Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jdforrester: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Will Beback (talk | contribs)
112,162 edits
→‎Oppose: Forging Will's forgotten signature and adding my own vote
Line 55: Line 55:
# Sorry :( --<strong>[[User:Mixwell|<font color="blue">Mix</font><font color="#000080">well</font><font color= "#808000">!</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mixwell|Talk]]</sup></strong> 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Sorry :( --<strong>[[User:Mixwell|<font color="blue">Mix</font><font color="#000080">well</font><font color= "#808000">!</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mixwell|Talk]]</sup></strong> 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Bye [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# Bye [[User:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Deacon of Pndapetzim]] (<small>[[User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim|Talk]]</small>) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
# This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for JF for his hard work. Time for fresh blood.
# This ArbCom has not been able to resolve long-standing problems. Many thanks for JF for his hard work. Time for fresh blood. [[Special:Contributions/Will_Beback| ·:· ]][[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] [[User talk:Will Beback|·:·]] 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
#I do not think all of his previous rulings have shown integrity. [[User:ElinorD|ElinorD]] [[User talk:ElinorD|(talk)]] 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:32, 1 December 2008

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]

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jdforrester&oldid=255125004"