Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Vote/Jdforrester

Add links
Page extended-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

chaser - t 00:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Abstaining. Opposers make good points.--chaser - t 21:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DurovaCharge! 00:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mackensen (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. - filelakeshoe 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. PhilKnight (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. John Reaves 02:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Daniel (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support JodyB talk 02:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Prodego talk 03:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support Ironholds (talk) 08:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Moral support--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support. Experienced. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 11:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support - --Narson ~ Talk • 12:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support ϢereSpielChequers 13:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. 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]
  21. Support. Good judgment during his work in ArbCom.Biophys (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Shimgray | talk | 21:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support - Experienced. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. TS 00:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Alexfusco5 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  26. — Dan | talk 03:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Bucketsofg 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support. bibliomaniac15 00:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. It's like the Obama transition (if you pay attention to US news): We need change, but also some experienced people to balance it out. Joe Nutter 01:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Michael Snow (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. While changes are needed, his experience with the committee and general understanding of Wikipedia (having been here so long) indicates that he should probably stick around a bit longer. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support - jc37 10:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Incumbency and experience are not slurs, and I don't see any sign of malfeasance or bad performance. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support Happy‑melon 18:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support - My last vote for arbcom, good luck Ottawa4ever (talk) 00:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support ArbCom is doing fine. I see no reason to kick him out. Leujohn (talk)
  38. —Animum (talk) 22:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Wise old man of the arbcom. One of the people who has always tried to make the arbcom (and wikipedia, and wikimedia in general) not suck ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Proven track record of incompetence mixed with arrogance makes this candidate a sure bet. Kelly Martin 20:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support Alohasoy (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Cbrown1023 talk 02:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support James has done a most excellent job on ArbCom. TallMagic (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Support ←Spidern→ 08:02, 10 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) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support Dave Golland (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support Fred Talk 19:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support - ScarianCall me Pat! 20:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Supportsometimes change is necessary but I'm far from convinced we need complete change as with others, or that all the change offered is necessarily for the better Nil Einne (talk) 22:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Yes Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support. I applaud his willingness to continue good work. --Kaaveh (talk) 07:49, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support - --Roisterer (talk) 11:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. SQLQuery me! 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support -- lucasbfr talk 21:08, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support -- PseudoOne (talk) 23:00, 14 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]
    ~ priyanath talk 00:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath talk 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  9. IRC LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose, reasoning at User:SandyGeorgia/ArbVotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  11. iridescent 00:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Mathsci (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  13. No more absentee landlords please. :/ krimpet✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Majorly talk 01:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Caspian blue 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Steven Walling (talk) 01:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  18. 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]
  19. Mr.Z-man 01:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per reasons above. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  21. 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]
  22. Sorry, but I will have to oppose. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  23. New blood needed. Gimmetrow 01:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  24. 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]
  25. 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]
  26. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Nothing personal, but time for some new faces. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Pcap ping 01:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Not above the fray. jd2718 + my talk + my reasons 01:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  30. iMatthew 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  31. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  32. 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]
  33. Inactivity is not what the committee needs. AgneCheese/Wine 02:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Graham87 02:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Sorry  :( --Mixwell!Talk 02:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Bye Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  38. 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]
  39. I do not think all of his previous rulings have shown integrity. ElinorD (talk) 02:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  40. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  41. 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]
  42. Friday (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose--Toffile (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  44. 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]
  45. Oppose BJTalk 04:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Arbitrators should have term limits. 5 years going on 8 is right out. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 04:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose - most of the current slate of sitting arbiters are part of the problem B (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  48. 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]
  49. 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]
  50. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose. Sitting arbitrators have no one but themselves to blame. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 05:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose.-gadfium 05:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  53. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose - It's time for a change of guard. --FastLizard4 (Talk•Index•Sign) 06:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  55. 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]
  56. Just not active enough, and often his decisions are questionable. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 07:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Need change. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  58. 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]
  59. Strong oppose - SandyGeorgia and Alecmconroy pretty well sum it up. لennavecia 08:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  60. 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]
  61. Oppose: for reasons widely known elsewhere. Giano (talk) 08:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  62. 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]
  63. No. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 09:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Rebecca (talk) 09:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Joke nomination? Bishonen | talk 09:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  66. Oppose - per SandyGeorgia and rootology Nancy talk 09:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose - thank you for all your hard work, but we desperately need fresh blood. //roux   editor review10:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Thank you for your work. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  70. — neuro(talk) 10:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Mailer Diablo 10:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose due to his abject failure to address IRC problems. Skinwalker (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  73. 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]
  74. Oppose Verbal chat 12:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  75. 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]
  76. oppose- current arb, we need something different. Sticky Parkin 13:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose --CrohnieGalTalk 14:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose --Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose, not satisfied with his performance as an arbitrator. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose - do not approve of his IRC issues. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose Gatoclass puts it well. Regards, Huldra (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Rootology has a point. New blood needed anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  84. 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]
  85. Oppose Viridae puts it rather succinctly --Joopercoopers (talk) 15:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Nope. Tex (talk) 15:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Part of the problem, not the solution. RMHED (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  88. 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]
  89. Time for a change. --Jackieboy87 (talk · contribs) 17:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  90. 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]
  91. Protects the wrong people. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  92. 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]
  93. Oppose, Tim Vickers (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  94. oppose - per Bishonen. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Oppose. Synergy 19:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Oppose NVO (talk) 20:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose On prior performance. Catchpole (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Tiptoety talk 20:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose The IRC mess alone warrants my oppose. Franamax (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  103. S.D.D.J.Jameson 21:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  104. David Levy 22:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  105. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 22:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  106. E104421 (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Oppose JPG-GR (talk) 22:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose...Modernist (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  110. 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]
  111. Oppose - time for someone new, and per opposes above. BrianY (talk) 23:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Weak Oppose Apologies; I have great respect for James, but we do need new faces. GlassCobra 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  113. 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]
  114. Oppose Irresponsible. Old school. Ceoil (talk) 01:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose Unredeemed member of ArbCom '08. Skomorokh 01:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  116. 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]
  117. Oppose The current ArbCom is a disaster. We don't need more of the same. AniMate 01:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Opposing all members of current Arbcom --Random832 (contribs | signing statement) 02:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Oppose Time to sit down and accumulate some Main Space credentials again. --Wetman (talk) 02:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Oppose JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose per this. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  123. IRC. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  124. 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]
  125. Guettarda (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Delighted to have the opportunity to oppose him. Grace Note (talk) 06:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose Kamek (Koopa wizard!) 08:58, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  128. IRC. DrKiernan (talk) 09:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  129. RelHistBuff (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Mike R (talk) 15:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Change is good, and I'm also concerned about this. --Aude (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  132. The double standard on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed decision is typical of ArbCom's shortcomings. I can't support an arbitrator who thinks that fairness is not an ArbCom objective. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  133. qp10qp (talk) 17:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  134. --Kbdank71 19:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  135. Oppose. My first (and so far only) vote for Arbcom. I don't normally follow Arbcom politics very closely, but I've researched jdforrester enough to have no confidence in him as an arbitrator. Note that I could grudgingly respect somebody who takes hotly controversial views that I disagree with. That isn't the problem; the problem is that this candidate simply isn't a good arbitrator. SnowFire (talk) 19:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose - from such an experienced arbiter I would have expected reasonable statements regarding the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Orangemarlin fiasco and and constructive participation in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose per inactivity inactivity inactivity (plus drama). Why you thought this was a good idea is beyond me, and shows poor judgment.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 21:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Eóin (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  139. miranda 22:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  141. It's a bad sign when a candidate seems less dedicated to their candidacy (and less active) than multiple "gimmick" candidates. Badger Drink (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose. Nothing personal, but it is time for change. Jonathunder (talk) 03:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  143. - auburnpilot talk 06:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Out with the old, in with the new. --DeLarge (talk) 10:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Gentgeen (talk) 10:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Strong oppose: Per Bishonen, another "idiot" votes to oppose. James Forrester cannot be in any position to arbitrate in disputes between users, toward whom he has contempt, nor be trusted by volunteers, for whom he has scorn, nor to uphold the principles of the project, toward which he has anger. Geogre (talk) 10:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose. I think many of his judgments as an arbitrator have been highly questionable, and his management of disruptive IRC channels is another serious problem that he repeatedly refuses to address adequately. Also, I agree with the other users who said that he's just been on ArbCom too long (5 years is more than enough). He seems to have forgotten what it's like to be a regular user. *** Crotalus *** 17:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:27, December 3, 2008 (UTC)
  150. Oppose. As with Charles Matthews, I have the greatest respect for James' work on the ArbCom, but it's really time for new blood and new ideas. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Strong Oppose Your performance has been beyond unacceptable. Your presence on the committee has only stagnated progress and deliberately ignited drama. Arbcom is a soap opera that needs to be cancelled and reworked into an actual committee, rather than renewed for another season with brand new cast members. You're not coming back for next season. SashaNein (talk) 19:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose. Haukur (talk) 22:17, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Serious problems have arisen this year with accountability, and a little too long in the tooth-ness, perhaps. Splash - tk 23:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Sandy and Alec well decribed the last nail in a coffin. Achromatic (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Plenty of good arguments in this column. Grandmasterka 06:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Voting for remedies that commended two administrators who were later desysopped whilst simultaneously refusing to commend one of our top FA contributors is completely unacceptable. You shouldn't even be editing, IMO. Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose - what more can I say?Mccready (talk) 17:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose. Too many errors of judgment, particularly when it comes to IRC and related matters. Kosebamse (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose Per IRC. 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) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User is banned... although there's some talk about how banned he is. I'll revert the bunch of opposes later if something comes up ^^; Xavexgoem (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    User is unblocked, restoring vote.[1] Bishonen | talk 23:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  160. Oppose. Sees secret trials as a positive thing endorsed by the community. Cynical (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose Per IRC, serious lack of impartiality. Cenarium (Talk) 22:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Oppose too closely involved in recent fiascos, impossible to retain confidence in him as an arbitrator. DuncanHill (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Oppose--MONGO 02:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Oppose Since I can't vote against FT2, you get my complete derision for providing explicit and tacit support to FT2's secret vendetta. I'm glad this isn't even close. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Oppose Terence (talk) 09:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Oppose Too conservative. -- Evertype·✆ 13:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Oppose I don't know the details of what happened this summer with that secret case. The fact that it happened is, IMO, sufficient information to oppose all veteran arbitrators. Nothing personal, but accountability for such a disgraceful breach of all principles of fair play and collegiality has to start somewhere, and Wikipedia has many users who could do just as good a job at arbitration who aren't tainted by that mess. RayAYang (talk) 17:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Oppose --Stephen 20:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Strong put the boot in Oppose On behalf of all us idiotswho have helped make Wikipedia the 8th most visited site on the nets. Mr. F. is an arch exemplar of the arrogance of petty power[2]. R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 22:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Oppose per Sandy Georgia. Knowing how to recognize "valued contributors" is key. Tiamuttalk 00:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Oppose. It's time for a change. *Dan T.* (talk) 04:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Wronkiew (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Oppose - per IRC concerns —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Oppose Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Oppose per Sandy. The "valued contributors" bit was just petty, demonstrating partisanship and lack of common sense. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 06:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Oppose - Shyam (T/C) 09:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  177. OpposeJon513 (talk) 16:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  178. oppose - hard to decide, but sloth in responding to current requests isn't good; I don't consider personal attacks against sysops to be generally actionable finally made me oppose William M. Connolley (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  179. oppose need some fresh blood.   «l| Ψrometheăn ™|l»  (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Oppose. Inactivity coupled with the general handling of the IRC situation is a good way to lose the confidence of the community. —CComMack (t–c) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  182. kurykh 02:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  183. Oppose Ice Cold Beer (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  184. Oppose Even before the IRC and Cla68 affairs, he was known to be soft on admin abuse. As shown in his rejection of the userbox case way back at the beginning of his term [3], which set a bad precedent for vigilante adminning and polarizing wheel wars. It's ancient history now but I couldn't help but notice the irony of "support" (if you can call it that) #41. Wkdewey (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  185. Oppose Choess (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  186. Oppose - Per C68-FM-SV, a precipitate if I ever saw one. WilyD 15:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  187. Sorry. Nothing personal. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  188. While examining the candidate's answers, I couldn't help but catch a whiff of Machiavelli in the wide-eyed earnestness. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  189. Oppose, sorry. tgies (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  190. Oppose, per failure to answer my questions four weeks after they were posted (which is somewhat ironic given their nature). Candidate is requested to contact me if he answers my questions between now and the close of voting, whereupon I will try to re-evaluate. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Let me add that his activity levels over the past two years have not been anywhere near what I would expect of an Arb. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  191. Oppose The Arbcom needs new blood. Húsönd 22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  192. Oppose. Limited activity, some very questionable judgement calls and ongoing concerns about IRC. I also fear that Geogre may be right; I don't think James can see the wood for the trees anymore. Too long as a "professional arbitrator" has led to some undesirable attitudes. Rje (talk) 22:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  193. Oppose per Virtual Steve. I feel the community needs new arbitrators who are open, transparent, responsive, communicative and in touch with the community. Thank you for serving on the committee and giving your time and efforts for the project. Sarah 02:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  194. Oppose In my experience, the candidate is often incivil and unkind. The community will benefit from his removal; as will he, if the disapproval here causes him to re-evaluate his attitude and accept a dose of humility. Xoloz (talk) 04:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  195. Oppose: Like others, I question whether he is in touch with the actual work of this encyclopedia; since the beginning of 2006, he has just slightly more edits, grand total, than I managed this past month, and I'd wager that damn little of that's in article space. On an unknown racking up less than a hundred edits a month, we'd bounce on inexperience.  RGTraynor  18:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  196. Oppose JBsupreme (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  197. Oppose Time for a change generally, and involvement with IRC is worrisome. Nothing personal. --Rodhullandemu 23:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  198. Oppose - New blood urgently needed. Giants2008 (17-14) 03:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  199. Oppose - Thank you for your hard work, hope to see you around editing. — xaosflux Talk 05:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  200. Oppose – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  201. Oppose Switzpaw (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  202. Oppose per SandyGeorgia. Kelly hi! 16:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  203. Oppose. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  204. Oppose Even as James hasn't been a strident, or even explicit, advocate for most of the ArbCom decisions to which I have had strong objections, he has acceded to those problematic results, and I cannot abide the return of anyone who has, even passively, been party to the madness (I should say that I can conceive of responses to certain of the questions, most significantly those posed by Lar, that might have disposed me to support [or at least made me rethink my opposition], but in the absence of the candidate's extended comments on the issues of import to me, I am left to judge him only on his record [and, more damningly, the record of the Committee across his term]). Joe 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  205. Oppose - per issues raised above, and because it's time for a change. I hope your (presumed) departure from ArbCom will not cause you to leave Wikipedia altogether, though - you'll still be welcome as an article editor. Terraxos (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  206. Oppose - based on the candidate's record both before and during his time as an arbitrator. Gregg (talk) 09:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  207. per Lar. — Sebastian 10:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  208. Really bad performance as an arbitrator. - Ev (talk) 13:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  209. Oppose - did not perform well in the arbitorial role. Caulde 14:28, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  210. Oppose --NE2 19:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  211. Oppose. Time for a change. Willking1979 (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  212. Oppose --Stux (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  213. Oppose. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:42, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008/Vote/Jdforrester&oldid=1221636442"