Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jdforrester

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 | Vote

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neokamek (talk | contribs) at 08:58, 2 December 2008 (→Oppose: Oppose). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jdforrester

I'm now coming to the end of my fifth year as an Arbitrator, having helped found the Committee in 2003/4. I've decided to stand again because I believe it is what I am best at providing to the enwiki community, and, more importantly, that this is of value over and above that which some/many others would provide. Necessarily, in the five years I've been working on and around the Committee, I have given a number of people reasons to take a dislike to me, to find something I've said or done, or some position I've held, with which to disagree. Further, I can understand - and empathize with - those who think that it's time for a change, that long-serving Arbitrators are part of the problem, having habituated ourselves and our working practices to the processes as we've developed them. It is inappropriate for me to comment on the validity of those concerns; that's the community's rôle, and reasonably so. Indeed, I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions.

Support

  1. --chaser - t 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. - filelakeshoe 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support JodyB talk 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support Ironholds (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Moral support--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. Experienced. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Good judgment during his work in ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support - Experienced. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. TS 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Alexfusco5 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. — Dan | talk 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Oppose, although nothing personal: I have chosen a group of seven editors that will make the best new additions to ArbCom, reflecting diversity in editing areas, users who will work well together, as well as some differing viewpoints.--Maxim(talk) 00:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A failure to take any accountability for the issues with the IRC which he helps administer and a lack of content contributions. Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Many reasons. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose - Shot info (talk) 00:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Voyaging(talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. ~ priyanath talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. IRC LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. iridescent 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. No more absentee landlords please. :/ krimpet✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Caspian blue 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Steven Walling (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong oppose, per SandyGeorgia's reasoning. In his last term, JDF described two parties as "valued contributors" while explicitly refusing to describe a third party as "valued". Unfortunately, the two parties James "valued" both went on to be desysopped for misuse of their tools, while the party James refused to value remains one of our top FA contributors. James had reasons, but obviously, his values and my values differ. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Per reasons above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Mostly concerns about level of activity, which makes it difficult to really draw a firm conclusion on him other than that I would like someone more actively and obviously involved. Avruch T 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Sorry, but I will have to oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. New blood needed. Gimmetrow 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. IRC concerns have not been satisfied to the community's satisfaction, nor mine for that matter. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 01:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. There are a lot of suitable candidates, and fresh perspectives are desirable; thanks for being willing to serve another term. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nothing personal, but time for some new faces. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Pcap ping 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Not above the fray. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Nothing personal, but if you don't have the time, you shouldn't be running again. Mike H. Fierce! 02:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Inactivity is not what the committee needs. AgneCheese/Wine 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Graham87 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Sorry  :( --Mixwell!Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Bye Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for JF for his hard work. Time for fresh blood. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. I do not think all of his previous rulings have shown integrity. ElinorD (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose. Thank you for your service. However, I feel that your general inactivity (your editing stats per Kate's Tool shows you barely contribute any content of value, for a scale of years, to the encyclopedia); your partisan nature (defense of IRC, "insider" status, attacks on valued content contributors); and your role as a "professional arbiter" are incompatible with what I feel an Arbiter should be. You have no major visible, measurable, or in-public quantifiable contributions of worth to English Wikpedia, and do not unfortunately merit a place on the Arbitration Committee. rootology (C)(T) 03:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Friday (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose--Toffile (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Removing this editor from ArbComm will improve ArbComm. I can only hope the replacement is a net positive, but eliminating a net negative is a good step. GRBerry 04:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose BJTalk 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose. Arbitrators should have term limits. 5 years going on 8 is right out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose - most of the current slate of sitting arbiters are part of the problem B (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Cla68 (talk · contribs) is a longstanding and valued contributor to Wikipedia. On the other hand: running IRC is more or less the opposite of a "valued contribution", and the candidate has done as little as humanly possible to control that situation. --JayHenry (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Nothing personal at all against James F, but he's been on ArbCom for altogether too long, it's time for some new candidates to step up to the plate. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose.-gadfium 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose - It's time for a change of guard. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose as I think it's time for new blood on the committee. I applaud his willingness to continue, but I think others should be allowed to work in this position. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Just not active enough, and often his decisions are questionable. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. Need change. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose I simply think this user is not aware enough to see the lack of integrity and balance in some of his own decisions to date. Brilliantine (talk) 08:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Strong oppose - SandyGeorgia and Alecmconroy pretty well sum it up. لennavecia 08:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. James F./Jdforrester is one of four admins who hastily accepted the notorious C68-FM-SV case, a case which dragged on for more than four months and was only finally resolved when NewYorkBrad returned. The case was accepted against the advice of almost all those who commented on it, and in spite of the fact that the application was out of process - yet not one of the arbitrators involved chose to provide a single word of explanation as to why due process and the concerns of a majority of users should be ignored. The resulting fiasco only confirmed the folly of taking the case, which I believe did serious damage to the standing of the arbcom committee - damage for which I feel the arbs in question must be held responsible. Hence this oppose. Gatoclass (talk) 08:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose: for reasons widely known elsewhere. Giano (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose, we need arbitrators who will actually arbitrate, and who when they do will not support misguided attempts to create policy such as WP:BLPSE. Time for some new faces. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose. Joke nomination? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  67. Oppose - per SandyGeorgia and rootology Nancy talk 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose - thank you for all your hard work, but we desperately need fresh blood. // roux   editor review10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Thank you for your work. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. — neuro(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose due to his abject failure to address IRC problems. Skinwalker (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. A million times no per Alec and Rootology. Horrific performance as an arbiter, your votes/comments and actions were continually partisan, you have little to no involvement with the encyclopaedia, instead judging from your ivory tower you have been the epitome of what has been wrong with the arbitration committee. ViridaeTalk 11:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose Verbal chat 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret account 12:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. oppose- current arb, we need something different. Sticky Parkin 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose, not satisfied with his performance as an arbitrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose - do not approve of his IRC issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose Gatoclass puts it well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Rootology has a point. New blood needed anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. I was never satisfied with the Cla68 incident and your refusal to consider him anything but a valued contributor. And even after putting that aside, I think five years is long enough Fritzpoll (talk) 15:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Viridae puts it rather succinctly --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Nope. Tex (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Part of the problem, not the solution. RMHED (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose. Thank you for your contributions to the Arbitration Committee, but I have concerns about your low level of encyclopedia-building activity. Arbcom needs editors more than it needs orators. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Time for a change. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose, firstly for his refusal to acknowledge that a user who has shepherded multiple articles through FAC is a "valued contributor" (while supporting that wording for two others who has since been desysopped). Secondly, for his key involvement in IRC. Wikipedia should be governed on wikipedia, period. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Protects the wrong people. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Term limits exist for good reason, and to avoid stagnation this (and any other) committee needs to replace old members when their terms expire. >Radiant< 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. oppose - per Bishonen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose. Synergy 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose NVO (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose On prior performance. Catchpole (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Tiptoety talk 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose The IRC mess alone warrants my oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. David Levy 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. E104421 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. It's good of you to offer your time again, but I think we need to change track. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Oppose - time for someone new, and per opposes above. BrianY (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Weak Oppose Apologies; I have great respect for James, but we do need new faces. GlassCobra 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Oppose on the basis that we need to have a change if its possible to find a good enough set of new people.--VS talk 00:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Irresponsible. Old school. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose Unredeemed member of ArbCom '08. Skomorokh 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Strong oppose. Things such as his "valued contributor" findings on the omnibus case fail to inspire confidence, and he's completely failed to use his connection with IRC to work towards any sort of conclusion regarding it. Dr. eXtreme 01:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose The current ArbCom is a disaster. We don't need more of the same. AniMate 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Opposing all members of current Arbcom --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose Time to sit down and accumulate some Main Space credentials again. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. IRC. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose CHANGE! Time to go an join the rest of us in building an encyclopedia... Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Delighted to have the opportunity to oppose him. Grace Note (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jdforrester&oldid=255387491"