Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/Moreschi

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

Moreschi

[edit]
Shall we begin, ladies and gentlemen? Even if not, it's nice to see you, to see you - nice! I typed out something lovely and then realized it was way too darn long: so as to not to disturb its artistic-rhetorical qualities, it's in a user subpage all for your delight right here. Cheerio! Moreschi Talk 21:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support

[edit]
  1. I think Moreschi, while a bit conterversal, has what it takes to become an excellent arbcom member This is a Secret account 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. —Charles P._(Mirv) 00:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Displayed exemplary integrity in the recent Durova episode and the Fringe Theories Noticeboard is an outstanding contribution to the project. Cla68 00:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. *Dan T.* 00:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. spryde | talk 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 00:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GracenotesT § 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Its about bloody time. Qst 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Antandrus (talk) 00:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Has exactly what it will take to be a good Arbcom member.[reply]
  10. Nick 00:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. east.718 at 00:32, December 3, 2007
  12. Support, apparently a straight shooter. • Lawrence Cohen 00:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. BLACKKITE 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. - auburnpilot talk 00:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sluzzelin talk 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. ~ Riana ⁂ 00:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Agüeybaná 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support. R. Baley 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Pharaoh of the Wizards 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Sean William @ 01:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. - Fedayee 01:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. maclean 01:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. krimpet⟲ 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. SQLQuery me! 01:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. looks ok—Random832 01:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Alexfusco5 02:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. We need a breath of fresh air. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Enthusiastically support Fowler&fowler«Talk» 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Moreschi is a good admin: I have no problems with him being an arbitrator. Acalamari 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. · AndonicO Talk 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Barely. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Mercury 03:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Bob Mellish 03:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support. I've seen him do some excellent "mediation" work in Azerbaijan and Armenia related disputes and I like his take on nationalism in Wikipedia. Pocopocopocopoco 03:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support -Dureo 04:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. — xaosflux Talk 04:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Good mediator, very intelligent, and works well with others. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    (reconsidered, change to oppose) I dorftrottel I talk I 05:30, December 3, 2007
  40. Marvin Diode 05:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Spebi 05:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Isarig (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Yes. He gets it. MastCell Talk 07:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Justforasecond 07:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. - Crockspot 07:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Strong support One of the few admins who actually seems to care about core policies like NPOV. Independent-minded and prepared to make tough decisions. --Folantin 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. Willing to put himself on the line to keep fringe-ists out and thus exactly the sort of person we need separating the useful from the useless at ArbCom. Relata refero 09:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Relata refero does not have suffrage --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 23:45, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Unqualified support. From one of the longest-serving editors here. I particularly like his views on discussing content issues with expertsedward (buckner) 09:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Indef blocked user Secret account 22:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    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) 01:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Strong support. Viriditas 09:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Needs to have his temperament checked from time to time, but has the right priorities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Support : Anyone who knows that what we need are bankers, rather than wankers and berks, is AOK by me. Tiamut 11:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Support. --Alecmconroy 11:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Support Eusebeus 11:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. --Vassyana 11:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Duh Will (talk) 11:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Has a really bad sense of humour but has his priorities straight..Good candidate..--Cometstyles 12:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 14:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeffpw 15:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. WilyD 15:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Weak Support as per "This is a Secret account". Mindraker 21:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. KTC 15:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Gets it. GDonato (talk) 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. SchmuckyTheCat
  65. EconomicsGuy 16:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. I support this candidate.--Isotope23 talk 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Anthøny 17:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. VartanM 18:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Whaa..? — Rudget contributions 18:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Spartaz Humbug! 19:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Weak Support. I'm distinctly unimpressed by his endorsement of Kelly Martin for RfA; I don't know what he was thinking. But it's outweighed by the good work he's done over the years, and by the plain good sense in his candidate statement. WaltonOne 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. ITAQALLAH 20:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Support. --Pleasantville 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Support. —CComMack (t–c) 22:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    --arkalochori |talk| 01:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indef Secret account 00:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Adam Cuerden talk 02:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. @pple complain 03:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Support --Jack Merridew 05:27, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  80. Support. Grandmaster 07:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Support Understands where Wikipedia should go to from its current state. GizzaDiscuss © 10:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. --RobthTalk 15:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. --MPerel 15:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 17:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. The opposes here are incredibly vacuous. Support, of course. — CharlotteWebb 17:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Merzbow (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Support. A good candidate whose judgment can be trusted. Gray62 (talk) 01:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Support. Separates wheat from chaff. Antelan talk 06:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Support sensible, even if there are issues with temperament. - TwoOars (Rev) 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Tentatively, though. Thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Support. Atabek (talk) 07:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Support: Danny (talk) 13:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Support ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Strong Support SashaNein (talk) 17:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Support Skinwalker (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. Support John Carter (talk) 18:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Kusma (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Support Huldra (talk) 09:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. fights nationalism, enough said. ~Sasha Callahan (Talk) 13:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Support Moreschi understands the troubles plaguing the encyclopedia better than most other users, in particular with regards to whether Wikipedia should give more weight to the mainstream (it should, and he has consistently held us to that standard). ScienceApologist (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Strong support Ban a nationalist a day, and Wikipedia will be worth reading in a year. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Wizardman 21:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Support AgneCheese/Wine 23:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 01:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. Support, willing to stir the pot, so potentially a valuable fresh face on ArbCom. Lankiveil (talk) 10:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Support - Aatomic1 (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Support MisterSheik (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Support -- Graham87 06:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. Support KleenupKrew (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  112. Support - will handle POV pushers properly, and will handle one side as well as the other (i.e., no bias). The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Support FlashSheridan (talk) 20:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Support enthusiastically. Dchall1 (talk) 15:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Support Luqman Skye (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. --Aminz (talk) 10:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Support / Fred-J 18:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC). I appreciate his dedication and sense of justice; while temperamental I find him always reasonable.[reply]
  118. Support Saudade7 22:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Anyone suspicious of Ken Wilber is Okay in my book (although I'm a strict inclusionist).[reply]
  119. Before I had researched this candidate thoroughly, I did not think I would be in the support column, but I am. Jonathunder (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  120. Support --Akhilleus (talk) 06:49, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Support wbfergus Talk 21:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Support. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:21, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Support -- lucasbfr talk 09:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Maxim(talk) 00:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Support Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Support Many of those with whom I agree on what the role of ArbCom ought to be (and whose judgment I surely trust) oppose, and their concerns about temperament and judgment are not, I'd suppose, without merit, but the answers to the questions and my past interactions with the candidate convince me that he properly understands the limited scope of arbitration and respects the absolute right of the community to formulate policy and take decisions relative thereto. Joe 07:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Support Karl2620 (talk) 11:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Support Catchpole (talk) 11:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. *Mountolive J'espère que tu t'es lavé les mains avant de me toucher 11:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Support Apologies for tardiness, thought I'd already voted here. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. Support Yikes! Four minutes left, well, anyway, you'll do a great job.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

[edit]
  1. Extended comments moved to talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Rschen7754 (T C) 00:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Kwsn (Ni!) 00:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. futurebird 00:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Chaz Beckett 00:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Nufy8 00:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose--U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose Cooler heads are needed for arbcom. –priyanath talk 00:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Prodego talk 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tim Q. Wells 00:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. --Docg 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Captain panda 01:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose, because of his serious personal attacks on editors, and his recent nomination of Kelly Martin for adminship. [1] SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 01:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. W.marsh 01:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. GRBerry 01:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Crum375 01:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Absolutely not. --Coredesat 02:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. (Sarah777 02:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  20. bibliomaniac15 02:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Oppose SlimVirgin makes a valid point and someone who disapproves of RFA [2] I can't support.--Sandahl 02:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Acts too much on instinct- ArbCom relies upon weighing options. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 02:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. B 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Oppose Thatcher131 02:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Rebecca 02:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Especially unimpressed with his answer to Jreferee's question and the second paragraph of his answer to I's. —Cryptic 02:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per SlimVirgin and Kelly Martin opinions. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 02:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 03:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Regretfully. Húsönd 03:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. - KNM Talk 04:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. TMF Let's Go Mets - Stats 06:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. AniMate 06:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose - Jeeny (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. --MONGO 08:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Lara❤Love 08:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Doesn't have the temperament. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Uncomfortable with his temperament. Shem(talk) 09:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. --Mcginnly | Natter 10:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. No way. Neil ☎ 10:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. <<-armon->> 11:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Dissatisfied with some of the controversies this user has been involved in. Stifle (talk) 12:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Oppose Came here to support, but his opposition to RfA and support for K. Martin are both deal-breakers. Sorry. Xoloz 13:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. PeaceNT 14:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Addhoc 14:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47.  Grue  14:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --barneca 14:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Sarah 15:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Mattisse 15:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. ~ trialsanderrors 15:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Bakaman 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose per above comments. NHRHS2010 talk 20:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Davewild 20:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Oppose Ripberger 20:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. BobTheTomato 21:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. --Malcolmxl5 21:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose - sorry, but terms like "proactive leadership from the top" just give me the creeps. -- Schneelocke 21:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. OpposeMerkinsmum 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. WjBscribe 23:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Oppose for nominating Kelly Martin for adminship. Corvus cornixtalk 23:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose Likes to display authority. Dineshkannambadi 00:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose Cool Hand Luke 00:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. EconomistBR 00:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Picaroon (t) 01:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose ×Meegs 01:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Questions about temperament from me as well. Horologium (talk) 01:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. It's hard for me to support someone who seems to think that absolutely everything is broken, and if you think it's a "compliment of the highest order" to be compared to Kelly Martin (third comment in this diff) there's something seriously wrong here. I do have a positive overall impression of you, but there are other candidates more suited for this in my humble opinion. Grandmasterka 01:57, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Chido6d 03:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Fails edit count qualifications. The Evil Spartan 05:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose per above comments.--D-Boy 03:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Weak oppose per above. Marlith T/C 04:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose Atropos 05:54, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose --DHeyward 06:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Character issues Daoken 08:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Daoken does not have suffrage. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 21:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  75. Oppose, while nationalism on Wikipedia can be an issue, his strident characterisation of it as a "plague" is an issue. Martintg 11:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  76. Oppose , choose one: 1) Evading the point of my questions. 2) Not getting the point of my questions. 3) Answering my questions badly. User:Krator (t c) 11:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose: I am glad that he is interested in content and good articles, but the nomination of Kelly either shows lack of awareness or memory or sensitivity or respect for others editors. Geogre 11:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose I agree with Nishkid64. Sorry. Miranda 12:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose.--Eloquence* 14:07, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Many of the above Travtim(Talk) 15:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (ineligible to vote Tim! 19:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  80. Oppose, per SlimVirgin and other comments above - including evidence presented here. Dreadstar † 15:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Oppose per answers to I on candidate questions.-- Marcsin | Talk 15:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose, per Kelly Martin situation and other things Fram 15:49, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  83. - Zeibura (Talk) 17:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose -- SECisek 20:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  85. With regret. In many respects I agree with you, but like as not we're both wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose, and I feel really bad about it because I like Moreschi a lot, but I don't think he'd be right for ArbCom. Guy (Help!) 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose for nominating K. Martin as an Admin. Xdenizen (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Michael Snow (talk) 23:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Oppose. Per SlimVirgin and because I have seen this editor take very non-neutral stances. ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  90. Oppose Haber (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  92. non-support John Vandenberg (talk) 03:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  93. Oppose VanTucky talk 06:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  94. Oppose Wetman (talk) 09:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  95. Oppose Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  96. Oppose not neutral Peter morrell 13:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  97. Mailer Diablo (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  98. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  99. Oppose Convinced by some of the arguments above.--Bedivere (talk) 22:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  100. Oppose. Co-nom of K. Martin. --Fang Aili talk 00:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  101. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  102. Oppose Somebody who tells a rank troll that an editor who has authored a dozen FAs is a "nuisance" running for arbcom?! Somebody who reserves his kid gloves for trolls and his worst behaviour for established editors running for arbcom? Somebody's got to be kidding. Sarvagnya 06:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  103. Oppose NPOV issues and consistency of quality not demonstrated docboat (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  104. Terence (talk) 17:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  105. Opppose I might be reading it wrong, but your SPOV answer sounds like Wikipedia should blatantly accuse ideas that aren't mainstream scientifically of being trash. Homestarmy (talk) 17:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  106. Oppose per Nishkid and SlimVirgin. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 22:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  107. no support concerns regarding judgment. JaakobouChalk Talk 01:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  108. Oppose per SlimVirgin. --BorgQueen (talk) 02:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  109. Oppose, per answers to WJBscribe and Blue Tie. The rest of the answers are evasive as well. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  110. Did not provide links that show experience with arbitration or conflict resolution skills. (See User talk:Moreschi#Portfolio_for_ArbCom.) Arbitrators should back up their claims with links. — Sebastian 08:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  111. (changed from support) I dorftrottel I talk I 08:37, December 7, 2007
  112. Oppose I have respect for Moreschi as an editor and admin, but I'm not sure he is best-suited for arbcom.--cj | talk 08:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  113. Oppose --RelHistBuff (talk) 11:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  114. Jeffpw (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  115. Oppose —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  116. Oppose - Hαvεlok беседа мансарда 19:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  117. Oppose - second batch of voting, adding some opposes. Some good points, but not the best temperament to make those points on ArbCom. Carcharoth (talk) 10:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  118. Oppose Whig (talk) 20:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  119. OpposePosition on RfA a serious sticking point.(olive (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  120. Oppose — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 00:28, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  121. Oppose, sorry. Majoreditor (talk) 06:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  122. Oppose - Naveen (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  123. Oppose. A knowledgeable editor, but the wrong temperament for arbcom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  124. Oppose Moreschi causes conflict instead of resolving disputes, which isn't a good quality for an arbitrator. His RFA nomination of Kelly Martin (a passive-aggressive attempt to injure the RFA process he claims to hate?) shows his finger is not on the pulse of this community. Sorry, but he should not be an arbitrator. - KrakatoaKatie 21:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  125. Oppose -- Longhair\talk 22:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  126. Vagary (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  127. Oppose - very useful contributor, but not so good at the consensus building we need on ArbCom. Warofdreams talk 19:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  128. Oppose because controversial users are less effective on ArbCom. Too bad, because he's a good user. Bearian (talk) 21:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  129. Oppose --MediaMangler (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  130. Oppose--Argos'Dad 04:48, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  131. He's serving two masters at the moment. Despite this apology, this is not conduct that I'd like to see from a potential arbitrator. Dekimasuよ! 05:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  132. STRONG OPPOSE At the request of another admin, Moreschi banned me from editing an article. When asked to justify the ban, he was arrogant and dismissive.[3] The ban was so blatantly groundless, it was reversed by another admin & not upheld & Moreschi offered no explanation, no apology. Irresponsible use of admin powers. Definitely not Arb Com material. Blatantly disrespectful & scornful of good-faith editors at Afrocentrism[4] & guilty of blatant POV pushing. Clearly doesn't understand the meaning of NPOV, and recently blocked an account after the user did nothing more than justifiably report another editor for a profane personal attack.[5] deeceevoice (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  133. the wub "?!" 18:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  134. Mike R (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  135. One master too many. JayHenry (talk) 02:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  136. Oppose --Pixelface (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  137. Oppose Slrubenstein | Talk 13:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  138. Oppose--Alf melmac 21:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  139. Everyking (talk) 15:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  140. Oppose per Schneelocke, general temperament, and bizarre nom of Kelly Martin. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 07:36, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  141. Oppose reasoning for wanting job and nom don't mesh with what we need imho. JERRY talk contribs 01:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  142. Oppose just the wrong attitude - as others have said, ArbCom needs cooler heads. Rgds, - Trident13 (talk) 01:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  143. Tentative oppose - comments on User talk:Jimbo Wales indicate that Moreschi may have known about Carolyn Dornan's arrest record prior to The Register 's article and not told anyone about it. I will strike this oppose if I have misinterpreted those comments. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  144. Reluctant Oppose. Very good judgment overall, but a string of bad choices as of late. IronGargoyle (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  145. Tentative oppose per George above. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  146. Oppose Yahel Guhan 05:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  147. Opose, even strong criticism may be constructive, but there are limits to that too. There is a difference between a plumb line and a wrecking ball. Too much flailing about here, methinks. -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 10:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  148. Oppose. Sam Blacketer (talk) 12:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  149. Oppose. Changing vote due to "I refuse to believe that no one at WMF knew anything until The Register made their phone call/published the story." WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  150. Oppose.--nids(♂) 17:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  151. Oppose.--Hillock65 (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  152. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  153. ElinorD (talk) 09:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  154. Oppose.--PmmolletTalk 12:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  155. Oppose. Truculent and downright incivil argumentation on WikiEN-l concerning Doran affair is unacceptable. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  156. Oppose. Behavior on WikiEN-l demonstrates that this person, in my opinion, does not have the patience, temperment, and self control necessary to function as an arbitrator. -- Avi (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  157. Oppose: Per our recent interaction over at ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  158. Oppose as while we are all allowed to get angry, I'm not sure that the sort of reactions we saw here are helpful in an arbitrator, someone who is supposed to defuse tense situations. TewfikTalk 18:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  159. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  160. Oppose. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  161. Oppose, sorry. Zagalejo^^^ 23:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/Moreschi&oldid=1252099514"