Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jayvdb

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 Butterscotch (talk | contribs) at 20:56, 5 December 2008 (→Support: strong support). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jayvdb

Hi. My name is John Vandenberg. I have provided a detailed history about myself on my userpage. I believe that arbitrators should be very open and honest about their formal education and experience in order that the community can make informed decisions about who to vote for, and so that people coming to the committee for arbitration can get a feel for the people that will be making the decisions.

I served as an Arbitration Clerk for much of the first half of 2008. I resigned due to a messy affair, which has since been settled amicably. This experience, and the termination of it, was an eye opener. I am aware of the responsibility, workload and difficulty involved.

My commitments:

  1. I will not edit policy pages or influence policy. This is the responsibility of the community, and arbitrators should not write the policies that they will use in decisions.
  2. I will oppose any remedy that is not substantially grounded in existing policy that was written by the community, or on resolutions passed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
  3. I will be highly active and available, or I will step down and turn in my "access".

I will bring to the committee:

  1. Broad technical skills to automate tasks that the committee regularly performs, and improve processes where possible.
  2. Broad experience and exposure to the culture, policies and leaders of most of the WMF projects. There are very few arbs, ex-arbs, or other candidates who have measurable experience outside of English Wikipedia.
  3. Broad language skills - I can only write in English, however I enjoy working with foreign languages and people who don't have a good grasp of English
  4. Limited patience for long & drawn out cases. Quick and measured solutions that result in the least amount of pain and disruption are good. Perfect is the enemy of good.
  5. Limited wiki-friendships with the elite in the power structure here on Wikipedia. It will be rare that I need to be recused.

Whilst on the committee, my mission for reform within the committee and arbitration process will be to:

  1. Encourage participatory democracy.
  2. Fire the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up.
  3. Require that arbitration cases have a clear scope before they open.
See here for more detailed explanations of these three points.


Support

  1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Strong support--Maxim(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support I like the idea for Arbom reform.--Caspian blue 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Black Kite 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support DurovaCharge! 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Captain panda 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Strongest possible support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tom B (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Perfect for the job. ~the editorofthewiki (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. - filelakeshoe 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. iridescent 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. - Pick of the bunch -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. One of the best candidates for the job. krimpet✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support Sam Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I have some disagreements with this candidate, but feel that I can trust his integrity, and that any "wrong" (in my view) decisions will be based on what he thinks is best for the project, and not on petty revenge or covering up for a friend. ElinorD (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Steven Walling (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Per: details MBisanz talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Majorly talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Kuru talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Avruch T 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support - also, will you marry me? No, I'm just teasing. But still, swoon. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. kurykh 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Pcap ping 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. --mikeu talk 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. iMatthew 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Graham87 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support J.delanoygabsadds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. The most qualified candidate in the whole election. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support JodyB talk 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. βcommand 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Synergy 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. GtstrickyTalk or C 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Very solid candidate, will work for the good of the community and with the best of purposes and the highest of integrity, and has a mature outlook and a good understanding of community dynamics. I hope he makes it and that ArbCom will be the better for it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support Thoughtful and fair. Exactly what we need on ArbCom. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. More qualified than the soon to be former arbitrator that told him to stop clerking. GRBerry 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. I have absolute confidence in his judgement, and believe John would be a superb arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Strong Support - user shows excellent judgement. PseudoOne (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. David Shankbone 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support -MBK004 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Mike H. Fierce! 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Strong support As near ideal a temperament for the job as we could hope. A great deal of integrity and, per ElinorD, an allegiance primarily to what's best for the project. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Carnildo (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. -- penubag  (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support. I think he would do a good job. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support, excellent editor who has shown great judgment, open minded and fair. Dreadstar † 07:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Strong support لennavecia 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. –Moondyne 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Weak support, temperament seems suited to arbcom and judgement generally appears worthy of confidence - I do have a few concerns but will keep these to myself for now. Brilliantine (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. —Dark talk 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. chaser - t 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Strong support, exactly the kind of new blood we need, and I like the explicit promise not to make policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Rebecca (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Able candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong Weak support - excellent platform, especially limited patience for long & drawn-out cases. More speed (with due caution) is exactly what ArbCom needs. // roux   editor review10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak support; opposing fellow candidates, while allowed, is distasteful. May change to oppose. // roux   editor review14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. — neuro(talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Strongest Possible Support 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]
  83. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support --CrohnieGalTalk 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support. Jehochman Talk 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Not perfect, but John has sufficiently good judgment IMO. It is not my experience that "bias" on AA topics is at all substantial, and there's always recusal anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ATren (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) changed to oppose ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Strong support - On not answering questions: It is said if you want something done, give it to a busy person. I hear Jayvdb has been handling a LOT of the oversight-l work since being appointed. That might be more important than answering every question (yes, I wish he had answered mine first but hey...) On "power voting": I prefer someone who is willing to hold opinions and go on record about them to someone who won't say what they think. We need more plain speaking on ArbCom I think, so bully to Jayvdb for saying what he thinks, even if he's wrong where he disagrees with me! :). On the AA thing: There's actually nothing to this in my view, after you factor out ethnic POV pushers who don't like being called on things. Jayvdb said he'd recuse (in a case where I don't actually think he has to) See this post and the thread it's in for more. On contribs: Jayvdb is a large part of the reason that en:ws "doesn't suck". That shows he's not insular, and it shows he gets stuff done. WS is hugely important for a certain class of articles. In short: Jayvdb will bring us the change we need. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Sure. Tex (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support — Gavia immer (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support - concur with much of what Lar said above. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. I do have some reservations, but I agree 200% with your platform - very clearly expressed and incisive - so I have to support. :) Please, please follow through if/when elected. MastCell Talk 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support, strongly. Trustworthy and has some excellent ideas. Should be a good arbitrator. AGK 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Superb candidate statement. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support, my top candidate. Has my trust in his decision making ability. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --Herby talk thyme 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support---Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Not exactly a content contributor, but very involved with the maintenance of this project. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support JPG-GR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Tiptoety talk 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. GlassCobra 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support - strong experience. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Aramgar (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support - good level of experience.--VS talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Hurrah SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Alexfusco5 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Ok, S. Jayvdb has impressed me with his attention to small detail and he seems like somebody who won't back off when he sees a right. Doesn't suffer fools. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support.--Kubigula (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. macy 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support.Nrswanson (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support. SlimVirgin talk|edits 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Brilliant pick. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support - his statement shows a deep respect for the community in taking time to structure his thoughts and not simply soapbox. After all, this not an election for political office, but to an administrative office. I want competence, too. This guy reeks it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support --Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Ronnotel (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support Would be a fine arbitrator. I don't see how one can oppose on the grounds that he would be partial in an AA case when he has specifically said he would recuse himself. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Non-cabalist, sensible yet unequivocal answers to questions, refreshing stance on WP:BAN, experience in the relevant areas, has the guts to evaluate his potential colleagues (ArbCom is no place for thin skins or groupthink). Yes, yes, yes. Skomorokh 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Three thumbs up! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Support. Ankimai (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support --maclean 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Joe Nutter 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. IronDuke 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support Gnangarra 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Support Kauffner (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support. We need arbitrators who are willing to take tough but fair decisions. I see the Iranian-Azeri nationalist squad has turned out in force to oppose this nomination; this is in no way a disqualifying factor for John, and if anything it stands in his favour that he's willing to deal resolutely with disruptive nationalist editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Strongest possible support. E104421 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support to bump the numbers up; the current stream of opposition smells of off-wiki canvassing by the Armenian block. Hope this activity is looked into by those managing the election. Sceptre (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Not my favorite candidate, but supporting per Sceptre. ST47 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support Purely for tactical reasons in a bid to keep other vote percentages less than yours (nothing personal to your good self). Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support tactical vote to balance out the clear canvessing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. --Sultec (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Acting in good faith, I used the account checker on the Elections page and it told me I was eligible to vote in this election. Apparently it malfunctioned, and probably not just for me, but for many whose votes have been rendered invalid. It seems fundamentally unfair to trick people into believing they are eligible to do something and then yank the rug out from under them when they do it. This is not an effective way to encourage more participation in Wikipedia. It seems to me that all persons who relied on the malfunctioning account checker who voted should have their votes count. Admittedly, my view is a bit academic, but that's where I'm coming from. It's a fundamental fairness issue, not a personal issue, although in this environment, every principle seems to get reduced to personalities pretty quickly. So on the advice of a person I respect, I will cast my votes, even if they will be summarily and unfairly invalidated, therby undermining the credibility and legitimacy of the entire election, at least in my benighted eyes. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 4 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) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support. John's contributions to Wiki Foundation projects extend way beyond Wikipedia, the time he has given to the projects argues for a man who is committed to investing voluntarily in time consuming and complex processes. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support --Cube lurker (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support. Was neutral, but switching in response to evidence of interest groups attempting a co-ordinated sabotage of your candidacy. Rockpocket 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support I've seen nothing but good work from this user on all the projects with which he is involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) For the record, I should state that I am related to Aramgar (talk · contribs), but although we sometimes edit from the same computer, we maintain separate accounts and are happy to submit information to confirm that we are separate individuals, should the need arise.[reply]
    As a CU who was asked to investigate these users (some time ago) and found technical correlation, I am confirming my belief that these two accounts are likely to be different users despite that correlation. (which you'll find if you look at me and my wife, too...), and giving thanks for the forthright disclaimer. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 02:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support for his principled conduct in the omnibus case and for his general high amount of clue. Dr. eXtreme 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. I have reservations, but this seems to be in the overall best interests of the project. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. He seems to be a decent user and gives decent answers. Though I have not have personal interactions; I'm also supporting to counteract what I believe is unfair bloc opposition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Suppport' --AniMate 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support - The personal interactions I've had have all been positive. He has the good of the community at heart. Kylu (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support --Versageek 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. It comes to something when you're ranked seventh. Christ! Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support, I see no damning issue with his voicing opinions on other candidates, this is not a competition to see who is classiest, but most qualified. Likewise, while Azeri editors seem to be somehow connected to him...everybody has a niche, and I haven't seen any specific allegations to make me question my judgment in his resolution and arbitration skills. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support --Chapultepec (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. II | (t - c) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Even tone, positive interactions, and seems less into politicking than most. "[reply]
  174. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Strong Support - I was always planning to support John in this election - he and I have never interacted, but I've always admired a number of his abilities around the 'pedia. I then got thrown by the opposition below, which appeared to raise (on further inspection) some ideas that, as I described them, made me uneasy. It seems to me now, having looked at the AN thread, John's own explanation of these events, and allowing my gut instinct to play a part in my decision-making that he is still an excellent candidate. If the allegations below are true: I don't care in the context of this election, and trust John to recuse himself appropriately. If they are not true, then who am I to allow the well to be poisoned. Best of luck. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support -- billinghurst (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support dougweller (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. As I explain on the talk page this community should resist the coordinated off-site attacks on this candidate. I urge all tactical opposition to drop their oppose votes because Jayvdb has received more than enough. Vote for Jayvdb on his own merits. Cool Hand Luke 15:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. Man, you must be doing something right. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support. Objectives and integrity are one of his strongest points. Baku87 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Supportthough disagree that arbcom can avoid "policy" Mccready (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. Support high clue levels -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk Contributions 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Supporrt Justforasecond (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Kick his ass, C-BASS. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Support hbent (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Support Protonk (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Support Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. Support Evenhanded and has shown wisdom and an desire to act in the best interests of the community as a whole. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Support Hiberniantears (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Support, I think. Statements make good sense. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Support looks good. Hut 8.5 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Support Very good. Grsz11 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mild Support Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]
    I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Supportish - largely to keep numbers fair. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Support win. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Support. Could be a good balance to other voices on the committee, and the Armenia issue seems to be easy to work around through recusal on the rare occasions it comes up. Chick Bowen 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Synchronism (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Support RayAYang (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Support Terence (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Support I support this candidate as a safe pair of hands. Nothing daring or exciting in his question answers, but nothing of concern either. Poltair (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Support, everything I've seen from this candidate suggests a sensible, thoughtful contributor with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. ~ mazca t|c 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. --Kbdank71 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Strong Support, yo. I'm a fan of his work, and I want him to be on ArbCom; he's an excellent voice of reason. Dr. eXtreme 20:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

# Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Voyaging(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Lack of impartiality on AA issues, which will undoubtedly be the subject of an AC case in the near future again. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. RockManQReview me 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Having witnessed obvious cases of taking sides to support his friends, I think the honor is still not quite there. We need real impartiality and transparency. Fedayee (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strongest oppose I would rather support White Cat. VartanM (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per terribly low response rate on the questions. This is all politics and vague promises, and no substance. Prodego talk 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. I think it's a slight to the community that he only answered about half of the questions he was asked. I like the answers I see, but what's the deal with the others? If he doesn't have time to answer them, he doesn't have time to be an arbitrator. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Striking my opposition to cancel out one of these untruthful, vindictive "Armenia/Azerbaijan" votes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Overly pretentious. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Severe lack of judgement by opposing the majority of his fellow candidates. Ryan PostlethwaiteSee the mess I've created or let's have banter 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No. Smacks of process wonk.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. --hayk (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, user only has 118 mainspace edits. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose per for his own early power vote. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC), rephrased 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per Ryan --B (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong oppose -- Gazifikator (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November Secret account 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Strong oppose OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose due to concerns about ability to put in needed time and "insider" status; too much risk that his election would lead to continuation of the problems we have seen in the past year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose. Was considering proffering my question to consider supporting, but then noticed the whole "oppose the other candidates" issue, and I simply can not abide that. S.D.D.J.Jameson 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Striking my vote after discussion with Jayvdb.[reply]
  18. oppose --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. oppose ----Larno Man Larno (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Strong Oppose. Someone who quickly takes sides in disputes would not make a good arbitrator. In the instances that Jayvdb has intervened in Azerbaijan-Armenia issues, he has almost always blocked or reverted Armenian users ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.). Only on rare occasions has he treated Azeri users similarly. I would not trust with him CheckUser, let alone allow him to get involved in any future Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration cases. Khoikhoi 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Weak but unshaken Oppose. I think that taking time is necessary for this sort of thing. I want to see a clearer commitment to more specific changes, not "get 'r dun quick" thinking. Still, I don't think you'd be BAD, just that there are better choices out there at this time. Best of luck to you if you get it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose per arguments of above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. oppose : As by User:Khoikhoi, I browse the Pages created by Jayvdb, and find out creating some of the pages are only possible if the creator is professionally connected with a group that may not act neuter in especial cases .Some of the articles are Baku Polytechnicum,Arabian Gulf University,OACIS for the Middle East,Copyright Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan,List of Azerbaijan legislation,Saudi Gazette and six other articles .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Weak Oppose. AA issues, better to be over-cautious imho. Alæxis¿question? 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Iraqi (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Hovic (talk) 08:43, 2 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) 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose per strong impartiality concerns above. NikoSilver 10:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. OPPOSE - see concerns above! Tājik (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose - Khoi had a good point, someone who takes sides in disputes, would not make a good arbitrator. --Kaaveh (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose - Gevorg89 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose I do not know him, but I read that he takes sides in disputes. Not a good idea!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. oppose. User doesnt have a commitment to neutrality.--Zereshk (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Opposing other candidates so early in the election doesn't speak well for your impartiality; doing so because you wish to change the voting system doesn't speak well for your judgment. >Radiant< 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, as per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Lack of impartiality on AA (and perhaps not only) issues. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose, based on answers to questions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per Radiant. ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Striking my oppose to offset some of the negative offsite campaigning against this candidate (though still disagree with his oppose voting on other candidates). ATren (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose Agree with Radiant.--Namsos (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose - unwilling or unable to comment on imperfect cases, particularly the OrangeMarlin debacle, and has no thoughts regarding the ArbCom RFC. Too "entrenched" - ArbCom needs change, not more of the same. Badger Drink (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Agree with Radiant and Badger Drink. Best for candidates to vote on other candidates. And to oppose viable contenders when you say they should be on arbcom...crass. Should have at least only voted supports and abstained on the others.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Him voting oppose to other candidates shows utter lack of class.--Avg (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose I don't trust his judgment or objectivity, since he appears to have shady connections with a group of Azerbaijani nationalist editors, all of whom are under ArbCom probation, and some of whom are paid lobbyists in real life. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose. Bucketsofg 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose Haven't seen impartiality in some cases.--Raayen (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose Biased at times. Nokhodi (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose similar concerns to others -- Samir 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose per Khoikhoi. --MagneticFlux (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose Seddσn talk 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Xavexgoem (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Per Khoikhoi, user seems to have conflict of intrest in serious issues as mentioned above. Farmanesh (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose, very disappointed over this. Dreadstar † 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, re strength of language used six months ago. More calmness needed. MikeHobday (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose, Thenoflyzone (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose - per Khoikhoi. The user seems to have conflict of interest in serious issues as mentioned above.Armatura (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Gentgeen (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak oppose - these issues have made me uneasy. I will review again nearer the end of the election Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 13:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose - Sorry, I thought about it and feel that opposing other candidates just isn't right. Moral support otherwise. // roux   editor review 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Strongest oppose. Princeofpersia1 (rinceofpersia1) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose --xvvx (talk) 17:08, 3 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) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose This kind of impartiality is one of the reasons that I have refrained from editing like I used to, won't bring anything new to the ArbCom. Davo88 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - Astavats (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Kourosh ziabari (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose - Persian Magi (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops - thanks - I overlooked that it is total of main edits. I was short only 14 edits at 136. Anyhow, rules are rules - but if were able to vote here, I would have opposed him as mentioned. He is a great contributer but seems to have left an impression that he is not unbiased. Persian Magi (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose purely tactical. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. User:Krator (t c) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. - --Tom 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose -Regretfully, per user:Nishkid64 and user:Khoikhoi. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose --Node (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose--Axamir (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Not at this time. Gimmetrow 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose per his several oppose votes for other candidates in this election. That didn't show good judgment in my opinion. I would definitely reconsider if that changed.~ priyanath talk 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Weak oppose partially politics, partially lack of responses to questions. ViridaeTalk 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose due to a totality of factors none of which by itself would merit an oppose, but together they are just to much when compared to the other very fine candidates. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  74. The candidate has not answered questions to which I require an answer to support, assuming that the answer would be one with which I agreed. Opposing other candidates, even though he doesn't believe in oppose votes, smacks of double standards. There is sufficient discussion, e.g.[6] and subsequent posts to that page, to convince me that his election would be controversial, which is clearly not ideal. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose switched vote after further consideration. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. A man in space (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose Has not bothered to answer all this questions. SBHarris 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Strong oppose. The ringing endorsement of secret trials in response to the confidentiality question. No. Cynical (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose per arguments of above and he is friend with deniers of the Armenian Genocide which does not speak well for neutrality. (I work in Russian Wikipedia. My basic contribution to history and culture of Venice - Divot) Divot (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. 150 mainspace edits by November 1 are required. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that a whole 2 contributions were made by this editor. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note also the subject of the first and only previous edit. It's Armenia-Azerbaijan again. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that he's very active in Russian Wikipedia[7]. --VartanM (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Particularly on Armenia-Azerbaijan issues [8] - quelle surprise! (or whatever the Russian equivalent is). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So is John. This vote would've been very weird if Divot wasn't involved. --VartanM (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose - per Ryan Postlethwaite ...--Cometstyles 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. "Strict constructionism" and whatnot are irksome. Arbcom is a counterbalance to the mob and should be given full leaway to perform that function. --TS 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Arkon (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose vi5in[talk] 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Strongest Oppose He is not neutral at all. --Wayiran (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose Electing someone to Arbcom with public opposes to other candidates is a really bad idea Chrislintott (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Lack of neutrality; Taking sides in advance. Enough reasons for opposing. --Hectorian (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  91. — CharlotteWebb 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose The Myotis (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose --Per Khoikhoi. Vacio (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose - Sfrandzi (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jayvdb&oldid=256110179"