Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote/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

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. Fair use policy 00:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. --
   Black 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 Lokshin 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. ecaper (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

    FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (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 – ClockworkSoul 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. --
    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. —
    ✎ 08:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
69. Support. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-09 08:57Z
70. Support - Banes 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 --
    ?!? 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! Tomer^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 --
     ^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
     Talk 02:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
     ]
116. SupportGzuckier 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.--
     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 - Tεxτurε 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. SupportSeptentrionalis 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. SupportDr. 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 – ABCD^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 --
     Francs2000 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 - Pakaran 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]

     • Big Adamsky does not have suffrage; he registered at 15:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC). (
       Cryptic (talk) 16:10, 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]

     • Michaelk does not have suffrage; he had only 44 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
       Cryptic (talk) 15:35, 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]

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. 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

    afist 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. --
    ♥♥♥♥ 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 --
    ^Remixed? 05:35, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
20. Oppose. android79 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--
    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. Radiant_>|< 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.
    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. Unfocused 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 NUR_xTURE (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]
    • What did you mean by that last sentence? I think I'm getting the wrong mental image here. . . Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't think of wiki definition, take a look of this [2]. --Vasile 16:02, 18 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]

    • The Witch does not have suffrage; he registered at 08:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC) and he had only 1 edit as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
      Cryptic (talk) 16:14, 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]

    • Chick Bowen 03:48, 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]

    • Kolokol does not have suffrage; he had only 144 edits as of 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC). (
      Cryptic (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply
      ]

97. Oppose. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose. Alai 23:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]