Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/JoshuaZ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shortcuts:
WP:AC2007
WP:ACE2007

2007 Election status

It is currently 05:52 (UTC), Thursday, June 12, 2008 (Purge)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Support

  1. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. ragesoss 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Experienced enough This is a Secret account 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. Bakaman 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  4. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  7.  — master sonT - C 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per Kla’quot. Tyrenius 01:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  9. Alexfusco5 02:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  10. Húsönd 03:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. Support. IronDuke 04:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. -- Ned Scott 05:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. I dorftrottel I talk I 05:28, December 3, 2007
  15. Guettarda 05:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  18. MastCell Talk 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  19. WAS 4.250 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Crockspot 08:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Reinstating original vote of support. Crockspot (talk) 05:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC))
  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)
  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)
  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)
  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)
  25. Support  Grue  14:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Jeffpw 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. WilyD 15:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Great user: this "support Durova, get opposed" view is deeply concerning. Acalamari 18:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Spartaz Humbug! 18:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  30. Filll 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  31. Support - seems good enough. -- Schneelocke 21:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Strong support for a great candidate. --David Shankbone 22:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. Support Shot info 23:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. Support --SVTCobra 23:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. Adam Cuerden talk 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  37. Per Xoloz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  40. -- Y not? 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  42. Support. · jersyko talk 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  43. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. I trust Joshua's fairness. And I like him. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Michael Snow (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. One of the best Wikipedians around. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  50. Support FeloniousMonk (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  52. Changed from oppose. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 06:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. — TKD::Talk 07:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  55. One issue isn't everything. R. Baley (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Support Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. Support MikeHobday (talk) 11:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:21, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. Support from a fellow Z. MookieZ (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  62. Support Geogre (talk) 13:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Tony Sidaway 18:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Would definitely be an asset to the committee.
  64. Support. Trustworthy level-headed Wikipedian. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  66. Support `'Míkka>t 05:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  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)
  69. Support - dave souza, talk 13:33, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Wolfman (talk) 21:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. Support •Jim62sch• 23:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. Support More clarity of thought than most. Fainites barley 23:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Support as per: User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !! T (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  75. Support. Good admin who qualifies for the job. -- Fyslee / talk 01:03, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  76. — Rudget speak.work 12:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Support--PTR (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. Gamaliel (Angry Mastodon! Run!) 02:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. Support. Great statement. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. Support The Bethling(Talk) 09:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  81. Support. On basis of statement. Carcharoth (talk) 11:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. Good candidate, I was convinced by User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP. the wub "?!" 13:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. support William M. Connolley (talk) 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. Support Metamagician3000 (talk) 09:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Support --Pjacobi (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  86. Supportdv dv dv d 03:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  87. Support The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  88. Support After considering the matter for a good bit, I've concluded that Joshua's temperament and sense of judgment are not defined or demonstrated by his unfortunate handling of the Durova matter and that his generally stellar handling of BLP matters, which bears out a proper appreciation for the operation of consensus and the occasional importance of process, for one, provides a record that better reflects his overall capabilities and fitness for ArbCom. Joe 07:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  89. Support In my sole interaction with him, he tried to do the right thing at Justin Berry,[1] but was overtaken by larger forces.[2] In my view, it's important to try, even if we don't succeed, and, while I wish Joshua hadn't relented, I don't see his not holding his position as any bar to support. He is uniquely sensitive to all sides of a conflict & willing to act decisively when needed, if possible. --Ssbohio (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  90. Supportdeeceevoice (talk) 23:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  91. Sarah 23:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
  1. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  2. Doesn't appear to understand the gravity and seriousness of Durova's actions. Cla68 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  3. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
  4. Qst 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  5. iridescent 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  7. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  8. Per above reasoning, I agree, unfortunately. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  10. Per Gracenotes. Prodego talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  12. durova stuff —Random832 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  13. Fred Bauder 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  14. krimpet⟲ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  15. Per Gracenotes. --Coredesat 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  16. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  17. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  18. Too new. Rebecca 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, can't, per the Durova thing. I was planning to support, sorry :( Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (AGFing)
  19. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  20. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  21. Thinking about it, some of the questions seem wrong This is a Secret account 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  22. Bob Mellish 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  23. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  24. --Duk 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  25. The project has enough problems. --Bdj 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  26. Oppose -Dureo 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  27. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  28. Spebi 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  31. —Mira 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  32. Marvin Diode 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  33. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  34. BanyanTree 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  35. --Certified.Gangsta 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  36. Justforasecond 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) wikistalking history
  37. Oppose Jd2718 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  38. His attitude toward the Durova situation. Shem(talk) 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  39. Neil ☎ 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  40. Per above in the Durova issue. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    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)
  41. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  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)
  43. Addhoc 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  44. Principle opposition to anyone who stand for less than the length of the term of office. KTC 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  45. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  46. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  47. Oppose Edivorce 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  48. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  49. Davewild 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  50. Oppose. Support Durova, get opposed. edward (buckner) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
    User blocked indef Secret account 21:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
    Vote restored per AN/I. The user was in good standing when he voted and his subsequent block was unrelated to this vote. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  51. Oppose Ripberger 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  52. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  53. Don't need arbs that support that kind of behaviour. ViridaeTalk 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  54. WjBscribe 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
  55. EconomistBR 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  56. Oppose. BCST2001 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  57. 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)
    Chido6d 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
    Less than 150 mainspace edits before November 1st, not qualified to vote This is a Secret account 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  58. Durova. Atropos 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  59. Oppose as per the comments of Travb. Xdenizen 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  60. hbdragon88 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  61. Oppose Lsi john 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  62. Hardyplants 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  63. Oppose -- SECisek 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  64. Oppose -- POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin. --profg Talk 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  65. Oppose -- Have not seen any evidence for good arbitration skills. — Sebastian 22:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  66. Oppose. We don't need more groupthink. Viriditas 23:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
  67. Very Strong Oppose. Absolutely non-neutral editor. I have seen him in action. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  68. 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)
  69. Miranda 11:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  70. Oppose as per above Peter morrell 13:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  71. No. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  72. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Oppose Alæxis¿question? 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
    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)
  74. Oppose per Cla68, Viridae. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  75. 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)
  76. Strong Oppose per TravB. SashaNein (talk) 04:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  77. Oppose John Vandenberg (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  78. Absolutely Not. Extended comments moved to talk page. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  79. Terence (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  80. Wizardman 20:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  81. Oppose BorgQueen (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  82. Oppose made an oddball argument about WP:RS here and, more importantly, when shown up, couldn't admit to his original mistake.[3] Not the kind of temperament I'd want on ArbCom. -- Kendrick7talk 04:27, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  83. Oppose, due to recent incidents. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  84. Oppose --cj | talk 08:53, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  85. Oppose --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:40, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
  86. Weak 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)
    User:JoshuaZ/Statement regarding Durova and !! does at least demonstrate considerable thought about the matter; although I wonder whether someone "worn down" by hundreds of posts at the Wikipedia-eng list is going to do well at the much noisier post of ArbCom. I will continue to consider; the odd campaign at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Isaac_Lichtenstein concerns me far more. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  87. Oppose KleenupKrew (talk) 13:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  88. Oppose Whig (talk) 19:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
  89. Oppose DariusMazeika (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  90. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
  91. Vagary (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
  92. God no. Grace Note (talk) 04:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  93. Oppose Luqman Skye (talk) 07:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  94. --Docg 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  95. GRBerry 14:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  96. Mike R (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  97. Oppose Saudade7 22:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
  98. Oppose: there are enough non-controversial candidates KissL 16:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  99. Oppose wbfergus Talk 21:17, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
  100. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  101. Oppose. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
  102. Maxim(talk) 00:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  103. Oppose methinks not a good fit for the responsibility of the position. JERRY talk contribs 00:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  104. Strong Oppose far too controversial, and doesn't realise it - not what's required on ArbCom. Rgds - Trident13 (talk) 01:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
  105. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  106. Opppose, in favor of other candidates. — xaosflux Talk 15:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  107. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  108. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)