of Conduct. -- Aude ( talk | contribs) 05:46, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
58. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 06:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
59. Oppose. Preaky 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
60. Oppose. Inexperienced and "would likely reject cases that are about article content" (answer to a question). Superm401 | Talk 03:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
61. Oppose - too new. Rhobite 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
62. Oppose Tony the Marine 05:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
63. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 09:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
64. Oppose Dannycas 00:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    Oppose Quote from candidate: "I want to make it clear...that I have no idea what to expect from adding my name onto this list." That is a bad way to win my vote, if you are giving your first line as uncertainty. Author782 08:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

    • Author782 does not have suffrage; he registered at 10:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 27 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). ( caveats) — Cryptic (talk) 15:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

65. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
66. Oppose per frivolous nomination of Template:User freedom for seletion. Shows lack of judgement.  Grue  23:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

weak chaotic neutral: imho, the point of the arbcom is to protect good, hard-working editors, not to reform trolls at any cost. One excellent editor leaving because he decides WP is a waste of his time cannot be made up for by reforming any number of vandals into mediocre non-vandals. moved to support. dab (ᛏ) 19:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply