Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006/Candidate statements/Questions for John Reid: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2006 | Candidate statements Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:56, 6 November 2006 editXaosflux (talk \| contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Importers, Interface administrators, Oversighters, Administrators83,941 edits additional question, feel free to reformat the layout mercilessly!← Previous edit		Revision as of 14:50, 6 November 2006 edit undoMailer diablo (talk \| contribs)Checkusers, Oversighters, Administrators55,576 edits insert qnsNext edit →
Line 38:		Line 38:
	== Question(s) from ] ==		== Question(s) from ] ==
	# As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of ] and ] permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. <small>(Question from — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) </small>		# As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of ] and ] permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. <small>(Question from — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC) </small>

			==Questions from ]==
			1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.
			:*

			2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?
			:*

			3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive ] and ] privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. ]) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?
			:*

			4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?
			:*

	== Questions from You ==		== Questions from You ==
Line 53:		Line 66:
	\|		\|
	}}		}}

	== Questions from You, Too ==		== Questions from You, Too ==

Revision as of 14:50, 6 November 2006

Questions from Chacor

Q: 1. Why should people vote for someone who has previously spammed, trolled and disrupted Misplaced Pages, and been blocked for it? Or, why should we trust you, as someone who has been all the above, with oversight, checkuser, and the power to make judgements against other users?

A: Well, your opinions of my contributions to this project are pretty negative. I'm sorry about that. Not everyone agrees; not everyone even agrees that any of those biased labels applies to anything I've done. Any admin can block any other editor for any reason or none and give any reason as justification; that doesn't make it so. On the other hand, I agree that I'm far from perfect. Anyway, I think the occasional block is healthy; it builds character. I used to endorse Requests for Adminship for editors who had never been blocked; I would never do so again.

I think the second part of your question is very good. You should not trust me, not any more than you should trust any member of ArbCom. You should watch us all very closely and not hesitate to call us on the carpet if we step even slightly out of line. I will deal with individual criticism patiently and with respect but not be swayed by emotional pleas. On the other hand, if our community as a whole thinks I'm doing wrong, I probably am. You will never hear me assert authority over our entire community.

I won't insult you by promising never to abuse ArbCom authority. If you take the time to sift my contribs, you'll see what kind of editor I am. I wish I could avoid asking you to do all that digging but actually going to see for yourself will give you a much more honest picture than anything I could say myself -- certainly more than some one or two diffs pulled up by somebody with a grudge or by somebody hoping to back me. You'll see that while I often have strong opinions and take bold action, I believe firmly in adhering to community policy and process at all times.

I feel strongly that ArbCom and individual arbitrators must operate with less, not greater latitude. I may continue to be an annoying editor but I will never be an abusive arbitrator.

Q: 2. What is your opinion of ex-admins who have not voluntarily given up their sysophood? Do you think they should be resysopped at AC's will, or do you think that they should go through another RfA? What are your thoughts on the current re-adminship process for involuntarily-desysopped admins? – Ch acor 09:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

A: All admins who are deadminned must RfA. RfA is the community procedure for promotion; ArbCom ought not bypass it. I look askance on temporary deadminning by ArbCom decision. If a former admin proves trustworthy, I trust the community to re-promote. I do not endorse post facto re-adminning under the rubric of "exercising continuing jurisdiction." ArbCom is enlisted by the community chiefly to terminate wheel wars; once the war is over and remedies have been taken, ArbCom's authority ends.

Questions from Derex

This User talk:John Reid may have been copied and pasted from another location, possibly in violation of Misplaced Pages's copyright policy. Please review the source and remedy this by editing this article to remove any non-free copyrighted content and attributing free content correctly, or flagging the content for deletion. Please be sure that the supposed source of the copyright violation is not itself a Misplaced Pages mirror.

Q: 1. Have you been in any serious conflicts?

A: No, I don't think so. Editors lock horns all the time around here; I've stayed out of most of the rutting and grunting, though by no means all. I think it helps that I try to focus on the issue at hand, not on the personalities involved. I like to hope that if the personality itself is a problem, somebody else will think so, too. And I'm usually right.

Q: 2. What's the deal with those couple blocks (no big deal probably)?

A: I was blocked for a day for linking to an outprocess deletion on several talk pages. I don't think the block was justified but I sat it out just the same. I was blocked for another day for intervening in some fort-building; several admins commented that they thought the block unjustified and I fielded several offers of unblock, despite my request otherwise. I sat out the block; I don't see how it did me any harm.

Q: 3. What do you do in real life?

A: These days, I tutor high-school math. I'm a graphic designer and a project still comes my way from time to time. I'm also a semi-retired EE/CS; I'm happy to say I have an analog hardware design project on my bench even as I write. More than anything else, I'm a writer; I don't write much for publication but some of my work circulates narrowly.

Q: 4. Are you a serial killer?

A: No. I can say this with confidence. Not only have I not killed anybody, I am reasonably certain that I will not do so in future. When I was much younger, I worried that I might fit the profile; perhaps all thoughtful people so wonder. But I'm 46 years old; whatever I was going to be would have surfaced by now. When I lose my temper, I shout; I don't throw punches or knives. I'm glad to have settled into a crabby middle age. For that matter, I'm not even always crabby anymore.

Question(s) from xaosflux

As functions assigned by ArbCom, describe your view on the assignments of Oversight and Checkuser permissions, including thresholds for (or even the possibility of) new applicants. (Question from — xaosflux 12:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Questions from Mailer Diablo

1. Express in a short paragraph, using any particular issue/incident that you feel strongly about (or lack thereof) in the past, on why editors must understand the importance of the ArbCom elections and making wise, informed decisions when they vote.

2. Imagine. Say Jimbo grants you the authority to make, or abolish one policy with immediate and permanent effect, assuming no other limitations, no questions asked. What would that be?

3. It is expected that some successful candidates will receive checkuser and oversight privileges. Have you read and understood foundation policies regulating these privileges, and able to help out fellow Wikipedians on avenues (e.g. WP:RFCU) in a timely manner should you be granted either or both of them?

4. What is integrity, accountability and transparency to you on the ArbCom?

Questions from You

Q:

Q:

Q:

Questions from You, Too

Q:

Q:

Q: