Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Candidate statements/Endorsements/Johnleemk

Support

 * 1) Support --Mrfixter 14:10, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 2) Support also--[[User:Plato|Comrade Nick  @  )---^-- ]] 08:38, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 3) John may not be as notable as some of the other candidates, but I've come across him several times and he has always come across as a sensible person. I don't know him well enough to actually endorse him, but i do want to wish him the best of luck. Theresa Knott  (Tart, knees hot) 17:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. =) --Andylkl 07:56, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oppose

 * Oppose. In the absense of consensus regarding the matter, removed criticism of candidates from the endorsements page Fred Bauder 11:16, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that it was a given that until the survey period is over (November 28), this disendorsement page is to be used. I have a strong distaste for this whole (dis)endorsement crap, but I was only doing what I was under the impression was agreed upon convention. The fact that both the organizers and Jimbo himself warned on this page against disendorsements (instead of using the other for their warning) did nothing to dissuade me either. Johnleemk | Talk 12:15, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If anyone still doubts whether I did this in good or bad faith, I was the one who merged the pages when a strawpoll on them closed. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For reasons of the aforementioned presumptive action (which, according to the current state of the survey is quite the opposite to the desires of the community) CheeseDreams 12:24, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If you were paying attention to the straw poll, it closes November 28. While it is highly unlikely there will be a sudden deluge of votes going in the opposite direction, I believe the common-sense thing to do is to avoid ruling out any possibility. Once the strawpoll's deadline is up, that will be that. I will respect the will of the majority, even if there's no consensus per se. I should note that the first poll of any kind &mdash; the survey Michael Snow started &mdash; is inconclusive, as nobody can even claim a simple majority, so it has no bearing on what happens to this page. As for Quadell's strawpoll, it's not over till it's over. Johnleemk | Talk 12:37, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * If anyone still doubts whether I did this in good or bad faith, I was the one who merged the pages when a strawpoll on them closed. Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Oppose. For incessant, almost obsessive, harassment using egotistical ad hominem attacks in the endorsements talk page. Adraeus 02:19, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In addition to the reasons stated above by Fred Bauder and myself, the following is more evidence of Johnleemk's poor behavior that serves to weaken his candidacy.
 * Twice Johnleemk stated, "I won't feed the trolls." From there, he moved to advise another editor, "Just don't feed the troll..." Recently, he said, "Well, I've had enough of feeding trolls for now. Hope you enjoyed your supper." Johnleemk is unfit for the Arbitration Committee because he does not make due on his commitments. Put differently, Johnleemk does not practice what he preaches.
 * When Johnleemk is faced with an argument he disagrees with (or doesn't understand), he lashes out in anger using a variety of taunts attempting to bait his intellectual opposition into attacking him. Arbitrators that cause need for arbitration would be described as undesirable elements of Wikipedia. Johnleemk as an arbitrator would be an undesirable element. Adraeus 10:07, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, sure, because calling someone who claims that the NPOV and no original research policies apply outside the article namespace a troll is an ad hominem...sure. Johnleemk | Talk 08:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Nice strawman agin, bub, but that won't work on me. While I may be ambivalent on how well-fed trolls should be, I certainly know when trolls try to make a loaded argument. That won't work, not on me, sir. Perhaps if you resorted to something other than the NPOV policy I would entertain you further, but until then, you think I'm going to reason with someone whose arguments completely lack it? Johnleemk | Talk 13:28, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)