Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/JoshuaZ: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Oppose: -note indef blocked user
Line 134: Line 134:
#'''non-support''' --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''non-support''' --[[User:Rocksanddirt|Rocksanddirt]] 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# [[User:Davewild|Davewild]] 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# '''Oppose'''. Support Durova, get opposed. [[User:Dbuckner|edward (buckner)]] 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#: <s> '''Oppose'''. Support Durova, get opposed. [[User:Dbuckner|edward (buckner)]] 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) </s>
#:: User blocked indef [[User:Secret|Secret]] <sup>[[User talk:Secret|account]]</sup> 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Ripberger|Ripberger]] 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' [[User:Ripberger|Ripberger]] 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus'''.'''man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|<span class="Unicode">&#9997;</span>]]</font> 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
# --<font color="2B7A2B">[[User:Cactus.man|Cactus'''.'''man]]</font> <font size="4">[[User talk:Cactus.man|<span class="Unicode">&#9997;</span>]]</font> 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:56, 8 December 2007

Please Note: Extended comments may be moved to the talk page.

JoshuaZ

As some of you may be aware, I'm a bit talkative. I've therefore taken the liberty of putting my full statement on a subpage. Thanks. JoshuaZ 00:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ragesoss 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Experienced enough This is a Secret account 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Bakaman 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I believe the Durova incident was a bigger issue than Joshua thinks it is, however, I have long appreciated this candidate's well-thought-out views and fairness. Strong support. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 01:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7.  — master sonT - C 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Kla’quot. Tyrenius 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Alexfusco5 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Húsönd 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support. IronDuke 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:28, December 3, 2007
  15. Guettarda 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The Durova issue should not have become a litmus test. JoshuaZ has a lengthy record of extremely thoughtful and intelligent participation. --JayHenry 06:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. MastCell Talk 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. WAS 4.250 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Crockspot 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Reinstating original vote of support. Crockspot (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  21. I haven't followed the recent dispute at all, but from my past experience with Josh, I think he's brilliant. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Looks like the Durova issue has become a litmus test. That's too bad because, as JayHenry pointed out, his record means he'd make a great arb. <<-armon->> 10:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Can't oppose based on "the Durova Chronicles" because he just thought of her as someone who was really experienced and who knew what she was doing..His other contributions are amazing..--Cometstyles 11:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support Thoughtful fellow, very much ready for the role. One recent mistaken opinion on the Durova question should not sink him. Xoloz 13:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support  Grue  14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Jeffpw 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. WilyD 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Great user: this "support Durova, get opposed" view is deeply concerning. Acalamari 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Filll 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support - seems good enough. -- Schneelocke 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support Shot info 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support --SVTCobra 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Adam Cuerden talk 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Per Xoloz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Strong support despite my not agreeing with a lot that he writes, but he is smart, neutral, and willing to work hard. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support per Acalamari. Let's take a broader view, please. Josh is level-headed and thoughtful. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. -- Y not? 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Support. Don't care what his opinion is on the Durova issue (and I probably don't share it). I believe he has a firm grasp on the best interests of the encyclopedia (he knows what I'm talking about). — CharlotteWebb 17:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Support. · jersyko talk 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. I trust Joshua's fairness. And I like him. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Michael Snow (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. One of the best Wikipedians around. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Support. I like his statement, although it's a bit to baby-kissing at the end. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Support. Dislike the bonfire mentality being exhibited in the voting on this candidate, so I offer moral support. Horologium (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Support I appreciate the detailed responses that tell his story in a clear way. I fully expect to see this same clarity in his arb decisions. Antelan talk 05:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Changed from oppose. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. — TKD::Talk 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. I understand that Joshua is the source of some controversy, but all I have personally seen from him is good, and I appreciate his statement and his answer to my question. Good luck! -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. One issue isn't everything. R. Baley (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Support MikeHobday (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Support from a fellow Z. MookieZ (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Strong support - Good judgement and unquestionable good faith regarding the project. Someone I disagree with from time to time but still trust and support strongly for Arbcom. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Support Geogre (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Tony Sidaway 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Would definitely be an asset to the committee.[reply]
  64. Support. Trustworthy level-headed Wikipedian. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Support Good citizen with sound judgment. It's sad that many opposes are based solely on his not being a card-carrying Durova-hater. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Support `'Míkka>t 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Support Calm and good listener. From my experiences manages to be objective on all issues. David D. (Talk) 07:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Support - To be honest, the Durova thing, for some, reduces to people wanting to know how she does it... You are good. Admire your judgment I. Brusegadi (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Support - dave souza, talk 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Wolfman (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Support &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Support More clarity of thought than most. Fainites barley 23:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Support as per: User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !! T (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. I would have preferred to see leadership from JoshuaZ on the Durova issue-- but our goal is elect an arbcom with a diversity of opinion, not reduce the committee down to those who pass a narrow litmus test. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  1. Strong Oppose This candidate was a strong supporter of the Durova witch hunt, in which an innocent wikieditor was falsely accused by secret evidence, and later exonerated. Extended comments moved to talk page. Travb (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Support as per: User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !! T (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Doesn't appear to understand the gravity and seriousness of Durova's actions. Cla68 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
  4. Qst 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. iridescent 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree with Travb 1000% as a victim of said witchhunts by durova. JoshuaZ basically gave her a pass for her actions, and supported them at the time.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per above reasoning, I agree, unfortunately. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Witch hunt is certainly an exaggeration, but the answer to the question travb linked causes me to doubt JoshuaZ's capability of neutrality. GracenotesT § 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Gracenotes. Prodego talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. durova stuff —Random832 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Fred Bauder 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. krimpet⟲ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Gracenotes. --Coredesat 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Too new. Rebecca 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, can't, per the Durova thing. I was planning to support, sorry :( Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (AGFing)[reply]
  19. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Thinking about it, some of the questions seem wrong This is a Secret account 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Bob Mellish 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. --Duk 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. The project has enough problems. --Bdj 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose -Dureo 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Spebi 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Oppose - behavior at the recent Durova ArbCom case shows he does not have a clear grasp of what the furor was about. Isarig 05:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. —Mira 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Marvin Diode 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. BanyanTree 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Certified.Gangsta 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Justforasecond 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) wikistalking history[reply]
  37. Oppose Jd2718 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. His attitude toward the Durova situation. Shem(talk) 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Neil ☎ 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Per above in the Durova issue. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have reviewed my vote in view of User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !! after a message from JoshuaZ on my talk page but am not convinced enough to change at this time. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Minimisation of major errors with implications wider than a single mouse-click is not a helpful trait in arbitration, as we have seen in the past. Splash - tk 13:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Addhoc 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Principle opposition to anyone who stand for less than the length of the term of office. KTC 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Oppose Edivorce 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Davewild 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose. Support Durova, get opposed. edward (buckner) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC) [reply]
    User blocked indef Secret account 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose Ripberger 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Don't need arbs that support that kind of behaviour. ViridaeTalk 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. WjBscribe 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. EconomistBR 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose. BCST2001 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. oppose - it would not benefit this person or the wiki as he already seems a bit too sure of himself, and an arb. would have to keep themselves in check. Merkinsmum 02:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chido6d 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret account 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Durova. Atropos 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose as per the comments of Travb. Xdenizen 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. hbdragon88 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Lsi john 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Hardyplants 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose -- SECisek 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose -- POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin. --profg Talk 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose -- Have not seen any evidence for good arbitration skills. — Sebastian 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. We don't need more groupthink. Viriditas 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Very Strong Oppose. Absolutely non-neutral editor. I have seen him in action. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Miranda 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose as per above Peter morrell 13:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. No. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose Alæxis¿question? 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    With regret, I must change to oppose. Nothing to do with Durova, I actually agree with him on that. I just no longer trust his ability to judge a situation fairly. - Crockspot (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Reinstating original support, I am satisfied that he can examine evidence, and fairly evaluate it. - Crockspot (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose per Cla68, Viridae. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Strong Oppose per TravB. SashaNein (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose John Vandenberg (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Absolutely Not. Extended comments moved to talk page. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Terence (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Wizardman 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Oppose BorgQueen (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose made an oddball argument about WP:RS here and, more importantly, when shown up, couldn't admit to his original mistake.[1] Not the kind of temperament I'd want on ArbCom. -- Kendrick7talk 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, due to recent incidents. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose --cj | talk 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose per Kendrick7; and the Durova affair and related questions are likely to be a large part of ArbCom's business in 2008. While there are worse candidates, there are more than enough better ones to fill the tranche. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose Whig (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/JoshuaZ&oldid=176643219"