Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jayjg

I'm Jayjg. I joined Wikipedia on June 15, 2004, was made an administrator on September 13, 2004, and in July of 2005 Jimmy Wales appointed me to the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. I'm a pretty active Wikipedia editor, having made over 30,000 edits.

I believe the Arbitration Committee is an unfortunate, but necessary, last step in Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. In the past I've felt and raised concerns about the effectiveness of all of the formal dispute resolution mechanisms (including mediation, RfC, and RfAr). RfAr in particular has suffered from slowness (mostly related, I believe, to having far too many inactive members), and from decisions that tended to be too narrow to be effective (e.g. prescribing remedies on one specific article, when the issue is an editor's behaviour in general). I think it's important for Arbitrators to keep in mind that our primary and ultimate goal here is to create a great encyclopedia.

I have found the Arbitration process itself quite interesting, but extremely time consuming; reading through the evidence on a single case can take many hours. I've been actively involved in almost all cases started after my appointment to the committee; in addition to regular involvement in votes on whether to accept or reject case, and regular contributions to the Arbitration Committee mail-list, I've also worked on the Skyring, Alfrem, Gabrielsimon, Ed Poor, AI, Coolcat, Davenbelle and Stereotek, Rktect, Rainbowwarrior1977, DotSix, Keetowah, Onefortyone, BigDaddy777, Everyking 3, Regarding The Bogdanov Affair, jguk 2, Louis Epstein, REX, Polygamy, Stevertigo, Lightbringer, Maoririder, Rex071404 4, Silverback, and Ultramarine cases. In the future I'd like to get even more involved in trying to build the workshop pages, which is where the decisions are crafted by the arbitrators, the involved parties, and any other member of the community who wants to make suggestions.

Questions

Support

  1. Support. David | explanation | Talk 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Support. Mo0[ talk] 00:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. Support. Antandrus (talk) 00:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Zach (Smack Back) Fair use policy 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. -- Sean| Bla ck 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Guettarda 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Michael Snow 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. -- Ancheta Wis 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. Strong Support. -- Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. — Kirill Lok s hin 00:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Support without reservations. – Quadell ( talk) ( bounties) 00:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. -- Jaranda wat's sup 00:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Babajobu 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Support. -- GraemeL (talk) 00:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Cryptic (talk) 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Strong support. Knowing that Jayjg was my likely replacement made me feel much happier about resigning. Ambi 00:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Support. Has proven to be an outstanding editor, conflict-resolver and member of ArbCom. Will, I am sure, continue to be as good at all three. Batmanand 00:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. Support. Evil Eye 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Support ➥the Epopt 00:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Strong Support. Carbonite | Talk 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Nunh-huh 00:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Support - Mackensen (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Support, SqueakBox 00:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Support. KHM03 01:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Support Zargulon 09:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Tony Sidaway| Talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Support. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Support-- Duk 01:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. cooki e caper ( talk / contribs) 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Support-- ragesoss 01:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Support — Bunchofgrapes ( talk) 01:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Support -- Wgfinley 02:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Support per Batmanand. Kit 02:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Support -- Arwel ( talk) 02:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support - An editor that I'd like to carry around in my pocket - 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
  35. -- ⟳ausa کui × 03:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Support Fred Bauder 03:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Support ← Hob 03:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Support Calton | Talk 03:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Support. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Strong support 172 04:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Support. -- Viriditas 04:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Support. Rhobite 04:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Support. Bishonen | talk 04:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC). reply
  44. — Dan | talk 04:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. uh-huh Grutness... wha? 04:45, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Support freestylefrappe 04:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Support. Jonathunder 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Support incumbent with laudable record. HGB 05:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Support ← Humus sapiens ←ну? 05:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Bobet 05:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Support GabrielF 05:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Support ObsidianOrder 05:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Support. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Support SoLando ( Talk) 05:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Support – Clockwork Soul 05:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Yid613 06:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Yid613 does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 05:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 06:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Support — Catherine\ talk 06:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Willardo 06:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Willardo does not have suffrage; his first edit was at 09:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC) and he had only 51 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). — Cryptic (talk) 07:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Support.  Grue  06:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. Support. -- Angr ( tɔk) 06:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Support. · Katefan0 (scribble)/ mrp 06:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Support wholeheartedly (not that he appears to need it :-). — LeFlyman 06:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Support - class act. --- Charles Stewart 07:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Support, sound judgment in my experience. -- MCB 07:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Support. - Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Support-- MONGO 07:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Support. utcursch | talk 07:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Support. siafu 08:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Strong Support, my absolute first choice, dedicated, stays cool, level-headed, excellent record as arbitrator. -- MPerel ( talk | contrib) 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  68. Support. Level-headed, stays cool. — mark ✎ 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Support. — Quarl ( talk) 2006-01-09 08:57 Z
  70. Support - Ban e s 09:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Support, I personally like Jay, think he's a great editor. Has very strong views, so I'm taking a punt here, but I reckon he'd be very good at the role! Might be worthwhile if he recuses himself from articles relating to the Arab Israeli conflict though: he's too good an author to stop editing them just because he's a member of ArbCom! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Support-- Urthogie 10:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Support - Szvest 10:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up™ reply
  74. Support. -- Woohookitty (cat scratches) 11:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Support. Demiurge 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Support -- Nick Boalch ?!? 11:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Support, has proved himself. Dan100 ( Talk) 11:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Support. -- RobertG ♬ talk 11:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Support. Yoninah 11:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. Support (on balance) -- kingboyk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Support Xtra 12:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. Support Sarah Ewart 12:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Support. I am responsible for Jayjg's initial adminship nomination and still feel he enforces NPOV and NOR like no other in the articles that most sorely demand this. Being involved in controversy is his badge of honour, as many admins, myself not excluded, shirk away from the deafening sounds of axes being ground. As an administrator he has been exemplary. JFW |  T@lk 13:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Support -- Michael Slone ( talk) 13:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Support sanity! Tom e r talk 13:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Support - -- Leifern 14:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. support novacatz 14:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Support. There are few more deserving. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 14:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Support Always fair and reasonable, even on issues that arouse passions.-- CTSWyneken 14:44, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Support Reasonable, thoughtful, and believes in policies. Jakew 16:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Support Cberlet 16:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Support Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Support I tend to view Jayjg as the model of a Wikipedian. If I needed one single person I could trust to correctly resolve any difficulty on Wikipedia, other than Jimbo Wales, it would be Jayjg. We probably would not always agree on everything, but I am convinced he holds the principles of the project as more important than his own perspective. Jdavidb ( talk •  contribs) 16:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Support I share Jdavidb's reason. Jayjg is a very knowledgable editor committed to the creation of a quality encyclopedia. He is equally committed to our principles and policies. Indeed, he is among the most fair-minded and principled people I know here. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Support Trusted. -- JWSchmidt 17:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Harrumph! -- MicahMN | μ 17:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Support Fair, and hard working. IZAK 18:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Support. Kaisershatner 18:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  99. Support DTC 18:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  100. Support -- Doc ask? 19:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  101. Support -- metta, The Sunborn 19:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  102. Support Patient, knowledgable, civil. -- Goodoldpolonius2 20:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  103. BD2412 T 20:54, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  104. Support Junes 21:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  105. Support -- Polaris999 21:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  106. jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  107. Support Proven good judgment. — Matthew Brown ( T: C) 22:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  108. Support -- Pjacobi 22:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  109. Support -- EMS | Talk 22:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  110. Support -- Daniel11 22:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  111. Support Fair, trusted, talented tightrope walker. Smmurphy( Talk) 23:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  112. Support AnnH (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  113. Support -- Jgritz 01:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  114. older≠ wiser 02:03, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  115. Support Andrew_pmk | Talk 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  116. Support Gzuckier 02:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  117. Support ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 02:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  118. Support Rayc 02:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  119. Support abakharev 05:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  120. Support – Abe Dashiell ( t/ c) 05:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  121. Support. JeremyA 06:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  122. Support. -- Fire Star 07:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  123. Support. - Jmabel | Talk 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  124. Support Anville 09:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  125. Support per the the candidates answers to the questions.-- Dakota ~ ε 09:27, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  126. Support Willmcw/ user:Will Beback/09:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  127. Support Delirium 10:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  128. Support Junjk 12:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  129. Support: I had to think about this a lot, but I feel that his willingness to be active in the cases where there has been a void of power is just this side of the line between "concerned and active" and...the other thing. He's concerned and active. Geogre 13:50, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  130. Support -- Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης) 17:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  131. Support - Tεx τ urε 17:44, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  132. Strong Support: excellent at making articles NPOV. -- Pierremenard 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  133. Support Mjchonoles 18:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  134. Support Septentrionalis 19:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  135. Support. Ral315 (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  136. Support, very experienced, appointed to be on ArbCom. That says something. -- Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  137. Support gidonb 23:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  138. Reluctant Support. On the basis of prior experience demonstrated. Candidate statement would otherwise be inadequate. Fifelfoo 23:08, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  139. Support, Vsmith 23:46, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support, Cowman Talk 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    First edit on October 23; user most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 02:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  140. Strong Support Excellent editor. Aiden 03:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  141. Strong Support Exceptionally NPOV.-- Doron 07:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  142. Support -- Woggly 08:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  143. Support. Lawrence King 08:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  144. Support -- Karl Meier 09:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  145. -- Bhadani 09:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  146. Support. Palmiro | Talk 11:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  147. Support. Andre ( talk) 14:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  148. Support -- Denis Diderot 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  149. Support Cormaggio @ 18:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  150. Support' Robdurbar 18:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  151. Support KTC
  152. Support-- A Y Arktos 20:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  153. Support-- Rye1967 21:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  154. Support Dr. B 21:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  155. Support -- anyone Karmafist opposes has gotta be good. r b-j 01:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  156. Support -- Jewbacca
  157. Support -- Kriegman 13:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  158. Support -- Has mastered the policies and rules of Wikipedia. Ramallite (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  159. Support Fad (ix) 17:40, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  160. Support Ashibaka tock 18:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  161. Support Ynhockey 18:32, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  162. Support – AB C D e ✉ 18:41, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  163. Support -- Neigel von Teighen 18:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  164. Support - lot of experience. -- NorkNork 20:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  165. Support. Strong statement, although I worry the longer you're on ArbCom, the less NPOV you can be. Velvetsmog 21:00, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  166. support William M. Connolley 22:36, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  167. Support. Neutrality talk 04:33, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  168. Support. Has, in my estimation, proven his skill and fairness in his current position on the AC. Jwrosenzweig 06:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  169. Support. Kuratowski's Ghost 10:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  170. Support Alphax 13:24, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support Pintele Yid 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User did not have 150 edits as of 00:01 January 9, so may not have suffrage. (Bringing this matter up on the talk page, since if including January 9, user has more than 150 edits.) Flcelloguy ( A note?) 23:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  171. Support. Has done good work so far and should have the chance to continue. Agent Blightsoot 23:00, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  172. Support - ditto much of the above -- Francs 2000 00:55, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  173. Support - Hillel
  174. Support Tom Harrison Talk 18:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  175. Support Mrfixter 19:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  176. Support. Preaky 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  177. support Kingturtle 21:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  178. support angusj 02:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  179. Support Masonpatriot 03:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  180. Support - David Gerard 16:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  181. Support per answers. Youngamerican 16:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  182. Support sannse (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  183. Support | Klaw ¡digame! 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  184. Support Sunray 07:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  185. Support — Phil | Talk 10:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  186. Support Jared 12:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  187. Support - kaal 17:08, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  188. Support - llywrch 17:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  189. Support - Homey 03:04, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  190. Support - CJCurrie 04:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  191. Support - Nohat 05:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  192. Support Pete.Hurd 05:54, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  193. Support. PedanticallySpeaking 16:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  194. Support. - Aquillion 17:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  195. Support - Pak aran 22:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  196. Support -- Astrokey44| talk 04:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support // Big Adamsky 06:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  197. Support. altmany 01:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  198. Strong Support. For his diligent contributing to Israeli related articles, and being a responsible and a high integrity administrator, he has my vote. We need more Wikipedians like you, my Friend. Эйрон Кинни 02:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  199. Sypport jnothman talk 03:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  200. Support - is able to express himself clearly - and i support what he stands for - a responsible and excellent candidate СПУТНИК ССС Р 04:13, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  201. Bratsche talk | Esperanza 04:55, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  202. Support I've just googled both our names and haven't noticed anything I disagreed with. -- Ezra Wax 05:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  203. Support! Fintor 08:23, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  204. Support .:. Jareth.:. babelfish 17:36, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  205. Weak support A lot of edit warring, and even some weird use/possibly abuse of admin privileges. Yet, I believe he is an intellectually honest editor. -- Heptor talk 18:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  206. Support wrp103 (Bill Pringle) - [[User talk:Wrp103|Talk]] 20:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  207. Support -- Pastricide 03:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  208. Support -- Nahum 05:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  209. Support - Great edit count - JustinWick 06:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  210. Suppport Andjam 11:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  211. Suppport one of the goodies from my experience -- Pluke 12:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  212. Support I've never spoken to him but he makes good edits and he seems allright. :) XYaAsehShalomX 19:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  213. Support -- Olve 03:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  214. support: Ombudsman 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  215. Support A user both dedicated and with clear views on how the Wikipedia should be maintained. Evolver of Borg 06:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  216. Support -- YUL89YYZ 11:09, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  217. Support – Smyth\ talk 12:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  218. Support -- Keeves 13:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Strong Support -- Michaelk 15:33, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Support -- maayan 15:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    User does not have 150 edits and most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  219. Support SF2K1 16:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  220. Support -- Grouse 16:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  221. Support FeloniousMonk 18:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  222. Support Alex43223 19:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  223. Support Giano | talk 21:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  224. Support Phil Sandifer 22:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  225. Support CDThieme 23:56, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  226. Support -- a.n.o.n.y.m t 00:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose

  1. Oppose, questions. See my voting rationale. Talrias ( t | e | c) 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  2. Everyking 00:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  3. – ugen64 00:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  4. Ben 00:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  5. Owen× ☎ 00:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  6. Weak oppose based on questions. JYolkowski // talk 01:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  7. Oppose didn't answer on several questions -- Angelo 01:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  8. Oppose. -- Миборовский U| T| C| M| E| Chugoku Banzai! 01:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  9. WhiteNight T | @ | C 01:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  10. TacoDeposit 01:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  11. Strong Oppose -- Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:36, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  12. Strong Oppose abuses admin powers Dabljuh 02:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  13. Oppose. -- Dlyons493 Talk 02:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose karmafist 02:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    No Vote Karm a fist 20:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  14. Oppose. Divisive. Grace Note 02:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  15. Oppose - Edit wars, uses rollback in edit wars. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 02:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  16. Oppose Xoloz 03:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  17. Oppose, problems with edit warring. Crotalus horridus ( TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 03:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Account created in November: too new to vote. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  18. — Charles P.  (Mirv) 04:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  19. Oppose -- Saikiri Remixed? 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  20. Oppose. android 79 05:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  21. Oppose, known POV warrior. Sam Spade 06:34, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  22. Oppose -- Wetman 07:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  23. Oppose-- cj | talk 07:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  24. Oppose. -- Daniel 07:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  25. Oppose - involved in too many disputes -- Danny Yee 07:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  26. Oppose - most of his edits relate to Israel/Arab topics with which he has a strong POV. Not necessarily a bad thing on its own, but not Arb material. — Ashley Y 07:38, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  27. Oppose. Another excellent admin who I regretfully oppose as being too controversial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  28. Oppose. -- Kefalonia 09:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  29. Oppose. Applies the most revolting double standards on anything related to Jews (or so deemed by him). While I am willing to assume that this is not downright intellectual dishonesty but rather mere incapability of holding his nerves, I certainly do not think that this is something we need or want on the Arbcom. -- Rama 09:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  30. Oppose. As Ashley. Axon ( talk| contribs) 10:58, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  31. Oppose as above. -- It's-is-not-a-genitive 11:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  32. Oppose -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 12:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  33. Oppose -- Lots of POV-pushing on anything related to Israel or Jews. David.Monniaux 12:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  34. Weak oppose per rollback/edit warring issues. POV not a problem to me. — Nightstallion (?) 12:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  35. Oppose. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  36. Oppose Davidpdx 12:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  37. Oppose pretty much for the same reasons I rejected Fred Bauder, and James F. time on arbcom should be term limited. I feel that the longer you remain on arbcom, the less neutral you can remain.   ALKIVAR ™ 12:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  38. Oppose, too controversial. R adiant _>|< 13:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  39. Oppose Unbehagen 15:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  40. Oppose POV pusher. Robert McClenon 15:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  41. Oppose as per Ashley Y. -- Kjkolb 15:52, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  42. Oppose PoV warrior. Proto  t  c 16:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  43. Weak oppose due to edit warring. If admins should be held to higher standards, this holds ever so much more for arbcom members. dab (ᛏ) 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  44. Weak oppose due to given answers. Scoo 17:25, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  45. Oppose I do not disagree with any of the reasons already listed above. Un focused 20:05, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  46. Oppose. Uses powers in content disputes. POV warrior. - Xed 20:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  47. Oppose - SoM 21:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  48. Oppose-- MichaelSirks 21:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  49. Oppose. A POV warrior who has flagrantly abused admin, and arbcom powers. -- HK 22:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  50. Splash talk 22:50, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  51. Oppose. Divisive. Avriette 23:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  52. Ghirla | talk 23:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  53. Oppose. Not suited to ArbCom. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 00:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  54. Oppose -- Interiot 03:16, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  55. Oppose. Need new ArbComm. SEWilco 04:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  56. Oppose - as above - POV pusher, edit warrior. Also, my questions to him are erased by his supporters. Ruy Lopez 16:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  57. Oppose - quite agressive to Kaldari on AD/BCE issue. — Sebastian (talk) 05:30, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  58. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 11:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  59. Oppose. He has done a good job on the ArbCom but, as this election has shown, I think he is too controversial. Rje 14:28, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  60. Oppose. enochlau ( talk) 14:32, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  61. Oppose -- Dissident ( Talk) 15:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  62. Oppose-- The Brain 18:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  63. Opppose for inappropriate use of powers in content disputes CarbonCopy (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  64. Weak oppose Has caused too much controversy. -- G Rutter 20:47, 10 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  65. Oppose. (Note: Vote only reflects suitability of candidate to the role, and does not reflect overall contributions or personally.) - Mailer Diablo 01:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  66. Oppose-- Masssiveego 07:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  67. Vigorous Oppose. Edit warrior, POV pusher on Middle East/Israel issues. Deeceevoice 16:05, 11 January 2006
  68. Utterly oppose. POV pusher, admin abuse, edit wars, suspected use of flesh puppets in his edit wars... // Liftarn 17:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  69. Oppose-- Gozar 17:37, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  70. Oppose. — David Levy 18:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  71. Oppose - not bold enough in his actions. Maybe I will vote for him next year if will take a stand where needed. Zeq 20:59, 11 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  72. Strong Oppose -talented edit warrior and POV pusher on Israel/Arab issues - Huldra 08:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  73. Oppose. Anyone rbj supports... well nevermind. — FREAK OF NURxTURE ( TALK) 09:17, Jan. 12, 2006
  74. Oppose - ntennis 03:15, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  75. Oppose -Excellent edit skills, probably admin skills too, but this is about something else. Rather rigid attitude. I can't imagine this person in the middle of a threesome. --- Vasile 12:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  76. Oppose - some dodgy edits in his history. -- Irishpunktom\ talk 12:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  77. Oppose -- Adrian Buehlmann 18:25, 13 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  78. Oppose - An anti-christian POV pusher Arcturus 12:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  79. Oppose Marskell 17:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  80. oppose wrong temperament. imo. Derex 17:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  81. Weak Oppose. *drew 03:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  82. -- Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  83. Strongest oppose possible. User is highly biased towards a single side, edits in a highly biased manner, and is too much a part of a clique that seems to try to censor any criticism of him. Seems to be employed by a Zionist organisation to edit and bias Wikipedia in their favour, and would hence be highly inappropriate. -- Victim of signature m | help remove biblecruft 18:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Seems highly controversial for this post. Aucaman Talk 20:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    First edit was October 25, so user most likely does not have suffrage. Flcelloguy ( A note?) 00:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  84. Oppose. POV pusher, etc. One of the usual suspects. Vulturell 17:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  85. Oppose. — Lowellian ( reply) 18:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  86. Oppose - a fine editor, but clearly out of his depth on ArbCom - RachelBrown 12:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose, insufficient understanding of academic standards. The Witch 15:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  87. phe 18:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  88. Oppose, reluctantly, less-than-scholarly outlook, lazy research on some decisions, can be biased and misled. Wyss 16:23, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  89. Oppose ElectricRay 21:54, 19 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose Christopher 03:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  90. Oppose, somewhat reluctantly, due to POV and edit-warring issues. — Josiah Rowe ( talk • contribs) 05:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  91. Oppose, sorry you're too much of an edit warrior. Secretlondon 16:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  92. Oppose, aggressive, abuses admin powers, Israel POV pusher, edit warrior. MarFlorin 01:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  93. Oppose -- Durin 17:04, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  94. Strong Oppose, Jayjg, a representative of Likud, employ dubious tactics to have (his) articles stay biased. The candidate has argued that Israel doesn't occupy any territories even though almost all entities, including the Bush administration and the Supreme Court of Israel, says that it does. What makes him a bigger problem than other editors who let their personal bias influence their editing is that Jayjg's bias is professional. I've tried to argue why hasbara is detrimental to the State of Israel but it is an uphill struggle. With lots of money changing hands I'm afraid that Jimbo will (once again) appoint Jayjg to the committee, no matter how the votes has been cast. -- saxet 18:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    From this we can only infer that your opposition is due to the fact that you disagree with Jayjg? From what I have seen, Jayjg scrupulously applies encyclopedic standards when he gets involved in edit disputes, makes sure to recuse himself from any issues where he might have a personal interest in the outcome, and has been unafraid to overrule those he would otherwise agree with when they breach policy, rules, and guidelines. -- Leifern 17:19, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  95. Oppose Flcelloguy ( A note?) 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  96. Oppose Some answers seem somewhat paranoid or cynical. -- AySz88^ - ^ 02:12, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    Oppose. Kolokol 02:18, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  97. Oppose. ‣ᓛᖁ ♀ ᑐ 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  98. Oppose. Alai 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Vote/Jayjg&oldid=1087280443"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE