Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/JoshuaZ

Comments moved from voting page

 * Moved per Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote by uninvolved user (in turn derived from consensus on election talk pages): "Users are requested to keep additional comments short, if they need to be made at all. Extended comments should made at each candidate's vote talk page".

Travb
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. The blocking was not the first "mistake" either. A vote for JoshuaZ is a vote in support of witchhunts like Durova's. Travb (talk) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I fully understand your opposing comment. I fully acknowledge that Durova made a mistake. Moreover, mistaken blocks have occurred in the past. However, I fail to see how a quickly overturned block which the admin quickly admitted was wrong constitutes a "witch hunt". JoshuaZ 16:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Action Jackson IV
Absolutely Not. Used an edit summary on his first edit, wikified within four days of account creation, is an obvious team player and did wikignome work far too early, no doubt to pad account history and game the community's good faith. To put it another way: his dismissive, almost snide response to Travb's Cla68's question would be enough to provoke heated discussion on an RfA. And on an ArbCom election? Absolutely Not. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 09:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * To briefly (or not-so-briefly) elaborate in the interests of level-headedness: I myself have been dismissive and snide in the past. I do not fully accept that a "power figure" (admin/crat/com/clerk/whatever) must always be in a good mood. We all have our off days, and sometimes, for whatever reason, a spade must be called a spade. And even if each and every one of his opinions were in complete and utter disagreement with my own, I could still accept a "Devil's Advocate" figure to provoke a more thoughtful ArbCom discussion. That said, the dismissiveness and the attitude in tandem leave me shuddering to think how an ArbCom case involving a "rogue admin" would be handled. Admins may make the occasional hasty block, they may even make the occasional bad edit and get into heated disagreements with one another. But for an admin to be as crassly, methodically, and consistently in the wrong as what happened in that incident is more than a mere slip of the tongue (or slip of the mouse button, so to speak), and more than a bit of silly drama. It is absolutely a valid issue for someone who would be handling plenty of complex cases, and somebody who would be "highly tempted" to ignore such an issue does not sit well with me. Ignoring the issue is even more - for lack of a better word - offensive than a "I think yea, he thinks nay" disagreement. --Action Jackson IV (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Other comments
Actions speak louder than words. I think JoshuaZ should have been clearer and quicker in denouncing Durova's tactics, but that's just one tiny issue, and I see Joshua's actions as a good effort to try to heal a division in the community. Far more important is JoshuaZ's general judgement and behavior-- and he's repeatedly proven himself to be trustable. I'd urge people to oppose or support based on who JoshuaZ is, over the whole of his Wikipedia Career, rather than just zooming in on one answer to one question. --Alecmconroy (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)