Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:34, 4 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)

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

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 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 son 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 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 07:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
19. WAS 4.250 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Crockspot 08:03, 3 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 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)
35. --arkalochori 01:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
36. Adam Cuerden 02:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
37. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Per Xoloz. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
39. Strong support despite my not agreeing with a lot that he writes, but he is smart, neutral, and willing to work hard. OrangeMarlin 13:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
40. 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)
41. -- Y not? 16:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
42. 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)
43. Support. · jersyko talk 17:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
44. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Strong Oppose This canidate was a strong supporter of the Durova witchhunt, 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)
2. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
3. Doesn't appear to understand the gravity and seriousness of Durova's actions. Cla68 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
4. east.718 at 00:31, December 3, 2007
5. Qst 00:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
6. iridescent 00:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
7. 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)
8. - auburnpilot talk 00:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
9. Per above reasoning, I agree, unfortunately. Sorry. • Lawrence Cohen 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
10. Witch hunt is certainly an exaggeration, but the answer to the question travb linked causes me to doubt JoshuaZ's capability of neutrality. Gracenotes § 00:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
11. Per Gracenotes. Prodego 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
12. – Gurch (talk) 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
13. durova stuff —Random832 01:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
14. Fred Bauder 01:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
15. krimpet⟲ 01:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
16. Per Gracenotes. --Coredesat 01:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
17. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
18. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
19. Too new. Rebecca 02:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
20. Sorry, can't, per the Durova thing. I was planning to support, sorry :( Dihydrogen Monoxide 02:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
21. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
22. Mercury 03:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
23. Thinking about it, some of the questions seem wrong This is a Secret 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
24. Bob Mellish 03:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
25. Videmus Omnia 03:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
26. --Duk 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
27. The project has enough problems. --Bdj 03:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
28. Oppose -Dureo 03:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
29. Everyking 04:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
30. Spebi 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
31. Oppose. -Hit bull, win steak 04:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
32. 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)
33. —Mira 05:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
34. Marvin Diode 05:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
35. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
36. BanyanTree 06:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
37. --Certified.Gangsta 07:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
38. Justforasecond 07:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC) wikistalking history
39. Oppose Jd2718 07:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
40. His attitude toward the Durova situation. Shem 09:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
41. Neil ☎ 10:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
42. Per above in the Durova issue. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
43. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
44. 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)
45. Addhoc 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
46. Principle opposition to anyone who stand for less than the length of the term of office. KTC 14:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
47. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
48. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
49. Oppose Edivorce 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
50. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
51. Davewild 19:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
52. Oppose. Support Durova, get opposed. edward (buckner) 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
53. Oppose Ripberger 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
54. --Cactus.man ✍ 22:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
55. Don't need arbs that support that kind of behaviour. Viridae 23:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
56. WjBscribe 23:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
57. EconomistBR 00:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
58. Oppose. BCST2001 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
59. 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 03:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

60. Durova. Atropos 05:46, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
61. Oppose as per the comments of Travb. Xdenizen 06:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
62. hbdragon88 07:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
63. Oppose Lsi john 10:03, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
64. Hardyplants 15:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
65. Oppose -- SECisek 19:56, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
66. Oppose -- POV-pusher. Shouldn't even be an admin. --profg 20:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)