Hi. My name is John Vandenberg. I have provided a detailed history about myself on my userpage. I believe that arbitrators should be very open and honest about their formal education and experience in order that the community can make informed decisions about who to vote for, and so that people coming to the committee for arbitration can get a feel for the people that will be making the decisions.

I served as an Arbitration Clerk for much of the first half of 2008. I resigned due to a messy affair, which has since been settled amicably. This experience, and the termination of it, was an eye opener. I am aware of the responsibility, workload and difficulty involved.

My commitments:

1. I will not edit policy pages or influence policy. This is the responsibility of the community, and arbitrators should not write the policies that they will use in decisions.
2. I will oppose any remedy that is not substantially grounded in existing policy that was written by the community, or on resolutions passed by the Wikimedia Foundation.
3. I will be highly active and available, or I will step down and turn in my "access".

I will bring to the committee:

1. Broad technical skills to automate tasks that the committee regularly performs, and improve processes where possible.
2. Broad experience and exposure to the culture, policies and leaders of most of the WMF projects. There are very few arbs, ex-arbs, or other candidates who have measurable experience outside of English Wikipedia.
3. Broad language skills - I can only write in English, however I enjoy working with foreign languages and people who don't have a good grasp of English
4. Limited patience for long & drawn out cases. Quick and measured solutions that result in the least amount of pain and disruption are good. Perfect is the enemy of good.
5. Limited wiki-friendships with the elite in the power structure here on Wikipedia. It will be rare that I need to be recused.

Whilst on the committee, my mission for reform within the committee and arbitration process will be to:

1. Encourage participatory democracy.
2. Fire the slackers and the lurkers and people whose term is up.
3. Require that arbitration cases have a clear scope before they open.

See here for more detailed explanations of these three points.

• Jayvdb (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Questions for the candidate
• Discuss the candidate
• Support or Oppose this candidate

Voting in this election is now closed. Any votes cast after 00:00 15 December 2008 (UTC) will be reverted.

1. Privatemusings (talk) 00:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong support--Maxim_(talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support I like the idea for Arbom reform.--Caspian blue 00:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Cla68 (talk) 00:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Black Kite 00:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Avi (talk) 00:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support Durova^Charge! 00:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Kanonkas :  Talk  00:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support Captain panda 00:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Strongest possible support. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I also strongly support per my radical manifesto wherein I pledge to support those elected --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11. Strong support. Further comments available at my ACE2008 notes page. --Elonka 00:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12. Dlabtot (talk) 00:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. Rationale. Giggy (talk) 00:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
14. Tom B (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support. Mathsci (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
16. Perfect for the job. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. - filelakeshoe 00:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. iridescent 00:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. - Pick of the bunch -- Mattinbgn\^talk 00:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. One of the best candidates for the job. krimpet✽ 01:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
21. PhilKnight (talk) 01:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support Sam ^Blab 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
23. I have some disagreements with this candidate, but feel that I can trust his integrity, and that any "wrong" (in my view) decisions will be based on what he thinks is best for the project, and not on petty revenge or covering up for a friend. ElinorD (talk) 01:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. Steven Walling (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Per: details MBisanz ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Majorly ^talk 01:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Kuru ^talk 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Mr.Z-man 01:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. Avruch ^T 01:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support - also, will you marry me? No, I'm just teasing. But still, swoon. :P Ottava Rima (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    kurykh 01:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

31. Pcap ping 01:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 01:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

32. See reasoning. east718 01:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
33. --mikeu ^talk 01:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support Sumoeagle179 (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

34. I had made a list of people who I would be find with (though not necessarily in top 7) on ArbCom and this candidate was one of those people. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    iMatthew 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

35. Support - Aboutmovies (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Graham87 02:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. EconomicsGuy (talk) 02:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. ~ Riana ⁂ 02:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
40. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. L'Aquatique[talk] 02:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support. Cirt (talk) 02:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. The most qualified candidate in the whole election. Daniel (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support JodyB _talk 02:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. rootology (C)(T) 02:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. β^_command 03:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Synergy 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 03:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support Very solid candidate, will work for the good of the community and with the best of purposes and the highest of integrity, and has a mature outlook and a good understanding of community dynamics. I hope he makes it and that ArbCom will be the better for it. Orderinchaos 03:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Thoughtful and fair. Exactly what we need on ArbCom. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support--Toffile (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
53. More qualified than the soon to be former arbitrator that told him to stop clerking. GRBerry 04:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
54. I have absolute confidence in his judgement, and believe John would be a superb arbitrator. Master&Expert (Talk) 04:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Kingturtle (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Strong Support - user shows excellent judgement. PseudoOne (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
57. David Shankbone 05:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support -MBK₀₀₄ 05:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Mike H. Fierce! 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Strong support As near ideal a temperament for the job as we could hope. A great deal of integrity and, per ElinorD, an allegiance primarily to what's best for the project. --JayHenry (talk) 06:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Carnildo (talk) 06:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support. — Athaenara ✉ 06:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. -- penubag  (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. I think he would do a good job. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support, excellent editor who has shown great judgment, open minded and fair. Dreadstar † 07:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

66. Strong support لennavecia 08:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. –Moondyne 08:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
68. Weak support, temperament seems suited to arbcom and judgement generally appears worthy of confidence - I do have a few concerns but will keep these to myself for now. Brilliantine (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. —Dark ^talk 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. chaser - t 09:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong support, exactly the kind of new blood we need, and I like the explicit promise not to make policy. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Changed to oppose.[reply]

71. Rebecca (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
72. Able candidate. PeterSymonds (talk) 09:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Weak support - excellent platform, especially limited patience for long & drawn-out cases. More speed (with due caution) is exactly what ArbCom needs. //roux   editor review10:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC) Changing to weak support; opposing fellow candidates, while allowed, is distasteful. May change to oppose. //roux   editor review14:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

73. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    — neuro^(talk) 10:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

74. I'm Mailer Diablo and I approve this message! - 10:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. Horologium (talk) 11:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. Suicidalhamster (talk) 11:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Jon Harald Søby (talk) 12:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Strongest Possible Support See my reasons in User:Secret/ArbCom. Note if there isn't a comment on the candidate there, I was on vacation and couldn't edit the past weekend, will leave one today. Secret ^account 12:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. Jehochman ^Talk 14:06, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. Not perfect, but John has sufficiently good judgment IMO. It is not my experience that "bias" on AA topics is at all substantial, and there's always recusal anyway. Moreschi (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Colchicum (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support ATren (talk) 15:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC) _{changed to oppose ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

84. Crystal whacker (My 2008 ArbCom votes) 15:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Strong support - On not answering questions: It is said if you want something done, give it to a busy person. I hear Jayvdb has been handling a LOT of the oversight-l work since being appointed. That might be more important than answering every question (yes, I wish he had answered mine first but hey...) On "power voting": I prefer someone who is willing to hold opinions and go on record about them to someone who won't say what they think. We need more plain speaking on ArbCom I think, so bully to Jayvdb for saying what he thinks, even if he's wrong where he disagrees with me! :). On the AA thing: There's actually nothing to this in my view, after you factor out ethnic POV pushers who don't like being called on things. Jayvdb said he'd recuse (in a case where I don't actually think he has to) See this post and the thread it's in for more. On contribs: Jayvdb is a large part of the reason that en:ws "doesn't suck". That shows he's not insular, and it shows he gets stuff done. WS is hugely important for a certain class of articles. In short: Jayvdb will bring us the change we need. why my vote? ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Sure. Tex (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support — Gavia immer (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You have submitted two (or more) votes for this candidate, and only the most recent will be counted. ST47 (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

87. Support - concur with much of what Lar said above. Parsecboy (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. I do have some reservations, but I agree 200% with your platform - very clearly expressed and incisive - so I have to support. :) Please, please follow through if/when elected. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support, strongly. Trustworthy and has some excellent ideas. Should be a good arbitrator. AGK 18:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. Superb candidate statement. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support, my top candidate. Has my trust in his decision making ability. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 19:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support --Herby ^{talk thyme} 19:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support---Taprobanus (talk) 20:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Not exactly a content contributor, but very involved with the maintenance of this project. —Ceran ♦ ♦ (speak) 22:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support JPG-GR (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. Franamax (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Tiptoety ^talk 22:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Nousernamesleft (talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 22:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support...Modernist (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
101. GlassCobra 23:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support - strong experience. Warofdreams talk 23:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support -phobia don't be afraid to drop a line! 23:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Aramgar (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - good level of experience.--VS ^talk 00:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
106. Hurrah SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 01:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support TimidGuy (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Alexfusco⁵ 02:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
109. Ok, S. Jayvdb has impressed me with his attention to small detail and he seems like somebody who won't back off when he sees a right. Doesn't suffer fools. Ceoil (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Seems to have a good head on his shoulders. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support.--Kubigula (talk) 02:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Rschen7754 (T C) 03:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. macy 03:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support.Nrswanson (talk) 04:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
115. Hesperian 04:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 04:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. Brilliant pick. ѕwirlвoy ₪ 05:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support - his statement shows a deep respect for the community in taking time to structure his thoughts and not simply soapbox. After all, this not an election for political office, but to an administrative office. I want competence, too. This guy reeks it. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support --Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support Ronnotel (talk) 11:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. fish&karate 13:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. —DerHexer (Talk) 13:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support. Kablammo (talk) 14:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
125. --Peter cohen (talk) 15:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support Would be a fine arbitrator. I don't see how one can oppose on the grounds that he would be partial in an AA case when he has specifically said he would recuse himself. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128. Non-cabalist, sensible yet unequivocal answers to questions, refreshing stance on WP:BAN, experience in the relevant areas, has the guts to evaluate his potential colleagues (ArbCom is no place for thin skins or groupthink). Yes, yes, yes. Skomorokh 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. Three thumbs up! Ecoleetage (talk) 18:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support. Ankimai (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support - Epousesquecido (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support  — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support --maclean 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
135. Joe Nutter 00:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. IronDuke 00:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Gnangarra 01:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138. jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 04:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
140. Icewedge (talk) 04:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
141. - auburnpilot talk 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
142. Kusma (talk) 07:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support Kauffner (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support. We need arbitrators who are willing to take tough but fair decisions. I see the Iranian-Azeri nationalist squad has turned out in force to oppose this nomination; this is in no way a disqualifying factor for John, and if anything it stands in his favour that he's willing to deal resolutely with disruptive nationalist editors. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
145. Strongest possible support. E104421 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
146. Michael Snow (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support to bump the numbers up; the current stream of opposition smells of off-wiki canvassing by the Armenian block. Hope this activity is looked into by those managing the election. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
148. Not my favorite candidate, but supporting per Sceptre. ST47 (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support Purely for tactical reasons in a bid to keep other vote percentages less than yours (nothing personal to your good self). Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support tactical vote to balance out the clear canvessing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

149. --Sultec (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support Reasonable, responsible individuals are needed as arbitrators. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Vote reinstated - Lar's CU confirms Mervyn Emrys eligibility across alternate accounts.--Tznkai (talk) 06:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

151. Support. John's contributions to Wiki Foundation projects extend way beyond Wikipedia, the time he has given to the projects argues for a man who is committed to investing voluntarily in time consuming and complex processes. Alastair Haines (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support --Cube lurker (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support. Was neutral, but switching in response to evidence of interest groups attempting a co-ordinated sabotage of your candidacy. Rockpocket 02:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support I've seen nothing but good work from this user on all the projects with which he is involved. Kafka Liz (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC) For the record, I should state that I am related to Aramgar (talk · contribs), but although we sometimes edit from the same computer, we maintain separate accounts and are happy to submit information to confirm that we are separate individuals, should the need arise.[reply]

     As a CU who was asked to investigate these users (some time ago) and found technical correlation, I am confirming my belief that these two accounts are likely to be different users despite that correlation. (which you'll find if you look at me and my wife, too...), and giving thanks for the forthright disclaimer. ++Lar: t/c 11:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

155. Support. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
156. --PeaceNT (talk) 03:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
157. Support for his principled conduct in the omnibus case and for his general high amount of clue. Dr. eXtreme 03:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
158. I have reservations, but this seems to be in the overall best interests of the project. 6SJ7 (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
159. He seems to be a decent user and gives decent answers. Though I have not have personal interactions; I'm also supporting to counteract what I believe is unfair bloc opposition. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
160. Support - Peripitus (Talk) 05:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
161. Suppport' --AniMate 05:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
162. Support - The personal interactions I've had have all been positive. He has the good of the community at heart. Kylu (talk) 05:38, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
163. Support --Versageek 05:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
164. It comes to something when you're ranked seventh. Christ! Naerii, aka THE GROOVE 06:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
165. Support --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 06:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
166. Support, I see no damning issue with his voicing opinions on other candidates, this is not a competition to see who is classiest, but most qualified. Likewise, while Azeri editors seem to be somehow connected to him...everybody has a niche, and I haven't seen any specific allegations to make me question my judgment in his resolution and arbitration skills. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 07:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
167. Support --Chapultepec (talk) 07:50, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
168. II | (t - c) 09:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Even tone, positive interactions, and seems less into politicking than most. "[reply]
169. Support --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
170. Strong Support - I was always planning to support John in this election - he and I have never interacted, but I've always admired a number of his abilities around the 'pedia. I then got thrown by the opposition below, which appeared to raise (on further inspection) some ideas that, as I described them, made me uneasy. It seems to me now, having looked at the AN thread, John's own explanation of these events, and allowing my gut instinct to play a part in my decision-making that he is still an excellent candidate. If the allegations below are true: I don't care in the context of this election, and trust John to recuse himself appropriately. If they are not true, then who am I to allow the well to be poisoned. Best of luck. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
171. Support -- billinghurst (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
172. Support dougweller (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
173. Support. As I explain on the talk page this community should resist the coordinated off-site attacks on this candidate. I urge all tactical opposition to drop their oppose votes because Jayvdb has received more than enough. Vote for Jayvdb on his own merits. Cool Hand Luke 15:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
174. Support. Man, you must be doing something right. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:54, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
175. Support. Objectives and integrity are one of his strongest points. Baku87 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
176. Supportthough disagree that arbcom can avoid "policy" Mccready (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
177. Support high clue levels -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^Talk _{Contributions} 17:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
178. Supporrt Justforasecond (talk) 18:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
179. Kick his ass, C-BASS. SashaNein (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
180. Support hbent (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
181. Support Protonk (talk) 19:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
182. Support Mattwj2002 (talk) 21:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
183. Support Evenhanded and has shown wisdom and an desire to act in the best interests of the community as a whole. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
184. Support Hiberniantears (talk) 21:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
185. Support, I think. Statements make good sense. Guy (Help!) 21:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
186. Support looks good. Hut 8.5 21:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
187. Support Very good. Grsz¹¹ 21:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Mild Support Please note this is a new account as the password on the old one (User:Peter Damian) was lost. I have many 10's of thousands of edits on my old accounts so please accept this vote. Peter Damian II (talk) 21:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     I'm sorry, your unblock terms do not allow you edit, or vote within this namespace.--Tznkai (talk) 03:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Supportish - largely to keep numbers fair. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC) numbers evened out; was worried.[reply]

188. Support win. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:33, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
189. Support. Could be a good balance to other voices on the committee, and the Armenia issue seems to be easy to work around through recusal on the rare occasions it comes up. Chick Bowen 01:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
190. Synchronism (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
191. Support RayAYang (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
192. Support Terence (talk) 09:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
193. Support -- Tinu Cherian - 12:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
194. Support Grandmaster (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
195. Support I support this candidate as a safe pair of hands. Nothing daring or exciting in his question answers, but nothing of concern either. Poltair (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
196. Support, everything I've seen from this candidate suggests a sensible, thoughtful contributor with the best interests of Wikipedia in mind. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
197. --Kbdank71 20:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
198. Good record, good candidate. Full rationale: User:Camaron/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008. Camaron | Chris (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
199. Support Randomran (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
200. Support - @pple complain 00:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
201. Support To me he seems level-headed, knowledgable, good-tempered, in possession of good judgment, and I like his ideas. He'd be even more of an asset to Wikipedia on the committee. -- Noroton (talk) 02:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
202. Wronkiew (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
203. Support without reservations. --RexxS (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
204. Strong support - John is an open-minded guy, won't mess up. Good luck, mate! AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
205. --Rividian (talk) 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
206. Support - EdJohnston (talk) 19:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
207. Support -reconsidering. Prodego ^talk 21:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
208. support desperately short of apostrophes but otherwise good: log; G4 William M. Connolley (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
209. Support Skinwalker (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
210. Support ៛ Bielle (talk) 23:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
211. support JoshuaZ (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
212. Anti-canvassing support. MER-C 06:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
213. Support for a very experienced and able candidate. --Bduke (Discussion) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
214. Support - Shyam ^(T/C) 09:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
215. Support Does good work all around the place and keep me on my toes. :) =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
216. Support Jon513 (talk) 16:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
217. Support- Can always recuse if a case comes up about AA or related issues, as we are all aware of them. Seems wise, mature, not overly sycophantic. Sticky Parkin 17:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
218. Support I'm a little disappointed that some excellent questions have gone unanswered but, on the balance, might just make a good arbitrator. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
219. Support Appears to be highly likely to create drama if elected. Kelly Martin 20:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
220. Support, despite the marks around his ankles. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
221. Strong Support --Xp54321 ^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 01:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
222. Strongest Possible Support After deep consideration the user track is outstanding and track as an admin is good.After checking the user track the user who has been around since Sept 2004 find nothing wrong aleast did not see anything wrong.Now every editor has a POV whether it is in chemistry,music,politics,history and user may have his POV in the AA issue.But I do not find anything wrong the the user has done.Feel the user has came out unscathed from the minefield of editing in AA areas unscathed.Through I confess that I have had no interaction with this user prior to this Arbcom.Looking at the opposes I feel the user is being opposed for POV in the AA issue not for his edits or actions .Feel that Age as in a RFA I just voted in and POV should not be deciding factors in particular in votes atleast now seems to be heading to the wire. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
223. Support Awesome support :D --Mixwell!^Talk 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
224. Support Serious and trustworthy editor. Yann (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
225. Dmcdevit·t 11:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
226. Support abf /talk to me/ 13:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
227. Support Gabriel Kielland (talk) 14:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
228. Support. — E ↗ 14:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support. Second thoughts. Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

229. Strong support. Impartiality is not really the forte of many administrators and arbitrators in Wiki. And John distinguished himself by his ability for neutral judgment and refusing to bow to attempts to turn Wikipedia into a single-sided propaganda machine. Atabəy (talk) 19:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
230. Support Concerns, maybe, about ensuing lack of time for wikisource. But hardly enough to oppose. Interactions are uniformly positive. WilyD 21:54, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
231. Support Conducts himself very well. My experiences with him on Wikisource have been very positive, so I am extremely confident that he will do well. But I do hesitate to vote on anything that will take even a second of his time away from Wikisource :). Psychless 23:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
232. Support. Biophys (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
233. Support Kwsn (Ni!) 01:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
234. Support Iberieli (talk) 06:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
235. Support JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 08:04, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
236. Strong Support — See Lar's comments; see Yann's. John initially opposed my unblock, but has now supported it. We talked and he is open to discussion and reasoning. Those who are concerned about a perceived bias, should talk with him, and review the facts on the ground; he is not biased; he is pro-wiki, has clue, and can be trusted to do the right thing. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
237. Strong Support. I know John since my active times in Wikipedia. In critical situations, he has an ability of staying calm - an ability that many admins lack - and making the most appropriate and neutral decisions. I am sure he will do great as an arbitrator. Zitterbewegung ^Talk 14:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
238. Strongest Possible Support - I've been in agreement and disagreement with this user over the years, and he is - without any reservation - one of the best users I have encountered here. He is, in a word, awesome. In two words, he is Tre-Mendous. He does the right thing every time. He should hand out more cookies, though. ;)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
239. Support--Dacy69 (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Johnbod (talk) 20:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to Oppose. Johnbod (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

240. Support. Good statement and credentials. --Fang Aili ^talk 23:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
241. I have a massive amount of respect for John. I have no doubt that he would bring a level head to ArbCom. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
242. Support. Parishan (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support ←Spidern→ 07:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support and wish good luck! --Aynabend (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

243. Support. He is supportive and a man of marked initiative --Dmitrismirnov (talk) 10:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
244. Support - BusterD (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
245. Support Gazimoff 14:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
246. Support so far the answers to my questions are very insightful and convincing Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
247. Support RMHED (talk) 15:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
248. Support. Volunteer Sibelius Salesman (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
249. Support --Patrick (talk) 15:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
250. Strong Support: Having been the victim of bullet canvassing on Wikipedia, the same here must be challenged at every opportunity.  RGTraynor  19:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
251. Support A safe pair of hands, his statement is very strong. I have never had reason to question his judgement. Rje (talk) 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
252. Support Eusebeus (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
253. Support Amalthea 03:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
254. Support Dedicated user across Wikimedia, tempermental and very active. If there was one user I'd vote for, he would be it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
255. Support - Expresses himself clearly. His statements are principled and honest. He is not afraid of taking stands, but remains open to discussion. Flexible without being wishy-washy and non-committal. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
256. Support I particularly like the promise to not edit/influence policy. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 22:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
257. Support Worthy candidate--TimBits 22:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     This seems to be erroneous - the editor has 206 mainspace edits prior to November 1. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, my mistake, I forgot to log in the first time. --TimBits 23:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

258. Support Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
259. Support. I want that one. - Mark 03:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
260. Support. Ateshi-Baghavan 06:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
261. WODUP 08:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
262. Balancing support. I don't like the fact that he has answered so few questions, but what I like even less is the fact that there are blocs of voters who are canvassing and voting along ethnic lines. The net effect of this canvassing has been to decrease his overall percentage, so in supporting I'm doing what I can to bring his percentage up to where it should be. rspeer 08:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
263. Support BJ^Talk 09:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
264. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
265. Support. --Brand спойт 12:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
266. Weak support. Nsk92 (talk) 16:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
267. Support The man says it all for himself. Five Years 16:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
268. Support -- I like candidate's commitment to be open to consider reforms. Geo Swan (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
269. Support --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 20:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
270. Support Deli nk (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
271. Jitse Niesen (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
272. Support -Dureo (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
273. Support - Garion96 (talk) 22:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
274. Support - An excellent candidate and Commitment. --Anish (talk) 05:53, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
275. Support - In my experience, one of the best people for this position. Miguel.mateo (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     SupportThat government is best that governs least...--75.2.250.79 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     I'm sorry, but you are not eligible to vote this year - you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

276. Support - Possibly he is one of the best people for this position. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
277. Support – Sadalmelik ☎ 12:52, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
278. Support Switzpaw (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Support per answers to my questions, and candidates integrity and value of the community Slrubenstein | Talk 18:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     You have already voted above. ST47 (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

279. Support --Buster7 (talk) 16:07, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
280. Support ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
281. Support SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are ineligible to vote. — neuro^(talk) 00:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

282. Support – RyanCross (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
283. Support. alanyst ^/talk/ 04:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
284. Support. My own personal experience with him proves he fits the position. --Kober^Talk 05:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
285. Support — xaosflux ^Talk 05:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
286. Support. Change my vote due the response [1]. I'm not sure he has a conflict of interest, and when I can't be sure , I think that's wrong for me to advertise my suspicions here . I am hopeful he will be a fair admin.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:02, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
287. Support. After the discussions and the answers of JavydB, now I am sure enough that he would remain impartial and be an equitable arbitator.--Raayen (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
288. Support --Peter Andersen (talk) 12:04, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
289. Experience as a clerk and with Oversight will serve ArbCom well. — Manticore 12:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
290. Support - I do have some concerns, as expressed by others in the oppose section. But, there are seven slots to fill, and think you are a better choice than some of the alternatives. --Aude (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
291. Support I haven't time at the moment to set out fully my reasoning (Packers game is on), but I think it always appropriate to offer an explanation for one's vote, even if it's useful to (and read only by) one's self; my thoughts, then, will be available sometime soon at my views on Wikipedia page. Joe 18:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
292. Support Wkdewey (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
293. SQL^{Query me!} 20:30, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
294. Support - I actually have no idea how effective you will be as an arbitrator, and so I've been very hesitant with regards to voting for you at all. However I trust you enough that you won't be that much of a disgrace should you be not good. --harej 20:33, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
295. Support -- lucasbfr ^talk 21:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
296. Suppport --Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
297. Sure. DS (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
298. Support AlexiusHoratius 22:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
299. Strong support (rationale). the wub "?!" 23:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. Nufy8 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2. Voyaging^(talk) 00:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lack of impartiality on AA issues, which will undoubtedly be the subject of an AC case in the near future again. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 01:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. RockManQ^{Review me} 01:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. Atmoz (talk) 02:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Having witnessed obvious cases of taking sides to support his friends, I think the honor is still not quite there. We need real impartiality and transparency. Fedayee (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6. Strongest oppose I would rather support White Cat. VartanM (talk) 02:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   • See here for more information. VartanM (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   And note how it was largely disproven, as well. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7. ArbCom must be disbanded and replaced with a system which actually works. Sorry, I oppose. Bstone (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
   • Per terribly low response rate on the questions. This is all politics and vague promises, and no substance. Prodego ^talk 03:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Weak oppose. I think it's a slight to the community that he only answered about half of the questions he was asked. I like the answers I see, but what's the deal with the others? If he doesn't have time to answer them, he doesn't have time to be an arbitrator. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Striking my opposition to cancel out one of these untruthful, vindictive "Armenia/Azerbaijan" votes. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9. Overly pretentious. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 08:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
10. Severe lack of judgement by opposing the majority of his fellow candidates. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 08:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
11. No. Smacks of process wonk.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose. --hayk (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, user only has 118 mainspace edits. Suicidalhamster (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12. Oppose per for his own early power vote. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC), rephrased 15:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
13. per Ryan --B (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong oppose -- Gazifikator (talk) 14:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November Secret ^account 18:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

14. Strong oppose Per support of Elonka and support from Elonka. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

15. Oppose due to concerns about ability to put in needed time and "insider" status; too much risk that his election would lead to continuation of the problems we have seen in the past year. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose. Was considering proffering my question to consider supporting, but then noticed the whole "oppose the other candidates" issue, and I simply can not abide that. ^S._D.D.J.Jameson 22:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)Striking my vote after discussion with Jayvdb.[reply]

    oppose --Nepaheshgar (talk) 00:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns were addressed. --Nepaheshgar (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16. oppose ----Larno Man Larno (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
17. Strong Oppose. Someone who quickly takes sides in disputes would not make a good arbitrator. In the instances that Jayvdb has intervened in Azerbaijan-Armenia issues, he has almost always blocked or reverted Armenian users ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.). Only on rare occasions has he treated Azeri users similarly. I would not trust with him CheckUser, let alone allow him to get involved in any future Armenia-Azerbaijan arbitration cases. Khoikhoi 02:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
18. Weak but unshaken Oppose. I think that taking time is necessary for this sort of thing. I want to see a clearer commitment to more specific changes, not "get 'r dun quick" thinking. Still, I don't think you'd be BAD, just that there are better choices out there at this time. Best of luck to you if you get it. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 05:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
19. Guettarda (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
20. Oppose per arguments of above.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oppose : As by User:Khoikhoi, I browse the Pages created by Jayvdb, and find out creating some of the pages are only possible if the creator is professionally connected with a group that may not act neuter in especial cases .Some of the articles are Baku Polytechnicum,Arabian Gulf University,OACIS for the Middle East,Copyright Agency of the Republic of Azerbaijan,List of Azerbaijan legislation,Saudi Gazette and six other articles .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 07:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reorienting my vote based on candidates response :[7] and the information from User:Arcayne.Now I think there is no clear conflict of interest.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

21. Weak Oppose. AA issues, better to be over-cautious imho. Alæxis_¿question? 07:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose - per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Iraqi (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Hovic (talk) 08:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23. Oppose per strong impartiality concerns above. NikoSilver 10:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
24. OPPOSE - see concerns above! Tājik (talk) 11:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
25. Oppose - Khoi had a good point, someone who takes sides in disputes, would not make a good arbitrator. --Kaaveh (talk) 12:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
26. Oppose --Joopercoopers (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
27. Oppose - Gevorg89 (talk) 15:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose I do not know him, but I read that he takes sides in disputes. Not a good idea!--Babakexorramdin (talk) 16:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
29. oppose. User doesnt have a commitment to neutrality.--Zereshk (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
30. Opposing other candidates so early in the election doesn't speak well for your impartiality; doing so because you wish to change the voting system doesn't speak well for your judgment. >Radiant< 17:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
31. Oppose, as per Nishkid64 and Khoikhoi. Lack of impartiality on AA (and perhaps not only) issues. --157.228.x.x (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose, based on answers to questions. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per Radiant. ATren (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC) Striking my oppose to offset some of the negative offsite campaigning against this candidate (though still disagree with his oppose voting on other candidates). ATren (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

33. Oppose Agree with Radiant.--Namsos (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose. Миша13 22:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oppose. Everyking (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
36. Oppose - unwilling or unable to comment on imperfect cases, particularly the OrangeMarlin debacle, and has no thoughts regarding the ArbCom RFC. Too "entrenched" - ArbCom needs change, not more of the same. Badger Drink (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
37. Oppose Agree with Radiant and Badger Drink. Best for candidates to vote on other candidates. And to oppose viable contenders when you say they should be on arbcom...crass. Should have at least only voted supports and abstained on the others.Sumoeagle179 (talk) 00:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
38. Oppose Him voting oppose to other candidates shows utter lack of class.--Avg (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose I don't trust his judgment or objectivity, since he appears to have shady connections with a group of Azerbaijani nationalist editors, all of whom are under ArbCom probation, and some of whom are paid lobbyists in real life. --CreazySuit (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

39. Oppose. Bucketsofg 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Haven't seen impartiality in some cases.--Raayen (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC) After the discussions and the answers of JavydB, now I am sure enough that he would remain impartial and be an equitable arbitator. --Raayen (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

40. Oppose Biased at times. Nokhodi (talk) 03:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
41. Oppose similar concerns to others -- Samir 03:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
42. Oppose per Khoikhoi. --MagneticFlux (talk) 04:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
43. Oppose Seddσn ^talk 04:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
44. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
45. Oppose Xavexgoem (talk) 05:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
46. Oppose Per Khoikhoi, user seems to have conflict of intrest in serious issues as mentioned above. Farmanesh (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
47. Oppose, very disappointed over this. Dreadstar † 05:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
48. Oppose, re strength of language used six months ago. More calmness needed. MikeHobday (talk) 07:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
49. Oppose. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
50. Oppose, Thenoflyzone (talk) 08:11, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
51. Oppose - per Khoikhoi. The user seems to have conflict of interest in serious issues as mentioned above.Armatura (talk) 09:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
52. Gentgeen (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak oppose - these issues have made me uneasy. I will review again nearer the end of the election Fritzpoll (talk) 10:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

53. Oppose - Sorry, nothing personal. ~ User:Ameliorate! ^{(with the !) (talk)} 13:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Oppose - Sorry, I thought about it and feel that opposing other candidates just isn't right. Moral support otherwise. //roux   editor review 15:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

54. Strongest oppose. Princeofpersia1 (Princeofpersia1) 16:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose --xvvx (talk) 17:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

55. Oppose This kind of impartiality is one of the reasons that I have refrained from editing like I used to, won't bring anything new to the ArbCom. Davo88 (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
56. Oppose - Astavats (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Kourosh ziabari (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Persian Magi (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. You must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 21:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oops - thanks - I overlooked that it is total of main edits. I was short only 14 edits at 136. Anyhow, rules are rules - but if were able to vote here, I would have opposed him as mentioned. He is a great contributer but seems to have left an impression that he is not unbiased. Persian Magi (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose purely tactical. RMHED (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

57. Oppose. Dark and stormy knight (talk) 23:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
58. User:Krator (t c) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
59. Oppose. - --Tom 00:46, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
60. Oppose -Regretfully, per user:Nishkid64 and user:Khoikhoi. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
61. Oppose --Node (talk) 02:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
62. Oppose--Axamir (talk) 03:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
63. Not at this time. Gimmetrow 04:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
64. Oppose --Kansas Bear (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per his several oppose votes for other candidates in this election. That didn't show good judgment in my opinion. I would definitely reconsider if that changed.~ priyanath ^talk 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Striking all my oppose votes on principle, after seeing how 'oppose' voting attracts off-wiki canvassing (per Possible ethnic block voting), personal attacks, fear-mongering (per 'wikipedia review! zOMG!'), and more — not a good thing for ArbCom elections, in my opinion. Priyanath ^talk 22:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65. Weak oppose partially politics, partially lack of responses to questions. Viridae^Talk 06:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
66. Oppose due to a totality of factors none of which by itself would merit an oppose, but together they are just to much when compared to the other very fine candidates. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
67. The candidate has not answered questions to which I require an answer to support, assuming that the answer would be one with which I agreed. Opposing other candidates, even though he doesn't believe in oppose votes, smacks of double standards. There is sufficient discussion, e.g.[8] and subsequent posts to that page, to convince me that his election would be controversial, which is clearly not ideal. DrKiernan (talk) 09:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose - Nothing personal, merely not one of the four I selected to support this year. jc37 10:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC) [reply]

68. Oppose switched vote after further consideration. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
69. Oppose --Cactus.man ✍ 12:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70. Oppose Skinny87 (talk) 13:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
71. A man in space (talk) 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose Has not bothered to answer all this questions. [later- oppose stricken after questions answered, but have decided to remain neutral after reading the answers. SBHarris 18:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

72. Strong oppose. The ringing endorsement of secret trials in response to the confidentiality question. No. Cynical (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose per arguments of above and he is friend with deniers of the Armenian Genocide which does not speak well for neutrality. (I work in Russian Wikipedia. My basic contribution to history and culture of Venice - Divot) Divot (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You are not eligible to vote in this year's elections. 150 mainspace edits by November 1 are required. Cenarium (Talk) 22:16, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that a whole 2 contributions were made by this editor. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note also the subject of the first and only previous edit. It's Armenia-Azerbaijan again. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that he's very active in Russian Wikipedia[9]. --VartanM (talk) 23:49, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Particularly on Armenia-Azerbaijan issues [10] - quelle surprise! (or whatever the Russian equivalent is). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    So is John. This vote would've been very weird if Divot wasn't involved. --VartanM (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

73. Oppose - per Ryan Postlethwaite ...--Cometstyles 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
74. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 00:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
75. "Strict constructionism" and whatnot are irksome. Arbcom is a counterbalance to the mob and should be given full leaway to perform that function. --TS 00:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
76. Oppose Arkon (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77. Oppose Dineshkannambadi (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
78. Oppose vi5in^[talk] 02:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
79. Strongest Oppose He is not neutral at all. --Wayiran (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
80. Oppose Electing someone to Arbcom with public opposes to other candidates is a really bad idea Chrislintott (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
81. Oppose Lack of neutrality; Taking sides in advance. Enough reasons for opposing. --Hectorian (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
82. — CharlotteWebb 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
83. Oppose The Myotis (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
84. Oppose --Per Khoikhoi. Vacio (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
85. Oppose.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
86. Oppose - Sfrandzi (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
87. Oppose. Sorry, I am really but really not convinced. Politis (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
88. Oppose &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
89. ayematthew ✡ 00:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
90. — neuro^(talk) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
91. Oppose Sorry, I have chosen other editors that better reflect my views. Diderot's dreams (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
92. Oppose --Ariobarza (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
93. Oppose --Rsage (talk) 10:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
94. Oppose -- concerns per Khoikhoi. Jd2718 (talk) 19:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose -- concerns per Khoikhoi. 70.21.172.141 (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, you can't vote. ayematthew ✡ 22:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

95. Oppose - looks like solid candidate, but worries about neutrality mean less than 100%. Feel free to contact me if you wish to reconsider. Note: I have returned after 1 month of inactivity simply to vote: I my 2 years experience but 60000 edits gives me this right. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
96. Oppose for neutrality issues. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
97. Oppose Supporting other candidates.--Iamawesome800 17:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
98. Oppose - Per SandyGeorgia's abstain here. Opposing most other candidates, perhaps to improve his own chances, is not what I want to see from an ArbCom candidate. Giants2008 (17-14) 01:22, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
99. Per Ryan Postlethwaite. —kurykh 01:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100. Oppose Awadewit (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Oppose The candidate is not out of the doubt-in-neutrality shell: per Khoikhoi. Behaafarid (talk) 10:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Sorry, you are not eligible to vote this year, you must have had 150 mainspace edits by November 1. ST47 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

101. Changed to oppose. If one group thinks that he's biased against them, his authority will be compromised. Voting against other candidates seems to suggest a willingness to 'game'. What's with not answering questions? Vancouver dreaming (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
102. Oppose per answer on Slrubenstein's question #3. Arbitrator should know policies and guidelines inside out. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
103. Sorry. MattJohnson22 (talk) 21:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
104. Very Strong Oppose For the record, I don't think John was a proxy or anything like that nor do I believe that he has an axe to grind. Poor judgement is the key here. If he had actually addressed the concerns of one side of the dispute like he has been attempting to do now with all those sub-pages and so on maybe I would have abstained now. But alas, he didn't even bother to give the time of the day. Too little, too late now.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
105. Oppose (tactical) I saw a tactical oppose vote on WJBScribe's vote page specifying that they are trying to boost Jayvdb; So I want to help level the playing field by cancelling them. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Note it's the same thing there, tactical supports for WJBscribe to try to sink Jayvdb candidancy Secret ^account 13:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

106. Oppose — gaming galore Frongle (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
107. Jayen466 13:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
108. Oppose tgies (talk) 04:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     At least for the time being. As time is running out and still no answer to my questions, it would appear this will be my final vote. Heimstern Läufer (talk) (why, you ask?) 12:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

109. Oppose, just because some admin said "ethnics" shouldn't be voting against him. Watch me. ·ΚΕΚΡΩΨ· 14:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
110. Oppose Verbal chat 15:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
111. Oppose Fred Talk 19:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
112. Oppose Húsönd 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
113. Oppose Like the candidate, but think we need someone with more of a plan for reform. I just think others have better ideas than him, no offense meant. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
114. Oppose Per Ryan Postlethwaite.Littleolive oil(olive (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]
115. Oppose - I have generally positive (though also quite vague) impressions of this editor, and I like a fair bit of what he's said in response to the questions, but I can't support a candidate who has left this many important questions unanswered for this long. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)Weak oppose - The candidate has now answered most of the questions that he didn't before, and his answers to many of them are quite good (though he doesn't inspire at all with his understanding of the BLP problem). I'm also concerned that he has too limited a view of Arb Comm's appropriate authority - when you're herding cats, it won't do for the people with the lassos to preach restraint. Or something. As a final note, I have no problem at all with a candidate voting on his opponents, including voting oppose, and I haven't penalized John for that. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:16, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
116. Strongest possible oppose, Jayvdb said "IMO, Jack Merridew has earned a "final" chance...*fingers crossed*" That pretty much says it all right there. Serial harassers/sockmasters don't need another friend on ArbCom. --Pixelface (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
117. Oppose changed from Support. I was very much in two minds about this, & would previously have abstained if it were not for the block opposes. But after further reading and consideration, the cons seems to outweigh the pros. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
118. Oppose. Despite some limited but pleasant interactions with this user, despite my belief that this candidate is likely to be a suitable candidate in the future, and despite my support for him in other roles (clerk & cu in particular), currently, I have a few concerns. Unfortunately, these concerns can only be resolved with time and more experience. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Off-wiki, I was asked about these concerns by another user - due to time constraints, both my response there, and here is this - there were a number of concerns and factors I took into consideration, but they included (1) this candidate's voting style; (2) his failure to answer my other questions in a timely fashion; (3) his failure to justify the lack of responses to my questions, despite these messages, and (4) his failure to indicate that he will not be responding to my further questions within that time. Note also that the other candidates who are still in the race were able to answer all questions within the timeframe. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

119. Oppose Catchpole (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
120. I was going to abstain but unfortunately you opened old wounds when you justified once more my block yesterday for something you did not finish reading [11], [12]. I also find all this talk about "ethnic voting" by some Wikipedia users to be quite disturbing so here is one more ethnic vote. - Fedayee (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
121. Oppose, per the "vote against the opponents" incident, wishy-washy answer to Lar §1, and non-existent answer to Lar §6. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 04:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
122. Oppose, changing here per answer to Lar 5b. If you want "name-verified-only" editing, you're on the wrong project. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
123. Oppose - per comments above -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 06:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
124. Oppose - does not believe in the rights of the accused. [13] JCDenton2052 (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Abstain Oppose - like Badger Drink, note lack of comment on imperfect cases, good responses to some questions but have concerns about interactions. . dave souza, talk 10:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Changed to abstain, I've looked over the more detailed comment, feel that John does a lot of good work and decision making but remain concerned about possible inference of civility being given priority over article content policies so abstain. . dave souza, talk 23:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Oppose per his opposition to most other candidates and also concerns about his potential lack of impartiality in AA issues (if he had recognised this as a problem and said he would abstain on such issues it wouldn't be such an issue but he didn't Nil Einne (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Nil Einne (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

125. Oppose Can we have more of the same? This admin is part of the problem. X MarX the Spot (talk) 11:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
126. Oppose - another hard one. Decent views on BLP but after careful consideration of those editors who are currently borderline between getting on the committee or not, John is one of the ones that I least favour and so I have chosen to oppose in the small hope it will make a difference to the final outcome. I respect his views on the need for open governance and partipatory democracy, and while most of those currently winning or close to winning have expressed similar views I feel he goes further then a number of others, and I lean towards the view excessive openness and community participation can be unhelpful and therefore would rather support some other candidates. And there is no other 'must support' issue which makes me lean in favour of the candidate and a few nigling concerns. P.S. Forgot to add about the AA and ethnic line voting issue, I know some have struck their opposition or even supported based on this but it's difficult to me to conclude it's definitely had a negative effect since it's had effects both ways, and some of those, e.g. Nishikid, whether rightly or wrongly are clearly voting upon their experience with this editor so that's not a compelling reason for me to support. P.P.S. As emphasises elsewhere, I do find the oppose because he opposed ridiculous but thats up to the editors I guess Nil Einne (talk) 18:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
127. Grandmasterka 20:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
128. Oppose--KureCewlik81 (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
129. Oppose - Xasha (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
130. Oppose I initially thought I would support, but after looking at the reasons and issues raised by Khoikhoi, Alborz Fallah, Ryan, Sumoeagle179, Dreadstar, Vision Thing, Pixelface, Fedayee and Nil Einne, all of that adds up and bothers me. Add into it the question that Jayvdb may have an issue with Armenian editors per his reverting/blocking history during disputes (see Khoikhoi's oppose, number 17 above), and I do not believe this candidate is appropriate for the Arbitration Committee. Ariel♥Gold 05:10, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
131. Oppose--AAA765 (talk) 08:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
132. Oppose: Not strong enough in article space; answers to questions and remarks here raise questions about some interactions. Sunray (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
133. Oppose - presence I have seen is not befitting of an arbitorial role. Caulde 14:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
134. Oppose: Have to agree with khoi, there's nothing I don't like to see here more than the blatant and consistent taking of a certain side in disputes from an editor. Vartan84 (talk)
135. Oppose - I was prepared to support this candidate until I read their stance giving unqualified support to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. As implemented, BLP biases biographical articles toward positive portrayals and away from a neutral point of view (NPOV); Strengthening the policy would only serve to make things worse, and their support of abandoning the presumption to "keep" an article in cases of no consensus strikes me as unwise at best, foolhardy at worst. The community may author policy, but ArbCom interprets it, and having anyone with Jayvdb's views act as an arbiter of a policy that already has serious unaddressed flaws would be unacceptably dangerous to the project's core principles. That said, I am open to discussion about withdrawing or changing this vote, if the evidence warrants. As an aside, I debated whether to withhold my opposition to counter what seems to be a concerted effort at bloc voting; However, my vote is an expression of conscience, and their conduct should not impinge on my expression of conscience. --SSBohio 20:12, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
136. --MPerel 22:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
137. Oppose EJF (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
138. Oppose - will probably make a good arbitrator, but I'm opposing on principle over his voting against other candidates (not appropriate in my view), and his position that certain BLP articles should be prevented from anonymous editing. Sorry. Terraxos (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]