Home • Search • Translate
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| Bla ck 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 Lok s hin 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. -- Run e 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– Gnomz 007( ?) 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. android 79 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 08:56 Z
  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. -- Cel e stianpower háblame 13:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Support per GraceNote. Tom e r talk 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 Terra Green 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. Support Dr. 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 – AB C D e ✉ 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  τ ε χ 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 -- Francs 2000 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 Jtkiefer T | 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. Neutrality talk 01:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  164. Jimbo trusts him already. Bratsche talk | 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. Splash talk 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. R adiant _>|< 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.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/James_F.&oldid=1087280440"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE