User:John Reid/Encyclopedist

The following comments appeared on my talk in March 2006. The first comment here follows my initial comment on this user's RfA; this prompted me to intensify my opposition. I do believe it's very bad form to argue with those who oppose one's elevation; I call this electioneering. For that matter, I'm wary of any nominee who strongly desires adminship; it's just an opportunity to do a lot of especially dull, routine work. Those who feel they must be admins probably have a misconception of what the office entails.

This user appears to have waited 5 weeks before launching a concerted sock attack. I feel this disproportionate response confirms my earlier judgement.

Look
I am sorry, I stopped doing that. ε γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  01:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to be sharp with the above comment, I was only trying to apologize. I know that my behavior was wrong, so I said I was sorry.  I wasn't trying to talk to you meanly.  I tried to stop doing that.  ε  γκυκλοπ  αίδεια  *  02:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * (See Requests for adminship/Encyclopedist 2)


 * You don't yet see my general attitude. It doesn't matter to me what you said; it is only that you said anything here in response to my oppose vote. You have now made two personal comments in response; if it were possible for me to intensify my opposition, I would.


 * Please see What adminship is not; this is a policy proposal I support strongly. Adminship is not a trophy; failure to be granted admin privs does not mean you are a bad editor. Adminship is not an entitlement; no matter how valuable you have been to the project, you do not deserve adminship -- nobody does.


 * Adminship is a position of trust and requires a cool head at all times. Editors can do many things here but admin actions belong to a special category; it is almost impossible to perform any admin action without somebody taking offense. For me, a key trait of good admin candidates is to ignore insults great and small. React to threats to the project, not to one's own dignity. You don't have this quality; you suggest to me a person who may overreact at a critical time. You may be a very valuable editor, but I cannot support you as an admin. Sorry. John Reid 03:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Following the comments above, a number of unsigned comments appeared on this page in swift succession (see history), all by . I have no way of knowing whether this is the nominee speaking or not.


 * I want to e-mail you later, I have a lot of thoughts spinning around in my head. I gave up on adminship.  I refuse to edit for an encyclopedia that, unfortunately, includes people of your low caliber, attitude and intelligence.  I hope the worse for you and anything you try to do in life, take care.


 * I have never heard something so idiotic: you oppose people more when they try to talk the problem over, and you say it is overreacting. How can people negotiate with you, when you are considering that to be belligerent toward you. Don't argue with it, it is bullshit, and you are wrong. I don't care anymore about you think or anyone else here, because I refuse to edit here anymore. I honestly see why people would rather vandalize after dealing with people like you. Wikipedia would be better without you.  You tell me that you would oppose me more if you could is like me saying I would stick needles in a voodoo doll of you if I could.  Then you make some stupid political statement about it.  Hell is too cold for people like you.


 * I am already happy to know that you are already a miserable, unintelligent, and most likey, worthless person in life that gets off on other people's misery.


 * Whatever, sorry that I had the bad luck of meeting you.


 * For the record, let me emphasize -- for the benefit of all nominees: I may support your RfA; I may oppose; I may make a neutral comment; I may overlook the nomination entirely. In no case do I judge your value as an editor or your worth as a human being; only my estimation of your probable success as an admin. I hope that all my comments are well-reasoned; but they are all only one man's opinion. They carry no special weight and I can't see why anyone would make any effort to alter them. You're welcome to reply to my comments where appropriate; but the only reason I can see for you to reply here is if you feel my behavior is an issue. Otherwise, I'll take it as evidence of a thin skin -- a poor quality for a prospective admin to display. John Reid 17:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)