Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Vote/John Reid

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Statement

MR. TURNER

Q: 1. What good are you around here? Won't it be bad if you sit on ArbCom instead of working (or at all)?

A: I don't do much in articlespace; I do some graphics. See
cent
}}.
You don't vote for me because I'm a good editor. You vote for me because you want to see ArbCom limited to issues of user conduct. I'm committed to this position.
Q: 2. Why should we trust you?

A: You shouldn't. You shouldn't trust anybody. Before you vote, check my contribs. Like anyone else, I make mistakes and most of my edits are trivial. Look for the ones where I speak about ArbCom. Here's Google. See what stands I've taken. After elections, watch members very carefully. If we fail to measure up to your standards, protest. Petition for removal in extreme cases; vote them out at the first opportunity. Trust must be earned, not given.
Q: 3. If we elect you, are you going to be a worker, a sleeper, or a tyrant?

A: I'll work. I understand it's frustrating to wait for cases to conclude. I don't know why ArbCom takes so long to close; it deliberates in secret. If you elect me, I'll do my best to move things along.
I don't think an individual arbitrator wields any sort of broad power; all decisions are joint. I will uniformly be available at length to explain my reasoning on any point. I uphold frank transparency at all times.
Q: 4. What do you think about Policy XYZ?

A: I may have an opinion but it really doesn't matter. ArbCom must restrict itself to a purely judicial role of arbitrating user conduct issues, chiefly to terminate wheel wars. You make policy. A level playing field and orderly process matters more than any particular policy issue.


Questions

Support

  1. I'm
    Mailer Diablo and I approve this candidate! - 00:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  2. A bit contentious, but his opinions are usually dead on. AniMate 02:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Moral support. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support
    Catchpole 08:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  5. Support per his clear support of policy as main and only guideline. --Sugaar 10:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support sure why not Dragomiloff 17:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Strong Support as per his answers to my questions and, as per Sugaar above, his willingness to put policy above all. Badbilltucker 22:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Well, I thought he'd be a good one.
    Talk?) 23:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  9. Sure. JYolkowski // talk 00:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 20:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support
    Addhoc 11:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Support commonsensical. --John Seward 15:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support per Mailer Diablo--Runcorn 22:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support --Gphototalk 14:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Support. Ben Aveling 21:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Support Cmsjustin 21:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cmsjustin does not have suffrage; he had only 30 edits as of 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC). —Cryptic 22:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support -- Candidate's response to question regarding SPOV was better than many of the more seasoned editors. --ScienceApologist 16:35, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support: Proper attitude and good answers. —The preceding
    unsigned comment was added by SMcCandlish (talk • contribs
    ) 17:04, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
  18. Derex 22:57, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  19. Support --t ALL IN c 21:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support. --Túrelio 22:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Support Cpuwhiz11 00:00, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Support. I'm not voting for this other John Reid, either. -- DLL .. T 11:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  23. support per above reasons Kiwidude 07:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Support, moral and otherwise, for a thoughful, highly articulate and above all honorable candidate. One who has the courage not only to speak out when he sees injustice, but tries to do something about it. My vote and respect to you, Sir--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 11:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support - my vote comments. Carcharoth 23:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Support Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC); he realizes that ArbCom is not here to enforce opinions.[reply]

Oppose

  1. John Reid has been involved in far too many hysterical arguments (and always on the "right" side, either) to permit me to support him for something so important as the ArbCom. --Cyde Weys 00:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  2. He came within a fingernail of being banned by the ArbCom just about a month ago.
    ll302 00:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I could be wrong, but I believe the above comment refers to this? If so, it was a one week block, not a ban, and after discussion, it was agreed that no action be taken. Regards, Ben Aveling 21:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Did not convince me in his answers to questions, and the events reported by Cyde and Scobell really bugs me. --Deenoe 00:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm afraid I have to vote in oposition. While he has done some fine graphics I don't feel he has a cool enough head for the committee. --Salix alba (talk) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above
    Cowman109Talk 00:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  6. Ral315 (talk) (my votes) 00:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  7. -
    crztalk 00:42, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  9. desat 00:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  10. Titoxd(?!?) 00:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  11. No
    wat's sup 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  12. Hello32020 00:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Avi 01:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Peta 01:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  15. SuperMachine 01:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  16. Sarah Ewart 01:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  17. Oppose Jd2718 02:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  18. KPbIC 02:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Involved in arbcom level dispute too recently --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 03:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  20. —
    ra 03:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  21. Good fellow, genuinely cares, but has a penchant for inflamed rhetoric, and is excessively combative in policy discussions. Xoloz 03:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Per Xoloz —
    (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  23. John254 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  24. e Ong 04:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  25. Cyde covers part of it, but he also appears to have little clue what arbitration is actually supposed to deal with. The day that "wheel wars" become its primary problem is the day we wouldn't need the committee anymore and could hand the whole thing back to Jimbo. Rebecca 04:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  26. I like John's style. But not for ArbCom. Opabinia regalis 04:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Whenever one who specializes in speaking truth to power starts seeking power, it's a bad sign.
    Chick Bowen (book cover project) 05:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  28. Hell no. semper fi — Moe 05:31, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Dylan Lake 05:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Nufy8 05:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  31. This is certainly a troublesome candidacy for me, principally because I think the candidate's conceptions of how an ArbCommer ought to conduct him/herself qua member of the community and how ArbCom ought to work are quite right but am not at all certain that his disposition is such that he should be able to comport his work on the ArbCom with such conceptions. Joe 07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  32. No. — CharlotteWebb 07:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  33. I hate to pile on... but "oh hell no" comes pretty damn close to how I feel about this candidate. Excellent contributor... but WAAAAY too much of a potential problem.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:55, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Sorry, but no. —Doug Bell talk 08:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  35. – Chacor 09:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  36. talk 09:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  37. Afraid not
    rtinp23 10:54, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  38. Absolutely not. — Nearly Headless Nick {L} 12:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  39. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  40. T/C) 13:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  41. Oppose because they never answered my questions. Anomo 13:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Oppose Fred Bauder 14:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  44. TewfikTalk 16:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. I found him to be too combative. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Oppose. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 17:53, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  47. The approach and attitude displayed at
    GRBerry 18:21, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  48. No. —Pilotguy (push to talk) 21:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Gurch 23:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose, I want arbitrators to have more writing experience than this. Gazpacho 23:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose Walter Siegmund (talk) 23:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Michael Snow 23:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  53. —Viriditas | Talk 01:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Weak Oppose. He sounds convincing and unbiaised though he should be staying around a bit longer before we have him as an ArbComm. Lincher 01:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  55. -
    Review Me!) 03:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  56. Oppose - sorry for the pile on, but no. Per Cyde and personal experience with the user. Thε Halo Θ 14:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Bobet 14:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose. This is not a reflection on John's contribution to the project, he is a tireless worker in the technical underpinnings and his value as such should not be underestimated, but his response to my first ever question to him was not only dismissive, it was downright hostile - to say nothing of patronising - and I see a fair bit of evidence that this is not at all unusual. Guy (Help!) 19:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose per Oleg A. --kingboyk 19:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose Sorry -Advanced 19:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Steel 00:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  62. Oppose Sorry. Nishkid64 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Oppose —— Changing to Strong Oppose per curt and judgmental questions asked by this user of all other candidates. This is really really bugging me. —Lantoka ( talk | contrib) 23:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  64. Oppose. Don't like his platform, don't like his answers. --Merlinme 13:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose. Too little experience in article space to make a valuable contribution. I don't agree that ArbCom's main job is stopping wheel wars. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  66. Oppose Nope. Too contrarian for my taste.
    Spartaz 18:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  67. Oppose. Even in his candidacy statement, he almost seems to be looking for a fight. --Danaman5 07:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose too agressive.--Aldux 14:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Oppose. Aggression and candour are not the same thing.BillMasen 15:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Adminship Shagmaestro 12:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. enochlau (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  72. =Nichalp «Talk»= 08:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  73. Oppose, I feel adminship is a minimum requirement for ArbCom membership. Stifle (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose. John, you say that I shouldn't trust you. I don't. Axl 08:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  75. riana_dzasta 09:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  76. Oppose ... Although this contributor is clearly best suited for roles in the project other than arbitrator, I hadn't intended to cast an Oppose vote, especially not as a pile-on with the results shaping up as they have. But in the rush of the election, no one seems to have noticed that after a dispute two weeks ago, John seems to have stopped editing altogether. So this is a note in case the candidate ever scans these results - oppose your serving as an arbitrator, but strong support for your doing what you do well (by which I refer to discussing policy and working on templates rather than picking arguments :) ). Newyorkbrad 11:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  77. Oppose —Gary van der Merwe (Talk) 12:22, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  78. Oppose - the tone of voice in that statement is terrifying. Vizjim 13:37, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  79. Oppose --
    Samuel Wantman 20:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  80. Consistently uncivil personality, almost impossible to work with. Philwelch 21:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  81. Recent blocks. Conscious 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  82. Oppose. Temperamentally unsuited to ArbCom. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  83. Oppose as per Josiah --Lost Kiwi(talk)00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  84. Oppose for Arbcom per Xoloz, but also echo Newyorkbrad's comments. Hope to see you back soon. the wub "?!" 13:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  85. Oppose Ksbrown 18:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  86. Oppose not responding to new questions. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  87. Oppose. Michael 07:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  88. Samir धर्म 20:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  89. Per above. —
    Xyrael / 22:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  90. Oppose Krich (talk) 03:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  91. Oppose by default. (Did not provide example for good work. I'm sorry, I had planned to do some more research today which was prevented by an emergency in our area.) — Sebastian 04:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  92. Oppose Stirling Newberry 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC) I like strongly voiced ideas and opinions, however, community trust is a key requirement for this position. Stirling Newberry 11:21, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  93. The candidate hasn't many questions since the end of last month, and in fact has not made many edits since then. I sincerely hope the candidate returns to the project soon to edit in a constructive manner. theProject 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2006/Vote/John_Reid&oldid=1087298837"