Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Jayjg

message: Jayjg, since this is your candidate statement page, perhaps you can weigh in as to how you wish it to be utilized by people asking questions and making other comments.  Marsden posted a question to you the candidate . And some other editors, including SlimVirgin, have posted critical comments about Marsden . Marsden replied to SlimVirgin with more diffs , and SlimVirgin deleted Mardens' post . Since SlimVirgin seemed to be deleting comments not directed at the candidate, I deleted all the side comments and moved them to talk . However, SlimVirgin reinserted them, calling my deletion "trolling" . Since SlimVirgin was reinserting side comments, I inserted my own . However, SlimVirgin deleted that one calling it trolling . It would appear that SlimVirgin can make side comments to Marsden and  Unbehagen, but no one can make side comments to SlimVirgin. Given that, would you prefer that (1) your candidate page have no side comments and only questions directed at you or (2) that anyone can post a side comment to anyone or (3) let SlimVirgin decide on a case by case basis?  FuelWagon 22:58, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: another set of questions for Jayjg

message: I have checked over the history of the article and see a little revert war involving what I consider personal attacks.  I am protecting the page for today.  I don't see the harm in taking 24 hours to cool off and really think about what is a constructive comment and what isn't.  I urge people commenting on these pages to stick to comments concerning Jayjg's compliance with, or violation of, core policies when making edits to articles, and his willingness or lack of willingness to explain himself — and not make his personal views themselves an issue.  My belief is that personal views are irrelevant unless they lead to violations of policy.  That being the case, there is no need to discuss personal views, only violations of polcies.  That's is just my opinion.  But whether people share it or not, this page must not become a venue for personal attacks against other editors. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The answer to that is "It depends". If you're an admin accusing a non-admin of trolling, then it is simply reporting an observation or stating an opinion. If you're a non-admin accusing an admin of trolling, then it can qualify as "hurtful remarks" and may get you a block. I have some diffs, if you'd like to see. FuelWagon 20:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  page protection, 23:14, November 30, 2005  

message: :::I dispute your characterization of my question, Jfdwolff. It is not my differences on content matters with Jayjg that my question addresses, but rather the manner with which he has promoted his prefered content. If someone resorts to uncivil and disruptive behavior in promoting his POV when acting as no more than an editor, why should he be trusted to act as an arbitrator? I could also post details of his abuse of his authority as an administrator.
:::In my experience, as bourne out by the history I have provided, Jayjg has some serious character issues that prevent any confidence that he will not abuse any authority he is given in order to advance his personal point of view. It may be that the mix of other arbitrators that he has served with has so far prevented his misbehavior, but in any case Wikipedia would be foolish to appoint an arbitrator who has demonstrated himself to be willing to promote his point of view in uncivil and disruptive ways, with no more than the hope that other administrators will keep him in line. If Jayjg is reappointed and an opportunity arises where he can promote his point of view by abusing his ArbCom authority, no formal process exists in Wikipedia to stop him. The time to stop him is now, as he stands for reappointment.
:::If there have been other members of the Arbitration Committee who are even worse than Jayjg, that is disgraceful. I am not aware of any such situation, but I hope and expect that you, Jdfwolff, will do whatever you reasonably can do to keep the offending arbitrators from being re-appointed.
:::In summary, I will not be rephrasing my question nor my background comments to it. Character matters, and Jayjg's character is correctly gauged by looking at all of his behavior, and not just his behavior in the position for which he stands for reappointment. A thief who has served as a bank president without incident is still a thief.
:::Marsden 21:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have explained why Jay cannot "abuse authority" as an Arbcom member. There are ample safeguards for that. If the internal climate of the Arbcom were to loosen those safeguards, Jimbo Wales has the authority to dismiss the Arbcom and issue new elections. One thing is for sure: incivility is not something one could level against Jayjg, and the "disruption" you characterise is rather low on the Richter scale of Wikipedia disruption. Wikipedia has a long record of editors disagreeing on POV issues still supporting each other in other decisions, and I do think it is a shame that your have been letting your editorial disagreement with Jayjg inform this statement you have made. JFW | T@lk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess there is nothing more for us to say about this beyond that we disagree. Marsden 22:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Marsden

message: :My questions are one of "practice what you preach". Jayjg has performed a number of edits that I've witnessed that appear to be against standard wikipedia policy, and it seems quite relevant to me to find out how he justifies his editing behaviour. For example, when I inserted a verbatim quote from a notable source on the Terrorism article, Jayjg reverted me. My edit seems perfectly in line with policy, and his reason given at the time does not explain his actions. In the Refusal to serve in the Israeli military, I added a verbatim quote from a public letter (), and again, Jayjg reverted me. and in Historical persecution by Jews, Jayjg deleted a massive amount of text containing URL's, which seems to be in direct opposition to arbcom precedent as explained in the first bullet here, which states:
::It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view. 
:Jayjg's deletion of this material seems in direct opposition to this precedent by arbcom. So, these aren't simply questions of content, these are questions of how Jayjg's editing behaviour appears to be in direct opposition to wikipedia policy and precedent, and asking Jayjg to explain his behaviour. 
:and since everyone is into making suggestions, I suggest that you consider this to bo sufficient evidence to show you have no justification for demanding my questions be retracted otherwise. FuelWagon 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will reply to you the same way as I did to Marsden above. Wikipedia has a fine track record of editors who disagree on issues still supporting each other in other areas. It is more than just a shame that disagreements have prompted you to come out in such a way against a fellow editor. These issues can be dealt with a normal conflict resolution process, and not on this election. To repeat my question: do you have any evidence that Jayjg as an arbcom member has abused his position or voted on cases he himself had a stake in? JFW | T@lk 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting argument. Basically, you're telling me that Jayjg could be violating wikipedia policies as an editor, for example, showing a distinct pro-Israel bias by deleting a block of text containing well-referenced material in direct violation of arbcom precedent, but that means nothing as to how he might vote as a member of arbcom. So, if a Supreme Court nominee published a number of newspaper articles that were advocating for the complete outlawing of, say, abortion, we should ignore those articles, and focus specifically on his decisions as a judge? That's a nice way to filter out that which reflects poorly on Jayjg. Here's a question for you, then: if a candidate has never been on arbcom, exactly how would we determine how neutral the candidate would be but to look at his editing behaviour? Your argument is essentially cherry picking what you like, and telling us to ignore everything else that we see. Oh, and by the way, JFW, would you consider yourself to have a pro-Israel bias as an editor? Because that would put your campaigning for Jayjg in a certain context. Or should we all ignore questions such as that as well? FuelWagon 16:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply from Fuelwagon

message: LMAO!!!! "you edit some of the most contentious articles on Wikipedia: those about the Arab-Israeli conflict, anti-Semitism, Zionism, and related areas. This means you’re used to dealing with conflict, because the nationalist, pro-Israeli editors feel their POV is under-represented, while the pro-Palestinian editors look at the same article but see the opposite, so neither "side" is ever happy and you’re stuck in the middle. " Please review the section on begging the question! 
This is hysterical. 
"Have you stopped beating your wife" has become  "what is it to be the only one of an under represented minority who deals fairly with the issues"? Unbehagen 11:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, out of curiosity, have you ever had a significant content dispute with Jayjg? You know, have you ever found that Jayjg and you disagreed on what should go into a particular article? Because I can find a litany of edits by you and Jayjg that show the two of you tag-teaming in direct support of one another, but I can't find any such history that shows you ever disagreed on any significant content issue. With evidence to support that you and Jayjg are a tag-team, and with absolutely no evidence to show you ever acted in opposition to one another, would it be fair to say that you might be advocating for Jayjg here because you're as biased as he is, and keeping someone on arbcom who is as biased as your are would be directly beneficial to you? How do you respond to both you and Jayjg deleting a large block of text from the History of Persecution by Jews that contained numerous references and source, which would appear to be in direct opposition to precedent established by arbcom? That both you and Jayjg act as a tag-team, directly reverting in support of each other, enforcing your version of edits that a lot of poeple consider to be NPOV violations? FuelWagon 16:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  question from slimvirgin 

message: He doesn't answer questions that attempt to bring him to account for his past behavior; fine.
But now I've been threatened with blocking and had my question deleted (while being accused, again, of "trolling") for trying to bring him to account for avoiding questions.
Does anyone else think this is peculiar? Does anyone participating in the ring of protection want to explain himself?
Marsden 21:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is there such an effort to keep Jayjg from being accountable? 

message: questions posted FuelWagon 22:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: questions from FuelWagon

message: On the Terrorism talk page, you stated: "Being described in a Dictionary of Philosophers as a critic of American policy does not make one an expert on terrorism. Chomsky's opinions have no relevance to an article on terrorism to begin with, but adding gratuitous and irrelevant flattery only compounds the error." Jayjg (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Terrorism and POV

message: In my extensive experience with you, you have promoted and defended your POV with regard to matters related to Israel in ways that have been belligerent and contemptuous of the possibility that you are strongly biased in what you consider a neutral point of view. I do not know whether this is deliberate on your part or due to an honest blindspot in your thinking such that you are simply incapable of recognizing that yours is only one point of view among many, and that it is often completely biased. In any case, I consider your attitude to be a disqualifying characteristic for any sort of general arbitration function, and I intend, barring an unforeseen explanation from you, to campaign vigorously against your candidacy here.
In particular, I direct you to your activity in the Israeli-occupied territories article, and the reaction of other editors to it (, ,    , ,  , , ), and to the history of the Moroccan Wall edits from September 23 to October 7, in which you and a few editors who are often found supporting your positions in editing disputes obstructed the improvement of the article for over two weeks ().
I honestly cannot think of anything you could say in any reasonable amount of time to change my mind about you, but given that I am going to recommend that people oppose your candidacy, is there any sort of rebuttal you'd like to make to my characterization above of your behavior on Wikipedia?
Marsden 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from Marsden

message: Jayjg, what do you think of US President Bush's "press conferences" in which he takes questions only from pre-selected journalists who have cleared their questions beforehand with his staff? Do you think that sort of behavior is consistent with a person in authority being responsive to and answerable to his community? Marsden 13:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Follow-up Question from Marsden

message: Wow, do the arbcom election policies say that all quesitons to candidates must compliment the candidate? Because I just realized that a couple of people's questions to Jayjg have been deleted, and the ones that remain are questions like Jfdwolff, which start out "Jayjg, my compliments on your hard ArbCom work so far.". Is this the sort of questioning that policy requires? FuelWagon 00:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I see you are still unfamiliar with WP:CIV.  Refactor your questions and show some respect for your fellow editors. --Viriditas 01:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Respect doesn't mean "do not criticize". You are overreaching with your application of WP:CIV. If there is a specific rule from WP:CIV that you think is violated in a specific spot, cite both and I'll fix it. Otherwise, you're suppressing valid criticism with countless URL's to support said criticism. FuelWagon 01:50, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refactor your question(s) down to a brief statement or paragraph out of respect for the candidate and to other editors. There's no need to post "countless URL's" or support your "criticism".  This isn't an RfC.  If you insist on posting evidence, a simple solution is to move your original comment to your user space (something like /arbcomcand/evidence1) and link to it with a "see evidence for diffs" ref; problem solved. --Viriditas 02:04, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I've got the answer: Wikipedia:No terms of endearment. JFW | T@lk 20:19, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL!! SlimVirgin (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Must compliment candidate?

message: I've posted shorter versions of my questions to Jayjg. I do not believe these versions contain any examples of trolling, personal attacks, or nonsense. I also think they are now short enough that Jayjg can find time in his busy schedule to answer them. FuelWagon 03:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They're more of the same, in my view. They are content disputes. They have little to do with Jayjg's suitability as a member of the ArbComm. And they - again - sound like an RFC. I have little doubt that these will be removed for the same reasons as your previous posts. JFW | T@lk 04:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: the short version

message: (moved from project page)
===All these reverts===
Jayjg, your candidate statement page has had questions and comments deleted by SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, Raul654, Raul654, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas. These three editors have described the text they've deleted as "personal attacks", "nonsense", "trolling", among other things. Could you point to a specific example of each? i.e. a specific example of "personal attack", "nonsense", and "trolling" in the deleted questions so that an uninvolved editor can know that these editors weren't simply deleting text because it was critical of you? FuelWagon 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question from FuelWagon

message: Jayjg, your candidate statement page has had questions and comments deleted by SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, SlimVirgin, Raul654, Raul654, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas, Viriditas. These three editors have described the text they've deleted as "personal attacks", "nonsense", "trolling", among other things. Could you point to a specific example of each? i.e. a specific example of "personal attack", "nonsense", and "trolling" in the deleted questions so that an uninvolved editor can know that these editors weren't simply deleting text because it was critical of you? FuelWagon 03:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: All these reverts

message: The "Courage to Refuse" group signed a letter  in which they state their intention to refuse to serve in the Occupied Territories. The group uses the term "occupied territorites" or "occupation" five times in their letter. They never user the phrase "gaza strip". Given that, how can you explain your edit here, which changed "occupied territories" to "gaza strip"? Your edit summary was "remove POV pushing". How does quoting a source and using their language, qualify as POV pushing? Do you have a personal dislike for the term "Occupied Territories"? FuelWagon 03:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Occupied Territories and POV

message: In the Historical persecution by Jews article, you deleted a block of text critical of the modern state of Israel   here. Given that this text contained numerous URL's as references, and given that arbcom precendent states here that It is inappropriate to remove blocks of well-referenced information which is germane to the subject from articles on the grounds that the information advances a point of view. Wikipedia's NPOV policy contemplates inclusion of all significant points of view., how do you explain your edit when it appears to be in direct opposition to arbcom precedence? FuelWagon 03:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical Persecution by Jews and POV

message: In the Wikipedia:Requests for comment article, it appears that  Jayjg is tag teaming with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin
The Refusal_to_serve_in_the_Israeli_military article shows SlimVirgin is tag teaming with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin 
The Historical persecution by Jews, renamed Ancient historical persecution of non-Jews by Jews to avoid criticism of the modern state of Israel, shows tag teaming by SlimVirgin with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with Jayjg with SlimVirgin with 
Would you consider questions by SlimVirgin , and your immediate reply to her questions  to be more of the same "tag teaming"? 
Does this have any relation to 
Arbcoms ruling on  9 October 2005, that said "Jayjg is reminded that edit-warring is harmful to Wikipedia's mission and is advised to use Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedure in preference to attempting to control content through the use of reverts"? FuelWagon 04:00, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tag teaming

message: (moved from project page)
My question is similar to Unbehagen's, of all the great candidates on Wikipedia, why should one like yourself who pushes a Zionist POV on the Israel/Palestine pages be rewarded by going onto ArbCom?  You would have never have survived an election, which is why you were appointed instead.  You wouldn't be able to survive an election this time either, but since Jimbo says there will be no election perhaps you'll make it back again. Ruy Lopez 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Like FuelWagon and Marsden, Ruy Lopez is simply making a statement here, not even specifically at Jayjg but about the whole election process. If you feel the election is farcial, it may be time to start your own Wikipedia fork, or spend more time at Anarchopedia. JFW | T@lk 16:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: This tactic of the fallacy of many questions has actually backfired quite badly for Marsden and Unbehagen; I think Jay's answers strengthen his case. I suppose Ruy should be glad his question was moved here. JFW | T@lk 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  "This tactic of the fallacy of many questions has actually backfired quite badly for Marsden and Unbehagen;"  I actually resent thisquite badly. my comment was an in good faith attempt to airn an important issue. Please show a little respect and civility. Thanks. i note that jayg did not actually attempt to answer me but instead resorted to an ad hominem attack. Unbehagen 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Then I am afraid that I have to call into question your impartiality. If my edit history shows a pattern of behaviour which is anti POV then this reflect well on me I think. Please note that it was the Arb Comm, not me, who found as a matter of fact that jayg edit wars on pro-Israel POV issues (incidentally not with me either - on that occasion). Am I not allowed to cite facts as determined by the arb comm now without being accused of bias or personal attack? Unbehagen 17:54, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unbehagen, it's not true that the Arbcom found that "jayjg edit wars on pro-Israel POV issues".  In fact they never said his edits were POV or even incorrect, as Fred Bauder makes clear here. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 22:50, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "I simply observed that you asked rhetorical questions," As I have pointed out this was incorrect. Unbehagen 18:36, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of your intentions, Unbehagen, an opposition like this can only help the candidate. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  An adequate answer qwould have helped him more I think. But then you're now trying to cook the issue by saying "we are winning" to try to convince others that this is so. Please stop it. It's contrary to the spirit of WP. Unbehagen 23:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm entitled to making observations as much as you are, and you are free to disagree with me.  In any case, Jayjg gave substantial evidence that your intentions may not have been as neutral as you claim, and in my interpretation this type of intention backfired with this kind of response. It was not meant as a personal attack, and I am certainly entitled to my perceptions. JFW | T@lk 19:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "I am certainly entitled to my perceptions" of course you are. Even if they do depart from WP policy of assume good faith. So I will leave you to contemplate your own personal opinions and thank you for sharing them with us in an erudite, if wholly uinsolicited, fashion. Unbehagen 19:40, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. JFW | T@lk 20:14, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  But you just took great pains to expalin that you are only dealing with your own opinion - not "evidence". Are YOU trying to make a point perhaps? Unbehagen 23:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Questions from Ruy Lopez

message: :Marsden: you have every right to criticize any Wikipedian, as long as you are not making personal attacks. But this is not the place. The title of this section is "question from Marsden" but I see no question. I do not want to get involved in the debate over you and personal attacks, at least not right now. But I believe that the comment you are making here belongs on the talk page, not here. Let us use this page for raising questions we want Jayjg to answer, and the talk page for discussion of Jayjg's candidacy. This is precisely what the talk page is for. I will not move your comments myself, right now. I urge you to do the right thing, and move this discussion to the talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to slrubinstein 

message: I'm going to restore my questions in about an hour. Marsden 00:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  No argument having been made 

message: A couple of days ago I advised Marsden to move his comment to the talk page.  He has neither followed my advice, nor responded to my reasoning.  So I am removing it to the talk page.  I have removed the following from the candidate statement page because this is not a question, it is a criticism (asking if the candidate can rebut the criticism is not a real question, it is just hiding an exclamation point behind a fake question mark.  As a matter of fact, Marsden labels his comment a "characterization" and I think it verges on character-assassination, i.e., a personal attack.  Marsden has been blocked for this in the past.  I hesitate to block him now, on the one hand because I want to see if he has learned his lesson, on the other hand, because I do not think he will — and if blocking him temporarily doesn't make a difference, I do not know what will.  Marsden's comments follow:
----
Question from Marsden
In my extensive experience with you, you have promoted and defended your POV with regard to matters related to Israel in ways that have been belligerent and contemptuous of the possibility that you are strongly biased in what you consider a neutral point of view. I do not know whether this is deliberate on your part or due to an honest blindspot in your thinking such that you are simply incapable of recognizing that yours is only one point of view among many, and that it is often completely biased. In any case, I consider your attitude to be a disqualifying characteristic for any sort of general arbitration function, and I intend, barring an unforeseen explanation from you, to campaign vigorously against your candidacy here.
In particular, I direct you to your activity in the Israeli-occupied territories article, and the reaction of other editors to it (, ,    , ,  , , ), and to the history of the Moroccan Wall edits from September 23 to October 7, in which you and a few editors who are often found supporting your positions in editing disputes obstructed the improvement of the article for over two weeks ().
I honestly cannot think of anything you could say in any reasonable amount of time to change my mind about you, but given that I am going to recommend that people oppose your candidacy, is there any sort of rebuttal you'd like to make to my characterization above of your behavior on Wikipedia?
Marsden 01:51, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Marsden you have made around 300 article edits, of which the majority are reverts.  You have been blocked four five times by four five different administrators for trolling, disruption, and "vicious and mean-spirited attacks," which you've made against several editors, including Fred Bauder over an Arbitration Committee case you weren't even involved in.  You have said that I am "evil", that I should "get used to having a stick held over [my] head" because your role here is to "beat [me] into submission".  You'll therefore understand why I suspect your assessment in these matters is less than neutral, and why I don't bother answering your thinly veiled attacks cloaked in the guise of questions. Real questions on the subject of your attacks have already been answered, and I won't be responding to you any further. Jayjg (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Marsden: you have every right to criticize any Wikipedian, as long as you are not making personal attacks.  But this is not the place.  The title of this section is "question from Marsden" but I see no question.  I do not want to get involved in the debate over you and personal attacks, at least not right now. But I believe that the comment you are making here belongs on the talk page, not here.  Let us use this page for raising questions we want Jayjg to answer, and the talk page for discussion of Jayjg's candidacy.  This is precisely what the talk page is for.  I will not move your comments myself, right now. I urge you to do the right thing, and move this discussion to the talk page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by Marsden 

message: *Support - not sure where to put this, but Jayjg has impressed me as possibly the best and most unbiased administrator on Wikipedia.  His actions in questioning admins who were using bully boy tactics to try to push through obviously wrong decisions, both in difficult POV disputes and in RFAs is to be commended.  I do not think that I have ever been as impressed by an administrator, and I am confident that Jayjg would help to make the Arbitration Committee truly neutral, especially when accusations are made against administrators, and would help to stop admins being "untouchable" and increase accountability for Wikipedia.  I will vote a big time support for Jayjg. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 11:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment by [[User:Zordrac]] 

message: ===Question From Ruy Lopez===
My question is similar to Unbehagen's, of all the great candidates on Wikipedia, why should one like yourself who pushes a Zionist POV on the Israel/Palestine pages be rewarded by going onto ArbCom? You would have never have survived an election, which is why you were appointed instead. You wouldn't be able to survive an election this time either, but since Jimbo says there will be no election perhaps you'll make it back again. Ruy Lopez 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed because it's a rhetorical question that only reveals your intentions but does not actually solicit any information from the candidate. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from project page

message: My question is similar to Unbehagen's, of all the great candidates on Wikipedia, why should one like yourself who pushes a Zionist POV on the Israel/Palestine pages be rewarded by going onto ArbCom? You would have never have survived an election, which is why you were appointed instead. You wouldn't be able to survive an election this time either, but since Jimbo says there will be no election perhaps you'll make it back again. Ruy Lopez 22:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was removed because it's a rhetorical question that only reveals your intentions but does not actually solicit any information from the candidate. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question From Ruy Lopez